Two things can be true at once: the perpetrator of a crime is the one responsible, AND the victim might have avoided victimhood had they acted more prudently.
Humans communicate in stories. The “cautionary tale” or example of folly that led to woe is a pattern as old as our species could talk.
It is NOT true that cautioning people not to act imprudently, and providing an example, is “victim blaming”. I don’t hear anyone saying that we should not pursue and prosecute the perpetrator.
So just can it with the hair trigger “victim blaming” accusation.
> caution others to behave wisely to help avoid being victimized in the same way
In this case though this is not a caution to others, it's literally a statement of victim shaming/blaming.
Nobody is claiming the criminals are blameless or that a crime is not a crime.
It's astoundingly dumb to hand a piece of electronics worth several hundred dollars to someone in such an interaction, even if they cannot use it to electronically steal your money.
The criminal is a criminal, and the person who hands their phone to someone under these circumstances is mind bogglingly naive. The former fact is tautological so it's natural to focus on the latter part, the one that boggles the mind. How could anybody possibly fall for this? Were they very young? Were they old? Were they distracted or drunk or lulled by the perpetrator? Were they out of towners? Were they intimidated? One wonders.
It’s a negligent move for sure, but a crime is still a crime.
Having someone steal your money without your consent is still theft and they are still the perpetrator of the crime.
The victim-blaming mentality on the internet is wild. Being negligent or naive doesn’t shift 100% of the blame to the victim when a crime occurs.