Lawyer105 said:
Faulty Turmoil said:
Sure she could have taken more care and deleted the pictures first, and yes, that would have been a more sensible thing to do. But my main problem with what you are saying is that she should be charged with a crime because of what two assholes did. Which isn't fair in any way.
I didn't say she should be charged with a crime! (except possibly, gross stupidity) I simply said that she carries a portion of the responsibility for this fiasco and should be treated, in the Court of Public Opinion less like a victim and more like an accessory.
From Wikipedia:
Common law traditionally considers an accessory just as guilty as the principal(s) in a crime, and subject to the same penalties. Separate and lesser punishments exist by statute in many jurisdictions.
By saying that she should be treated as an accessory you are saying that she should be treated as a criminal.
Faulty Turmoil said:
And this bit here? It's not entitled to expect someone to provide a service that is a part of their job. Sure, you shouldn't expect the world to look after you, but you should be able to expect that you can trust someone to do a task for you without screwing you over. Trusting people doesn't mean that you expect them to look after you, and saying that the victim should blame themselves, even only partially, is not right.
You can
expect it but, in this day and age,
assuming it and taking no precautions on your own is moronic. Ultimately, she should not be blamed for the theft... that's on the thieves. She should be blamed for giving them the opportunity.
I give people the opportunity to stab me in the back when I turn around, I also give people the opportunity to steal my drink if I put it down to get something out of my backpack for example. Just because the opportunity is there doesn't mean that you can be blamed if someone else takes advantage of that(unless, of course, you were doing it deliberately to try to get someone to take it). Each person is responsible for what they do (special circumstances accepted, of course). Besides, I'm guessing the point of calling the victim stupid is to make her learn from her mistake? Because I don't think she needs that really. I think she's learned very well from what happened.
Giving someone an opportuity implies that you know the opportuity is there, correct? Maybe she forgot that she had them on her phone? Maybe, she knew they were on there but thought that these guys would be proffessional and, you know, just do their fucking job. Now if you trusted a known thief with your money, then sure, that's stupid. However, you have to remember that these two weren't criminals before this happened. It's not unreasonable to think, or assume, that you can give these "proffesionals" your stuff and, in return for money, they just get on and do what you wanted.
