Maybe the theft was reported AFTER A sent the coins.
A accepts coins from thief (unknown to A).
A sends coins to B
blacklist updated to include theft
B client reports coins are tainted.
So who gets stuck with the blocked coins? A? B? It certain isn't the thief he already got away with it.
1. If A and B both want to optionally block tainted coins, then they will have to work it out between themselves.
If A did receive the coins from the thief, then A has or should have some information about who the thief is. He can share that info with the world and with law enforcement. The coin blocking actually alerts A very quickly, so he can take action. If A is running a don't ask don't tell business, like a remixer, then that's the risk he takes.
A might be stuck if he was selling immediate delivery goods, like ebooks music, etc. If he was selling goods that need to be mailed, the handling takes a day or two, which gives him time to send the coins back to where he got them from and request clean coins.
2.
You have a point. I think most people who use a blacklist will use a very conservative one. If the thief is sitting on the coins, those coins will go into the list. But if, by the time the dust clears, the thief has spent the coins, a conservative list will not list the coins.
The bitfloor thief is STILL SITTING ON THE COINS. So I think most people would be fine with blacklisting them. But nobody will use a list that today lists coins from the Mt. Gox theft a year ago. People who wish to block tainted coins will have choices as to which coins exactly they block and as to which list to use.