3 ms·
Its called fait accompli. If I go to someone who stole my bike, beat them and take the bike back, yeah I do get to keep the loot, even if they prosecute me, whi
by midjji 3y ago
Its called fait accompli. If I go to someone who stole my bike, beat them and take the bike back, yeah I do get to keep the loot, even if they prosecute me, which is unlikely, and even if they succeed in prosecuting me which is also unlikely, I still get to keep the loot. Its not the way the legal system or the law is supposed to apply, but in reality the idea or intent of law is irrelevant, its its practical application that matters. It is why I explicitly say they get away with it because they mostly do it to criminals.
No one in their sane mind think the law is intended to allow the threats they made etc, or that they had the rights to do what they did, but they did it anyways, and as the story shows, they got away with it. Think about that again, they did this to some rich white geek with a platform and they got away with it. What do you think they would get away with against a known criminal...
- oliwarner 3y agoYikes. No, several times. Fait accompli is not a legal defence, it's a description of something that is now irreversible. And taking things entirely reversible. This is not the same as taking back stolen property from a thief. If you want to stretch analogies, it's like beating up the kid that bought your stolen [still disputed] bike from a bike shop. The kid here didn't do anything wrong. If the goods were stolen, there might be an argument for a civil process to get them back to their owner, but if you commit a crime in the act of repatriating stolen goods, you could lose you right to them. In this case they "got away with it" because this kid didn't know his rights, fell for the threats and let them taken the goods. It's nasty but a hundred million miles away from the felony B&E, assault and theft being described as acceptable a few posts up.