# An iPhone was Stolen from a Baby!



## Thanatos Telos (Oct 4, 2012)

A mother left her child alone in a store with her iPhone. The child was apparently watching cartoons on it. A man came up and then snatched the iPhone and ran away.
Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57525705-71/watch-an-iphone-being-stolen-from-a-baby/


----------



## shoyrumaster11 (Oct 4, 2012)

Wow! I really have absoulutely no idea why an iPhone has to be so popular that a thieve would steal it.


----------



## CrimzonEyed (Oct 4, 2012)

He was going to sell it and get an android phone and a luxury restaurant meal.


----------



## Devin (Oct 4, 2012)

shoyrumaster11 said:


> Wow! I really have absoulutely no idea why an iPhone has to be so popular that a thieve would steal it.



They also, you know. Sell for a lot. Sold my *broken* iPhone 4 on eBAY for $250.


----------



## 431unknown (Oct 4, 2012)

shoyrumaster11 said:


> Wow! I really have absoulutely no idea why an iPhone has to be so popular that a thieve would steal it.




Well obviously the dude wanted to watch some cartoons too.


----------



## Mr. Prince (Oct 4, 2012)

I'm surprised no one posted that it's the mother's fault!


----------



## Another World (Oct 4, 2012)

why the hell was a baby unattended. she is lucky the guy didn't steal the kid.

-another world


----------



## lokomelo (Oct 4, 2012)

iStole come with iOS 6?


----------



## Depravo (Oct 4, 2012)

Like taking candy disproportionately expensive gadgetry from a baby...

Anybody wanna buy a cheap iPhone?


----------



## Mr. Prince (Oct 4, 2012)

I really want to know what's the iPhone model!


----------



## Javacat (Oct 4, 2012)

Because giving a baby an item worth over £300 to look after in public is always a good idea..... Stupid hoe


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2012)

I see that GBATemp is quick to judge the mother and nobody seems to be interested in the fact that the thief stole from a baby.

Long live priorities, stay classy, Temp!


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 4, 2012)

I see a lot wrong with this picture.
Why was the baby left unattended in the store? I am more concerned over the baby's safety than the iPhone.


----------



## Veho (Oct 4, 2012)

Thanatos Telos said:


> A mother left her child alone in a store


Child services, _now_.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 4, 2012)

Javacat said:


> Stupid hoe



Now I have been known to call people a spanner but surely gardening implements is a step too far.

Edit
Scratch that I called someone a hoser once.


----------



## Ethevion (Oct 4, 2012)

I don't think that mother was ready to have a baby just yet.


----------



## gifi4 (Oct 4, 2012)

I don't know what's more ridiculous; the fact a thief stole something from a young child or that a young child was alone and using a phone...


----------



## pwsincd (Oct 4, 2012)

i would have had no interest in an iphone , nor a baby , wonder what model pram it was .. .hmmm


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 4, 2012)

My initial thought was couldn't the mother just leave the baby with a friend or family if she wanted to shop in peace instead of dragging the baby along only to give the baby her phone and then just focus on shopping.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 4, 2012)

Another World said:


> why the hell was a baby unattended. she is lucky the guy didn't steal the kid.
> 
> -another world



Ah, but they don't sell as well on the market.


----------



## Rizsparky (Oct 4, 2012)

Thats what you get for being a dumbshit...


----------



## Rydian (Oct 4, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I see that GBATemp is quick to judge the mother and nobody seems to be interested in the fact that the thief stole from a baby.
> 
> Long live priorities, stay classy, Temp!


You'll have to forgive people for consider the safety and life of a child more important than a phone.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Oct 4, 2012)

The mother should be happy and relieved that her child remained unharmed though all of this. I'd say sacrificing your iPhone for your child's safety is a good trade, considering she left her child unattended in public.


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Oct 4, 2012)

Just Another Gamer said:


> My initial thought was couldn't the mother just leave the baby with a friend or family if she wanted to shop in peace instead of dragging the baby along only to give the baby her phone and then just focus on shopping.


My thoughts exactly.

I always wonder this every time I hear a baby wail and cry, disturbing the peace and breaking the silence of an otherwise calm night in public.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Oct 4, 2012)

Not the Robbers fault. It's the mother's.


----------



## nando (Oct 4, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Another World said:
> 
> 
> > why the hell was a baby unattended. she is lucky the guy didn't steal the kid.
> ...




yes they do.


----------



## Chary (Oct 4, 2012)

I have a problem with a fact that someone would steal an iPhone from a baby, but then again, why was the baby _alone?_


The mother is lucky the kid wasn't stolen!


----------



## yusuo (Oct 4, 2012)

I let my son look after my iPhone all the time, he puts it in his pockets and plays with it when hes bored but he's 5. I wouldn't do the same thing with my 1 year old daughter and I wouldn't leave either of them alone in a public place that I wasn't comfortable with ever.
For example before people flame, when I go to the local shop my son will wonder off to go grab a sweet or something, but he won't leave the shop, my daughter goes no-where unless an adult i know is with her


----------



## Gahars (Oct 4, 2012)

xAC3L3G3NDx said:


> Not the Robbers fault. It's the mother's.



I don't think two wrongs make a right, here.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 4, 2012)

"This'll be easy as taking an iPhone from a baby!" - the new line for criminals.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Oct 4, 2012)

nando said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > Another World said:
> ...



Someone call To Catch A Predator.  Now.


----------



## Law (Oct 4, 2012)

nando said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > Another World said:
> ...



It depends on the skin colour. White babies just don't sell.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (Oct 4, 2012)

I hope that mother was arrested and the child taken into protective custody.


----------



## ouch123 (Oct 5, 2012)

Law said:


> nando said:
> 
> 
> > Gahars said:
> ...


I'd like to take a moment to remind you that we're not currently in the EoF.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Honestly, part of the blame (the majority) needs to be placed on the mother for leaving her child alone in a grocery store.


----------



## Castiel (Oct 5, 2012)

Don't pin the blame on one or the other, pin it on both. The mother shouldn't have left her child unattended and should be glad her child is safe. The robber is at fault for obvious reasons. What both of them did was wrong and stupid.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Castiel said:


> Don't pin the blame on one or the other, pin it on both. The mother shouldn't have left her child unattended and should be glad her child is safe. The robber is at fault for obvious reasons. What both of them did was wrong and stupid.


But if the mother was with the child then it's highly unlikely the thief would of stolen the iPhone. He took advantage of the child because it couldn't fight back, if the mother was there he almost definitely wouldn't of attempted it.

No mother or father should leave their child alone in a public setting.


----------



## Castiel (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> But if the mother was with the child then it's highly unlikely the thief would of stolen the iPhone. He took advantage of the child because it couldn't fight back, if the mother was there he almost definitely wouldn't of attempted it.
> 
> No mother or father should leave their child alone in a public setting.


The mother was not with the child, hence why she is at fault. The robber took advantage of the child because it couldn't fight back, which is why the robber is at fault. Hence why both of them are at fault.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Castiel said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > But if the mother was with the child then it's highly unlikely the thief would of stolen the iPhone. He took advantage of the child because it couldn't fight back, if the mother was there he almost definitely wouldn't of attempted it.
> ...


Obviously the robber is at fault, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the entire crime could have been prevented if the mother was present.

You can't split the blame equally between the person who allowed the crime to happen and the criminal.


----------



## Castiel (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Obviously the robber is at fault, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the entire crime could have been prevented if the mother was present.
> 
> You can't split the blame equally between the person who allowed the crime to happen and the criminal.



Suppose someone (we'll call them Person 1) joins a drug dealing gang. Then later on said person does something that upsets the rest of the gang, which makes them want to punish him. So they go out and brutally beat someone close the person (we'll call this person Person 2). Sure, the whole thing could have been prevented if Person 1 didn't join the gang in the first place, but that doesn't change the fact that he did join it. The gang is at fault for beating Person 2, and Person one is at fault for joining the gang in the first place. Person 1 paid the consequences of their actions. Everyone involved is in the wrong, except Person 2 (just like in the main example here, they are all at fault except the baby).

(This is a pretty extreme example, but still the same concept).


----------



## Narayan (Oct 5, 2012)

i say we blame apple. if they didn't make the iphone, no iphone was stolen.

oh how i love the blame game.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Castiel said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously the robber is at fault, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the entire crime could have been prevented if the mother was present.
> ...


That's not a good example. Person 1 didn't know they would beat up Person 2 if he acted up. The mother of that child knew the consequences and danger of leaving her child alone. It's one thing to leave a child alone, but to do it in a public setting is extremely dangerous for the child and extremely foolish of the mother.

As I've stated, the criminal and all criminals are at fault, but the entire crime could have been avoided if the mother didn't give them the opportunity.

Since you've responded with an allegory, let me see if this makes it clearer:

Someone's walking down the street and they find a huge bag of $100 bills. They quickly take and hide the money. They don't inform the police, fully knowing the crime they're committing and that someone lost the money.
Now, let's say it was Guy 1's money, and his friend Guy 2 took it without him knowing and accidentally left it on the street.

Now, are you going to equally blame the guy who found the money as much as you would the guy who left it there? Of course not. Does that mean he didn't commit any fault? Also false. It was wrong not to report finding it, but you can't blame him for the idiocy of Guy 1. He's the one who left the money there, he's the reason it was stolen, he is the main cause of all of this.


----------



## Castiel (Oct 5, 2012)

Person 1 should of had his money in the bank, or in a safe place. You never explicitly stated where the money was. If it was just lying on the ground in his house, then that was pretty stupid of him. Guy 2 shouldn't have taken the money in the first place. The person who found the money is to blame also because he should have reported the money. These examples are all just big collaborating events of stupidity.

I think where you're getting me wrong is that you think I'm saying the people should all be _equally_ at fault, and reading back it does sound that way from what I'm typing. They may not all be equally at fault, but they are all at fault in some way or another.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Castiel said:


> Person 1 should of had his money in the bank


The mother at the store should of had her iPhone in her pocket and her baby in her arms.

There's a different between fault and reason. Sure, there is *fault* with the criminal who stole the iPhone, but the *reason* he was able to do so is because the mother *allowed* him to do so, by leaving her child (and iPhone) unattended.


----------



## Narayan (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Castiel said:
> 
> 
> > Person 1 should of had his money in the bank
> ...


i'm confused. what do you mean by this?

the mother's fault was leaving her iphone, because she thought leaving her iphone with the baby, and her baby in the grocery store would be fine. 
it could have been prevented. but who's to say that the man wasn't looking for other stuff to steal?


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Narayan said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > Castiel said:
> ...



The main fault of the mother was leaving her baby alone at all. An iPhone can be replaced, a child's life can't. Though I do agree that it was also very stupid to leave the iPhone with the baby.

What else of value is he going to steal in a grocery store? Donuts? We can't speculate on things that never happened. Who's to say he would of stolen anything at all, had he not noticed a $500 device in the hands of an unattended infant?

My point is, as I've said, that the crime in question could not have been committed had the mother not left her child (and iPhone) unattended.

The mother should be thankful it was only her iPhone that she lost.


edit: I should also like to point out, that even if he did steal something from the grocery store, it would be the store's fault for not having tighter security, and the thief would also be at fault for stealing. : )


----------



## Castiel (Oct 5, 2012)

Narayan said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > Castiel said:
> ...


This has now reached the point where we don't know all the circumstances or what was going through the people's minds. *Maybe* the mother had given the iPhone to her baby because she wanted it to stop crying. The man could have been looking for other stuff to steal because *maybe* he has a poor family with no other way to provide for them at the moment *(assuming he is going to sell the phone for money)*. We don't know what was going through their minds or what was happening before these events happened.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Castiel said:


> This has now reached the point where we don't know all the circumstances or what was going through the people's minds. *Maybe* the mother had given the iPhone to her baby because she wanted it to stop crying. The man could have been looking for other stuff to steal because *maybe* he has a poor family with no other way to provide for them at the moment (assuming he is going to sell the phone for money). We don't know what was going through their minds or what was happening before these events happened.


Or *maybe *he's just an awful greedy excuse for a human being who wanted an iPhone / free cash.


----------



## Castiel (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Castiel said:
> 
> 
> > This has now reached the point where we don't know all the circumstances or what was going through the people's minds. *Maybe* the mother had given the iPhone to her baby because she wanted it to stop crying. The man could have been looking for other stuff to steal because *maybe* he has a poor family with no other way to provide for them at the moment (assuming he is going to sell the phone for money). We don't know what was going through their minds or what was happening before these events happened.
> ...


*Maybe* he is. Either way, it still doesn't excuse him from what he did.
Also, greedy excuse for a human being is a little far as all human being are greedy and would like to have more, better things. (But that's a topic for another time).


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Castiel said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > Castiel said:
> ...


It doesn't, but if the crime wasn't there to commit, he wouldn't be at fault in the first place


----------



## Castiel (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Castiel said:
> 
> 
> > Haloman800 said:
> ...


As far as we know


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Castiel said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > Castiel said:
> ...


No, we actually do know this. He couldn't have committed the crime if the mother didn't leave her child unattended with the iPhone. How can you disagree with this?


----------



## Castiel (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> No, we actually do know this. He couldn't have committed the crime if the mother didn't leave her child unattended with the iPhone. How can you disagree with this?


You never stated which fault wouldn't have been his. As stated before, maybe he was going to steal something else to provide for his family (he would have still been at fault for this crime then), or maybe he wasn't. We don't know that detail.


----------



## Narayan (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> The main fault of the mother was leaving her baby alone at all. An iPhone can be replaced, a child's life can't. Though I do agree that it was also very stupid to leave the iPhone with the baby.
> 
> What else of value is he going to steal in a grocery store? Donuts? We can't speculate on things that never happened. Who's to say he would of stolen anything at all, had he not noticed a $500 device in the hands of an unattended infant?
> 
> ...


yes, she is at fault. but not entirely.
and i think she is grateful her child wasn't stolen.


also, thanks. i'd use that as my reason to justify stealing from a store.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Castiel said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > No, we actually do know this. He couldn't have committed the crime if the mother didn't leave her child unattended with the iPhone. How can you disagree with this?
> ...


"which fault wouldn't have been his" What are you talking about? How much clearer can I get? And all that about "stealing for his family"... You have absolutely nothing to base that on, it's entirely speculation. What I'm talking about is something that actually occurred.



> He couldn't have committed the crime if the mother didn't leave her child unattended with the iPhone. How can you disagree with this?


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Narayan said:


> yes, she is at fault. but not entirely.


She is entirely and 100% at fault for her iPhone getting stolen, for leaving it (and more importantly, her child) unattended in a store.



> and i think she is grateful her child wasn't stolen.


We have absolutely no evidence of this. I'm arguing the facts here not speculation on things we know nothing about. I would assume that a normal mother would be thankful that her child was unharmed, but seeing as how this woman was stupid enough to put her child in the situation in the first place, I wouldn't put it past her to be ungrateful.



> also, thanks. i'd use that as my reason to justify stealing from a store.


Did I say that it would justify stealing from a store? No.

You can justify stealing all you want, but you're still going to pay the price if you get caught, and it is still immoral.


----------



## Narayan (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> > also, thanks. i'd use that as my reason to justify stealing from a store.
> 
> 
> Did I say that it would justify stealing from a store? No.
> ...


and you say it's the mother's fault 100%.
okay well, i'll just look for someone who leaves their stuff unattended.


----------



## Castiel (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> We have absolutely no evidence of this. I'm arguing the facts here* not speculation on things we know nothing about*. I would assume that a normal mother would be thankful that her child was unharmed, *but seeing as how this woman was stupid enough to put her child in the situation in the first place, I wouldn't put it past her to be ungrateful.*


Speculation alert!


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Narayan said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > > also, thanks. i'd use that as my reason to justify stealing from a store.
> ...


In a store? Then they're idiots. In their home? Breaking and entering/Robbery.

It is still wrong and immoral.

Can you truly not see the point I'm trying to make? Or are you at the point where you're disagreeing with me simply because you're upset with me?


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> > He couldn't have committed the crime if the mother didn't leave her child unattended with the iPhone. How can you disagree with this?


The people who disagree with this is i'm gonna assume the people who will say that its entirely the thief's fault for stealing something from a baby that has ignored by the mother because the mother wanted a peaceful time shopping, I mean did anyone actually watch the video.




Narayan said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > > also, thanks. i'd use that as my reason to justify stealing from a store.
> ...


Why don't we look at this another way, even if the thief was gonna steal something in the first place and thats an assumption it could've been something harmless like clothes based on the video location. Now if the mother was carrying the baby or had the pram at least in from of her then chances of this event occuring is a whole lot lower but in the video she was around the other side looking at pants.


----------



## Narayan (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Narayan said:
> 
> 
> > Haloman800 said:
> ...


erm, just a guess. you're saying that it's the mother's fault. 100%. but what of the thief? it's not his fault for stealing, but what he did was wrong?

though i say, both are at fault and is wrong. think of the saying it takes 2 to tango. you're using it one way. but because there are 2 dancers, it can also be used another way.
nothing can be stolen if there wasn't a thief. non-thief would just simply ignore the baby and the iphone.
or would you have stolen the iphone yourself?

@JustAnotherGamer
i'm not saying the thief is faultless. yes it could have been lower. and the thief could have been avoided.
but why was there a thief then.

to elaborate my disgust in this argument.
1. it could have been avoided if the mother was watching/keeping her child close.
2. it could have been avoided if the thief wasn't in need of stealing.
3. it could be avoided if there was no iphone.
4. it could have been avoided if they didn't go shopping.
5 it could have been avoided if the thief found something else to steal.

too many possibilities don't you think. what i don't like is all the "blame the mother" stuff that's going on. even though i agree she was at fault.
she could have
she could have
she could have.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Just Another Gamer said:


> The people who disagree with this is i'm gonna assume the people who will say that its entirely the thief's fault for stealing something from a baby that has ignored by the mother because the mother wanted a peaceful time shopping, I mean did anyone actually watch the video.


First of all, no one is saying it's entirely the thief's fault. Castiel claimed that it was equally the mother and the thiefs fault for the crime being committed, I disagreed with him and that's how this whole thing got started.

Second of all, it's entirely the mother's fault that the crime was committed. *The thief could not have committed the crime if the mother did not leave the child (and iPhone) unattended*. You should *never* leave a child unattended in a public setting. Much less a $500 phone.

For the eighth time, this does NOT justify the thief's actions, he still committed a crime and will have to pay the penalty if he is caught regardless.



> Why don't we look at this another way, even if the thief was gonna steal something in the first place and thats an assumption it could've been something harmless like clothes based on the video location. Now if the mother was carrying the baby or had the pram at least in from of her then chances of this event occuring is a whole lot lower but in the video she was around the other side looking at pants.


We have no idea if the person was going to steal anything else or not if he didn't steal the iPhone. I highly doubt it. It's much riskier and there's less of an incentive to steal pants.

Sadly, a lot of people in that situation would have stolen the iPhone, for whatever reason.


----------



## Castiel (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Please, please look up the definitions of 1. Speculation, and 2. Assumption.
> *I'll give you this one*





Haloman800 said:


> First of all, no one is saying it's entirely the thief's fault. *Castiel claimed that it was equally the mother and the thiefs fault for the crime being committed*, I disagreed with him and that's how this whole thing got started.


No I didn't, and I pointed that out earlier.



Castiel said:


> I think where you're getting me wrong is that you think I'm saying the people should all be _equally_ at fault, and reading back it does sound that way from what I'm typing. They may not all be equally at fault, but they are all at fault in some way or another.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Narayan said:


> erm, just a guess. you're saying that it's the mother's fault. 100%. but what of the thief? it's not his fault for stealing, but what he did was wrong?



*Yes*, I agree that what he did was wrong. *Yes,* if the mother hadn't of left the child unattended (and iPhone..), the crime (of iPhone theft) would not have been committed.

There is a clear distinction here between something immoral and the cause of something. If you can't see it by now, that's just sad, because I'm not going to explain it again.



> or would you have stolen the iphone yourself?


No.



> to elaborate my disgust in this argument.
> 1. it could have been avoided if the mother was watching/keeping her child close.
> 2. it could have been avoided if the thief wasn't in need of stealing.


Point 1 I agree with.

Point 2, I do not. A thief doesn't need a reason to steal other than the fact that he wants something for nothing.

I won't address the other points as they are obviously satirical.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Oct 5, 2012)

Babies are better off being away from Apple products anyway, so I call this a win.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Castiel said:


> *I'll give you this one*


But you won't admit that the cause of crime and a thief's immoral actions are two different things? Have I not explained it clear enough? Are you just deliberately avoiding my question because you don't want to agree with me?



> No I didn't, and I pointed that out earlier.


You also pointed out earlier that your posts appeared that way, and regardless of whether or not you meant it to be so, that is how this argument got started.


----------



## Narayan (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> There is a clear distinction here between something immoral and the cause of something. If you can't see it by now, that's just sad, because I'm not going to explain it again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yes. there is a distinction. but there's no reason to put stress on only one thing like the mother leaving her baby. it is _only_ 1 of the causes. 
what you're doing is putting _every fault _on the mother. and in some way relieves the thief from the blame simply because he is a thief and is expected to commit immoral acts.


----------



## Castiel (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> But you won't admit that the cause of crime and a thief's immoral actions are two different things? Have I not explained it clear enough? Are you just deliberately avoiding my question because you don't want to agree with me?


Never did I say they were the same thing. I have been saying that the main issue here was not 100% the mother's fault.


Haloman800 said:


> Point 2, I do not. A thief doesn't need a reason to steal other than the fact that he wants something for nothing.


Here I know that I can use my hypotheticals as this is not *always* the case (which is what you make it sound like). We don't know the extenuating circumstances that led to this action.

Think of it like this. Take the thief out of the equation. You now have a mother shopping with her baby, which is using the iPhone. We assume that since there is no robber, they have a nice day shopping, go home, etc. But, if you put the robber into the equation, GASP! There is a conflict that emerged! Now, let's try taking the mother and her child out of this. There is this guy who may or may not have stolen something (for this sake we are going to say he wouldn't). Oh, look. No incident. But if you add the mother and her child with the iPhone into this, BAM! Conflict.

The thief plays into this, and so does the mother leaving her child with the iPhone does. If the robber wasn't there, none of this would have happened. If the mother wasn't there with her child that she gave the iPhone to, none of this would have happened.The two work hand in hand to cause the conflict. See what we're getting at? It couldn't have been 100% the mother's fault. Without the robber, none of this would have happened, without the mother and her child having the iPhone, none of this would have happened.
I'm going to bed, I was about to before this debate started. I have to go to school in 5 hours, I would like to get some sleep


----------



## Law (Oct 5, 2012)

ouch123 said:


> Law said:
> 
> 
> > nando said:
> ...



Just commenting on the market trends bro. White babies just don't sell, Hispanic babies are what the market wants right now.


----------



## nando (Oct 5, 2012)

so every time i leave my house for work, in the chance that someone breaks in and steals all my shit, it is my fault for leaving the house unattended? 

next up, women deserve to be violated for dressing sexy.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 5, 2012)

nando said:


> so every time i leave my house for work, in the chance that someone breaks in and steals all my shit, it is my fault for leaving the house unattended?
> 
> next up, women deserve to be violated for dressing sexy.


Leaving your house for work =/= ignoring your child so you can enjoy shopping in peace,

One is hopefully covered with insurance while the other is shit parenting.


----------



## indask8 (Oct 5, 2012)

nando said:


> so every time i leave my house for work, in the chance that someone breaks in and steals all my shit, it is my fault for leaving the house unattended?



Yes... if you leave it unlocked.

Leaving your iPhone with your baby unattended is not a proper way to secure your precious smartphone.

She should be grateful nothing happened to her baby, a phone is replaceable, an human life... not so much.


----------



## nando (Oct 5, 2012)

you guys have a very warped view on life.

next up. if you don't wear a bullet proof vest you set yourself up to be a drive by victim. difficulty doesn't shift the blame on a crime. but that's expected of this place


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

nando said:


> you guys have a very warped view on life.
> 
> next up. if you don't wear a bullet proof vest you set yourself up to be a drive by victim. difficulty doesn't shift the blame on a crime. but that's expected of this place


Not wearing a bullet proof vest is not invitation to be shot. However, leaving a $500 device in the hands of an unattended infant is an invitation for it to be stolen


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> nando said:
> 
> 
> > you guys have a very warped view on life.
> ...


Who cares about the iPhone, what about the baby who was being left unattended? These people are damn lucky they only lost their iPhone and not their child.


----------



## gamefan5 (Oct 5, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > nando said:
> ...


Bitch plz, I WANT MAH IPHONE BACK!

All kiddiing aside, it would appear an Iphone is worth more than a baby in more than 50% of the world's population.


----------



## nando (Oct 5, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > nando said:
> ...




yes. an unattended baby is bad and that could be a crime on it's own and maybe social services should look into it, but it doesn't excuse another crime.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 5, 2012)

nando said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > Haloman800 said:
> ...


This is a crime that has brought attention to another crime, not unheard of, but honestly the bigger crime here isn't the iPhone theft.


----------



## Narayan (Oct 5, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> This is a crime that has brought attention to another crime, not unheard of, but honestly the bigger crime here isn't the iPhone theft.


i'm not saying you're wrong, nor am i disagreeing with you.

it's kinda different but this just reminds me why i never tell my parents anything. like when i climb a tree when i was young. i was up and proud that i climbed the tree, but i got scolded coz i climbed and they were worried that i would fall. 
;O;


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 6, 2012)

nando said:


> you guys have a very warped view on life.
> 
> next up. if you don't wear a bullet proof vest you set yourself up to be a drive by victim. difficulty doesn't shift the blame on a crime. but that's expected of this place


Getting shot =/= leaving your kid to go shopping in peace

One rarely happens if your not someone involved with criminals while the other is again shit parenting, somehow your brain isn't capable of understanding the difference.


----------



## nando (Oct 6, 2012)

Just Another Gamer said:


> nando said:
> 
> 
> > you guys have a very warped view on life.
> ...




whatever. she didn't leave her baby to go shopping, we don't even know how far away she was from the baby. you are making big assumptions. and i bet you random drivebys shooting random people not involved in crime is more common than someone stealing iphones from a baby. 

whatever, i don't like dealing with you either way.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 6, 2012)

nando said:


> Just Another Gamer said:
> 
> 
> > nando said:
> ...


No she didn't leave her baby, she took the baby with her and then left the pram there while going around the other side to look at jeans which you would've known if you bothered to watch the video. 

So far all I see from you is illogical posts that consist of nothing more than a false or ignorant understanding of the situation and then trying to rationalize it.


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Oct 7, 2012)

Wow, ton of good posts so far.


----------



## pasc (Oct 7, 2012)

Another World said:


> why the hell was a baby unattended. she is lucky the guy didn't steal the kid.
> 
> -another world



He could have stolen ... both ?

J/k... funny stories... even funnier world


----------

