https://wiki.thresholdrpg.com/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Crim184-1 2026-04-24T09:56:33Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.35.3 https://wiki.thresholdrpg.com/index.php?title=Crim184-1&diff=1958&oldid=prev 2021-07-18T15:30:17Z

<p>1 revision imported</p> <table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface"> <tr class="diff-title" lang="en"> <td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 15:30, 18 July 2021</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-notice" lang="en"><div class="mw-diff-empty">(No difference)</div> </td></tr></table>

Gesslar https://wiki.thresholdrpg.com/index.php?title=Crim184-1&diff=1957&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. Delenn<br /> Crim 184-1d<br /> <br /> ''This opinion was forumlated with the amicus assistance of several interested and concerned citizens of the realm. Their input is greatly appreciated.''<br /> <br /> FACTS: Isildur was in the act of killing the monster Violte. While<br /> in the process, Delenn entered the room and killed the monster <br /> claiming it was her kill. Delenn alleges that she had previously<br /> attacked the monster and left only to replenish her food stores; <br /> that Violte was substantially incapacitated at the time that she<br /> left; that Ilsidur was attempting to steal the kill from her; and<br /> that her act of killing Violte was a good faith attempt to complete<br /> an attack she had already begun. Ilsidur alleges, inter alia, that <br /> he had substantially weakened Violte; that he was about to kill<br /> Violte when Delenn unlawfully interfered with his actions and <br /> received the benefits of the kill; that Delenn stole or otherwise <br /> misappropriated a kill that was clearly her own.<br /> <br /> DISCUSSION: The precise issues in this care are as follows: <br /> First, whether an individual who begins to kill a monster obtains a<br /> property interest in the eventual killing of the monster such that<br /> it may be misappropriated or stolen by another individual. Second,<br /> whether an individual who interferes with the killing of a monster<br /> with the intent and purpose of obtaining the experience and benefits<br /> for herself has committed an act for which criminal liability may <br /> obtain.<br /> <br /> The litigants in this case and the amicus briefs indicate that this<br /> is clearly an important issue in this realm. It cannot be denied that<br /> one whose kill is stolen from him at the last minute feels wronged.<br /> But does it follow that a crime has in fact taken place? This issue<br /> presents a problem that is capable of interpretation as either a <br /> criminal or a civil violation. Sable does not have an official <br /> system for adjudicating civil disputes between individuals and so <br /> this court has jurisdiction over this problem if and only if this is<br /> a criminal matter.<br /> <br /> For the reasons below, I find that it is not a crime for an individual<br /> to interfere with and take credit for a kill already begun by another.<br /> <br /> The common law tradition, from which we develop our laws, has addressed<br /> this problem. In Pierson v. Post (The Realm of New York, 1805), the<br /> court considered the following: Whether a person who with his own <br /> hounds starts and hunts a fox on uninhabited ground, and is on the <br /> point of seizing his prey, acquires such an interest in the animal, <br /> as to have a right of action against another, who in view of the <br /> huntsman and his dogs in full pursuit, and with the knowledge of the<br /> chase shall kill and carry him away? The court concluded that <br /> the act of merely pursuing the fox with the intent to kill it did<br /> not bring it within the property interests of the person in pursuit.<br /> The fox is an animal ferae naturae, and a property interest does not<br /> obtain to an individual until he has killed it and possessed it.<br /> <br /> The facts here are similar to Pierson. Ilsidur's &quot;pursuit&quot; of <br /> Violte was his attempts to kill. During battle, there is every <br /> possibility that the beast may not die, in which case the fighter<br /> will have nothing at all to possess. It is only once the beast is<br /> killed that the killer reaps the spoils of that kill. It is only <br /> at that point that a possessory interest obtains and only at that<br /> point that a possessory interest may be unlawfully interfered with.<br /> Until the monster is actually dead, another individual may lawfully<br /> interfere in the fight, just as a fox who is pursued by one individual<br /> may be suddenly seized at the last moment by another. <br /> <br /> This opinion applies only to the narrow issues stated. There is<br /> no decision made as to whether the last minute taking of a kill started<br /> by another creates in the harmed individual a right of retaliation.<br /> <br /> All charges against Delenn are dismissed. No Crime.<br /> <br /> Judge</div>

Gesslar