Lawsuit: Adjourned Dusty_3 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 49

[Dusty_3]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dusty_3
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I was attending the inauguration ceremony, and Psypio was killing/assaulting people. He stabbed me numerous times. I took action and defended myself and fellow citizens with my bare fists.
Under the Self Defense Act, it states self defense is a "reasonable and proportionate defensive response to an imminent threat." The evidence provided shows I hold no weapons in my inventory, clearly revealing that I had no intent to kill Psypio, only an instinct to protect myself and fellow citizens just trying to enjoy the inauguration event.

Despite my pleas to an officer to investigate this further, his training had forced him to throw me in jail. This is an abomination to our very law of the land. I was very clearly defending myself and others, yet I was put in jail. I do not blame the arresting officer, I blame the DoJ's training. Fix the way you operate Government of Redmont, we are not a society built on guilty until proven innocent, yet that is what I am currently forced to do... prove my innocence.


I. PARTIES
1. Psypio
2. Department of Justice
3. Dusty_3
4. Gertis7
5. PippaX

II. FACTS
1. My fellow citizens and I were trying to enjoy the inauguration when we were brutally attacked by Psypio
2. He used an elytra to evade any self defense attempts from other citizens
3. I eventually had him near me and out of desperation I took the opportunity to try punch him away from the event
4. Somehow my punching with bare fists killed psypio, who was wearing no armor.
5. I was thrown in jail for choosing to defend myself and others.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Based on the self defense act, I am allowed to use reasonable force, such as my fists, to defend myself and others.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Compensation for my fine of $100 and 10 minutes jail time. I will be asking for $500 in monetary compensation.

Evidence:

Spoiler: Psypio bragging about assassinating people at the inauguration

Spoiler: Witness Testimony from PippaX. Present at the event

Spoiler: Arresting Officer Testimony. Clear Psypio was attacking people.

Spoiler: As you can see, I hold no weapons. I only use my fists, showing no intent to kill.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 16th day of October 2022

 

[Aladeen]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Attorney General's Office is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Dusty_3 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 49. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Neemfy]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Dusty_3
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Commonwealth disputes this fact.
2. The Commonwealth does not dispute this fact.
3. The Commonwealth disputes this fact.
4. The Commonwealth disputes this fact.
5. The Commonwealth disputes this fact.

II. DEFENCES
1. All evidence the plaintiff has provided has pointed towards other citizens at the inauguration being attacked, while none have shown the plaintiff being attacked, or someone stating that the plaintiff had been attacked.
2. The Self Defense Act does not protect those who attack on behalf of other people. If Psypio was attacking and killing others at the inauguration, this does not give the plaintiff the legal right to attack or kill Psypio.
3. The Self Defense Act also does not protect those who attack preemptively, which the plaintiff states that he does, “I eventually had him near me and out of desperation I took the opportunity to try punch him away from the event.”
4. There is no evidence pointing to the absence of a weapon, nor any evidence showing Psypio’s lack of armor. The only screenshot shown which could potentially show an absence of a weapon is Exhibit D, titled “As you can see, I hold no weapons. I only use my fists, showing no intent to kill.” This screenshot only shows 9 (10 if you count the offhand) of the plaintiff’s inventory slots, while weapons could be in any number of the 27 other inventory slots.
5. The Plaintiff states “The evidence provided shows I hold no weapons in my inventory, clearly revealing that I had no intent to kill Psypio…” Despite holding no weapons, everybody should be aware that doing any damage, regardless of amount, could have the potential to kill, which is clearly demonstrated by the plaintiff “dying from his fists.”
6. The DOJ must arrest all people who have broken the law; that is the essence of the job in its simplest form. If you have proof of innocence that the DOJ is not aware of, the person is obligated to make a Department of Justice ticket in Discord.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 18th day of October 2022

 

[Aladeen]

Both plaintiff and defendant have 48 hours from now to present opening statements.

 

[Dusty_3]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Dusty_3
Plaintiff

v.


Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

The Self Defense act explicitly defines self defense as "A reasonable and proportionate defensive response to an imminent threat where a criminal action against the individual or property has been directly made,"

To begin, my actions were in complete self defense. I felt imminently threatened at the inauguration where Psypio claimed to have killed "50 people." (Evidence attached) He was on a rampage, killing people in front of myself. I was not the only one to take action and attempt to deter the threat from ourselves and others. This alone should be enough to free me of my criminal charge.
As stated from law I can respond to an imminent and criminal threat against me, which is exactly what occurred. The state has attempted to dispute this by suggesting that I have to be hit/attacked in order to be able to act in self defense.
A clear reading by your honor will help to ensure that the word "threat" is reaffirmed in law, so that police officers have to ensure they are not arresting individuals who acted in self defense to an "imminent threat". A person who is murdering and assaulting people indiscriminately, directly Infront of you, is the definition of imminent threat.

However the state has chosen to double down on the poor response by law enforcement to this imminent threat. Therefore I will provide further proof to "prove my innocence."

The state has wrongfully pointed out, whether intentionally or accidently, that I provided "no evidence" to support my claim that Psypio had no armor on when I took action to defend myself. Attached is evidence to prove he had no armor, which is from my original evidence, but I will enhance it since the state did not pay close attention initially.

Furthermore Psypio gave the affirmative to the fact that he hit me first (and likely killed me but I cannot recall, he is seen wearing my head), as shown in evidence. He agreed to the fact that he "hit me once and flew off" in his elytra (that is also shown in evidence). He even agreed that I killed him in self defense.

This is more than sufficient proof. Therefore I motion for summary judgement on this case as I do not believe the state could reasonably dispute any of the facts I have presented. I have shown I followed the letter of the law and the person who I killed in self defense agrees that it was self defense.

Thank you, Your honor

Evidence

 

[Aladeen]

I want to hear the arguments of both sides more at length. That being said I am denying the motion for summary judgment.

 

[Neemfy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The Commonwealth does not further dispute any facts of the case. The Plaintiff reacted proportionally to an imminent threat, and was in accordance with the law.

DATED: This 20th day of October, 2022

 

[dygyee]

The current presiding judge is unable to complete this case. I will be taking over and writing a verdict soon. Thank you for your patience.

 

[dygyee]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Dusty_3 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 49

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff was at the inauguration when another citizen attacked him and his friends.
2. He defended himself with his bare fist, and accidentally killed the citizen that was attacking him.
3. The Plaintiff was then arrested despite acting in self defense.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant doesn't dispute any of the facts, and requested a summary judgement.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. If someone is attacking you, you are allowed to defend yourself by fighting back,.
2. If you kill someone while acting in self defense, you are allowed to murder.
3. Typically the plugin states who started the fight and in this case I would assume it said that Dusty_3 started the fight as he was arrested, however the Commonwealth doesn't dispute the fact that the Plaintiff acted in self defense.

IV. DECISION
1. I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff and order the DOJ to unfine him the $100 that he was originally fined for murder, as well as $15 per minute the Plaintiff was jailed for a total of $150. This adds up to a total of $250 that should be given to the Plaintiff.

The District Court thanks all involved.