SD v adeacentpear 2025 Crim 14: Difference between revisions
From SimDemocracy Archives
m IntelligentDonut moved page SD v adacentpear to SD v adacentpear 2025 Crim 14: Wrong case - going to delete other page |
m Benbookworm97 moved page SD v adacentpear 2025 Crim 14 to SD v adeacentpear 2025 Crim 14 without leaving a redirect: Misspelled title |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Case Law]] | [[Category:Case Law|2025-02-24]] [[Category:Criminal Cases|2025-02-24]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2025|2025-02-24]] | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|- | |- | ||
Latest revision as of 20:38, 25 March 2025
| Prosecutor | State of SimDemocracy |
|---|---|
| Prosecuting Attorney | Confused Bartender (mrgamerboy) |
| Defendant | Niko Belic (adeacentpear) |
| Defendant's attorney | Aerospace Enjoyer (busiedcomb) |
| Judge | Average787enjoyer (intelligentdonut) |
| Courtroom | #public-court-5 |
| Criminal Complaint | CC |
| Evidence | Evidence |
Verdict
[1] The Prosecution provided evidence of multiple everyone pings by the Defendant which were independently verified, happening one right after the other
[2] The Defense argued that the defendant did not have Everyone permissions and that the actions in question were done in jest
[3] The court notes that according to SD v Mooklyn [2021] Crim 4, jest is not a defense
[4] The court rejects the defense's argument that the Defendant had no knowledge of the everyone ping ability, as a reasonable person would have checked the easily accessible permissions in the server settings before performing such a risky act
[5] The court finds the Defendant guilty on all counts and sentences them to a 3 week mute
