I think you are completely underestimating the importance of this debate. There are valid arguments on both sides, as you can read here, and the decision fork or not to fork is fundamental for Ethereum's future.
Also, calling the attacker a "thief" is quite inappropriate - it makes me think you are able to view the incident from only one perceptive. I could call also call Mr. Tual a "thief" as he clearly calls for stealing property that might have been legally acquired.
All I am saying is that this is a very complex case and you are oversimplifying it badly.
How many people would have put money into the DAO had this exploit been known in advance? Few to none. The attacker is exploiting a flaw in the system to undermine the expectations of every DAO participant and even the DAO developers. In my mind that makes him a thief. But at a minimum it makes him highly immoral. The fact that property can sometimes be "legally acquired" (if that's even true in this case) doesn't mean that it's moral to acquire it.
The importance of the debate and what valid points it raises from each side is not at all important at a time of crisis. Firefighters do not take time to discuss the method of saving the victims at the time of the fire, you save the victim, you put off the fire, then you discuss if your actions for the next fire could be improved. When dealing with crisis you go into crisis mode, especially if debating the crisis can result in a much bigger harm than taking one approach or another. In these debates taking place now, the dao holders are not saved yet, but also the eth holders are being severely punished. And while we are adding more victims, why not do this, fork and save the dao victims, then take a few months to discuss if what we did was moral or not, and if your argument wins we can fork back and give the hacker his legally obtained tokens, assuming you actually own some of those tokens and are willing to give them back to the hacker because you support the legality of his actions. Why force everyone who owns tokens to take your side by doing nothing. Let them choose.
The doing nothing approach is equal to being on one side of the debate. You have the right to debate your side, but only if you too stand to lose your property.
I want to see if we fork how many will actually leave tokens in the DAO because they believe the hacker obtained them legally. Would that not be a better standard to measure the consensus by?
The so called "DAO victims" need to take responsibility for their reckless actions and let this process sort itself out in its own time. The actual victims here are those Ethereum holders who knew how risky the DAO was and stayed away from it, yet still suffered the consequences. For many of them the decision to fork erases the fundamental reason why they made their investment.