In this comment on another stack a user claims:
Even in thoroughly socialist places such as e.g. Germany where criminals have more rights than lawful people (see e.g. BGB 858 and 859 which not only say that you (the owner) aren't allowed to take back your property from a "possessor" (thief) against the thief's will, but the thief is even entitled to use physical force against you)
I found this hard to believe so I checked the mentioned paragraph § 859 BGB online.
Section 2 states:
Wird eine bewegliche Sache dem Besitzer mittels verbotener Eigenmacht weggenommen, so darf er sie dem auf frischer Tat betroffenen oder verfolgten Täter mit Gewalt wieder abnehmen.
(I used google tranlate for this because I lack the vocabulary to translate a juristic text)
If a movable thing is taken away from the possessor by means of a unlawful interference of one's own, then he may forcibly remove it from the perpetrator who has been affected or persecuted in the act.
However § 858 BGB says in section 2:
Der durch verbotene Eigenmacht erlangte Besitz ist fehlerhaft. Die Fehlerhaftigkeit muss der Nachfolger im Besitz gegen sich gelten lassen, wenn er Erbe des Besitzers ist oder die Fehlerhaftigkeit des Besitzes seines Vorgängers bei dem Erwerb kennt.
The possession obtained by unlawful interference is faulty. The defective property must be held against the successor in possession, if he is the heir of the owner or knows the defectiveness of the possession of his predecessor in the acquisition.
I say because an object came into a persons possession by unlawful interference, § 859 BGB does not apply to that person because it only applies when the possession is not faulty. So it grants me as the lawful owner to get my things back by force, if necessary but does not grant the same right to the thief although he is technically the new owner of the object.
However the user claimed in another comment
Besitzer is the one who is currently holding the item in his hands (so ,e.g. a thief coming out of your house), and this is orthogonal to being the legitimate owner. And yes, the law thus explicitly allows the thief (who then is the Besitzer) to exercise force against you, if you try to reclaim your stolen goods. Which is just what I said
So the user is interpreting it as it doesn't matter how you got in possession of an object, the only thing that matters is that you have it right now and therefore § 859 BGB does apply to you too.
To me his interpretation does not make much sense. Especially because it would allow people to steal from each other in an endless loop. However maybe I'm just missing something important here.
I'm a laymen when it comes to law, so maybe I'm just not getting it.