Harm was caused by the prank performer, so there is a forgery case possibility. Your post proves why a "jury of your peers" is a flawed concept--most people don't know the law, they just have opinions.
A forgery case seems to make sense, but a theft case doesn't (unless for example evidence is retrieved from the poster in the form of stolen potatoes).
As for a jury, I think that perhaps it makes more sense to free a person than to find them guilty.
I think the fraud is against the one who put up the "free potatoes" post. The people picking up the potatoes were innocent, just reacting to a great deal.
Here in the states, IMO, the last thing you ever want to do is go to trial with a jury of your peers. Too many close cases are decided by people who, even though they have the law explained to them, don't grasp the gravity/concept of what the authors of the laws meant. Then, years later, if there's a break in the case, the state could take a very long time to release you, if they ever do. And God help you if you're a minority!
There are a number of legal principles that you are completely, and totally, incorrect on.
The key legal principle is causation. The poster's false statement was the direct cause of the farmer's losses. Under general tort principles, a person who makes false statements that cause foreseeable harm to another can be held liable for damages, regardless of whether they participated in the actual harmful act.
Negligent Misrepresentation: The poster could be liable for negligently spreading false information without verifying its accuracy. Even if there was no intent to harm, the law recognizes liability when someone carelessly disseminates false information that a reasonable person would know could cause harm.
Proximate Cause Doctrine: The legal reasoning follows the principle that the poster's false statement was the "but for" cause of the theft. Without the false Facebook post, hundreds of people wouldn't have descended on the farm believing they had permission to take the potatoes. The intervening acts of the potato-takers doesn't break the chain of causation because the mass theft was a foreseeable consequence of the false post.
I don't know if all of these exist in Polish Law, but they tend to hold across most western legal systems in some form or other.
To bring it down to the "its a prank, bro" defense you are invoking. The accepted counterargument is "doesn't matter if it was a prank, bro. The actions of the poster were the direct cause for the damages."
You did invoke that the act was a prank in your original reasoning ("The original poster performed a prank..."). That actually hurts the posters case, since it points towards intention, and a reasonably foreseeable outcome.
In any event, you can absolutely be charged for a crime that you did not participate in, but that you incited in a huge number of jurisdictions.
Under many legal systems, when multiple parties contribute to a single harm, they can be held jointly liable. The poster created the initial false information, and the people who took the potatoes acted on that information. Both contributed to the farmer's loss.
Additionally, incitement is frequently a separate crime that can be charged in some jurisdictions.
to take it to the logical ends, if you posted a bounty on someone's life as "a prank", and it led to that person being murdered, you would absolutely be charged with murder in most jurisdictions.
Why do you keep presupposing that a prank is a defense? I never said it is! You keep making false accusations against me alleging that I am defending the prankster when I never was. It is you who brought up the "its a prank, bro" defense, not me.
My entire point, as I had noted too clearly, is that a prank is not theft. Despite the causation, for which there could exist disparate charges, the person cannot reasonably be charged with theft in a just world (unless additional evidence is presented). Please go back and read the top level comment by silexia which forms the root of the discussion.
Meh. In the US, this prankster would stand a good chance of getting charged with some crime. Also the farmer could probably obtain a civil judgement against the prankster in the amount of the estimated market value of the potatoes.
(I don't know enough about the criminal code of any of the 50 states to say what crime specifically.)
That is not universally true. Under US law, incitement is a crime if it pertains to imminent action. If it's an abstract discussion about the future, then it falls under free speech law, which is not a crime.
I do acknowledge and understand that this particular case did involve imminent action, and it was in Poland. Even so, it is wrong to generalize a law. For those in the US, it is an insult to the First Amendment to generalize it.
[flagged]
Harm was caused by the prank performer, so there is a forgery case possibility. Your post proves why a "jury of your peers" is a flawed concept--most people don't know the law, they just have opinions.
A forgery case seems to make sense, but a theft case doesn't (unless for example evidence is retrieved from the poster in the form of stolen potatoes).
As for a jury, I think that perhaps it makes more sense to free a person than to find them guilty.
I think the fraud is against the one who put up the "free potatoes" post. The people picking up the potatoes were innocent, just reacting to a great deal.
Here in the states, IMO, the last thing you ever want to do is go to trial with a jury of your peers. Too many close cases are decided by people who, even though they have the law explained to them, don't grasp the gravity/concept of what the authors of the laws meant. Then, years later, if there's a break in the case, the state could take a very long time to release you, if they ever do. And God help you if you're a minority!
There are a number of legal principles that you are completely, and totally, incorrect on.
The key legal principle is causation. The poster's false statement was the direct cause of the farmer's losses. Under general tort principles, a person who makes false statements that cause foreseeable harm to another can be held liable for damages, regardless of whether they participated in the actual harmful act.
Negligent Misrepresentation: The poster could be liable for negligently spreading false information without verifying its accuracy. Even if there was no intent to harm, the law recognizes liability when someone carelessly disseminates false information that a reasonable person would know could cause harm.
Proximate Cause Doctrine: The legal reasoning follows the principle that the poster's false statement was the "but for" cause of the theft. Without the false Facebook post, hundreds of people wouldn't have descended on the farm believing they had permission to take the potatoes. The intervening acts of the potato-takers doesn't break the chain of causation because the mass theft was a foreseeable consequence of the false post.
I don't know if all of these exist in Polish Law, but they tend to hold across most western legal systems in some form or other.
To bring it down to the "its a prank, bro" defense you are invoking. The accepted counterargument is "doesn't matter if it was a prank, bro. The actions of the poster were the direct cause for the damages."
[flagged]
You did invoke that the act was a prank in your original reasoning ("The original poster performed a prank..."). That actually hurts the posters case, since it points towards intention, and a reasonably foreseeable outcome.
In any event, you can absolutely be charged for a crime that you did not participate in, but that you incited in a huge number of jurisdictions.
Under many legal systems, when multiple parties contribute to a single harm, they can be held jointly liable. The poster created the initial false information, and the people who took the potatoes acted on that information. Both contributed to the farmer's loss.
Additionally, incitement is frequently a separate crime that can be charged in some jurisdictions.
to take it to the logical ends, if you posted a bounty on someone's life as "a prank", and it led to that person being murdered, you would absolutely be charged with murder in most jurisdictions.
Why do you keep presupposing that a prank is a defense? I never said it is! You keep making false accusations against me alleging that I am defending the prankster when I never was. It is you who brought up the "its a prank, bro" defense, not me.
My entire point, as I had noted too clearly, is that a prank is not theft. Despite the causation, for which there could exist disparate charges, the person cannot reasonably be charged with theft in a just world (unless additional evidence is presented). Please go back and read the top level comment by silexia which forms the root of the discussion.
I never said that the original poster cannot be charged
You literally wrote:
The original poster performed a prank, and could be found guilty of it.
"He could be found guilty of a prank" is functionally identical to "he could not be charged".
I am not
That's exactly what you did, and I quoted it at the top of this comment, in case you don't recall.
> I guess they don't teach objective reasoning in school.
You should have gone to school!
[flagged]
Poland doesn't use juries. This case, if brought, would be decided by a panel of professional and lay judges.
Meh. In the US, this prankster would stand a good chance of getting charged with some crime. Also the farmer could probably obtain a civil judgement against the prankster in the amount of the estimated market value of the potatoes.
(I don't know enough about the criminal code of any of the 50 states to say what crime specifically.)
Inciting people to commit a criminal act is a criminal act in itself.
That is not universally true. Under US law, incitement is a crime if it pertains to imminent action. If it's an abstract discussion about the future, then it falls under free speech law, which is not a crime.
I do acknowledge and understand that this particular case did involve imminent action, and it was in Poland. Even so, it is wrong to generalize a law. For those in the US, it is an insult to the First Amendment to generalize it.