Previous Threads:

• Trial Request
• Trial

Charges

The accused, SwiftFizz, was charged with:

• 100.02 Second-Degree Intentional Griefing - For breaking into the Robokaiser's pyramid with intent to gain entry.

Verdict

While the defendant attempted to change their plea to "guilty" later in the trial, the legal plea as entered during part (b) of the trial procedure was "not guilty", and thus I can only take their attempt to change their plea as a piece of entered evidence.

First, we should establish that the Plaintiff does indeed have standing to bring this suit for damange to their property, and that such damage did occur at the hands of the defendant. These facts are not disputed by the defense.

The crux of the case is whether the damage can be construed to be part of a legally-protected attempt at a legal arrest, and thus subject to Defensive Action exemptions, or if it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not the case.

The standard for a legal arrest hinges on whether the action was due to a reasonable belief that the party being pursued (Vespasian, AKA Urban_2) had committed an offense under the Mount Augusta criminal code. The Plaintiff presents three arguments against this.

Argument from Arrest Procedure

The Plaintiff alleges that without a judge's explicit permission, an arrest is not legal. The exact language from the constitution is as follows:

i. Anyone with a reasonable belief that a person is committing an offence under the Mount Augusta Criminal Code, who is a flight risk or is expected to further damage life or property, may legally take action to arrest that person, by taking their pearl. A Judge has responsibility for determining what a reasonable belief is.

ii. It is an offense under the Mount Augusta Criminal Code 500.01 1. e. or 500.02 1. e. to interfere with an alleged arrester or arrest on the basis that the alleged arrester did not have a reasonable belief, unless the belief is presumed or ruled unreasonable as per iii.

iii. Evidence for the reasonable belief justifying an arrest should be posted on r/mtaugustajustice, as an [Arrest] thread, along with identification of the arrest, so that a Judge can rule on the reasonableness of the belief. If no evidence has been made available 24 hours after the arrest, then it is presumed that the belief was unreasonable, and the arrested should not be detained on the basis of the alleged arrest. If the belief was not reasonable, then the actions constituting the arrest are not covered by i., and are not necessarily legal.

In particular, note the wording in part (ii). "It is an offense[...] to interfere with an alleged arrester or arrest [...] unless the belief is presumed or ruled unreasonable as per iii." This gives us exactly two circumstances under which an arrest is unreasonable:

• First, that no arrest thread is posted or that no evidence is provided. This was not the case, an arrest thread was posted, and evidence was provided.
• Second, that the belief was ruled unreasonable by a judge. This was not the case either, no ruling was made by the judge.

If the constitution were to require a judge's approval for all arrests, the wording here could be considerably simplified. There would be no need to clarify that only arrest threads with no evidence are presumed to be unreasonable, it would simply be that all arrest threads are unreasonable unless a judge rules otherwise. That's not what the law says, however. I adhere to a strict reading of the law, to wit, that I, as a judge in this case, am making the determination as to whether the belief was reasonable. I therefore find that there is no reason to dismiss the reasonable belief of the defendant on procedural grounds.

Argument from Bail Status of Vespasian

The Plaintiff also asserts that the arrest could not be legal because Vespasian, AKA Urban_2, was out on bail at the time. However, since this was not known to the defendant (as evidenced by the prosecution's own screenshots which provide this information after the fact), it cannot affect whether the defendant had a reasonable belief at the time.

While ignorance of the law is not an excuse, ignorance of fact, or rather a lack of knowledge about facts, is a crucial part of determining whether someone holds a reasonable belief. Otherwise, we could discard the entire reasonable belief doctrine altogether, and only hold arrests as legal if they eventually result in conviction. We must consider the facts as they were known to the defendant in considering whether they held a reasonable belief.

I find that there exists sufficient reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of Vespasian's bail status before the fact. That is, they could have been acting based on a reasonable belief that they were making a legal arrest. Therefore, the argument from the fact that Vespasian was on bail does not hold.

Argument from Late Guilty Plea

I do not find that the defendant's attempt to change their plea to "not guilty" has any bearing on the facts of this case. It is odd to me that the defendant continued to mount a vigorous argument (correctly asserting that the lack of a judge's ruling on their arrest is not their fault), before immediately commenting that they wish to change their plea. This contradiction certainly leaves a reasonable doubt in my mind as to the motivation for this plea.

Conclusion

All this considered, I find the defendant not guilty of 100.02, Griefing in the second degree.

As guilt was not found, no penalties or sentencing are levied for this charge.

Final Words

The defense would be well-advised to not be so quick to take their opponent's interpretation of the law as authoritative, regardless of what government position they may hold. This is an adversarial judicial process, seek your own counsel, and allow the judge to do their job.

The plaintiff is advised to be more thorough regarding their allegations. For example, the specific facts of the break-in would be pertinent to finding whether they followed the guidelines found in defensive action. However, since those specifics were not challenged, your entire case hinged on whether I found the defendant's belief to be reasonable or not, and thus failed. Additionally, if you had shown that the defendant clearly proceeded with their attempts to arrest Vespasian after you informed them of his bail status, that would strengthen that part of your argument. But you did not show this either.

Do not presume that your case is a slam-dunk and thus be lulled into making weaker arguments than you would otherwise muster.

I thank both parties for their respect for the judicial process, maintaining respectful decorum (until the defendant's final statement), and being responsive.

Thank you, and Bless Augusta.