You've managed to mix in victim blaming, middle class guilt, and tolerance of crime into a wonderful stew.
Here's a tip; if someone is engaging in crime, they're a criminal. In this case it sounds like at least assault. This isn't a downtrodden Okie with his family in a hooptie trying to make ends meet until the Depression is over, it's a nutjob trying to attack someone with a lethal weapon.
Your argument sounds like it is not something wrong to commit crime in a crime-ridden neighborhood, and it is the victim's fault since that person didn't read news or does their due diligence.
People who don't get that distinction might benefit by considering crimes such as Attempted Robbery and Attempted Murder. Indeed, attempting to commit a crime is pretty much always a crime in and of itself.
Imagine if would-be kidnapper got off the hook just because the intended victim ran fast enough to get away. Or a wannabe bomber who fudged the recipe.
I wasn't comparing the crime, I was comparing the excuse. It's the equivilent of punching someone while holding a sign "no pain intended". Theft no longer comes into it, happy now?
Crime is a combination of intentions, actions and results. Just because no-one is harmed doesn't mean there's no crime. If I try and murder someone and fail (perhaps I'm a poor shot?) then I'm hardly an innocent.
I'd recommend the webcomic 'The illustrated guide to law' to everyone, especially many of the commentators on here. It is disturbing to read some of these posts.
Here's a tip; if someone is engaging in crime, they're a criminal. In this case it sounds like at least assault. This isn't a downtrodden Okie with his family in a hooptie trying to make ends meet until the Depression is over, it's a nutjob trying to attack someone with a lethal weapon.
reply