First, thank you for posting. I do not know what brings you around here, but I suspect it is a good thing.
But before we even get into this false dilemma - sorry, that’s what it is - I need some clarification:
Was the victim leading on the aggressor? To be more specific: was this victim - whom I will call “Cat” for short - flaunting her ridiculous wealth in front of Art, the aggressor? Was Cat teasing Art? Insulting him for being poor?
I suspect your answer will be “no”, Cat was just mugged by Art at random. Nothing to indicate she had any wealth. No previous tie to the mugger. Completely detached, no reason to assault her save that she was targeted by Art. In which case, OK, I will concede your point. Cat was not at all at fault.
But let’s be honest. Do you really think people attack random people? Or that they do so most of the time, with absolutely no other motive? Is that normal? Is it normal for a criminal to attack a random person with no other reason than because “Maybe they had something on them; you never can tell”?
Well, yes, considering the number of people killed for a jacket or a couple of dollars, yes, muggers do mug at random. Additionally, muggers target people who love ok vulnerable. They will pick a person who is walking along timidy over someone who is walking along confidently, for example.
They will definitely choose a little old lady strugging to get her groceries home over the young ma in. $1,000 suit.
If we dress provocatively, get intoxicated, begin to have sex with someone we don´t know, very late at night, and at the last second say, “no wait!”, we have done a lot to ask for it. Again, rape, say, is STILL wrong, but circumstances can vary the responsibility.
Again, it doesn´t justify rape, say, but we also need to be prudent and not place ourselves in these kinds of situations as easily.
Sometimes, with robbery, it´s often a crime of opportunity, and often by letting our guard down, we place ourselves more at risk.
Some people leave their cars and houses unlocked. That´s placing ourselves at unnecessary risk in this day and age.
If we are walking out, alone, at night, in a dangerous section, we are more vulnerable.
Again, is it wrong to commit a crime? Of course. However, we need to also try not to tempt fate.
It´s like the saying, “Trust in God, but tie your camel!”
I had one friend who would leave his car, unlocked, and his watch dangling from the rearview mirror, things of that nature. Later, he’d wonder why people stole from him!
Sometimes, through our poor judgement, we increase our own risk of being harmed.
I used to take a lot of unnecessary risks, walk alone, even late at night, even in dangerous sections. Finally, I had some things happen to me, and now, I don´t do that any more.
There have been even men, who have agreed to bondage, and once tied up, been, say, raped…even by a woman at the point of a weapon. I know about this, because I talked to a nurse on a college campus. She said this scenario happened more than people would think.
The nurse said some people would do these kinds of things, not realizing the danger, and even men. could…be raped…by a woman! Now, she said some people would not even believe that was even possible, but under strange circumstances, all kinds of things can happen.
A lot of times, because we are SO responsible, we might not even want to report the crime, since it would just be so humiliating.
Once, I was a victim of fraud, and the circumstances were so terrible, that I was SO gullible. I hated to report it, found it humilliating in the extreme. I felt responsible for my lack of common sense.
We shouldn´t blame the victim, but I’d need to know details.
Imagine the victim in question is at the apartment of a stranger, went to buy, or use, drugs.
The victim is drunk…or high. The perpetrator, likewise.
The victim had his wallet out on the table, was so drunk, or high, he didn´t know the difference.
If this was happening late at night, as well, in some dangerous area of the city.
The victim was alone.
The perpetrator was alone.
Although, it´s still wrong to steal, some scenarios place us more at risk.
Do you see what I´m saying.
It would be very different from someone who was prudent…who, locked her car, carried her purse with her, and, during the day, in a safe neighborhood, was mugged, out of the blue, by a complete stranger.
Take a drug deal gone bad. I know of a true case where someone, in a drug deal gone bad, got killed. The person didn´t actually want to kill, either, just shot the person in the leg, but the person bled to death.
OK. Fair enough. He is definitely to blame. The victim, not so much. However, whoever influenced the mugger to think mugging was “cool” or “manly” or “tough” would also be to blame, to some degree. Heck, you could even say our society is partially to blame. (Our consumer society makes money incredibly important, and having pleasure important, too.) And there is a “theory”, according to “Crime for Dummies”, that if people want money and power and other socially desirable things, if they can’t get them the legitimate way, they may turn to crime.
But, of course, that would require further investigation. Was he part of a gang? Gangs can be a powerful influence. There are even some where you have to murder someone to be a part of it.
My point being, things are not often so cut and dried as a simple either/or question. Such questions are not bad, but putting too much weight on one option or the other without knowing all the facts can be wrong, and harmful.
Well, there you go. Muggers aren’t completely random. They have targets - targets who are not likely to fight back or put up much resistance. Fighting someone stronger than you would be suicide. And not every mugger in the world is trying to become the world’s richest man, or even the neighborhood’s richest man.
Now, it is true, there are no excuses for someone to rob and murder a fairly innocent person - even innocent of personal sin against the mugger. He has no right, and he is not acquitted for his crimes. But people act as if somehow putting any blame whatsoever on a victim or on cursory parties such as parents or friends somehow expiates the guilt of the mugger. It does not, even if it may reduce the guilt somewhat. But the perp must take responsibility for doing something harmful to himself and others, whatever influenced him.
At the same time, I am a Catholic today because I took the time and invested a bit of money in learning my faith. Oh, sure, I might have been an atheist, and I might not have been guilty of an overcomable ignorance. But because I took steps to know and know how to defend my soul and my faith, I am Catholic today. By the same logic, a person might be able to save themselves from some trouble if they learned how to defend their physical selves. I don’t think God gave us our brains to waste them. I don’t think He gave us arms and legs to be wasted, either. If you are really scared of getting mugged, maybe you should do something about it.
I don’t mean anyone who is defenceless is guilty of leading the mugger on. I’m just saying, it is possible to stop or prevent such things from happening.
The offender committed a crime. The victim didn’t. I don’t see how anyone could suggest the victim should be blamed, regardless of if they did something risky or stupid. If they did I hope they learn from their mistake but they are still aren’t responsible for someone else’s actions.
I don’t know. A can of MACE? Travelling back in time 40 years and learning how to keep herself fit for self-defence?
There’s usually no shame in being mugged. It would take a special kind of stupid to be guilty of bringing a mugging upon yourself. But there is something to be proud of in defending yourself, or at least trying to, wouldn’t you agree?
I love how people read my posts thoroughly. If it were not for the timeless truths of our Faith, I would be quite embarrassed to be a Catholic.
My point about muggers picking targets is that there’s rarely, if ever, such a thing as a random target.
Is there any shame in the vulnerable taking measures to reduce their vulnerability? While I myself am not proactive, I admire those who are. There’s nothing wrong with proactive self-defence, is there?
Your position appears to be (correct me if I misunderstand you) that unless every human learns some form of self defence or arms themselves somehow then they are partially or fully to blame if they get mugged, injured or killed by an attacker.