You'll have to forgive people for consider the safety and life of a child more important than a phone.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!
My thoughts exactly.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.
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.
Not the Robbers fault. It's the mother's.
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.
yes they do.
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.
yes they do.
I'd like to take a moment to remind you that we're not currently in the EoF.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.
yes they do.
It depends on the skin colour. White babies just don't sell.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.