An iPhone was Stolen from a Baby!

[nryn99]

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

oh how i love the blame game.

 

[Haloman800]

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).

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]

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]

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.

 

[nryn99]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Maybe he is. Either way, it still doesn't excuse him from what he did.

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

 

[Castiel]

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.

Maybe he is. Either way, it still doesn't excuse him from what he did.

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

As far as we know

 

[Haloman800]

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.

Maybe he is. Either way, it still doesn't excuse him from what he did.

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

As far as we know

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]

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.

 

[nryn99]

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. : )

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]

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.

"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]

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.

 

[nryn99]

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.

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

 

[Castiel]

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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

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.