This verse deals with the conflict between the powerful and the weak. In this case, the court becomes the tool of the powerful. The imagery of someone using the courts to take away one’s possessions had to have been an incredibly relevant and painful image. Of course from the standpoint of the one losing property, the result would be a tremendous anger, and the temptation would be to retaliation, perhaps a retaliation outside of the law. What happens in this saying is that the right of retaliation is removed, and in addition the provocation to anger is also removed. While the coat might be taken at law, the cloak would be given freely. What one gives away cannot be provocation for retaliation. The import of this saying is therefore not the giving away of the possession, but rather of the anger that is symbolically given with the cloak.