Woman breaks into man’s apartment while he is taking a bath

What happened usually is the opposite right? Middle age Japanese entering Japanese female apartment.

Poor man ! Of course she should be held criminally responsible !! Why should she get away with that ?!! Because she is a woman ?

Poor man ! Of course she should be held criminally responsible !! Why should she get away with that ?!! Because she is a woman ?

It seems obvious that the woman is not acting rationally, there is a very clear possibility she is deemed mentally unfit to be held criminally responsible. Nothing indicates gender has any role here.

All the apartos look identical from the outside.

Easy mistake to make.

To be honest, my guess is just she had the wrong apartment. It happens sometimes when some people mistakenly get into a wrong car that's similar to theirs.

It seems obvious that the woman is not acting rationally, there is a very clear possibility she is deemed mentally unfit to be held criminally responsible. 

There is no mention of anything "obvious" about the woman acting rationally, and nothing mentioned about her being mentally unfit--that s just an unsubstantiated opinion.

She was arrested on suspicion of trespassing, which is a crime.

Paul...unsure how high up the Criminal Law code is "trespassing "....pretty low I,d guess.

If she made a mistake, no "guilty mind " etc but as always these stories are fed to us like we are Carp in a pond.

All the apartos look identical from the outside.

....and they all share the same key?

There is no mention of anything "obvious" about the woman acting rationally

When something is described as obvious it means there is enough information to consider that possibility correct, it does not require the word to be literally included.

and nothing mentioned about her being mentally unfit--that s just an unsubstantiated opinion.

Breaking into an apartment without any clear purpose, waiting for the police without escaping are terribly obvious things that indicate someone acting irrationally. If you did not even read the article you are in no position to call others opinion unsubstantiated.

She was arrested on suspicion of trespassing, which is a crime.

Which in no way refutes the argument that people can be considered unfit to be held criminally responsible even if committing a crime, this is not exactly a new concept, it makes no sense to pretend it is the first time you hear about it.

Harry...I walked into the wrong aparto on my floor once...door unlocked.

And I rarely lock my own door anyway...unless I take a bath, then I open the front door ...in case any honeys come calling !

"Police unsure how she got into the apartment "

Headline says she "broke in "

Who writes these stories anyway ?

When something is described as obvious it means there is enough information to consider that possibility correct, it does not require the word to be literally included.

Which is not the case here. Just jumping to conclusions without evidence.

Harry...I walked into the wrong aparto on my floor once...door unlocked.

And presumably you are not mentally unfit; accidents do happen.

Which is not the case here. Just jumping to conclusions without evidence.

It is completely the case here, in my comment there is even how it is the case, a description against which you could not make even one single argument, just again a baseless accusation that you could not defend with arguments.

And presumably you are not mentally unfit; accidents do happen.

Which of course is no argument to prove the same kind of situation happened in the event of the article, walking on a wrong apartment is an occurrence that is solved immediately by leaving.

It seems obvious that the woman is not acting rationally,

Just your opinion. And such conclusion falls under the fallacy of Argument from Incredulity.

there is a very clear possibility she is deemed mentally unfit to be held criminally responsible. 

Nothing clear without any evidence supporting such claim, so that opinion falls under the fallacy of False Attribution.

Japan news is full of similar cases where someone breaks into someone's apartment while the resident is inside. Nothing so unusual about this case to start fantasizing how the perpetrator was "not acting rationally" and will clearly be "deemed mentally unfit to be held criminally responsible.".

In Japan, the standard for being held not responsible because of mental defect is very defined and is rarely admitted by a court, according to Japanese legal scholars.

Just your opinion.

An opinion based on the article as described and against which you have not been able to use any argument to demonstrate it is not a real possibility. Just baselessly claim so.

And such conclusion falls under the fallacy of Argument from Incredulity.

You are still deeply confused about fallacies even when you use them so frequently. For the incredulity fallacy to apply I would have to say this is the only possibility that could be true, in my comment I clearly said this is something that could be happening, and that it would be likely according to how the article read, I never said this is the only possibility that could be considered.

Nothing clear without any evidence supporting such claim, so that opinion falls under the fallacy of False Attribution.

I clearly gave the arguments to support the claim, you only repeatedly pretend not being able to read the comment, it can easily be copy-pasted to demonstrate your claim is wrong.

Breaking into an apartment without any clear purpose, waiting for the police without escaping are terribly obvious things that indicate someone acting irrationally. If you did not even read the article you are in no position to call others opinion unsubstantiated.

See? just claiming there is no basis for the comment does not work when the basis is there for anybody to read.

Nothing so unusual about this case to start fantasizing how the perpetrator was "not acting rationally" and will clearly be "deemed mentally unfit to be held criminally responsible.".

No fantasy at all, when no purpose for the break-in is given the situation is completely different from reports where the intruder have clear purpose like stealing something. Since the police explicitly said the are still considering if the intruder can or not be criminally responsible this means there is motive for this, and lack of mental capacity is a common motive, even if you ignored it.

 Japan, the standard for being held not responsible because of mental defect is very defined and is rarely admitted by a court, according to Japanese legal scholars.

Which in no way means the police can make this determination without investigating first, which is exactly what they said they would do.

File this under the “Man bites dog” department.

She’s a criminal and needs to be punished accordingly. What’s all this talk about mental illness etc, no mention of it in the article.

The poor man had his home invaded which would be distressing for anyone regardless of the gender of the offender.

Readers, please stop bickering.

Guru

Insane probably

Steve...never saw someone who didn't deserve jail

How do you know that she had no clear purpose?

Of course I don't but usually this is clearly reported in the article, but not in this case, this would clearly explain why the police think is necessary to investigate if the woman can or not be held criminally responsible. This conclusion makes sense and it is completely possible.

This is specially relevant as a reply of the initial comment, that assumed the lack of charges was gender related, on the absence of a reported motive (or trying to escape), this seems a much more logical explanation.

Such a stupid article with no details.

He saw her. What did he do ?

What happened?

Looks like nothing special happened.

I am not going to sue someone who I see made perhaps a mistake.

If she was thief, she would have stolen items with her, and that is easy to know in a few seconds by police.

Lame lame lame.

So much noise, calling police and filling news columns, they could have bathed and have some fun together instead. lol

The man called 110 and said that a woman whom he did not know had broken into his apartment. 

Was this before or after he said, so............you like what you see?

Again, why does she stick around?

The man called 110 and said that a woman whom he did not know had broken into his apartment.

So it looks a crime was committed based on what the man saw. If this was the case, the law is clear here. She trespassed.

A nutcase or she made genuine mistake @2:40 am probably drunk?

If she wanted a peep, she could've easily gotten a baito at a sento where women her age can just waltz on in to check up on the water parameters, change mats, tidy up, etc. But seriously given the time, no one would expect someone to bathe at 2:40 am. The lack of information in this article really feels like a cliff hanger, maybe should've held off on posting this before more information was released.

thinkbefore...funny...calling the cops is no guarantee a "law has been broken " THATS why we have COURTS

To paraphrase Terence Fletcher, "Not quite my skin tone."

Disney, you change the skin color and you change the story, so why not just change the name of the movie? Seriously.

Who takes a bath at 02:40am?!

Was she qute?

...muffled sobbing....."is this story still alive . ?...."the horror...the horror ,,"

Who takes a bath at 02:40AM?!.

Someone who works until very late night.

Or someone on his 20s who has to follow his ossan alcoholic superior around on his drinking sprees because you're the kouhai and can't say no...