• Knightfox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I agree with the sentiment, but sadly can’t agree with the implementation. Laws exist in a neutral environment, you can’t bypass them just because the other party is someone society disagrees with. Even if they are committing crimes you can’t unilaterally exact justice against them due to vigilante laws.

    This event took place in Germany, Crimical Code §§ 202a-d criminalizes unauthorized access, interception, and manipulation of data, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment, covering acts like phishing and data espionage. Within German law this should be a crime. Germany has laws against neo-nazis, but this would be vigilantism which Germany also prohibits.

    It’s a slippery slope to ignore your own laws because they support the popular narrative.

    • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Even if they are committing crimes you can’t unilaterally exact justice against them due to vigilante laws.

      You can actually, self-defense to stop someone from committing a felony is legal in the US.

      • Knightfox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        In no court in the world would you be able to say you were acting in self-defense while acting from 6000 km away.

          • Knightfox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            First of all, it’s NY State, not NYC, and Article 35.10 of the Penal Code says you are allowed to use physical force for self-defense or in the defense of others, but the very next clause is 35.15 which says that you have a duty to retreat unless there is immediate danger.

            In a NY court of law you could argue that you were acting in the defense of others, but you would not be able to prove that there was imminent danger.