> I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the link you dropped, because it actually undermines your entire claim. Before you pat yourself on the back, you might want to look up what qualifies as "use of force". It's not the way you seem to be using the word.
>
That's a good guess, but wrong.
> The only lens through which what you're saying is even vaguely correct is that some states don't have a specific statute of "breaking and entering", instead prosecuting it as "criminal trespass", but even then it's a distinction without a difference: it's prosecutable as a charge for using force to gain unauthorized access to a location with the express intent of committing a felony.
I mentioned that trespass vs. B&E is nuanced, and that I was definitely oversimplifying it. If someone was curious they might have investigated this matter for the relevant jurisdiction. They might even have some familiarity with the case. But that would indeed require more curiosity than someone who doesn't even read a link before they drop it.
> In any case, this whole discussion is pretty pointless, because as I already said, the fact that there's a different word used when the crime happens in meatspace vs. cyberspace is wholly uninteresting and not relevant to the original topic, and - as I also already said - you have clearly misunderstood the crux of OP's statement and so there's no point in continuing down this rabbithole.
Or maybe I just wasn't doing a good job of being clear on the point. There was both an individual and a corporation at fault in that specific case, so you don't have to speculate as to which party was more severely punished. The OP's assertion is flat wrong.
That's a good guess, but wrong.
> The only lens through which what you're saying is even vaguely correct is that some states don't have a specific statute of "breaking and entering", instead prosecuting it as "criminal trespass", but even then it's a distinction without a difference: it's prosecutable as a charge for using force to gain unauthorized access to a location with the express intent of committing a felony.
I mentioned that trespass vs. B&E is nuanced, and that I was definitely oversimplifying it. If someone was curious they might have investigated this matter for the relevant jurisdiction. They might even have some familiarity with the case. But that would indeed require more curiosity than someone who doesn't even read a link before they drop it.
> In any case, this whole discussion is pretty pointless, because as I already said, the fact that there's a different word used when the crime happens in meatspace vs. cyberspace is wholly uninteresting and not relevant to the original topic, and - as I also already said - you have clearly misunderstood the crux of OP's statement and so there's no point in continuing down this rabbithole.
Or maybe I just wasn't doing a good job of being clear on the point. There was both an individual and a corporation at fault in that specific case, so you don't have to speculate as to which party was more severely punished. The OP's assertion is flat wrong.