Who is at fault if you leave your door wide open?

a reply to: yuppa

any one who steals from another is at fault and a low down piece of sh@@, regardless of what the situation is.

but i will say, it's not like it was in the past when you could leave windows,doors, open in your home and leave without worrying to much, or your car keys in the switch, dem days are gone.

another thing, now days all locks are good for, are keeping honest people out.

a reply to: RomeByFire

Technically it wouldn't be "breaking (and entering) because the door is open. Pretty sure it become criminal trespass.

If someone walks into your house and steals your stuff, then they are responsible. It is irrelevant that you left the door open.

Why is it so hard to work that one out?

The same apologist argument has been made for rape, in that if a woman "looks like she wants it because she was dressed like a..." is a good reason for rape. Think about it.

Locks are only for honest people. If some one really wants in they will get in

If you enter someone's property without their consent it is trespassing. I highly doubt the 'their door was open' excuse would be accepted. It is the same with landowners - a farmer is still likely to chase you off his field with a pitchfork even if he left his gate open.

Well...

You leave your body open to muggings, rape, shootings, etc. when you venture outside of your dwellings.

So....

Is a person at fault for existing?

The victimization of criminals by the left, MSM programming, and political policy is to blame for one even pondering such a scenario to illicit guilt for being trustful and open.

Don't be fooled by such inquiries.

originally posted by: RomeByFire
No.

If someone breaks into your home, they do just that. Doesn't matter if the door is open. I walk by my neighbors quite often and their windows are open.

If someone were to break in through that window and blame the homeowners for it I would raise Hell.

Off topic but this reminds me of how people blame someone who was raped for being raped as opposed to the person doing the raping.

But then again I've read suits regarding people being imprisoned for killing intruders/burglars.

Specifically - I remember a guy whose house was broken into and the thieves had some sort of flash/stun (all caught on camera) and the homeowner made quick work of them.

He was charged with two counts of manslaughter. In Amerikkka - if you kill an intruder, YOU are the one in the wrong.

The problem is -- it's not breaking and entering when you don't have to break to get in. If you just walk in -- that's called home owners negligence, and legitimately under law the home owner is partly responsible. Even if you have home owners insurance, once they find out the door was open, your claim will be denied for Negligence.

If you leave your keys in the ignition with the car running, and run in to buy a pack of cigarettes, come out and your car is gone -- you won't get covered by your insurance even if you have a policy that covers theft, because they will cite Owner Negligence, and hold you responsible.

It doesn't absolve responsibility of the thief, but you definitely share it. If you don't protect your belongings, you are definitely responsible when they go missing.

This would be different say -- you didn't have a front door, but you do, and it has a lock -- so if you don't use it, then yes -- you were negligent. The argument that what if you locked it, but didn't deadbolt, deadbolted, but didn't set the alarm misses the point.

The point isn't about maximizing security, it's about USING what is already present. If you have a lock and didn't use it, yeah -- it's partly your fault. If you have to break in, you leave break in evidence, if your door is wide open -- how do police know you were even robbed and you aren't just claiming you were for an insurance payout?

originally posted by: twfau
If you enter someone's property without their consent it is trespassing. I highly doubt the 'their door was open' excuse would be accepted. It is the same with landowners - a farmer is still likely to chase you off his field with a pitchfork even if he left his gate open.

No. It's not actually. If your door is WIDE OPEN, like wide the # open -- anybody is allowed to walk in. If you ask them to leave and they don't, then and only then does it become trespassing. There is SCOTUS legal precedent for this. Having your door wide open signals your welcome. Now if you have a gate and the gates closed -- it's still trespassing, because you had to go beyond a closed door to reach the open one, but if the gate is also not locked, and is just a formality like in most suburban neighborhoods, than no -- the mailman is allowed to enter the gate to deliver your mail, so your neighbor [or anybody] is also allowed to enter your gate too. If you have signage posted "Entry to this property is trespassing" and your mailbox is on your door, nobody is allowed to trespass, but the mailman has federal powers to reach your mailbox and is not considered a trespasser, while everyone else still is.

Despite what many believe, provocation makes you responsible. Having a wide open door provokes thieves. If you are having a verbal standoff, and you entice someone to hit you, and you badger them into striking you, and then you kick their ass -- guess who goes to jail? You do, for provoking the incident. Also a SCOTUS precedent.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
Well...

You leave your body open to muggings, rape, shootings, etc. when you venture outside of your dwellings.

So....

Is a person at fault for existing?

The victimization of criminals by the left, MSM programming, and political policy is to blame for one even pondering such a scenario to illicit guilt for being trustful and open.

Don't be fooled by such inquiries.

Yes and no. Is a women who dresses provocatively asking to be raped? No. Does a woman who shows up to a hotel at 3A.M. with nothing but a coat over lingerie get to claim rape?

No. Unless the man is Mike Tyson, because that's what happened to him.

a reply to: yuppa

Clearly the thief is always at fault. They know they are stealing when they do it and just because a persons door is unlocked does not mean they share fault. It would absurd to say so to be honest. An insurance company may be dishonest enough to imply otherwise and get away with it, but the victim did no wrong.

I'm not big on the idea of anyone who for any reason excuses the actions of a thief and try and shift blame to a victim. If an invited guest steals from you, they are still just common thieves deserving of everyone's scorn. The old "you deserved it because" idea is just morally and ethically wrong and wrong minded IMO.

I've always found it very interesting how thieves tend to justify their crimes with warped logic.

Property ownership has absolutely nothing to do with the security used to protect that property. Keeping a door unlocked does not mean the owner forfeits his property. This is a moral issue as well as a legal issue, and only a thief would try to justify their thieving with this kind of logic.

Breaking and entering may require forceful entry, but trespassing is still a crime and if you enter a private home without permission, even if the door is wide open, it's still not okay to be there or take things. The thief is 100% at fault.

originally posted by: SRPrime
No. It's not actually. If your door is WIDE OPEN, like wide the # open -- anybody is allowed to walk in. If you ask them to leave and they don't, then and only then does it become trespassing.

False. It's trespassing if you weren't explicitly given permission to enter by the owner. This is private property 101.

originally posted by: peskyhumans
Property ownership has absolutely nothing to do with the security used to protect that property. Keeping a door unlocked does not mean the owner forfeits his property. This is a moral issue as well as a legal issue, and only a thief would try to justify their thieving with this kind of logic.

Breaking and entering may require forceful entry, but trespassing is still a crime and if you enter a private home without permission, even if the door is wide open, it's still not okay to be there or take things. The thief is 100% at fault.

The thief is at fault. But not 100%. If he couldn't just so easily walk in and just take your stuff, he likely wouldn't have even had the thought to walk in and see if there was anything worth taking.

Stealing from a wide open house is a totally different thing than casing a house, cutting the burglary alarm and drilling the deadbolt, to steal valuables they KNOW you have. Professional Thieves wouldn't even walk in, only someone who is an opportunist would do that. You presented the oppertunity by not even closing your door, it's wide open in this scenario, he didn't even have to see if the door was locked because he can see right into your house.

That's definitely your fault.

That would be like saying a Bank isn't at fault for a bank robbery and doesn't have to insure your money because they left the vault wide open while they did a shift change.

Definitely the banks fault as much as the robber. No question about it, it demonstrates a clear picture of negligence.

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: SRPrime
No. It's not actually. If your door is WIDE OPEN, like wide the # open -- anybody is allowed to walk in. If you ask them to leave and they don't, then and only then does it become trespassing.

False. It's trespassing if you weren't explicitly given permission to enter by the owner. This is private property 101.

Patently False -- only if there is signage specifically stating that it's private property, no trespassing. Private Property 101. If you don't want people trespassing, you hang signs that specifically state there is to be no trespassing. I can own an empty lot. It's not trespassing if people walk through this lot unless I fence it and hang signage. Just because there is a home on the lot, doesn't change the law. If you really care about Trespassing, you wouldn't leave your doors wide open, nor would hanging a sign be too much trouble to ensure your legal rights.

There are metric tons of rental properties, more people rent than own, so most people don't own the property they live on, which doesn't allow them the right to say who is trespassing and who isn't. You can't just assume that every square inch of land has an owner, or is private.

The publix/shoprite parking lot is private property, you are NOT trespassing when you enter that parking lot when they are closed for business. You WOULD be if they hung signs that said so. At the same time, they can call the police and trespass you right there on the spot during business hours if they want. They could specifically single you out.

The law is, you're only trespassing when it's explicitly stated that you are not permitted on the premises. If you're not there to verbally tell them that, than signage must be used unless they breached locked doors -- then it's Breaking and Entering, not Trespassing. If your doors were wide open and you weren't present -- it's not Trespassing at all, nor is it breaking and entering. Under the right circumstances it might be considered "Prowling."

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: SRPrime
No. It's not actually. If your door is WIDE OPEN, like wide the # open -- anybody is allowed to walk in. If you ask them to leave and they don't, then and only then does it become trespassing.

False. It's trespassing if you weren't explicitly given permission to enter by the owner. This is private property 101.

Patently False -- only if there is signage specifically stating that it's private property, no trespassing. Private Property 101. If you don't want people trespassing, you hang signs that specifically state there is to be no trespassing. I can own an empty lot. It's not trespassing if people walk through this lot unless I fence it and hang signage. Just because there is a home on the lot, doesn't change the law. If you really care about Trespassing, you wouldn't leave your doors wide open, nor would hanging a sign be too much trouble to ensure your legal rights.

So who is at fault when I blast a mans head off after I awake and find him in my daughters room?
It is a silly question and any creeper that comes onto my property knows the answer.

Guy, no. You're just flailing around and trying to make a case that doesn't exist. Entering a home without explicit permission is trespassing. It's trespassing in all 50 states, it's been trespassing for as long as there has been English common law.

Legal Definition of Trespassing

Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission. Such action is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. Criminal charges, which range from violation to felony, may be brought against someone who interferes with another person’s legal property rights. Criminal trespasses, depending on the venue of jurisdiction and case circumstances, fall under different subsets of law. When a trespass is carried out against another person, rather than against his/her property, the trespasser is likely to be charged with assault or battery. Actions violating the real property of another are handled as Trespasses to Land. Violations to personal property are handled as torts. Under Tort Law, a property owner may bring a Civil Law suit against a trespasser in order to recover damages or receive compensatory relief for injury suffered as a direct result of a trespass. In a tort action, the plaintiff must prove that the offender had, but knowingly violated, a legal duty to respect another person’s right to property, which resulted in direct injury or loss to the plaintiff.

You might have a leg to stand on if you were hiking and unknowingly walked onto someone's private property because there was no sign and no fence. But enter a house? Even if the door was open, you knew you weren't supposed to be there!

Thief is 100% at fault. You might not like it, but that's how it is. And I'm glad it's that way.

originally posted by: peskyhumans
Guy, no. You're just flailing around and trying to make a case that doesn't exist. Entering a home without explicit permission is trespassing. It's trespassing in all 50 states, it's been trespassing for as long as there has been English common law.

Legal Definition of Trespassing

Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission. Such action is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. Criminal charges, which range from violation to felony, may be brought against someone who interferes with another person’s legal property rights. Criminal trespasses, depending on the venue of jurisdiction and case circumstances, fall under different subsets of law. When a trespass is carried out against another person, rather than against his/her property, the trespasser is likely to be charged with assault or battery. Actions violating the real property of another are handled as Trespasses to Land. Violations to personal property are handled as torts. Under Tort Law, a property owner may bring a Civil Law suit against a trespasser in order to recover damages or receive compensatory relief for injury suffered as a direct result of a trespass. In a tort action, the plaintiff must prove that the offender had, but knowingly violated, a legal duty to respect another person’s right to property, which resulted in direct injury or loss to the plaintiff.

You might have a leg to stand on if you were hiking and unknowingly walked onto someone's private property because there was no sign and no fence. But enter a house? Even if the door was open, you knew you weren't supposed to be there!

Thief is 100% at fault. You might not like it, but that's how it is. And I'm glad it's that way.

An open door is considered permission by law.

Also, that's not how it is, and you're glad that it's that way, but it's not. It's considered "Home Owners Negligence." Look it up, pal. Same thing if you leave your keys in your ignition -- the police will say it's "Owners Negligence."

I actually know from being 1st party witness to this happening.

You think you're not at fault if your car gets stolen if you left it running unattended in public with the keys in the ignition? Get real -- it's as simple as taking your keys with you. That's totally different than if a thief held you up at gunpoint and strong arms your keys. In one situation you were negligent, in the other situation you were the victim. Do you not see the difference?

Same with your home. If you leave your door wide open swinging in the wind and your not in the house, you lose all right to complain that all your stuff is missing for being a complete and total negligent moron.

I think questions like these turn on the element of "Responsibility" that's involved in the concept of "Fault" and to who responsibility is owed. (Responsibility here and going forward used in the fiduciary sense of the word)

So in the case of an home owner, who knows it would be unwise/counter to common sense to leave his doors unlocked, but does so anyway, he has violated his fiduciary duty, but only to himself, perhaps his family. The thief has broken the social contract, a violation against all of society, in addition to specifically offending against the homeowner.

The thief has failed himself, the homeowner, and the larger community. The homeowner has only failed himself and I don't think his failure mitigates in any way the fault/failures of the thief. (I suppose because, while not explicitly stated, we assume the thief would move on to another house if the first was locked?)

But see, I think it gets interesting if we move past the limited example in the OP, simple theft. What if the owner goes out for a walk late in the evening without locking the door and while he's gone a someone enters the home through the unlocked door and harms his family? What's his fault now? Can you honestly say he doesn't bare some responsibility?

I think notion that he has some sort of responsibility in the last example is an unpopular notion, but I think valid none the less. Again though, not to say that the homeowner's failure/fault mitigates the fault of the intruder.

Same could be said of rape.

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: peskyhumans
Guy, no. You're just flailing around and trying to make a case that doesn't exist. Entering a home without explicit permission is trespassing. It's trespassing in all 50 states, it's been trespassing for as long as there has been English common law.

Legal Definition of Trespassing

Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission. Such action is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. Criminal charges, which range from violation to felony, may be brought against someone who interferes with another person’s legal property rights. Criminal trespasses, depending on the venue of jurisdiction and case circumstances, fall under different subsets of law. When a trespass is carried out against another person, rather than against his/her property, the trespasser is likely to be charged with assault or battery. Actions violating the real property of another are handled as Trespasses to Land. Violations to personal property are handled as torts. Under Tort Law, a property owner may bring a Civil Law suit against a trespasser in order to recover damages or receive compensatory relief for injury suffered as a direct result of a trespass. In a tort action, the plaintiff must prove that the offender had, but knowingly violated, a legal duty to respect another person’s right to property, which resulted in direct injury or loss to the plaintiff.

You might have a leg to stand on if you were hiking and unknowingly walked onto someone's private property because there was no sign and no fence. But enter a house? Even if the door was open, you knew you weren't supposed to be there!

Thief is 100% at fault. You might not like it, but that's how it is. And I'm glad it's that way.

An open door is considered permission by law.

Also, that's not how it is, and you're glad that it's that way, but it's not. It's considered "Home Owners Negligence." Look it up, pal.

Home Owner's Negligence would only come into play if their stolen property was insured and they would want to be reimbursed by the insurance company. It would not make them criminally liable for the theft. The thief would still be at fault for the theivery.

An open door is not permission to enter. Permission to enter can only be granted by the owner of the property.

originally posted by: imwilliam
I think questions like these turn on the element of "Responsibility" that's involved in the concept of "Fault" and to who responsibility is owed. (Responsibility here and going forward used in the fiduciary sense of the word)

So in the case of an home owner, who knows it would be unwise/counter to common sense to leave his doors unlocked, but does so anyway, he has violated his fiduciary duty, but only to himself, perhaps his family. The thief has broken the social contract, a violation against all of society, in addition to specifically offending against the homeowner.

The thief has failed himself, the homeowner, and the larger community. The homeowner has only failed himself and I don't think his failure mitigates in any way the fault/failures of the thief. (I suppose because, while not explicitly stated, we assume the thief would move on to another house if the first was locked?)

But see, I think it gets interesting if we move past the limited example in the OP, simple theft. What if the owner goes out for a walk late in the evening without locking the door and while he's gone a someone enters the home through the unlocked door and harms his family? What's his fault now? Can you honestly say he doesn't bare some responsibility?

I think notion that he has some sort of responsibility in the last example is an unpopular notion, but I think valid none the less. Again though, not to say that the homeowner's failure/fault mitigates the fault of the intruder.

Same could be said of rape.

The bottom line is, if the "victim" created the circumstance that allows the criminal harm him, the victim splits responsibility. This doesn't mean lighter sentencing for the criminal, but it also does mean less legal recourse in forms of civil suits/insurance claims. The court AND the insurance companies will recognize your negligence.

If I take a bike out to the movie theater and I don't lock it on the Bike rack, it's definitely part my fault when my movies over and my Bike is missing. If I chained it up, and the thief used bolt cutters -- there was nothing I could do more to secure my property, therefor, it's not negligent.

This is really simple stuff.

If you give your pin number away, don't be surprised when you bank is empty. Your pin number is the lock on your accounts door. You would never give your pin away, so do everyone a favor and lock your #ing doors.

a reply to: yuppa

My opinion which seems to me to have some value for you personally over and beyond the argument with the friend is to lose that friend.

a reply to: SRPrime


Prime,

I'm more interested in the moral aspects of the question than the strictly legal aspects.

This is really simple stuff.

Maybe, but I think the issue has become clouded in more recent times, charges of victim blaming and the like. In general though, I don't disagree with anything you've written nor does anything I originally wrote.