Coming soon - Get a detailed view of why an account is flagged as spam!
view details
9
[Verdict] sintralin vs. Megavenon2000
Author Summary
yourfriendmichelle is in VERDICT
Post Body

Megavenon2000 (/u/GeneralWhoever, just going to call him Trackball from here on) has been accused of trespassing, which is a violation of section 600 of the criminal code, by the plaintiff, /u/sintralin. Section 600 calls for the protection of individuals rights, as documented by the Mt. Augusta Bill of Rights. Trespassing specifically violates the simple request of the property owner to stay away, which in turn violates their dignity and privacy. Whenever a person infringes upon another's autonomy, including their ability to exercise control over their own property, it violates the dignity that is essential to all people, something guaranteed in Mount Augusta's Bill of Rights to everyone who passes through our borders.

In the early morning of June 14th, sintralin notified Trackball that he was banned from her house at approximately 1:47am. At 1:57am, Trackball violated sintralin's request by entering the property he was banned from. sintralin's property was very clearly defined as it changes from the road or grass to a stained glass and quartz staircase. As shown in this screenshot, Trackball can be seen past the staircase which leads to her basement, which is where the court believes her "house" begins. Therefore, Trackball did indeed trespass on sintralin's property.

However, Trackball testifies that he didn't see sintralin's single warning against trespassing. The court acknowledges this as a valid claim, general chat was spammy and even some judges were spammed through PM. The initial banning of an individual should be abundantly clear if the plaintiff wishes for a guilty verdict in the court system. In this case, a single warning in general chat is not sufficient enough for the court to reach a guilty verdict on a single evidenced instance of trespassing. While Trackball did violate the ban, criminal trespassing would require a blatant, intentional violation of the ban.


Because of the circumstances Trackball faced, it seems that the proposition that he wasn't aware of his ban was likely enough to not warrant a finding that he is guilty of criminal trespassing. In the future, property owners should notify the banned individual enough that it is more likely that they were aware of their ban than not.

Author
Account Strength
100%
Account Age
11 years
Verified Email
Yes
Verified Flair
No
Total Karma
6,022
Link Karma
827
Comment Karma
4,687
Profile updated: 2 days ago
Posts updated: 8 months ago

Subreddit

Post Details

Location
We try to extract some basic information from the post title. This is not always successful or accurate, please use your best judgement and compare these values to the post title and body for confirmation.
Posted
9 years ago