Poll: An unlocked car is stolen, who is to blame?

[Secondhand Revenant]

No question at all, it's the thief. It's not as if the thief is some natural disaster, they made a choice to steal the car. It's not as if they suddenly aren't at fault just because it was easier to steal than it could have been. After all that's the only difference if it had been locked, no? And it is patently absurd to say the ease of the theft changes the level of responsibility of the thief

 

[Erttheking]

The thief. The thief is the one that broke the law. I really am sick of the whole victim blaming mentality. It doesn't help that, I'm assuming the keys weren't left in the ignition, so why is that not enough to shift blame back onto the thief? It's arbitrary nonsense.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

The person who stole the car is at fault. I used to believe that "Well, if you leave the car unlocked and it gets stolen, you're partially at fault", but I've seen a lot of more serious IRL cases that have shifted me to purely blaming the thief.

If someone intentionally acts with malice to do something, they shoulder the blame. Because you have to INTENTIONALLY go and do the bad things. It's REALLY not fucking hard to be a halfway decent person, all you have to do is not actively hurt people, it's not rocket science.

Imma put the IRL cases that flipped me in a spoiler tag here, because they're pretty freakin "Ick"

Spoiler: Might be triggering, ya'll be warned

So I know friends who are into kinky stuff, yeah? One of whom runs a group in my city.

The friend got informed about a serial consent violator in the community, and poked into it, finding that the rabbit hole went pretty damn deep. 11 or so people who came forward independently of one another during a 2 month personal investigation by this friend.

Throughout all the denial by parties connected to the perpetrator, finally one of the victims had the guts to risk public outing, and went to the cops. The police response? "Ma'am, you let someone tie you up at a public kink event and then you're SURPRISED he violated you in several ways and didn't stop when you said stop? What, are you stupid? Of course it's your damn fault, don't be stupid next time!".

This is bearing in mind that the perp happens to be someone who was well respected in the in-group, was the owner of the place in question, and there's supposed to be a general understanding in their community that "If the sub says the safeword, you STOP. Continuing to do anything after they say the word is rape".

And then people connected to the perp went "Well, the cops didn't do anything so CLEARLY it's the victim's fault!", ignoring that she was a newbie who got taken advantage of by someone who knew better.

After hearing (and seeing screenshots) from the friend involved in trying to resolve this mess, the mess of logical pretzels people were twisting themselves into to try to defend the guy (Who again, has status in their community) and blame the victims (Most of whom did not know better), I am just done with trying to put blame onto people who AREN'T actively doing the bad thing.

Because it's not hard to not do the bad thing. You just have to NOT do it.

Anyway, about Princess Mononoke, It's been a LOOOOONG time since I last saw it.

As far as I know, the biggest villain was whoever was in charge of the big giant army. Eboshii was mostly just trying to look after her town of outcasts and was willing to go to any lengths to keep it safe and get the rest of the world to just fuck off and leave them alone. She was an antagonist, sure, but one who was at least somewhat sympathetic, like the Boars, because both of them were being threatened and were trying to do whatever they had to do to take back control of their lives and factions.

 

[sageoftruth]

I believe at one point in the movie the Lady Eboshi proudly boasts that "This is how you kill a god", a statement that at the very least smacks of egotism and pride. And to nature, her actions were quite evil. But there was more going on than that. That the characters in the film weren't all so black and white was one of the more charming features of the piece to me.

A thief takes what isn't theirs. It doesn't matter if it is unlocked, unmanned, etc. The victim can be seen as careless, foolish, naive, sure- but they didn't commit a crime. That's my take, anyways.

It's been awhile since I saw the movie, but when she said that, wasn't it to embolden her men and mock their notion that the creature in their path was a God in the first place? Kind of like an atheist spitting on a cross and inviting God to strike him down? I think she just thought her men were being ridiculous for believing they were standing before a god.

 

[sageoftruth]

Opportunity to steal shit is not free license to steal shit.

If someone commits a crime, they're to blame. No matter how easy or hard it was for them to do so.
I dunno, maybe I'm too black-and-white, but that's how I see it.

Like... if you left your car unlocked you'd be fine if there were no car-thieves around. So the person who steals the car is 100% of the wrongdoing.

In this case, I think it depends on the location. Regardless of location, the thief is never blameless. In fact I don't really think the blame can be shared between the two of them. The foolishness of the victim does not affect the wrongness of the perpetrator. However, the amount of sympathy the victim garners depends on how foolish the action appeared to be. A car theft somewhere in a generally peaceful city is unfortunate. A car theft in the back alley of a high-crime city in El Salvador would be irresponsible on the part of the victim.

Of course, it can also be skewed based on who is judging. Some people are more aware than others of how likely a car theft is in an area. So while the theft may seem like the inevitable result of a dumb decision to one person, to someone who judges the crime rate to be lower in the area, it would seem like simple bad luck to an unfortunate person.

Come to think of it, this may be exactly what you were just saying.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

I'd say both, but on a 70/30 scale. Sure it's the guy's fault for leaving the car unlocked, but that doesn't give anyone any right to do something illegal and steal the thing (70 being the thief, 30 being the person who left the car unlocked)

 

[Catnip1024]

Well, by that logic, if I steal candy from a baby, then it's the babies fault for not fighting back harder.

It's not acceptable to commit crimes against people on the grounds that they are stupid. I remember learning this in primary school, come on people...

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, by that logic, if I steal candy from a baby, then it's the babies fault for not fighting back harder.

I don't think that is quite equivalent to the scenario presented above. In the scenario presented above, there was something that the person who has the car could have done to prevent this. A baby cannot prevent anyone from taking it's candy (though I do agree with the second part of your post).

 

[Johnlives]

Opportunity to steal shit is not free license to steal shit.

If someone commits a crime, they're to blame. No matter how easy or hard it was for them to do so.
I dunno, maybe I'm too black-and-white, but that's how I see it.

Like... if you left your car unlocked you'd be fine if there were no car-thieves around. So the person who steals the car is 100% of the wrongdoing.

Try telling that to an insurance company.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I completely blame the thief. The thief did the stealing and broke the law.

This is like saying, "Well, she shouldn't have worn that dress/shirt/been a girl if she didn't want to get raped."

 

[Pyrian]

The great "myth of blame" is that it adds up to 100%. I mean, you can define it that way if you like, but it doesn't make any legal or ethical sense. Take a case where one might argue for 50/50 blame: Two people, working together, steal a car. Are they 50%/50% responsible? According to virtually any legal or ethical system, they are both 100% responsible. (Indeed, they might even get "conspiracy" added to their sentence, ending up each having more jail time than an individual thief.) Questions where one person is guilty of mere carelessness somehow implies that the actual thief is somehow therefore less to blame are inherently problematic.

Blame is not shared, it is merely added.

 

[Story]

The great "myth of blame" is that it adds up to 100%. I mean, you can define it that way if you like, but it doesn't make any legal or ethical sense. Take a case where one might argue for 50/50 blame: Two people, working together, steal a car. Are they 50%/50% responsible? According to virtually any legal or ethical system, they are both 100% responsible. (Indeed, they might even get "conspiracy" added to their sentence, ending up each having more jail time than an individual thief.) Questions where one person is guilty of mere carelessness somehow implies that the actual thief is somehow therefore less to blame are inherently problematic.

Blame is not shared, it is merely added.

Very insightful point, never really thought about it that way.

He said the car owner was 100% responsible and I got him down to 70%. At the time, I didn't think he meant it literally but now I think he might have.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

There's a pretty clear distinction between carelessness and illegal behavior. Blaming the owner of the car is something I would expect to hear from people who say that personal responsibility is the magic silver bullet to all of society's ills. But a dumb decision on the part of the victim does not make the actions of the thief okay or any less illegal.

essentially what I said to him. I think blaming the car owner in this case is an example of victim blaming even it that person wasn't the perfect victim to blame. The fact that there is malicious intent in stealing the car and none in leaving it open pretty much made the car owner blameless in my eyes.

He said it's like putting too much faith in people. I'd rather believe people are not willing to do illegal things than actually do it.

Well that's a silly belief considering you KNOW people commit crimes by the very fact that crime exists and is common.

 

[Story]

There's a pretty clear distinction between carelessness and illegal behavior. Blaming the owner of the car is something I would expect to hear from people who say that personal responsibility is the magic silver bullet to all of society's ills. But a dumb decision on the part of the victim does not make the actions of the thief okay or any less illegal.

essentially what I said to him. I think blaming the car owner in this case is an example of victim blaming even it that person wasn't the perfect victim to blame. The fact that there is malicious intent in stealing the car and none in leaving it open pretty much made the car owner blameless in my eyes.

He said it's like putting too much faith in people. I'd rather believe people are not willing to do illegal things than actually do it.

Well that's a silly belief considering you KNOW people commit crimes by the very fact that crime exists and is common.

Probably poorly phrased, I mean to say that I believe the average person would rather not commit a crime as oppose to commit a crime.
That might be naive on my part, but I do believe most people are honest and want to abide by the law.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

To borrow some logic from my late grandfather, he never locked his car. He would rather someone just steal it, rather than break a window and steal it. It also ensures you never get locked out of your car. The lock on the car door is an illusion of safety. It's a minimal barrier to someone taking your car. I still lock my car, but I don't kid myself into thinking that that is a significant deterrent.

 

[Major_Tom]

If I shoot you and you die, is it your fault because you didn't wear a ballistic vest?

 

[Thaluikhain]

So...this is about people stealing cars? It's not actually about blaming rape victims? Huh.

In any case, the thief is to blame. They are also the one that risks conviction, people generally don't have an issue with that.

 

[Story]

So...this is about people stealing cars? It's not actually about blaming rape victims? Huh.

That made me laugh, but humor aside. Yeah I promise it is what it is.
I actually brought up subject of rape with him too and he already expressed a strong opinion on the matter; that blaming the victim is inexcusable because usually the blaming reasons are subjective.

In the car example, he exposits that the person should be blamed if there is an obvious and objective preventive measure to avoid the incident. I claim that incident shouldn't happen in the first place because the thief had malicious intent and was actually the direct cause not really the failure locking of the car.

To be fair, in my opinion both are examples of victim blaming. I wasn't willing to dive deeper into the subject of rape with him that night.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

To borrow some logic from my late grandfather, he never locked his car. He would rather someone just steal it, rather than break a window and steal it. It also ensures you never get locked out of your car. The lock on the car door is an illusion of safety. It's a minimal barrier to someone taking your car. I still lock my car, but I don't kid myself into thinking that that is a significant deterrent.

Most things are an illusion of safety, unless you live in an underground bunker in the middle of the mojave desert.

The thing about crime though, is that the vast majority of crimes occur simply because the opportunity presents itself rather than because the person committing the crime really wants to commit a crime.

Sure, someone might have a reason to break into or steal your car specifically, and if that happens you really can't prevent it, but most criminals don't specifically target a person. Most criminals are the kind of people who just go down a row of cars and try all the drivers' side doors until they find one that's unlocked. Very minor preventative measures can and do deter criminals if those criminals are lazy.

Finally, I leave you with this:


Car windows are sturdier than you think.