So why do the minority of cases, that are authentic, should be penalised?

You might call it statistics or social consensus... For the same reason for which you would be prosecuted if caught driving under influence even if the road was to nowhere and totally devoid of traffic so the fact of you being under influence would not matter safety-wise. There is no reason for the society to incentivize greed so if you are lucky you can escape with such a deal but don't expect overwhelming support of your actions. And I still have doubts about those minority cases... all of them involve either uninformed counter-party or counter-party in difficult position forcing him or her to dispose of an asset well below fair value. In both cases there are some issues which can be judged as morally doubtful.

The case in question is clear case of one greedy guy being outsmarted by a thief so the so called "victim" should seek recourse to the thief as EOS community doesn't owe him a thing.

You think your power is limited by your own votes! I think you can influence many more votes than your own. That's the difference.

Nope. I think that if you are a member of any given community then you have the right to participate and try to influence the outcome with tools provided. But if you are not a member then mixing up in community affairs smells fishy.

If you don't like the logic, why not work for a better one? "Stay away" is not always the best advice imho.

See above. Plus what you call "better logic" is the logic which failed many times in the past ("well, you have been robbed but we can not do anything about it because of holy blockchain principles blah, blah, blah..."). That's why EOS logic is different - it's an experiment exploring different development paths.