Trial Thread

On the charge of griefing 100.02…

Despite the prosecution poorly documenting the window, the defendant’s response was so incredibly suspicious and self-incriminating, that I see it as itself evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that breaking a window to get in is precisely what he did. An actual person who walked in through an open door would just say how they entered legally. Not launch into a long, rambling list of bizarre hypotheticals involving conspiracies, block glitches, etc.

The only reason for doing that is a fear that for example the door or a glitched wall area, etc. might, unlike the window, have snitch coverage, and that he could be proven to be lying if he committed to one lie. Thus offering numerous options to try and avoid all of them being disprovable to escape perjury charges.

Is it beyond any other possibility? No. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Under the circumstances, yes. The defendant is found guilty and sentenced to the minimum (due to the minor nature of a window break) 5 days pearling.

On the charges of griefing 100.03…

The defendant confesses to obbybombing the properties. The only question then, is whether it fits the definition of griefing. And I think that yes, it absolutely does. For two reasons:

• One’s property is not just blocks placed, but is by law a whole zone around those blocks and from bedrock to sky limit. This zone thus includes air. Nor is this just semantics – the air in a build is legitimately an important part of the build, that you need to be there to move through and conduct your business and give the build its intended look, and so on. Replacing air with another block is destroying that part of the property, and causes just as much grief as breaking blocks. If not more, in civcraft.

• Additionally, 100.04, severe griefing, mentions grief that uses obsidian. Although the defendant is not charged with 100.04 here, I am simply using it as an example of how the law specifically includes block PLACEMENT as part of its description of grief. If placements were not intended in the law as grief, this clause would make no sense. You cannot “use iron reinforced obsidian” to break blocks. Even if you held obsidian in your hand while breaking things, it wouldn’t be iron reinforced obsidian. This can only possibly refer to block placement, so it corroborates placement intended as grief.

Since there were two victims in one episode of grief (Figasaur/Figasaur’s controlled collective, and Cr0C), I find the defendant guilty of two counts, and sentence 14 days pearling, the maximum, because obby bombing is a terrible crime.

On the charges of violation of right to dignity 600.01…

The defendant obviously violated the plaintiffs’ dignity, simply by obby bombing them. Dignity means “worthy of honor or respect” and obby bombing is extremely actively disrespectful and dishonoring. Whether or not there was any “hate crime” involved is irrelevant and I need not even consider it one way or the other to rule on this charge. The defendant is still guilty whether it’s a “hate crime” OR not. However, there is no sentence for this crime. This is because according to criminal code 600.01.2.b:

b. If a judge sustains a finding of guilt, but also determines that one or more different criminal statute(s) could have applied to the same actions (or inactions), the judge will not deliver any sentence or require payment of any reparations for "600 - General Crimes."

Since I have already found the defendant guilty under one or more other criminal statutes for the same action of obbybombing (100.03 charges above), this charge carries no penalty.

Total sentence: 19 days pearling. As in the case of the other obby bomber, the plaintiffs (or anyone else, for that matter) may choose to donate the extra mana needed for prison pearl. If so, the defendant shall be prison pearled for the remainder of the sentence at that time, or until the donations run out. The rest of the sentence will be exile pearl. This is due to the grave seriousness of obby bombing.

Thank you.