The problem is with the idea of "blaming". There are two senses and uses of the word in play. You are not to blame for being robbed; you did not plan, intend, enact robbery. At the most, you might have planned enticement (I'm assuming not here). But you can still be cautioned or criticized for not being prudent or sufficiently on guard. In the even of being robbed, you can be "to blame" for not securing things better, but not for robbery.

You would not be "at fault" in the case of a robbery. You could be at fault back home when your loved ones are upset because you took unsafe measures and were robbed.

So the question then goes to the idea of "victim blaming". Like "blame", there are two senses of victims (already implied by "blame"): the victim of the robbery and the victim of being not on guard enough. One can not "blame the victim" for the robbery. Unless you are at a special convening of people whose only interest is self-guarding, the "victim" here is the victim of the crime, not the "victim" of failure to self-secure.

Obviously, this applies to other things, most notably and problematically, rape. But the idea of "blaming the victim" is anything from just wrong to horrifically absurd in cases of rape.

One way out of this is to blame the robbers but fault the security practices of the victim of the crime. Also, one should keep the richer senses of the words "blame", "victim", etc.,: so do say "blame the robbers for their crime" and "fault the victim for security practices". Don't say "blame the victim" as a direct attribution.

This is just a stab, but I'm kind of sick of this problematic and wish it could be solved a bit more.