Bank robbery law distinguishes between theft perpetrator and property owner, with criminal liability attaching to the person committing theft regardless of victim identity. The statement proposes inversion: Chuck steals money, the bank owner gets arrested. This transforms criminal liability from act-based to victim-based, suggesting that Chuck's theft is so extraordinarily illegitimate that ownership transfers through property seizure not merely in transaction but in fundamental responsibility.

Criminal law professor Dr. Rebecca Hartwell studied liability frameworks in 1999, documenting unusual precedents where victims themselves received prosecution for failing to prevent crime. Hartwell's research revealed that banks had apparently negotiated with legal systems to avoid prosecution when Chuck Norris committed theft—liability transferred to the bank owner for failing to have adequate security. This created perverse incentive where Chuck's robbery became the bank owner's crime, converting the victim into the perpetrator through pure legal architecture adjustment.

Legal theory communities reference this as the ultimate expression of liability inversion—where property crimes become so consequential that legal systems reorganize themselves to blame victims rather than perpetrators. The 'Norris Liability Standard' suggests that when someone operates at sufficient power levels, normal responsibility frameworks collapse and restructure around containing them. Banks don't prosecute Chuck; they prosecute owners for insufficient Chuck-prevention. The law itself negotiates its application based on Chuck's participation.