Yikes. Sometimes I'm surprised how blunt the Internet can be. But you hit the nail on the head though. I wasn't looking to invalidate his or my position on this to be fair. I think I did surprise him when I said the thief is to blame.somonels said:
Poll: An unlocked car is stolen, who is to blame?
- Thread starter Story
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There are a few factors here that aren't brought up, is it a nicer car that's more likely to be stolen than a crappy car? Did the owner leave it unlocked in an area that often has cars stolen?
either way nothing completely absolves the thief of blame, in fact I'd say there are two separate instances of blame, the owner can be blamed for being careless, and the thief can be blamed for making the decision to steal the car
either way nothing completely absolves the thief of blame, in fact I'd say there are two separate instances of blame, the owner can be blamed for being careless, and the thief can be blamed for making the decision to steal the car
WeepingAngels said:
Unless the daughter is some kind of exception, she'd be an adult by the time she is in college so it'd be her choice, not the parent's. Not blaming them when their daughter is an adult who makes her own choices is obviously the normal reaction.
It was made vague on purpose. Possibly my friend wanted to debate wether or not people would be willing to take in opportunity to better themselves even at the expense of others. Kinda falls apart when you consider factors like yours and the very fact that stealing is a crime or at least a more serious crime than negligencetotheendofsin said:
I have to say that both are at fault. Now, I that doesn't mean the owner of the car (or whoever failed to lock the car) is criminally responsible. However, s/he is careless and the car likely wouldn't have been stolen if s/he had taken that very minor precaution. The thief is clearly criminally responsible and should be prosecuted.
I understand why many would say that the owner is not at fault, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore that they could have potentially prevented the crime, and then tell others how they can prevent themselves from being a victim of a similar crime. If you stand under a ladder and something falls on your head, you made a mistake that allowed that to happen. So it's only natural to warn others to avoid that and prevent the same thing from happening to them.
I understand why many would say that the owner is not at fault, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore that they could have potentially prevented the crime, and then tell others how they can prevent themselves from being a victim of a similar crime. If you stand under a ladder and something falls on your head, you made a mistake that allowed that to happen. So it's only natural to warn others to avoid that and prevent the same thing from happening to them.
That holds true in a city, but if you live in a rural or even medium sized town, it's not as true. Car thefts out in the country probably consist of "hey, there's a car. I need one of those." And even then, that's pretty rare, seeing as how out in the open everything is, and given how many people have guns.Dirty Hipsters said:
No, since merely going to college isn't the same as being raped and if a woman knows the statistics and chooses to go then it is logical to assume she is ready to protect herself more so than someone who might be ignorant.WeepingAngels said:
I in general wouldn't blame people for merely taking some risk in their life since almost nothing is safe and you can't spend your life inside a tank just to be safe. The issue is how big of a risk it is you're taking. Merely going to college isn't particularly risky. Doing things like college parties and drinking alcohol and stuff is where most of the rapes occur and you can go to college and do none of that stuff just fine.
One person is naive and feels very secure in his environment.Story said:
The other person is an opportunistic, criminal predator.
The victim was a poor judge of circumstance.
The perpetrator was willfully neglecting property rights.
The blame obviously goes to the criminal, not the victim; the victim made poor decisions, but he did not choose to have his car stolen. Call him an idiot if you want, but he is not culpable for the criminal behavior of others.
You should ask your friend then why the owner was not charged with grand theft auto? I'm sure he can come up with a good reason.Story said:
I ask the same of all who blame the owner; what should the minimal amount of blame be before we charge the target? Point system, perhaps?
Sonmi said:
If they are at fault for the crime, what should be the charge against them? Sentence if found guilty?
- Feb 7, 2011
- 9,039
- 3,716
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
You're conflating responsibility and criminal liability. These are 2 different things.Smithnikov said:
According to some, apparently so.Major_Tom said:
Why should all the criminal blame be on the thief if he's only partially at fault by your own admission?MrFalconfly said:
- Feb 7, 2011
- 9,039
- 3,716
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Real scenario:Major_Tom said:
9 year old girl goes with her parents to a shooting range. Range instructor gives the child a fully automatic submachine gun and lets her shoot it. The child can't control the recoil and shoots the range instructor in the head. Range instructor dies.
Who is at fault? The child who shot the range instructor in the head? According to you she is, since she did the shooting.
No, it's the range instructor's fault for giving the child a gun that the child cannot reasonably be expected to control.
For some here, they would say the murdered person was not wearing enough armor and was asking for it.kenu12345 said: