3 ms·

> Supposedly he was just drunk and wandered into the wrong house anyway. That's what made him fine, not the fact that you didn't lock. That's a thing that qui

• swozey 7y ago
  You're likely right and it was just my parents and police scaring me into keeping the doors locked. He wasn't arrested until the next day (had no idea he was a neighbor, he lived a few blocks away) when the police realized who he was. But that's also the thing- we had no idea what his intent was. I do recall the police that night seeming less concerned because the door was unlocked and I was chided quite a bit. I do recall them telling me what I said in my initial post but I also understand criminal intent. Personally I'm glad the guy wasn't wrung up with a felony if he was just on some ambien sleepwalk bender or whatever he was on.
• tialaramex 7y ago
  Not all crimes require intent. Crimes where intent is not required are called "Strict liability" crimes, for those crimes it is sufficient to prove that the accused did the thing which is forbidden, and it's entirely irrelevant (to guilt, though not necessarily to sentencing) why they did it. Also for some crimes the intent needn't match the outcome. For example in the UK _Attempted Murder_ requires (as well as facts of an attempt) you had an intent to kill, but _Murder_ only requires that you had an intent to at least cause grave harm, the fact of death makes it murder, even if a jury believes you intended only, say, to hospitalize the victim.