Between these two only the bank, as institution or licensed financial entity, has an obligation to guard the flow of public money. The bank should not hand anyone the responsibility of overdraft limit management. The individual can be assumed incompetent and just be absolved of any responsibility solely based on that.

If they had pushed him to take a reckless loan, I'd agree with you that they shared liability here, but this was (from what I've read) just him taking advantage of a mistake by the bank.

Banks don't lend other people's money. They create money when they lend. Read this from the Bank of England. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...

This is simply not true. The bank created credit money out of thin air. They didn't have to take money from anywhere to give it to him. On their books, his loan looked like an asset.

This is a common misunderstanding of how banks work. He didn't steal anyone else's money, he got new money. Read this introduction of how money and banking work from the Bank of England http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...

Isn't repaying your debts (or attempting to) morality 101 stuff? You made an agreement and received a benefit from your counterparty.

Just because someone thought you might default doesn't relieve you of your obligations. I lock my doors because I think someone might break in, that doesn't mean I've "priced in" my TV being stolen so it's OK to take it.

When there is a contract it becomes civil legal matter and morality does not come into play.

so only one party was aware of it, the customer, therefore their responsibility for the borrowing.

Is that really necessary? I'm getting a little sick of Trump replacing Hitler in Godwin's law. We had a detox week for a reason. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404)

The bank was clearly in the wrong as well. They shouldn't have extended this credit, and once they did they shouldn't have tried to prosecute him when he didn't break the law. But acting like the negative consequences of it were bad luck makes this fellow a profound dickhead. I hope he learns better before he completes his law degree and starts representing people.

There's another way to look at it: The "bad judgment" is only bad if you view the standard as "tell[ing] the bank they messed up". If the standard is to blow all the money on strippers and cocaine, then the bad luck in this situation was that he was presented with the anomaly in the first place.

You're equating the standards as either "telling the back they messed up" or "blow the money on strippers and cocaine", but then suggesting the bad luck is only true when one of those standards happen...

This logic doesn't even check out. And even if it did, both would assume your actions are only predicated on factors outside of your control, which I think OP is referring to isn't the case.

You are presented with a beneficial situation. You can make decisions that have various potential consequences. These are easily guessed in rudimentary detail.

"Bad luck" only enters the equation if you have no choice of what to do.

If your position is of the philosophy that there is no free will, then your argument would be better held by just stating that, instead of making up scenarios that aren't compatible.

That is closer to the core human nature for a lot of people. Many people want to live and enjoy life (more than enjoying the good perks of being honest). Playing by the rules is just a mean to an end not a purpose in itself.

What really gets me is not just taking the money, but then talking about the whole affair as if it was something done to him, rather than something he did.

I kind of agree with you, but that's unnecessary and unfair. There's no evidence the kid's racist, sexually assaulted women, or worked with the Russians to undermine American democracy.