https://wiki.thresholdrpg.com/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Crim183-2 2026-05-23T00:20:43Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.35.3 https://wiki.thresholdrpg.com/index.php?title=Crim183-2&diff=1956&oldid=prev 2021-07-18T15:30:17Z

<p>1 revision imported</p> <table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface"> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <tr class="diff-title" lang="en"> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 15:30, 18 July 2021</td> </tr> <!-- diff cache key com_threshold_wiki:diff::1.12:old-1955:rev-1956 --> </table>

Gesslar https://wiki.thresholdrpg.com/index.php?title=Crim183-2&diff=1955&oldid=prev 2021-05-26T00:54:07Z

<p>1 revision imported</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{crim}}<br /> {{crimp}}<br /> No brief on record.<br /> {{crimd}}<br /> No brief on record.<br /> {{crimj}}<br /> Rex v. Alexander<br /> Crim183-2d<br /> <br /> FACTS: It is alleged that Alexander killed Lenora in retaliation for<br /> Lenora's theft of an item of Alexander's personal property. Prayer<br /> is for a fitting punishment for Alexander for the crime of murder.<br /> The court declines to punish.<br /> <br /> DECISION: It is uncontroverted that Lenora did in fact commit theft<br /> against Alexander by stealing an item of his personal property. She<br /> reported, or rather bragged, of the theft over the public channel<br /> 'Threshold.' Nor is it seriously challenged that Alexander did in <br /> fact pursue Lenora and kill her. In the absence of a valid defense,<br /> Alexander would be guilty of murder. There is, however, a most <br /> valid defense.<br /> <br /> The issue here is whether, when a citizen's property is stolen or <br /> attempted to be stolen, he may retaliate through the use of such force<br /> so as to cause death or serious bodily harm. This court has shown <br /> great deference to the use of self defense and retaliation by the victim<br /> of a crime committed upon his body. Indeed the court has recognized<br /> that even a citizen &quot;accused [of a crime], when served with a summons,<br /> may have the right to attack the Police Officer as an enemy and <br /> further, he may have the right to pursue the Police Officer as he returns to<br /> the court to register a successful delivery.&quot; Rex v. Drazz, Crim182-2d.<br /> While service of summons is not itself the same as stealing property,<br /> the deference of this court to the integrity of the person is <br /> evident. Property is most important and a citizen's property is <br /> entitled to the greatest protections. In fact, property may be seen<br /> as an extension of the individual. Thus it seems clear, that by <br /> stealing property, the thief is essentially attacking the individual.<br /> The rule is clear that when an individual is attacked by another he<br /> may defend himself and may even retaliate to the extent of causing <br /> the death of the attacker. This court holds today that the privilege<br /> of retaliation in the face of actual bodily harm extends to the<br /> theft of property as well. When a citizen's property is harmed or <br /> stolen, he may defend that property through great force or retaliate <br /> with great force even to the extent of causing death.<br /> <br /> Alexander has a valid defense to the charge of murder. His property<br /> was stolen. He identified the thief. He found the thief and he <br /> retaliated for the theft by killing her. This was no murder at all.<br /> <br /> SENTENCE: None.<br /> <br /> So ordered this 19th Day of Deep Chill 183 in the Kingdom of Sable.</div>

Gesslar