Who cares?
None of these four things are evidence that this was the bank’s house.
She and her family were on a trip. Some people do turn off the power when they’re away that long.
And you trust those two bozos to tell the truth about the condition of the house? There’s nothing to verify that they didn’t take a few choice items for themselves. Why no photos during the cleaning process?
If the bank can demand receipts for every item in the house, then the homeowner can demand photos of the whole cleanup.
By the way, the homeowner pointed out that if she had kept receipts, they would have been thrown out by the cleanup crew.
You’re not paying attention. To be a crime, they had to have KNOWN that the house they entered was the wrong house. Not just “should have known” or “didn’t check the address”, but KNEW it wasn’t the bank’s house. There is absolutely no evidence and no motive for their actions, that they knew it was the wrong house, but went in and took the stuff anyway. Repeating “But it was clearly marked” a third time isn’t going to magically make that true.
No, because the management of the bank was too fucking stupid to pay the woman whatever she asked for to make her happy and shut her up. I wouldn’t wanna do business with stupid people.
I’m not contradicting that. I just want some crime to apply to this case to make the lives of the bank officials miserable. Even if there is some crime they could be charged with it should probably be overturned since intent should be a component of any criminal charge. I just don’t see why I shouldn’t be in the crowd shouting “Hay-ang him!” along with the rest of the crowd when it comes to a bank. We both know nothing much will happen to them.
You’re ignoring section 3 of the criminal trespass statute.
Recklessly enter. That’s where “didn’t check the address” comes in.
And you seem to think that motive has to mean something specifically targeting that house. But the likely motive is simply wanting to get in and out as quickly as possible.
Do you normally just ignore any words that don’t fit what you want to believe? The bank people were not given actual notice, there is no evidence there were “no trespassing” signs, and the house itself was unlocked. Nothing in the statute is supported by actual facts.
You’re, once again, confused. Motive is different from knowledge. The criminal statute requires knowledge, that the people KNEW they were entering a house that belonged to someone else. And I don’t think anyone is arguing they actual knew it was someone else’s house.
I, for one, would love to see “aggravated stupidity” and “being a douchebag” to be crimes (and in case it’s not clear, I don’t mean you, I mean the kind of people who are unaware of how their actions effect others or wear bronzer and refer to women as ho’s), but, luckily for the US criminal justice system, wanting something to be a crime doesn’t make it so.
Fuck! I’d better get some no trespassing signs and lock my door 24/7. All this time I didn’t know anyone could legally walk into my house if it was unlocked and no signs posted saying they couldn’t.
Only if they REALLY BELIEVED in their HEART OF HEARTS that it wasn’t your house, but someone else’s that they had permission to enter and wreck up the place.
I’m not ignoring anything. Notice can be by sign “or by fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access”. There is nothing in the statute that says the door has to be locked. In fact, in nearly all states merely pushing open a door that’s ajar is enough to be legally a break-in.
If they legitimately thought it was their house and thus didn’t meet the criminal statute’s requirements, then they couldn’t be charged with a crime. Horrible isn’t it, that we generally don’t criminally punish people for making mistakes.
And was there any “enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access” in this case? The picture I saw had no fencing, no signs, and the door was unlocked. Kinda hard to argue that with a lack of those there was an “enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access”. But you go ahead and argue it. Knock yourself out.
He really isn’t. One of the defenses to criminal trespass is license - permission (actual or implied) to enter from the property owner. That’s why it’s not trespass when you enter your neighbor’s yard to water his flowers like he asked you to. In virtually every jurisdiction, a good faith reliance on a license is an absolute defense.
To me, that’s still a crazy reading of the statute. Maybe case law has turned the meaning into what you say it is, but that’s still pretty fucked, IMHO.
If “recklessly enter” doesn’t include failure to take the normal means to verify that you’re at the right house that you’d normally do if you were just delivering a package, let alone actually going inside (let alone changing the locks, throwing away personal property, etc.), then the law is fucked.
And if “posting in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders” doesn’t mean having your house number on or next to the door or mailbox - because THAT’S HOW WE LET PEOPLE KNOW WHICH HOUSE IT IS, pretty much everywhere in the civilized world, and that’s the notice that you get that says, “this is the right/wrong house, for whatever purpose brings you here,” then the law is fucked there, too.
I mean, nobody expects someone to come clean out their house and change the locks while they’re gone. NOBODY SHOULD NEED TO POST NOTICES SPECIFICALLY WARNING THE FORECLOSURE CREW THAT THIS IS NOT THE HOUSE THEY HAD IN MIND in order to fall under this statutory protection. “123 Maple Street” over the door or on the mailbox should really be sufficient to tell anyone not having the right or authorization to enter 123 Maple Street that they’re trespassing if they go inside. And to me, that’s the plain meaning of the statute, given the norms of our society.
I don’t know why it isn’t to you. Or to the case law, as the case may be. It just boggles my mind.
A house with a closed door is “manifestly designed to restrict access” in most civilized societies. It doesn’t matter if the door’s not locked - if it’s not open, you’re not supposed to go in. Hell, even if it IS open, and it doesn’t seem like anyone’s there, the only legitimate reason for entry is to make sure whoever’s living there is OK.
Sorry to pick on you, Hamlet, but this is just such a perfect example of why people hate lawyers.
An address clearly posted on the mailbox, or on or by the door, is how we indicate to people that if they’ve got business at this address, then this is the right place, and if their business is at some other address, then they’re at the wrong place. How that fails to be sufficient posting to let someone with no right or authorization to enter that house that they have no right or authorization to enter that house, is beyond me.
You guys inhabit an alternate universe.
And to take possession of a property you’ve never been to before, without checking the clearly posted address to see if it’s really the property you have the rights to before you enter, is reckless entrance by any common-sense standard I can think of.
Again, in the layman’s world, this shit is obvious. But you lawyers make a hash of common sense, as well as what sure looks to me like the plain meaning of the statute.
It’s all Hamlet’s fault, all right.
He has the temerity – the utter gall – to attempt to explain the factual aspects of how the law works. What a colossal fucktard he is.
This board would be much better off if people were just left alone to announce that the law really works the way they wish it to work.
The law doesn’t work the way it does because mathematicians or carpenters’ wives made it work that way.
The law works the way it does because lawyers make it work that way.
Hamlet may well be right about what that law means in practice. I’m not saying he’s wrong.
But that isn’t what that law says, at least not to someone not educated in the trivium and quadrivium of the law. And the reality that it means something different to lawyers and courts than it sure seems to mean to someone without that unfortunate education is, IMHO, a problem. A problem that originates with lawyers.
Hamlet isn’t a fucktard, and I’m not calling him that. I generally think pretty highly of him as a poster. And my main problem with him here, to the extent that I have a problem with him, is not his explanation that this is what the law means; it’s the sense I get from him that this is what the law reasonably ought to mean. But even there, I may be misreading him; I hope so.
You’re reading stuff into my criticism that isn’t there. Could you either respond to my posts as they are, rather than to what you read into them, or could you kindly STFU?
I’m good either way.
It seems most people just want to vent, seeing as how none of us (lawyers included) are going to affect the outcome of this one bit. Why is it necessary to argue from a legal standpoint every single time? Do lawyers never lay aside their profession long enough to discuss things like a layperson? It can be equally frustrating for everyone else to be rules lawyered in every conversation around here.
Because people are making legal arguments. If you want to say the bank is run by idiots and they should all go to hell, go for it. If you want to say they have committed crimes, you shouldn’t be surprised when people go, “bwuh”?