The only people who will always be at a violent crime are the perpetrator and the victim. One of those two is motivated to start crime. The other, to stop it.
Addressing the perpetrator, I first have to convince them to do a 180 on their motivations. I have to convince them that the weak, tasty victims they have been preying upon shouldn’t be touched, and that they should instead go after tough, bland game instead. This is what you want me to focus on.
Addressing the victim, we merely have to show them how to achieve their goals, whether that is to be something sharp and vicious who can fight back, or how to be mistaken for one who can.
The reality is that I am focusing on that first part: it’s a lot easier to convince those perpetrators not to perpetrate when we can show them their victims are likely to fight back.
Not at all. It is not the victim’s place to prevent violent crime.
It is the victim’s place to deal with the criminal’s behavior.
That is not a role that I have assigned them, or that they have asked for themselves. That is the role forced on them, against their will, by the criminal.
Frankly, your attitude here is rather offensive. You seem to be calling for the victim to be helpless, and you’re suggesting that I’m part of the problem simply for pointing out that they don’t need to be.
You are still focusing on the wrong part for preventing crime.
The only people who will always be at a violent crime are the perpetrator and the victim. One of those two is motivated to start crime. The other, to stop it.
Addressing the perpetrator, I first have to convince them to do a 180 on their motivations. I have to convince them that the weak, tasty victims they have been preying upon shouldn’t be touched, and that they should instead go after tough, bland game instead. This is what you want me to focus on.
Addressing the victim, we merely have to show them how to achieve their goals, whether that is to be something sharp and vicious who can fight back, or how to be mistaken for one who can.
The reality is that I am focusing on that first part: it’s a lot easier to convince those perpetrators not to perpetrate when we can show them their victims are likely to fight back.
So it’s the victims place to prevent criminal behaviour when you don’t know how to actually deal with said behaviour?
Not at all. It is not the victim’s place to prevent violent crime.
It is the victim’s place to deal with the criminal’s behavior.
That is not a role that I have assigned them, or that they have asked for themselves. That is the role forced on them, against their will, by the criminal.
Frankly, your attitude here is rather offensive. You seem to be calling for the victim to be helpless, and you’re suggesting that I’m part of the problem simply for pointing out that they don’t need to be.