SD v adeacentpear 2025 Crim 14: Difference between revisions
From SimDemocracy Archives
Categorized |
Categorized |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Case Law]] [[Category:Criminal Cases]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2025]] | [[Category:Case Law|2025-02-24]] [[Category:Criminal Cases|2025-02-24]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2025|2025-02-24]] | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|- | |- |
Revision as of 20:37, 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