An intruder into the other's half of the house could mean your half is at risk, too.

but if you're caught taking a cookie from the cookie jar whilst doing your "wellness" check, then you've committed a crime.

But in a society in which motivation and intent are less and less important and as we move to a zero-tolerance attitude for all things in which victims are pure victims and perps are pure evil, I imagine it would matter less and less.

I listened to the usual police department warning for Houston's Xmas shoppers yesterday. Don't carry large amounts of cash. Don't flash what cash you have. Be careful about your credit card information. Don't forget to lock your car. Keep presents, etc., in the trunk and most definitely out of sight.

The intended implication was that if you were not careful about your belongings and person, you'd present an attractive nuisance and in some sense, by showing a lack of common sense and taking appropriate precautions, you'd present an attractive nuisance and share some of the moral blame for any potential victimization, if not legal blame.

I was immediately outraged, and thought that I should be able to go out with $100k in my pocket clutching $10k in jewelry in my hand while getting sloshed and passing out in the roughest part of town, confident that anybody who takes advantage of me bears 100% of any blame for any losses I suffer. Because that's exactly the argument I hear in other contexts.

The asymmetry--another word for hypocrisy here--is striking. But we get there by discounting motivation and dichotomizing blame into an obligatory 0-100% or 100-0% split, with 1-99 or 50-50 being unthinkable.

Do you see no difference between a property crime (eg money) vs a physical assault on a human (eg rape)? It sounds like you are comparing apples to oranges so I don't see where this charge of hypocrisy comes from.

It also seems opportunistic in a pretty vile way to use a thread like this as an excuse to blame rape victims, unless I am missing something here.... Admittedly I don't know the context of this thread or what prompted the OP.



(eta: Okay, duh, I get what the thread is in reference to, a little slow on the uptake. But that has no impact on my impression of the post to which I replied)

However most prosecutors will take intent into consideration. Using your example, if you go up to the open door, knock on the door or loudly announce that you are there and concerned is better then just walking in. Maybe your neighbor had an accident and needs medical help or far worse, your neighbor is a victim of a home invasion and you just walked into it while it is still in progress.

In the end it is a judgement call and you are responsible for the choice you make. If it's a medical emergency, congratulations, you are someone you may have just saved a life. If it's a home invasion, it's likely you'll be another victim.

“In order to prevail on a claim for trespass based on accessing a computer system, the plaintiff must establish: (1) defendant intentionally and without authorization interfered with plaintiff’s possessory interest in the computer system; and (2) defendant’s unauthorized use proximately resulted in damage to plaintiff.” (eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge (N.D. Cal. 2000) 100 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1069—1070, internal citations omitted.)

For criminal cases, there has to be intent or "mens rea" or "guilty mind" in addition to the act.

If you can prove, or the judge/jury/prosecutor "knows " there was no intent, then there is no crime.

Civil tresspass is different. No intention is required for a tort. But damages need to be shown.

For several months about these open doors with no response? Would you then have a stronger case for entering the house yourself and investigating? Isn't this the proper analysis?

Anyway the guy was fired.

so I would think you could not.

Motivations are meaningless and no charges will be brought.

Um, OK.

Castle doctrine laws vary from state to state and doing what you described can get you killed depending upon which state you do it in,

Another state where the same would apply is Wyoming, although they cannot shoot you dead on the spot unless you actually set foot over the threshold of the door whereas in Texas they can shoot you on the front porch before you actually enter.

of the bullshit versions of castle doctrine enacted in some states. Just surprised to see a DUer trotting them out without editorial comment. It's peculiar.

A well-being check based on a good faith concern is not a crime.

My mother was in this scenario where a very old and fragile woman did not show up to church so she went to check in on her. The door to her apt was slightly ajar and she went in and found her unconscious on the kitchen floor. She had tripped and fallen the day before. Thankfully she got medical help and after a hospitalization stay was moved to a live-in care facility.

Rang the door bell - Nothing

Knocked on the door and the door opened.

Called out in the house for anyone - but no answer.

Shut the door back like it was, not pulled all the way shut as the customer may have just run next door or something.

Waited in my truck for a bit and rang the doorbell and the customer came to the door with her hair in a towel.

Told her what I had done, all she said was "Damn kids" and thanked me for letting her know.

I guess if I was in Texas versus Arkansas she would have run and got her gun and shot me.

if might be easy for someone to break into yours wouldn't be considered a good motivation.

in the data context?

The TITLE of the thing says it all, frankly.

calling list they spent time and money creating, and you might be all right.

information that comes across your screen" is very different than going to a neighbor's house and entering their premises.

prior to reporting the open door, that may well be a crime.

the first priority of any law abiding citizen would be to call the media. But this goes without saying - call the newspapers, radio and TV stations - that is what any responsible person would do first and foremost.