There is a
tremendous difference.
To clear any possible misconceptions on where I stand. If you're a criminal, you're a degenerate. If you willingly associate with criminals, you're probably a degenerate. If you like to masturbate into ice cream and cry while you watch sad movies because you're so broke up about your online girlfriend dumping you, you're actually not a degenerate in this context. But you need professional help. If you put yourself in harm's way, beyond normal standards of sensibility, you're being stupid. If you have the IQ of a lobotomized chipmunk, you're actually not stupid in this context. But I'm surprised you're able to breathe.
A large amount of crime is in fact committed by criminals against other criminals or people who associate with said criminals. Obviously, not
all, or even necessarily a majority, but a substantive amount. You don't see too many headlines about how outstanding Teacher of Year Mrs. Henderson got burglarized by Gary the dope smoker. He's too busy stealing the X-Box systems from people he knows, from houses he has familiarity with.
Crime most often happens when a "potential criminal" is allowed an opportunity. Why? The simple answer is because it's easy. Associating with criminals - or even people who aren't criminals themselves, but do in fact associate with criminals - grants them additional opportunity due to familiarity. (Of course, it can go on a different tangent and just suck you into the life of crime. This is how many young kids wind up in gangs. And it's the same vein of concern the Philadelphia Eagles had with Desean Jackson's alleged gang ties.) There are a number of scenarios that are simply irresponsible to subject yourself or others to, which result in this crime opportunity. Some are more drastic or stupid than others.
Walking alone, in the dark, in an unfamiliar place, in an area that is easily publicly accessed would be on the higher end of stupid, yet people do it anyway. You're making yourself a target, and that is stupid. There are almost always other options, even in emergencies and dire circumstances.
Leaving your car unlocked and a phone, wallet, etc. on the passenger seat while you go shopping would be on the lower end. Now, on a side-note, I've heard some people make the ridiculous claim that locking your doors only keeps honest people out, but that's such an overwhelming load of crock. There are most certainly people that are willing to go up to a car and try the handle (or just stick an arm through a lowered window), but not willing to smash a window to lift the $50 some bucks you have in your wallet.
We had a girl my senior year of college, walking alone, at dark, on a side street, who heard someone calling her to him from deep within an even darker and narrower alley. There's a fair number of good or decent ways to react to that, but what she did was unfathomably foolish. She willingly, without any coercion, walked into the alley to see what the mystery man wanted. She promptly got robbed at knife point once she entered the alley. Thankfully, that's all that happened, and she was left unharmed.
Did she deserve to get robbed? Hell no. Did she help write the scene? Hell yes.
A similar, but not perfect, comparison can be made to riding a motorcycle. Consider...
SUBJECT A: Dies in a traffic accident while riding his motorcycle, through no fault of his own in regards to obeying the traffic laws. He wore a helmet.
SUBJECT B: Dies in a traffic accident while riding his motorcycle, through no fault of his own in regards to obeying the traffic laws. He did not wear a helmet. His state did not have a helmet law.
SUBJECT C: Dies in a traffic accident while riding his motorcycle, through no fault of his own in regards to obeying the traffic laws (except...). He did not wear a helmet. His state has a helmet law.
All are unfortunate.
SUBJECT A: did nothing wrong whatsoever.
SUBJECT B: did nothing wrong legally, yet he took an unnecessary and stupid risk that may have cost him his life. It may not have mattered, but it could have.
SUBJECT C: committed a crime. He took an unnecessary and stupid risk that may have cost him his life. It may not have mattered, but it could have. Laws such as helmet laws exist for a reason, ignoring them is not only stupid, but criminal.
God grants you the power to bring one back to life (or Satan or Allah or Mickey Mouse if you're so inclined). All else is equal. Personally, I cannot rationalize any sane or fair alternative that bringing back SUBJECT A. He followed the law, and he acted with reasonable caution. Fate wrote his script, of that there is no question.
That NFL player for the Ravens just died the other week, driving a dirtbike, an illegal motorized vehicle, on a US roadway, when he was collided with another vehicle. The dirtbike had no headlights. He wore dark clothing. It was night. Sure, his death is unfortunate. No, he did not deserve to die. But he contributed to his death to an extent well beyond the reaches of normal circumstance.
A kid a year or two below me in High School decided to get drunk and race around winding back roads at 90 mph in the heart of icy winter with two girls in the car. He hit a telephone pole, rolled the car. One of the girls broke her arm. The other broke her spine. If I recall correctly, one of the first things they saw was the guy's decapitated head.
Was this stupid? Yes. Was this criminal? Yes. Did he deserve punishment? Yes. Did he contribute to his own victimization (for lack of a better word)? Yes. Did he deserve to die? No. Would this have happened if he had acted within the realms of normal sanity and behavior? No.
And that is precisely the difference between my stance and what mason posted. And it makes a world of difference. No one expects the Average Joe to be super fit or buff. But we expect everyone to act within normal standards of sensibility.
There are actions that you can take that fall within a normal realm of sanity while going about everyday doings. And you can still have a violent crime committed against you, even if you didn't do anything foolish. But crimes of that fashion are not the norm. Most are born from creating an opportunity, often by blatant stupidity or lack of self awareness.
So you really want to argue that calling sober College Moron Michelle an idiot for walking alone, on a side street, in the dark, and then entering a darker, narrower alley at the random beck and call of a mystery man and getting raped is the same as saying if you're a man and you get raped, you should have been strong enough, or worked out beforehand, to not get raped? Really? Are you kidding me?
EDIT: That last paragraph, admittedly has more snark than necessary, less than paragon, per se.
