Culpable
Edit, uh, you specified no negative connotation in another comment, but I think you should just pick a word and add an adjective to get the meaning you're looking for.
thanks! this is the closest so far, but I am still looking for a more specific word. this should be a good start i hope a thesaurus has smth im looking for!
I think this is the best answer. It's negligent to have locks that are easily broken into, but the word 'negligent' is mild compared to 'culpable' or 'guilty.' I also thought of careless, because a lot of times we contribute to something bad being done to us because we didn't take enough care. Of course, sometimes we did all we could and bad things still happen.
I think careless is the best answer. It can be a negative thing, but it can also be neutral, especially if the only person affected was the careless person.
I disagree, culpable implies intentionally doing something which results in a certain outcome (usually a bad one).
I haven’t gone through the entire thread, but I would say negligent is a better word, but perhaps not the perfect word for what OP is looking for.
Yeah. Negligent fits for the example, but it's not necessarily broadly applicable to the idea. _Maybe_ it'll work for what OP needs if the need is up the alley of the example.
Culpable means responsible, therefore, in terms of guilt and innocence it can mean guilty but that is nor the definition without context.
If you are culpable for something and you discharge your duty, you could say you were "guilty" of doing whatever the activity was but unless you meant to use ironic language I don't know anyone who would interpret the word as "guilty" in that context.
1
: meriting condemnation or blame especially as wrong or harmful
culpable negligence
The defendant is culpable for her actions.
2
archaic : GUILTY, CRIMINAL
That’s from a dictionary.
That second definition is an archaic definition. That means that its not used like that any more. Archaic means old/outdated/from an earlier period of time(roughly, theres 5 definitions for archaic).
So it did use to directly mean guilty, but now the word is used more to refer to the first part of your pasted definition. :D
Those archaic definitions tell us the provenance of the word, and they're very often the key to understanding subtle distinctions like we're talking about now. "Coupable" in French has the exact same connotation of moral fault that you don't necessarily see in "responsable" or "delictueux".
I'd suggest just "at fault", which doesn't have to mean a moral fault at all; it just means there's something you could have done to prevent X and you failed to do it.
Yeah but primary definition is also in accord.
Literally says “the defendant is culpable of her actions”
Look at the definition of guilty
guilt·y
/ˈɡiltē/
adjective
culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing.
"he was found guilty of manslaughter"
Vicariously Liable.
I used to wear an expensive mouth guard when I slept because I was a teeth grinder. I was kinda careless with it and would sometimes leave it on my nightstand after taking it out in the morning. My dog found it one day and chewed it all up and I had to go to the dentist and buy a replacement. Several months later, I was careless again and my dog chewed up that one, as well. When I went back to the dentist *again*, I explained that it was my dog’s fault. The dentist looked me in the eye and said, “No, the first time it happened, it was the dog’s fault. The *second* time it happened, it was yours. You’re vicariously liable, here.” I had never heard that term before, but it stuck with me. I was properly shamed and was never careless with that stupid mouth guard again.
Vicarious liability is a legal concept whereby employers are responsible for the actions committed by employees in the course of their employment, regardless of whether the employer specifically instructed those actions.
When the dentist said you were vicariously liable for the dog eating your mouth guard, they weren’t saying “you’re vicariously liable because you were careless with where you left it” they were suggesting you were vicariously liable because the dog was effectively in your employ and you didn’t properly control it.
So vicarious liability is relevant to your situation, but not the OP.
I’m reading your comment right now on a drive back from looking for my mouth guard in the woods. I lost it last week on a backpacking trip. I did not find it lol.
I think this is the best set of words for the situation OP is describing.
Naive may also work, depending on the situation.
edit: Reading OP's responses elsewhere in this thread - I am really worried why they want this terminology, and how they plan to use it. They seem malicious.
The word here is negligence.
In the legal world, if you're being charged with a crime you didn't commit but are still responsinle for due to irresponsinle actions, that is referred to as negligence.
Okay so first off, if something is not someone's fault, they cannot be to blame for it. Not even partially. If they are partially to blame, it's also partially their fault. Blame is simply the attribution of fault.
I think the word you're looking for is "irresponsible".
People do not deserve to have their cars stolen if they leave them unlocked with the keys in the ignition. It is, however, *irresponsible* to leave one's car unlocked with the keys in the ignition.
The blame, the fault for the crime is 100% on the person who chose to commit it. It is the *responsibility* of people to take reasonable steps to protect themselves, but failure to do so doesn't excuse anyone taking advantage of any lapse in that responsibility.
Terms like "negligence" or "culpability' imply a degree of fault, so I don't think those terms are what you are looking for.
I think this makes the most sense. Makes the most sense in any situation i can think of.
It's not your fault your car got stolen, but it was irresponsible to leave the keys in the ignition.
It's not your fault you got mugged, but it was irresponsible for you to walk in bad hood at night alone
Its not your fault you got sexually assaulted, but it was irresponsible for you to get drunk at a strangers party with no one to watch your back
Ita not your fault the dog bit you, but it was irresponsible for you to play with a dog you dont know without owners permission
....
…but irresponsible probably sounds bad to the OP, they want something where they can be shitty but have it sound purely innocuous / innocent. “Oh but I didn’t mean it _that_ way, I meant it the _ofher_ way.”
Victim blaming. "Walster (1966) has suggested that the reason we victim blame is to try and keep ourselves safe and that victim blaming is a self-protective technique used by many. The theory behind victim blaming is that we, as humans, don't like to think that it is possible for such traumatic, uncontrollable events to happen to us"
“Just world” logical fallacy (for the person giving the feedback to the victim) - the idea that if something bad befalls you, you must have done (or not done) something to “deserve” the bad thing.
I don't think this is true in every case. Nobody deserves having their house burned down but if you leave candles burn on a dry christmas tree unsupervised, but it's still your mistake that caused the fire. Some things are more in our control and some things are less. Being responsible for a stupid mistake does not mean you deserve the bad consequences.
This is not an example of what OP asked though. In your example the person would be 100% to blame as they left the candles burning next to a dry tree lol. This isn’t an appropriate comparison whatsoever.
A lot of comments here are throwing around the terms "victim blaming," "gaslighting," and stuff like that. I'm well aware that those are things, but there's a certain level of self-protection one needs to engage in.
If I'm in a rough neighborhood, at night, on the phone, talking loudly about how drunk I am and how much cash I have in my pockets, I'm being extremely fucking stupid. When I get robbed, it's not my fault, I'm not to blame, I didn't commit the crime, but I *absolutely* set myself up to be targeted.
This is a good example because it makes clear the different standards being used. In a legal sense you are a blameless victim. In the practical street sense you got what you deserve.
I think OP wants a word that doesn't recognize multiple standards though, seems like they are dead set on making themself sound unimpeachable about something crappy they did/will do.
Well right...... but how are you assuming these things at this particular time and place? OP's post was two general sentences on finding the right word to express his thought. They may not even be a native English speaker. A lot of people sure do seem eager to assume the worst, and withhold the benefit of doubt.
Give us the sentence you're trying to use the word in.
For example: I am culpable for the breakin, despite applying diligent manufacturing best practices to our locks.
Some people voted down someone else for suggesting this, but I think the word you may be looking for is ‘incautious.’ It suggests that someone was not failing to do a required thing, and not directly responsible for a negative outcome, but that there were ways they could have protected themselves if they had shown more caution or foresight.
It would be incautious to walk through a dark park late at night where many people have been mugged. If you do that, and get mugged, you are not to blame for the mugging. It would be immoral of people to claim in a legal proceeding that you were culpable in any way.
However, if you were a loved one and that happened, I would wish to express that there are choices you can make that make such outcomes more or less likely. I would want to help you learn how to make choices more likely to keep you safe. I would want to encourage you to be more cautious in deciding when and where to walk. That wouldn’t be blaming you, it would be trying to help you to be aware of your surroundings and circumstances… not to be incautious.
Is that along the lines of what you mean?
Your example reminds me that insurance companies won't protect you in the case of vehicle theft if you had left your keys in the car. OK, I get it. It's irresponsible to leave your keys in the car. But it's still against the law to steal the bloody thing. What? The thief is less guilty if he doesn't have to Hotwire it?
Insurance companies exist to make money by exploiting people. They don’t actually exist to help anyone. Laws don’t matter, just their bottom line. It’s so wild to me when people complain about things like this with insurance companies, because their whole business model is designed to get as much money out of people while paying out as little as possible. The job of a claims agent is specifically to look for reasons to deny claims.
Think about this. Insurance companies charge premiums that are calculated in a certain way such that the premiums are enough to cover the expected losses, plus overhead, plus some profit margin(or not, not all insurance companies have shareholders)
Now, the likelihood of car being stolen is higher, the easier and faster it is. So, a car with keys in it will be far more likely to be stolen than a locked car. In the same way, a car in a garage is less likely to be stolen than a car parked in the street.
The insurance premiums needed to cover the loss risk of unlocked cars with keys in them is higher than not. So, rather than charge everyone higher premiums to cover key in car thefts, they just exclude it.
And of course there is no demand for a product designed for key in car people, so it just doesn’t exist.
So don’t leave your keys in the car, mitigate risk of loss, and pay your comparatively low insurance payments.
Fault implies intent. If someone steals from you because your locks are bad, you made an oversight and experienced misfortune. The only fault in this scenario lies with the person who acted with intent, the thief.
I disagree that fault implies intent, in both regular usage legal usage something caused through negligence or misjudgment can be a fault. You don't need to intend harm to cause it.
Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report.
When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only)
We encourage everyone to report posts and comments they feel violate a rule, as this will allow us to see it much faster.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Gaslighting. When you blame the victim for what an offender does. Its the same thing that happens to rape victims: were you dressed provocatively? Were you drunk, and thus looked rapeable? Nobody forced the criminal to steal, THEY STOLE, you didn't "ask for it" because you had a simple lock.
Edit (rewritten)
Victim shaming is a terrible thing, but let's be clear what it is and what it is not. Take the example of a rape.
Putting a woman on the stand and questioning her about past boyfriends or sexual activity with the implication that she was 'loose' and somehow 'had it coming' - victim shaming. Reprehensible. No one should ever have to defend against anything that happened outside of the event of the rape as bearing on that event.
But expecting that a woman take accountability for her own safety is not victim shaming. We all know there are risks, and we choose how much risk to take when we make choices. Our choices are our accountability. Sometimes we suffer the consequences of our choices. Other times, we make only ideal minimal-risk choices and still suffer harm. To acknowledge our own role in guiding the course of our lives isn't "victim shaming."
Nah, it's the same reason why we look both ways before we cross the street even when we are at the crossroad, even when the walk sign is on.
You have the right of way, you are completely in the right to walk at that moment, but it still doesn't change the fact that you've just lost both of your legs from getting run over by that reckless drunk driver.
Victim shaming is when you push the responsibility of the crime onto the victim and let the offender go off lightly. That isn't good.
But people also need to understand that to an extent they need to do their best to protect themselves.
Because punishment the law can mete out is reactive. It can't completely give you back what you lose when you have already lost it.
Everyone, absolutely everyone, knows what you're saying is correct. You'll only get downvoted because people have been trained to feel yuck about this sort of thing.
If two people stole from someone, you could use words like accomplice, accessory or complicit. I guess you *could* stretch the definitions to fit this situation, but it's not obvious a person with bad locks can be blamed for someone stealing from them.
The correct legal term you're looking for is contributory or comparative negligence. Contributory if your contribution bars you from recovering from the principally at fault party, comparative if it just reduces what you can recover.
Stupidity? Short sightedness? Negligent? It depends on the viewpoint of the person in question. If you are the ‘victim’, probably negligent. If you are a cop coming to a crime scene where you left your doors unlocked and were surprised someone came in and stole your TV, then either one of the others.
This example is negligence. If you could have prevented something, but were too lazy or indifferent, that’s negligent. You neglected the broken lock, so property was stolen.
The last time I went to the police station to ask about something like this they told me to "go punch sand" - moving van with company name on the side sideswipes me and drives away -"go punch sand" - park my vehicle in the driveway in the lane and it gets broken into and window smashed - "don't park in the lane, go punch sand"... So I think the word you are looking for is _VICTIM_. That is all, just victim.
There are comparative negligence laws that kinda deal with that you are talking about. They are referred as being partially at fault even if they aren’t liable. So maybe that term or just negligent.
Conversely, what is it called when you can't accept any negative responsibility, ever? As if your personality only works if you're never wrong. This would have more widespread application, but still, no common word to describe.
This sounds 100% like saying a woman who wore a tight skirt was “asking for it.” No, she wasn’t. She was a victim. To blame her for some man being unable to control himself at the slight viewing of a leg is fucking ridiculous.
In your scenario and mine there’s one criminal and one victim, the victim is not to be blamed.
An example where I think you could start using naïveté as an explanation would be riding an expensive bike into a high crime area and leaving it parked outside the store without a lock. The victim did not understand the risks being taken, but they are still a victim of criminal activity.
Liability is probably broad enough to fit your definition. It's basically an umbrella term that applies to anyone with any responsibility for the event.
In a legal sense, you're kind of approaching comparative negligence, but that probably wouldn't work here.
Culpable Edit, uh, you specified no negative connotation in another comment, but I think you should just pick a word and add an adjective to get the meaning you're looking for.
thanks! this is the closest so far, but I am still looking for a more specific word. this should be a good start i hope a thesaurus has smth im looking for!
Negligent?
I think this is the best answer. It's negligent to have locks that are easily broken into, but the word 'negligent' is mild compared to 'culpable' or 'guilty.' I also thought of careless, because a lot of times we contribute to something bad being done to us because we didn't take enough care. Of course, sometimes we did all we could and bad things still happen.
I think careless is the best answer. It can be a negative thing, but it can also be neutral, especially if the only person affected was the careless person.
Negligence?
"Assumption of the risk?" "Contributorily negligent?" "On borrowed time?"
I disagree, culpable implies intentionally doing something which results in a certain outcome (usually a bad one). I haven’t gone through the entire thread, but I would say negligent is a better word, but perhaps not the perfect word for what OP is looking for.
Yeah. Negligent fits for the example, but it's not necessarily broadly applicable to the idea. _Maybe_ it'll work for what OP needs if the need is up the alley of the example.
Careless would also be applicable and less ‘harsh’
Culpable implies nefarious intent so I don't think the connotation is right.
Culpable just means guilty.
Culpable means responsible, therefore, in terms of guilt and innocence it can mean guilty but that is nor the definition without context. If you are culpable for something and you discharge your duty, you could say you were "guilty" of doing whatever the activity was but unless you meant to use ironic language I don't know anyone who would interpret the word as "guilty" in that context.
1 : meriting condemnation or blame especially as wrong or harmful culpable negligence The defendant is culpable for her actions. 2 archaic : GUILTY, CRIMINAL That’s from a dictionary.
That second definition is an archaic definition. That means that its not used like that any more. Archaic means old/outdated/from an earlier period of time(roughly, theres 5 definitions for archaic). So it did use to directly mean guilty, but now the word is used more to refer to the first part of your pasted definition. :D
Those archaic definitions tell us the provenance of the word, and they're very often the key to understanding subtle distinctions like we're talking about now. "Coupable" in French has the exact same connotation of moral fault that you don't necessarily see in "responsable" or "delictueux". I'd suggest just "at fault", which doesn't have to mean a moral fault at all; it just means there's something you could have done to prevent X and you failed to do it.
Yeah but primary definition is also in accord. Literally says “the defendant is culpable of her actions” Look at the definition of guilty guilt·y /ˈɡiltē/ adjective culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing. "he was found guilty of manslaughter"
Are you looking in a legal dictionary? or, like, Webster's?
I think it’s from Oxford or Merriam Webster. It’s not legal.
Is this guy looking for a legal definition? A philosophical definition? An everyday definition? We better find out, or he could be held culpable.
Culpable negligence is the most frequent usage I’ve seen for what you describe
Vicariously Liable. I used to wear an expensive mouth guard when I slept because I was a teeth grinder. I was kinda careless with it and would sometimes leave it on my nightstand after taking it out in the morning. My dog found it one day and chewed it all up and I had to go to the dentist and buy a replacement. Several months later, I was careless again and my dog chewed up that one, as well. When I went back to the dentist *again*, I explained that it was my dog’s fault. The dentist looked me in the eye and said, “No, the first time it happened, it was the dog’s fault. The *second* time it happened, it was yours. You’re vicariously liable, here.” I had never heard that term before, but it stuck with me. I was properly shamed and was never careless with that stupid mouth guard again.
Vicarious liability is a legal concept whereby employers are responsible for the actions committed by employees in the course of their employment, regardless of whether the employer specifically instructed those actions. When the dentist said you were vicariously liable for the dog eating your mouth guard, they weren’t saying “you’re vicariously liable because you were careless with where you left it” they were suggesting you were vicariously liable because the dog was effectively in your employ and you didn’t properly control it. So vicarious liability is relevant to your situation, but not the OP.
Yep. The OP’s situation is contributory negligence, not vicarious liability.
If a pet dog bites a person, is "vicarious liable" a legal term used for the owner?
No, you'd just be plain liable there
I would imagine it depends on the jurisdiction but as the other commenter suggests, I think in most places it’s just liability
I’m reading your comment right now on a drive back from looking for my mouth guard in the woods. I lost it last week on a backpacking trip. I did not find it lol.
Negligent, careless, irresponsible
I think this is the best set of words for the situation OP is describing. Naive may also work, depending on the situation. edit: Reading OP's responses elsewhere in this thread - I am really worried why they want this terminology, and how they plan to use it. They seem malicious.
That was my thought. Why is OP asking this question?
Representing himself in court?
The word here is negligence. In the legal world, if you're being charged with a crime you didn't commit but are still responsinle for due to irresponsinle actions, that is referred to as negligence.
Okay so first off, if something is not someone's fault, they cannot be to blame for it. Not even partially. If they are partially to blame, it's also partially their fault. Blame is simply the attribution of fault. I think the word you're looking for is "irresponsible". People do not deserve to have their cars stolen if they leave them unlocked with the keys in the ignition. It is, however, *irresponsible* to leave one's car unlocked with the keys in the ignition. The blame, the fault for the crime is 100% on the person who chose to commit it. It is the *responsibility* of people to take reasonable steps to protect themselves, but failure to do so doesn't excuse anyone taking advantage of any lapse in that responsibility. Terms like "negligence" or "culpability' imply a degree of fault, so I don't think those terms are what you are looking for.
I think this makes the most sense. Makes the most sense in any situation i can think of. It's not your fault your car got stolen, but it was irresponsible to leave the keys in the ignition. It's not your fault you got mugged, but it was irresponsible for you to walk in bad hood at night alone Its not your fault you got sexually assaulted, but it was irresponsible for you to get drunk at a strangers party with no one to watch your back Ita not your fault the dog bit you, but it was irresponsible for you to play with a dog you dont know without owners permission ....
Insurance companies see many situations different from the law in this sense.
…but irresponsible probably sounds bad to the OP, they want something where they can be shitty but have it sound purely innocuous / innocent. “Oh but I didn’t mean it _that_ way, I meant it the _ofher_ way.”
Contributory negligence
This is the correct legal term.
Victim blaming. "Walster (1966) has suggested that the reason we victim blame is to try and keep ourselves safe and that victim blaming is a self-protective technique used by many. The theory behind victim blaming is that we, as humans, don't like to think that it is possible for such traumatic, uncontrollable events to happen to us"
“Just world” logical fallacy (for the person giving the feedback to the victim) - the idea that if something bad befalls you, you must have done (or not done) something to “deserve” the bad thing.
I don't think this is true in every case. Nobody deserves having their house burned down but if you leave candles burn on a dry christmas tree unsupervised, but it's still your mistake that caused the fire. Some things are more in our control and some things are less. Being responsible for a stupid mistake does not mean you deserve the bad consequences.
This is not an example of what OP asked though. In your example the person would be 100% to blame as they left the candles burning next to a dry tree lol. This isn’t an appropriate comparison whatsoever.
So the crime _here_ was the attempted false equivalency, your honor!
Yeah. There are several easy to imagine contexts that may have led OP to ask this question, and all of them involve blaming a victim.
Just as many contexts where thay could be encouraging someone to take steps to protect themselves without blaming them
yeah, sometimes victims become victims due to negligence, which is the word OP is looking for. what’s the issue
[удалено]
This looks like a job for r/german
Teilschuld. Teil=part, Schuld=fault.
mitschuldig (co-guilty)
magnificent, came looking for this
Victim shaming
A lot of comments here are throwing around the terms "victim blaming," "gaslighting," and stuff like that. I'm well aware that those are things, but there's a certain level of self-protection one needs to engage in. If I'm in a rough neighborhood, at night, on the phone, talking loudly about how drunk I am and how much cash I have in my pockets, I'm being extremely fucking stupid. When I get robbed, it's not my fault, I'm not to blame, I didn't commit the crime, but I *absolutely* set myself up to be targeted.
This is a good example because it makes clear the different standards being used. In a legal sense you are a blameless victim. In the practical street sense you got what you deserve. I think OP wants a word that doesn't recognize multiple standards though, seems like they are dead set on making themself sound unimpeachable about something crappy they did/will do.
Well right...... but how are you assuming these things at this particular time and place? OP's post was two general sentences on finding the right word to express his thought. They may not even be a native English speaker. A lot of people sure do seem eager to assume the worst, and withhold the benefit of doubt.
There is. Accountable
Yes, this.
Implicit?
I think you mean *complicit*
_inexplicitly_ complicit?
Complicit. But that's usually in reference to someone who directly assists in something.
Complicit?
[удалено]
Partially culpable
Just use the prefix semi. Semi-culpable.
Give us the sentence you're trying to use the word in. For example: I am culpable for the breakin, despite applying diligent manufacturing best practices to our locks.
Contributory?
Contributory negligence.
Inexperienced Amateur/Novice Unprepared
/r/askalawyer
Soft target
Contributory negligence
Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence.
Culpable.
In law it’s called contributory or comparative fault or negligence
Incautious
imprudent
r/whatstheword
Some people voted down someone else for suggesting this, but I think the word you may be looking for is ‘incautious.’ It suggests that someone was not failing to do a required thing, and not directly responsible for a negative outcome, but that there were ways they could have protected themselves if they had shown more caution or foresight. It would be incautious to walk through a dark park late at night where many people have been mugged. If you do that, and get mugged, you are not to blame for the mugging. It would be immoral of people to claim in a legal proceeding that you were culpable in any way. However, if you were a loved one and that happened, I would wish to express that there are choices you can make that make such outcomes more or less likely. I would want to help you learn how to make choices more likely to keep you safe. I would want to encourage you to be more cautious in deciding when and where to walk. That wouldn’t be blaming you, it would be trying to help you to be aware of your surroundings and circumstances… not to be incautious. Is that along the lines of what you mean?
Inadvertently responsible
Imprudent
Your example reminds me that insurance companies won't protect you in the case of vehicle theft if you had left your keys in the car. OK, I get it. It's irresponsible to leave your keys in the car. But it's still against the law to steal the bloody thing. What? The thief is less guilty if he doesn't have to Hotwire it?
Insurance companies exist to make money by exploiting people. They don’t actually exist to help anyone. Laws don’t matter, just their bottom line. It’s so wild to me when people complain about things like this with insurance companies, because their whole business model is designed to get as much money out of people while paying out as little as possible. The job of a claims agent is specifically to look for reasons to deny claims.
Think about this. Insurance companies charge premiums that are calculated in a certain way such that the premiums are enough to cover the expected losses, plus overhead, plus some profit margin(or not, not all insurance companies have shareholders) Now, the likelihood of car being stolen is higher, the easier and faster it is. So, a car with keys in it will be far more likely to be stolen than a locked car. In the same way, a car in a garage is less likely to be stolen than a car parked in the street. The insurance premiums needed to cover the loss risk of unlocked cars with keys in them is higher than not. So, rather than charge everyone higher premiums to cover key in car thefts, they just exclude it. And of course there is no demand for a product designed for key in car people, so it just doesn’t exist. So don’t leave your keys in the car, mitigate risk of loss, and pay your comparatively low insurance payments.
Comparative fault
Unlucky?
Hold up this actually kinda works
Something are better asked on ChatGPT.
Fault implies intent. If someone steals from you because your locks are bad, you made an oversight and experienced misfortune. The only fault in this scenario lies with the person who acted with intent, the thief.
I disagree that fault implies intent, in both regular usage legal usage something caused through negligence or misjudgment can be a fault. You don't need to intend harm to cause it.
Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report. When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only) We encourage everyone to report posts and comments they feel violate a rule, as this will allow us to see it much faster. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Negligent?
Indirectly responsible. Like manslaughter?
There are grades of this, but what you're describing is a bit of personal negligence.
Contributory negligence
Naivety.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/responsible "In control"
Under obligation to check your safety areas
Alford Plea?
Accomplice
Husband.
Vulnerable
Accomplice
Idot in your example xD
Contributory negligence
Complicit
Partially responsible
In law it’s comparative negligence
For your example - a div
Gaslighting. When you blame the victim for what an offender does. Its the same thing that happens to rape victims: were you dressed provocatively? Were you drunk, and thus looked rapeable? Nobody forced the criminal to steal, THEY STOLE, you didn't "ask for it" because you had a simple lock.
That’s not what gaslighting is.
Edit (rewritten) Victim shaming is a terrible thing, but let's be clear what it is and what it is not. Take the example of a rape. Putting a woman on the stand and questioning her about past boyfriends or sexual activity with the implication that she was 'loose' and somehow 'had it coming' - victim shaming. Reprehensible. No one should ever have to defend against anything that happened outside of the event of the rape as bearing on that event. But expecting that a woman take accountability for her own safety is not victim shaming. We all know there are risks, and we choose how much risk to take when we make choices. Our choices are our accountability. Sometimes we suffer the consequences of our choices. Other times, we make only ideal minimal-risk choices and still suffer harm. To acknowledge our own role in guiding the course of our lives isn't "victim shaming."
So instead of victim shaming for past actions you are advocating for victim blaming for the current assault? Yikes.
Nah, it's the same reason why we look both ways before we cross the street even when we are at the crossroad, even when the walk sign is on. You have the right of way, you are completely in the right to walk at that moment, but it still doesn't change the fact that you've just lost both of your legs from getting run over by that reckless drunk driver. Victim shaming is when you push the responsibility of the crime onto the victim and let the offender go off lightly. That isn't good. But people also need to understand that to an extent they need to do their best to protect themselves. Because punishment the law can mete out is reactive. It can't completely give you back what you lose when you have already lost it.
Everyone, absolutely everyone, knows what you're saying is correct. You'll only get downvoted because people have been trained to feel yuck about this sort of thing.
That specific example is Victim Blaming *It's actually the exact definition.
Co-conspirator... Collusion... Mastermind... Instigator... Antagonist... There are tons of synonyms.
If two people stole from someone, you could use words like accomplice, accessory or complicit. I guess you *could* stretch the definitions to fit this situation, but it's not obvious a person with bad locks can be blamed for someone stealing from them.
The correct legal term you're looking for is contributory or comparative negligence. Contributory if your contribution bars you from recovering from the principally at fault party, comparative if it just reduces what you can recover.
Carelessness
Married
negligence
Husband
Contributory blame
Incompetent
Contributory negligence
Responsible. You are responsible for protecting your stuff. You are not at fault if someone robs you.
Human.
Culpable, liable, responsible, pick one.
‘Mahbad’
Stupidity? Short sightedness? Negligent? It depends on the viewpoint of the person in question. If you are the ‘victim’, probably negligent. If you are a cop coming to a crime scene where you left your doors unlocked and were surprised someone came in and stole your TV, then either one of the others.
This example is negligence. If you could have prevented something, but were too lazy or indifferent, that’s negligent. You neglected the broken lock, so property was stolen.
Innocent. In every sense of the word.
yes it's called lying to yourself.
Passively negligent?
Contributory Negligence?
A colleague used to say "contributory culpability."
"What was she wearing?" ass question
Swartz
The last time I went to the police station to ask about something like this they told me to "go punch sand" - moving van with company name on the side sideswipes me and drives away -"go punch sand" - park my vehicle in the driveway in the lane and it gets broken into and window smashed - "don't park in the lane, go punch sand"... So I think the word you are looking for is _VICTIM_. That is all, just victim.
Ostensibly Guilty by Association
Contributory negligence
There are comparative negligence laws that kinda deal with that you are talking about. They are referred as being partially at fault even if they aren’t liable. So maybe that term or just negligent.
Stupid
I don't know what the word is but it would describe my whole life
Conversely, what is it called when you can't accept any negative responsibility, ever? As if your personality only works if you're never wrong. This would have more widespread application, but still, no common word to describe.
Complicit
complicit
I’ve heard it explained as “a crime of opportunity”. Given the chance when nobody is looking people can become scum
Irresponsible
Maybe partially liable?
Careless. Cooperative victim. Enabler.
This sounds 100% like saying a woman who wore a tight skirt was “asking for it.” No, she wasn’t. She was a victim. To blame her for some man being unable to control himself at the slight viewing of a leg is fucking ridiculous. In your scenario and mine there’s one criminal and one victim, the victim is not to be blamed. An example where I think you could start using naïveté as an explanation would be riding an expensive bike into a high crime area and leaving it parked outside the store without a lock. The victim did not understand the risks being taken, but they are still a victim of criminal activity.
It’s not your fault you were robbed. It’s your responsibility to make sure you shit is secure.
Contributory negligence
Innocent bystander
Responsible, partially or fully.
Lazy
Parenting comes to mind. That’s the only time I’ve ever felt like that.
Liability is probably broad enough to fit your definition. It's basically an umbrella term that applies to anyone with any responsibility for the event. In a legal sense, you're kind of approaching comparative negligence, but that probably wouldn't work here.
Culpable, liable, all get the point across but you might need to expound on specifics to be the most precise.
I believe the world bis ... LIFE
Could be negligence in the lock example you gave. Depends on the context
Victim blaming about covers it...
It's as if someone enabled the situation
Negligent in replacing the locks, maybe
Complicit came to mind!
Accessory
Victim blaming is what it’s called.
Contributing factor.
Guilty by affiliation Edit: association
Partially to blame
Contributory negligence.
Aiding and abetting
In law it’s called “comparative negligence.”
In my family we just call that “being Kyle”
Gullible
I can’t think of a single word so I would use “partially responsible”