Holding someone else criminally responsible for the actions of another is a new concept that has only been around for the last few decades.
It is an anti gun thought process used by the anti's when their actions to ban firearms, proved futile. Since they couldn't get bans passed, they went to the next best thing and tried to ban behavior.
So, they demonize the tool and anyone that owns it and they go after the one that provided it, in spite of the fact that there may have been NO wrongdoing on the part of the owner other than to own a tool that they hate.
Its a very flawed and immoral process that they proliferate and they attempt to pass it off as normal behavior...a thought process that would encourage the legal action of someone spilling coffee in their lap and suing the resturaunt because it was hot.
No locking devices were mentioned. It is entirely possible that none were required, thus, no law was broken.