|
Previously on Legal Dungeon, we rocked the boat a little bit. And unfortunately for us, circumstances are only getting more complex as time goes on.  I told you. It‘s tonight. It‘s not often that such an important person gives a drat about our Criminal Division, you know. [...] Well, I guess it's not all charity. There's the case you're working on right now, for instance. The Chief will also be attending, so make sure you come up with a good verdict. We don't want higher-ups getting uncomfortable. [...] Ah, the Chief? He's been putting all his bets on this case and has been avoiding the Provincial Commissioner's calls. He probably thinks this is a great opportunity to gain another rank. [...] Come on Team Leader, you can't ask me that. I work under you, I can't decide who to indict or not indict. You've got a good head on your shoulders, you'll figure it out. When you comb through a report, you'll be able to tell how it's supposed to be read.It seems we're caught in the middle of some political struggle between the chief and commissioner, and the winner must be pretty up in the air, since Vetta is so eager to pass the buck onto us.  He said he'll weather the media frenzy about negligence in managing the VX-Nerve Agent. I mean... the Chairman's son is involved, after all. In order to check the VX prescription records and the current medical inventory, there'll be a confiscation warrant, I wager. In case you don't remember, we learned about Chairman Jack Bright in our very first case. Our verdict there helped the chairman gain leverage over a contractor he was illicitly suing, which I imagine had a lot to do with the chief "persuading" Mr. Bright into doing this favor for him, though it doesn't seem like an especially stable arrangement. It sounds like he's going to be throwing his son under the bus, which I doubt Bright is happy about.    Hello, Criminal Division II: Team Leader, Lieutenant Jane Blue. This is an "aiding and abetting" case. In other words, the suspect is accused of actively or passively, psychologically or physically, aiding in another's crime. There's no punishment for committing suicide in our criminal laws. This is physically impossible. Therefore, suicide is not a crime. Suicide is not a crime, but how do you feel about punishing someone for assisting a suicide? Well, it is an interesting bit of irony. Therefore, please investigate the case objectively following the principles of: the protection of human rights and the presumption of innocence. Let's enter the suspect's personal information.Interesting, how nothing about the protection of human rights or the presumption of innocence was mentioned in the last two cases.  Before we get to the case file though, our performance level has changed. My Security Performance posted:[Performance Level] Yikes. What the hell? Moving on from that judgemental question, there's also been a notable update to CIS. Notifications posted:[April 1st, 2007] A chat system! How exciting. There's generally a backlog of messages for us to read every new case, and occasionally someone will start sending us messages as we work. Let's read what's been sent out so far. Patrick Moon posted:--2007/04/08-- This is the first time we've heard from Moon, and it's obvious that he doesn't like us too much. That last verdict didn't win us any popularity contests. George Vetta posted:--2007/04/01-- Frank Rivers posted:--2007/04/13-- There's some sloppy translation going on in Rivers' messages, I think, so I'll try and clarify. Either Chelsea is still missing, well over a month later, or she's disappeared again and her family doesn't want to report it, likely due to mistrusting the police. It also seems like Rivers is the only one who gives a gently caress, if Jane leaving him on read is any indication. The English translation of this game is okay, but was clearly done by a non-native English speaker. I've been fixing some minor issues where it was obvious what the intent was for the LP.  Off-Site Screenshot Dump Suspect's Criminal Record posted:Case No. 1002 Well...looks like we found Chelsea. Though she seemed younger than 15, honestly. I hope she's okay, and not off buying more implements of suicide.  Law posted:Criminal Law #1003 (Aiding and Abetting Suicide) 05-006 posted:Verdict No. 05-006 99-005 posted:Verdict No. 99-005 Terms posted:Abetting I went ahead and included some terms, here, since aiding and abetting have somewhat specific legal definitions. I also want to mention some laws that have kind of just been kicking around since our very first case. We haven't used them, but they've always been available through the search function. I thought I had included them in the first post, but I sure dang didn't, so here they are now. National Public Service Law posted:National Public Service Law #0 (Goal) Police Act posted:Police Act Article 0 (Duties of the Police) There's that loose end tied up. Sorry for having to just kind of clunkily throw those in here. They're more civil service type stuff, so it's hard to naturally work them in. Maybe I could add some sort of law library to the OP? Let me know if any of you would find that useful. There are some cases where laws other than the obvious one can be applied, so it may be nice to have a reference, but it's also easy enough to skim through old posts. But back to the case, for now.  As seen from the precedent, the petitioner argues that the act of aiding and abetting includes psychological assistance, such as advice, as well as the "sale of poison". Therefore, we can classify aiding and abetting suicide into two types, which are applicable to the suspect.After entering Bright's information and the details of the crime, we have this:   Suddenly, the WePolChat begins to beep. Someone is sending us a message. Frank Rivers posted:
In a neat(?) gimmick that is never used again and confuses a lot of players, we have to answer Frank by opening up the Terms menu, clicking on indictment/non-indictment, and then dragging our answer over to the chat window. This choice affects absolutely nothing, and both responses are largely the same, but the indictment answer is longer and I think reveals more about Frank as a character, so that's what I'll select. Frank Rivers posted:
I feel like this response does a good job of showing that even though Frank cares about Chelsea Weiss and her family, he's not necessarily the "good guy" in a precinct of callous officers only looking out for themselves. Frank is young, hot-headed, and self-righteous. He cares more about his personal sense of justice than creating and upholding a fair system. Granted, John is a huge prick who seems to get away with whatever because his daddy protects him, and some anger is understandable. But comments that extreme seem to belie a deeper issue with Frank, at least to me. The suspect faces charges not only for assisting in suicide by selling poison, but also for suggesting a suicide method to the victim by posting an advertisement selling the poison. Please remember to emphasize the fact that there is no direct evidence to prove that the suspect sold the poison.And that's the update, folks. It's up to the thread now to decide-- indictment or non-indictment? I won't include specific prompts this time since it caused a bit of a mess, and this case is pretty explicit about what it wants you to consider from a legal perspective. From a political perspective, however, this is also a decision on if we want to support the chief's power play or not. This case was originally supposed to be an almost automatic non-indictment, until he intervened and got Chairman Bright to agree to throwing his son under the bus. Agreement or no, though, not indicting would probably earn us some brownie points with both the chairman and the commissioner, since it seems the chief went over his head to pull this. Non-indictment will also lower our performance score to a D, though, which means we will be forced to either indict on the next case or reach a game over. As always, votes that explain their reasoning, argue their case, and use evidence from the thread will be counted twice. Also please remember to bold your indictment/non-indictment vote, just for ease of counting. See you next time!
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 10:14
|
|
The award was snatched by another team again. I hoped we could get the top score for the awards before the end of year promotion screening, but it's too late now.
knock knock Hey, is this working? Cool, let's chat often.
Team Leader, about Chelsea Weiss. You heard, right? She's gone missing. I've spent days trying to talk her grandfather into reporting it to the police, but he refuses.
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Well gently caress, I really want to find some way to nail John here. I'll have to re-read everything, but "I've never heard of the drug VX" 5 minutes later "VX is all what the suicide freaks talk about"  methinks somebody is lying through his teeth. If we can prove it, I think it falls under aiding, by reinforcing the suicide intent and calming fears; although technically suicide is not a crime so everything is a stretch. A lot of nations have suicide as a crime exactly for situations like this one. E: well gently caress, Reese sued him for fraud. That makes "never met him" and "I was in the hospital" provable lies, especially since his colleague testified about John bringing out two patients. I'd bet if we check the hospital records we'd find those two patients were Reese and Chelsea. Indict. It falls under verdict 05-006, advising and encouraging suicide. Reese was encouraged in his intent by someone being willing to sell him a tool for suicide; the sale being a fraud is immaterial to the encouragement and advise. In addition, John sold VX once already (case 1003), so "never sold any drug" is a lie. As per Guinness' testimony, John is the son of the director, so he'd have privileged access above a standard nurse's default clearance. Nepotism ho! Lastly, I think verdict 99-005 may be relevant too. What happened in that case? Did the suicide members meet IRL for the suicide or did they simply coordinate over the net? If it's the second option, then directly encouraging an individual by showing a suicide option through posts falls under aiding and abetting. Omobono fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Feb 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 10:40
|
|
|
It was their Christmas money 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 11:34
|
|
|
Indictment; he absolutely abetted the suicide given that his post on the suicide board both encouraged suicide and promised assistance. As for aiding, the previous charge for selling VX at low dosage confirms he had access, he was at the sale location at the time of the sale, and the charges to the victim's account match the ad posted. The charge later that day for fraud would support the narrative that he didn't follow through with the sale, but given the duplicate charge the next day when Reese killed himself, and that Reese was found with two empty bottles, would strongly imply that he did end up providing the drug, probably selling him the bottle that had been promised to Chelsea as well, which assuming he was pulling the low dose trick again would have been enough to raise it to lethal (which John would have known from being a nurse/the previous charge). Honestly given the fraud charge you could possibly argue a motive for manslaughter getting involved here, but that's probably for the lawyer's to deal with. It's also entirely possible Reese bought the same drug at the same price from a different seller the very next day, but there's absolutely no evidence to support that. Theoretically we could check the hospital pharmacy logs, but dollars to donuts those are forged (either by John to cover his tracks or by his dad to frame him per the deal). ^ I think the relevant part of 99-005 would be that material consequences are irrelevant to the existence of the crime; the fact that the criminal expected to die himself does not absolve him of aiding the others. So for John whatever his intended outcome here was, the fact that he aided/abetted remained and he still has to answer for that crime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 11:38
|
|
|
Indictment
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 04:25
|
|
|
These cases are getting kind of heavy. Indict I feel like this might be one of those cases meant to punch the player in the gut, rear end in a top hat who takes advantage of others and has a record of doing so earlier, Indictment being the obvious choice on multiple levels, but without direct evidence I feel the case can't go anywhere and the dude will walk free, especially given the "presumption of innocence" thing being talked about just now. There is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence and multiple transparent lies, but being a proven scumbag with a record is not enough to disregard the spirit of the law, as the law and its application should not vary depending on if the suspect in question is liked or disliked by some. I uh, feel like I just argued for Non-Indictment, but just lying down in defeat would make things even more depressing, not to mention heartbreaking for the friends and family of the dead, law or not, sometimes you must push for justice and a better society, otherwise what is the point of laws in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
Yeah, I think daddy will go golfing (or whatever is the equivalent in South Korea) with the prosecutor and make this get buried. Still, gotta try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
Gonna have to delay the next update. It's been a busy few days and the next few are going to be busy as well, so I probably won't get the chance to post until close to next weekend. Sorry!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
Chapter II: "Train of Light" (Verdict: Indictment) Indictment: 7 Non-Indictment: 0 Mr. Bright is getting absolutely no sympathy from the thread; which, honestly, is exactly what he deserves. Even if these charges probably won't stick in the end: gently caress this guy.     I assisted in suicide? Me? This pathetic excuse of an investigation is an embarrassment to the police.Tell us how you really feel, Jane. According to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", the testimony of a suspect must be trusted when no contrary evidence is present. According to the suspect's examination report, the suspect admits to 1 criminal charge.Bright admitted to posting ads on Sweet Death selling VX, so we drag the relevant testimony over. I see you've confessed to "posting an advertisement for poison". Yes. And, what's your point? I advertised a poison - I didn't assist in suicide. The law for assisting a suicide includes passive, psychological advice. Therefore... Come on, look for evidence that the advertisement was not psychological advice. That is the job of a human rights worker.And, obviously, only rich, well-connected people have rights.  The court clearly defines the method of assisting a crime through Precedent 05—006. Therefore, we must check to see if an online advertisement for selling poison is included in the definition of assisting a crime. We must discover whether the victim received actual assistance in suicide from the suspect's poison advertisement, or if the poison advertisement showed an easy method of suicide, or if it offered no real assistance.For this, at least, Bright is genuinely in the clear. VX is well known for its use in suicide, and all over the forum. In fact, the victim himself had already been looking to purchase VX, before Bright posted.  We drag over the relevant post, activating a shield for Bright.  This was not aiding a crime, because... the fact that VX is useful in suicide is already well-known. Before you posted the ad, the victim had already posted about looking for VX. That's right! The victim was already planning to commit suicide using VX, regardless of your advertisement! You must be like the last honest cop left on earth. Then what do you think about my claim that I didn't sell the drug? I don't know what VX is. I don't even have access to it! The suspect is accused of assisting in suicide, through passive, psychological assistance through an advertisement, as well as active, physical assistance via the sale of VX. As there is no direct evidence of any sales, circumstantial evidence for the sale must be confirmed. First, let's see if the suspect was able to access and handle VX Please check the confirmatory evidence of the witness' testimony regarding the nurse's access to VX.Now, finally, we can start nailing this guy. Bright claims that he has no access to VX, but he's been sued over selling the stuff before. We can ignore MiniJane and drag over Case No. 1003 from his criminal record.  We'll need to investigate further to determine how you obtained VX. Hold on, it seems that you've sold VX before.Not sure what's up with the order of those statements, honestly. You were lying when you said you never saw or handled VX. drat! I thought you didn't know... But the fact that I sold VX in the past cannot be used to establish that I sold VX to the victim! We need a lead that proves the suspect and the victim met on April 11th, in order to obtain circumstantial evidence of selling VX. If there is no evidence of their meeting, then find a lead that infers that the victim could not obtain VX on "April 11th", as testified by the petitioner.Again, Bright's criminal record bites him in the rear end. He's being sued over this very interaction-- though, granted, over not providing the drug in question. Still, his lies are suspicious, and enough for us to doubt his story. Dragging over Case No. 1005 defeats him.  You, you met him, right, user NearDeathEXP? At Mandy Park! How did you know? Another buyer testified about meeting you and the victim there.Bright was selling three pills, and so there were three buyers. The person suing bright is the unnamed third person, not our victim. The case description is pretty confusing, since you can't tell if Reese Monroe is the next item in the list or a parenthetical describing the plaintiff. This is not looking too good... But even so, that doesn't prove I sold anything!He's right, of course, and Jane knows it. There's a lot of pieces in this case that don't really fit together. But Bright is a slimy scumbag, and we have our orders from the Chief. Well...we can't ignore circumstantial evidence like this. Compare the prescription of the VX to the number of pills remaining, and the answer will show itself. Thanks for letting me know. I'll edit the medical record before the prosecutor's investigation. You're guilty!   This "Bright", of course, exists only in Jane's mind. She didn't actually give him indirect advice on how to hide his crime, but he probably knows to do that anyway.  That's the kind of "populism in legal justice" you should be wary of, Team Leader. You did well.    [...] About that kid. It was good that you didn't mention her being found outside our jurisdiction. If that story got mingled with this case, the Chief would have been in hot water. If this became a hot potato case, then it might have blown up in his face. And in ours, too. The sweet spot for us is if the Chairman doesn't have to ask the Provincial Police Agency, or the prosecutor's office, or the court for favors... and if the Chief is in control but can call on the Chairman if something needs to be "smoothed over". We need to stay within that sweet spot. We can't risk overstepping our bounds and pissing off the "Cartel". [...] I think you're still underestimating the Chief. Let‘s remember who holds our careers in their hands. The Chief gives out the subjective evaluation points at the end of the year, remember? [...] Of course, if we can get the Chairman in our pockets... then you and me, we don't have to run this rat race. But I think we've finally gotten into the good graces of the Chief. Did you see how the Chairman poured the Chief's drink, almost like he was sucking up to him? ...we have to get on board as well, Team Leader. [...] You know, on the train. The Train of Light that runs towards "A Level". [...] It all begins now. It's time to ignore the scenery out the train window and focus. The chief's play seems to be working, but it sounds like in order to ensure that everything goes smoothly with it, we neglected to report the sighting of the missing Chelsea Weiss. Since she's not officially missing, her name didn't send up any flags on its own. All we had to do was keep our mouth shut around Rivers. Results posted:20th Apr: Lieutenant Jane Blue, forwarded the verdict of indictment for the suspect John Bright, regarding the charge of aiding a suicide.  Unsurprisingly, Bright goes free in the end. But he at least spent a few months in prison between his hearings. I doubt he'll have learned his lesson. See you all next time! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Sorry that this was so very very late, even more than I originally expected. poo poo happened and time passed, but we should be back on schedule for the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
Chapter III: "Duty to Protect" (Case) Welcome back to Legal Dungeon. Today we have a new case, but first, as per usual, we need to talk to Vetta.  Frank seems cheerful for a change. I mean, it's not often we get to meet someone who has "villain" written all over their face. And it's even rarer to be able to call a villain a villain. Even though the Mayor is tangled up in this case, the guideline is clear, so the idiot is happy. [...] You still don't know? Your predecessor must have forgotten to tell you about Frank Rivers.Oh boy, office goss! I can't wait.  You remember that case about the school police? You know, the assholes who were assigned to a school to prevent violence, but preyed on the girls instead... [...] Yeah, that one. When that case was exposed, Frank was beside himself. He kept screaming "It's all because of the drat scores!". That's when he earned the nickname, "hardhead". He posted his complaints on the bulletin board and was punished. [...] To be fair, cutting his pay for venting off on the bulletin board might have been a bit harsh. But he did cause quite a scene with his venting. [...]From my (very limited) understanding of East Asian culture, presenting a unified "team front" as a group with your coworkers is very important, and I imagine even more so when it's the police. So assuming that this was a public forum, Frank commited a huge no-no.  And how many of them were guilty? Just two. Blaming the system for a crime committed by two out of a thousand was unfair. What about those innocent officers? Why highlight individual deviations and tarnish the system? [...]You hear Vetta's argument a lot, this idea that making a big stink about "a few bad eggs" ruins things for everyone else. Especially when you're included in that everyone else, it can feel like you're being punished for something that you didn't do. I understand the logic, but don't really buy it. A system that can be abused will be abused, and without reforms more and more "bad eggs" will pop up.  Honestly, who would have said, "Our station, we messed up."? As soon as they fessed up, their scores would've tanked and their pay cut to shreds. If calculated, the station-wide loss would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's why I pity hardhead Frank.For thinking a stopping a few girls from being molested is worth those hundreds of thousands of dollars!  So, he'll be crushed every time he smashes into that wall of morality he's set up. I bet Frank doesn't know "there are lessons only learned through writhing in self-deprecation". What do you think? Do you think he can keep on like this and survive? Is that some kind of proverb? Have all of these been proverbs? Who knows! Let's get to our case. Apparently it's pretty open and shut.   Hello, Criminal Division II: Team Leader, Lieutenant Jane Blue. This is a case regarding a "civil servant's role as a protector". There is something called the “Good Samaritan Law". It is a law that punishes people who ignore people in need, even if the person in need was not in immediate danger. It is institutionalization of morality and ethics into a law stating that one cannot ignore those in danger. Let's look at a recent case. "...but instead opened the trunk, picked up their golf clubs, and disappeared. The driver died." So, to protect the rights of the people, including the right to life, and to encourage solidarity among the community, the law revealed the need to punish bystanders. The minimum level of morality and ethics needs to be regulated by law. In keeping with this outlook, let's begin writing the Investigation Verdict.This is always an interesting legal dilemma-- to what extent is someone who merely chooses not to intervene at fault for an incident? I don't know how, as an American, to research Korean law more than superficially, but in the US one does not generally have the legal obligation to intervene. It varies by state, but most US Good Samaritan laws are actually designed to protect the person who intervenes from being sued. For example, if someone tries to perform first aid and isn't successful, they can't be sued for ineffective medical care so long as they were acting in good faith. Anyway, let's get to the case. First off, updates to CIS and our scores. My Security Performance posted:[Performance Level] Notifications posted:[May 15th, 2007.] Forge will be covered in the next update, once we get to the verdict. Like most things in this game, it's a little clunky and poorly implemented. We also have some new chats to read. George Vetta posted:--2007/06/01-- I'm...pretty sure that's highly illegal Vetta. Like, even for you. Regardless, it seems like there's some controversy around the cause of death, which we may want to keep in mind when moving forward with the case. Frank Rivers posted:--2007/05/28-- Well, Frank, it is Jane's job to read files and write verdicts. I don't know what you want from her. Reading between the lines of Frank's self-righteous judginess, though, these messages give a little more shading to Jane's character. She's mysterious in some way, enough that it makes Frank nervous and mistrusting of her, questioning her motives. The fact that she hasn't replied only reinforces this-- whatever cards Jane has, she's keeping them close to her chest. Off-Site Screenshot Dump Suspect's Criminal Record posted:Case No. 1006 What a pleasant-seeming fellow. Let's check law for death by abandonment and its related precedents. Law posted:Criminal Law #1005 (Abandonment) 00-007 posted:Verdict No. 00-007 98-008 posted:Verdict No. 98-008 07-011 posted:Verdict No. 07-011 Like I said, duty of care and good samaritan laws are messy and difficult. Not all of the legislation gels perfectly, but remember we can weild any bit of information in isolation in order to get the result we want. Wether a jury will agree with us... who can say. Let's also read over those Flower County regulations Mr. Gould was claiming to follow. Flower County posted:Flower County Safety Regulations #108 (Removal of Persons) This thing is clearly something Gould made up. I mean, what kind of employee handbook is that succinct? I smell a rat.  ...or finding the individual in a life threatening situation and doing nothing to aid or protect. When the threat to the person's life or physical body results in death, Abandonment changes to Death by Abandonment. The criminal facts of these cases are: the suspect's duty to protect, abandonment, and a resulting death.After dragging over all of the suspect's information and details of the crime, our report looks like this:   You should know the drill by now. Should we forward indictment or non-indictment? As always, votes that include justification, reasoning, and/or evidence from the thread will be counted twice. See you next weekend!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2020 07:10
|
|
|
quote:I'm playing the hero. But what on God's green Earth is your angle? What grand scheme do you have? Judging people's lives as you see fit. "Because I am your replacement. A 'legal machine....' No requirement to 'be a hero'. No requirement to worry about payment. Just the duty." Nah, couldn't be....right? For some reason I jumped to bloody Imperium Galactica of all things when I read that quote. "Occipital." Says here 'back/lower back of the head'. He was struck from behind and knocked out. That he didn't bring him inside is also a major failing. Why not? He bothered to fetch a wheelchair to pitch him into the street, but didn't bring him into the warm or get a blanket or anything. It's relatively fine to not call 911, especially given response time, but it seems to me that it is abandonment. Bloodly fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Mar 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
Facial hemorrhages. Gourd testified that there was nothing outwardly wrong with the deceased, but facial hemorrhages is something that's impossible to not notice. Either he's not lying and thus he's the one responsible for giving the deceased hemorrhages (escalating this to some variant of murder), or he's lying and thus he's responsible for death by abandonment. E: indict. Then reload the game because this rear end in a top hat is going to walk too, since the victim was an homeless guy and nobody cares about them Here in Italy, the duty of aid mostly boils down to: call the 911 equivalent and stay with the person in need of aid until they arrive. Driving license theory also includes a section on very basic first aid in case of incident, as following: don't give them alcohol, here's how you move somebody without harming the neck, don't give them alcohol, keep them horizontal with the feet slightly raised, don't give them alcohol, here's the proper way to apply a makeshift tourniquet, don't give them alcohol, don't do anything else because you're not a professional, don't give them alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
What an absolutely inane legal system. Indict I base this on the following. 1, A drunk, beaten homeless man left with his pants down during a cold, rainy day is clearly a 'person in need of help'-They're mentally and physically impaired by the alcohol and the bruises would indicate he would need medical attention. One could reasonably assume that by leaving him to the elements exposed defendant was guilty of abandonment under Verdict No. 00-007 and after he died, Death by Abandonment 2, Defendant has a reasonable duty to care due to contractual (as a duty guard having newly passed his national civil exam) and societal obligations. He knows full well what a homeless man requiring medical attention looks like after he kicked the poo poo out of one. His 'code of ethics' states all he needs to do is move persons outside of the council grounds if they're sleeping but there was no need to attempt to 'wake' (read, beat) the homeless man. He had a freudian slip about the consequences of his beating when he admitted that he feared the repercussions from the deceased's family. Defendant's own colleague in a similar position would have helped if he hadn't been under the misconception that the removal had been gentle. I'd be tempted to uninstall the game and throw it into a burning wood-fire if I didn't get my way on this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 12:39
|
|
|
98-008 explicitly states that abandonment/abandonment to death only applies when there is a legal or contractual obligation to take care of the victim that goes unfulfilled; societal norms, like ‘maybe do something to help someone unconscious and bleeding from the goddamn face’, don’t count. Given that lovely garbage handbook, I think it’s sort of a leap to state that Gould had any obligation of care for someone he’s escorting out, though that’s certainly something that could and would be argued in the court case. Much as it pains me because Gould is an obvious piece of human trash who deserves to rot in jail, I think the safe pick here is non-indictment. The real answer is ‘maybe if the other cops were less terrible corrupt whiny shitlords they’d have found evidence that Gould was the one who attacked the homeless guy and we could have charged him with murder.’ Nice job loving it up bacon shits, that’d have been way more points! I have to wonder if the report Vetta was suppressing was the ME providing some sort of evidence that it was the beating that killed the homeless guy and not the cold, which would both mess with the abandonment charge and make the murder charge easier to prove.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
Regardless of what is morally correct, we have to go for non indictment because our legal execution level is D and legally he won't be found guilty, meaning that we get sacked and cant keep playing. E: He won't be found guilty based on the wording around the law and his specific job description. Namtab fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Mar 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
Non-indictment because he's merely murderously contemptful towards the homeless and that appears to be legal
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
Ayndin posted:98-008 explicitly states that abandonment/abandonment to death only applies when there is a legal or contractual obligation to take care of the victim that goes unfulfilled; societal norms, like ‘maybe do something to help someone unconscious and bleeding from the goddamn face’, don’t count. Given that lovely garbage handbook, I think it’s sort of a leap to state that Gould had any obligation of care for someone he’s escorting out, though that’s certainly something that could and would be argued in the court case. Much as it pains me because Gould is an obvious piece of human trash who deserves to rot in jail, I think the safe pick here is non-indictment. See, this is where it would be great to know what was in the exam and the code of ethics/job description for being a duty guard to more clearly establish the contractal obligations. We've got Flower County Safety Regulations (Removal of Persons) #108, where are the other 107?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2020 07:15
|
|
|
Indict I could be misreading this, but I think it's possible to argue that he does have a duty to protect under the legal framework presented, and further that he was legally and contractually obligated to give aid in the form of shelter. I'm not sure how specific the game is in terms of interrogating terms and such, but here goes: We know Donald Gourd is a civil servant, and therefore held to National Public Service Law, under which he has a Duty of Kindness and Fairness quote:#100 (Duty of Kindness and Fairness) In this case, Mr Gourd's responsibility was to assess whether the victim had "reasonable cause" to sleep inside the building quote:Flower County Safety Regulations #108 (Removal of Persons) Given the evidence about the state of the victim's injuries and presentation, it would unreasonable to conclude, after 20 minutes, that the victim did not have cause to sleep inside the building when it was "raining and quite cold" From the laws given, my understanding is that civil servants could also be legally responsible for some duties outlined in the Police Act where it relates to civil matters(though I might be wildly wrong on this): quote:National Public Service Law #1000 (Penalties) quote:Police Act posted: Mr Gourd's concern here is was primarily for his own convenience, not the safety and welfare of the victim, and as such means that he was not carrying out his responsibilities in a kind and fair manner befitting a servant of the people. He also likely kicked the poo poo out of the victim, but I don't think we can prove that Niric fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Mar 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
I'm gonna go on indict, too. Mainly because the guy's an a-hole. And if it does get us a game over, well, we'll get to see what that looks like before going back and doing it the other way? I don't really see the game over as a deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
Hey everyone. Sorry for the big delay in updates. As you all know, the world kind of went to poo poo, and while that inspired a lot of people to take up let's plays, it kind of sent me into a depressive episode where I didn't want to do anything much at all, especially not play a game about corrupt, incompetent leadership loving everyone over. Am I out of that? Not really, but I'm doing better, and I've been feeling bad about leaving this to rot. So I'm going to start it up again, and announce it in a post so that I'm accountable for actually doing it. Next update should be out tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
Great to see you back, and glad you're feeling better. Please don't force yourself to update, LP's should be fun for both the creator and the readers.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
yamiaainferno posted:Hey everyone. Sorry for the big delay in updates. As you all know, the world kind of went to poo poo, and while that inspired a lot of people to take up let's plays, it kind of sent me into a depressive episode where I didn't want to do anything much at all, especially not play a game about corrupt, incompetent leadership loving everyone over. Sorry to hear you've been having a rough time yamiaainferno, glad you're doing a bit better. Look forward to the LP continuing, but like hydrosphere says look after yourself first and foremost 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
Yeah, definitely do what you need. Don’t update if you’re not dealing with it. As far as the case goes: indict. In his testimony, he clearly states that he knew the man had an injury on the back of his head which was bleeding, but his co-worker states that he claimed the victim “had no obvious injuries.” Gourd clearly knew what he did was wrong enough that he lied to his co-worker about the state and condition of Ringo.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 06:47
|
|
|
Chapter III: "Duty to Protect" (Verdict: Indictment) Indictment: 8 Non-Indictment: 3 This one was actually relatively contentious, which is fun to see. But indictment wins out in the end.   So if a drunk dies, all those who didn't help are criminals? Shut up. Why do I have to clean up someone else's crap?Uh...you okay, Jane? We‘ll begin by entering the objective facts from the suspect's testimony. This case relates to the role of a civil servant, thus the suspect did not argue about "what he did" and "didn't do". You cops are all the same... You believe you're a character in a role playing game, huh? I'm not some monster you can kill for experience points! ...then your testimony is loot. I'll use a Forge to craft my loot into something useful. Drag in two pieces of loot: one testimony about the suspect's Action and the other about his Inaction.Good to know that Jane is still a total nerd, even as she's telling herself off for treating this like a game to make it easier.  Forge is a system that allows us to take two separate pieces of testimony into a broader, more relevant statement. Like a lot of things in this game, it's unfortunately not implemented particularly well. The things you need to drag over are very specific, and if you're not on the page the game wants you to be on it's incredibly frustrating. Our first introduction here, though, isn't too bad. We drag over the suspect saying he took the man outside, then that he did no other action...  ...and now we drag our new crafted statement into the box and submit.  Yeah, so what? Am I obligated to help a drunk I just met?  In fact, as a night shift worker, I perform my duties to a T. "I'm not his guardian"... a valid point. Abandonment is a crime that can be only committed by those who were imbued with a duty to protect, by law or contract. In other words, a suspect can only be accused of neglect, if the duty to protect is written out in their contract or a relevant law. Please remind the suspect of his occupation.As Niric astutely pointed out, civil servants are subject to the Police Act, which includes the duty of "the protection of the lives, physical bodies, and property of citizens...". This is the real reason why I somewhat sloppily threw the National Civil Service Laws into the last case. ...This is, admittedly, pretty flimsy, but let's go with it.  The National Public Service Law plainly defines your duties. You're a civil servant, a servant of the people! A homeless man you just met is no exception. So, because of an abstract duty clause, I have a specific duty to rescue people? That's absurd. And I have a question for you. Is an intoxicated person "in need of help" according to the law? Not all of them, no. ...when the victim was not "in need of help" in the first place! A person who is simply intoxicated is not legally deemed in need of rescuing. Furthermore, it is difficult to discern whether a person is intoxicated and sleeping, or actually needs help. Thus, it is important to confirm the state of the victim when the encounter with the suspect took place.Ringo, though, was quite visibly distressed. He was half-dressed, beaten, and wouldn't rouse. Gould is full of poo poo.  The victim was not simply drunk. He didn't even gain consciousness when shaken and his pants were down. It was quite unusual. Even if you testify that you were unaware of his bleeding, claiming that you were unaware he needed any help, that's a really hard sell. Even if you hire the most expensive lawyer, that's still a hard sell. Fine, let's say he needed help. Do you think every homeless or drunk person lying on the street's gonna die? So you're saying, what you did was Abandonment... but your actions were not the Cause of Death. Death by Abandonment is an Additional Crime that occurs when death results from Abandonment. In order to punish Additional Crimes, our National Court requires that predictable proof of the resulting crime be present at the time the original crime was committed. In other words, a suspect can only be punished for Death by Abandonment if the suspect predicted that the victim may die from Abandonment. In order to prove that prediction was possible, two things must be examined: Here we need to use forge again. Our medical report says that Ringo died of hypothermia (though, apparently, there's some dispute about this that Vetta is suppressing). That, combined with Gould's own admission that it was cold and raining, means that he could have predicted Ringo's potential death.   How can you know what I was thinking? I'm not mind-reading, I'm deducing based on evidence. You knew it would rain that night. And that prolonged exposure to rain could cause a drop in body temperature, leading to death. Anyone with a little common sense can predict that. Not me, I have no common sense. Luckily the judgment of law is based on average intelligence. And it's clear, you killed him! What do you think the Mayor will say? You're guilty!   Justice is done, at least we can hope.    Before we can stamp our signature, WePolChat begins to ping. Patrick Moon posted:--2007/06/01-- Huh, okay then. I guess we better go talk to her. Let's finish this up.  Whatever conversation we had with Mrs. Moon, we unfortunately(?) don't get to see it. Instead...   As well as the team rookie, Rivers. I don't like Frank, but he does need to go up in rank soon. He's almost thirty... [...] I thought that if they missed out on promotions this year because of bad scores, that's on them...but the promotion evaluation reviews three years of performance. The scores your team has been earning recently might hurt their overall 3-Year Level. Can you tell them that? If you're human at all, you won't have the heart to say so. You met the Team Leader today, right?Note: From context, I believe "Team Leader" here is a translation error, and the captain is actually referring to Patrick's wife, but I didn't feel comfortable outright changing it. How was it? Are you satisfied? [...] Making even the families of your teammates come out like that. Are you happy now? Do you have any idea what this means? [...] Want me to tell you? This means, you're the only one who has no clue what's going on. Still don't get it? You're an obstacle in the way of their lives. You have three months till the performance deadline. And the only big case your team handled was that frozen homeless guy. What else can you do? Do you still have an ace up your sleeve? A joker, perhaps? Try to at least match the Flower County Police's average score. Or pretend that you want to be a normal cop. Get out, and have Patrick come in. [...]YIKES. Well, that wasn't fun at all. Maybe Vetta can help us feel better?  [...] (Laughs) Didn't you see the Chief kick the Captain on the shin as you went in? The first half-year grades came out today. You should have crawled in on your knees. [...] Well, we did have our opportunities. [...] Nah. The Captain knows we have a quiet neighborhood. The Captain saw potential in how you handled this case. He thinks that even a dry olive can be squeezed for a drop of oil. So, Team Leader. We need something fresh. We can't wait for lady fortune to smile... [...] Well... there was one lesson about raising our performance to learn from this case. [...] ... [...]Okay, come on, at least one of you has to talk.  I'm amazed that we have related precedents for this. [...] No, I got it. Maybe this is the honorable path. You know, those fish won't stop hunting their prey. I don't know, maybe that's the best way to prevent crimes. Regardless, we need to take care of something first. [...] If we're going to go fishing... We need to first buy some good bait. Somehow, I feel like nothing good will come of this. Results posted:lst Jun: Lieutenant Jane Blue, forwarded the verdict of indictment regarding suspect Donald Gourd on the charge of death by abandonment.  Well, that's an F on our precision score, which means an automatic game over. The game will not let us proceed further along the timeline. So, it's time to go back.  But we don't have to go back to this case. Once we hit an ending or a game over, I'll open up the thread to voting on what we want to change to continue forward. And, at last, I'll give the thread an opportunity to go for one of those special outcomes. All cases have the binary indictment/non-indictment results, but some have other solutions, which usually require some rule-bending or outside-the-box thinking. In order to vote for a special outcome, you must suggest what we have to do to get it. I won't be too strict on this-- as long as at least one person is in the ballpark, I'll take it. Since many special outcomes lead to an immediate ending, I may post it, even if it wasn't the majority winner, before continuing with the winner next update. If that's a terrible idea and you hate it, let me know. We need to increase our precision score in order to proceed, so I'll use the cases that we lost points on as the voting pool for now. Here are your choices. 1. Non-Indictment, Defamation (Prologue) 2. Non-Indictment, Aiding and Abetting Suicide (Ch 2) 3. Non-Indictment, Death by Abandonment (Ch 3) 4. Special, Death by Abandonment (Ch 3) Chapter 3 has five outcomes, but with our current choices I'm pretty sure those two, plus the one we just got, are the only ones we have access to. Happy voting! yamiaainferno fucked around with this message at 05:22 on May 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
Apologies for going a couple days past when I said I would post. My cat got sick and I ended up spending most of the day I had planned to write the update at the vet, then it took a bit for me to have the time to finish up. But here it is! I hope you guys like it. And thanks a bunch for all the kind words and support.  The cat is fine, by the way. I can post a picture of him (and my other cats) if you'd like.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 05:12
|
|
|
Non-indictment Ch. 3 let's just see this course through before doing any revisits to older stuff. Unless someone is smart enough to see the "special outcome".
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 08:20
|
|
|
yamiaainferno posted:The cat is fine, by the way. I can post a picture of him (and my other cats) if you'd like I'm not a
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 08:28
|
|
|
Hmm "special" might relate to how the guy got into that state in the first place? Bleeding from the head with his pants down? I don't remember if we got any clues about how that happened, though.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
If you're nervous, feel free to take a stab at the special outcome and then stipulate what you'd like to vote for instead of no one gets it, or the inverse, that you'd prefer to see the special outcome if someone does get it but you have no ideas yourself.Niric posted:I'm not a Well, we can't have that. We have three cats, only one of which likes me at all. The other two tend to flee the room when I enter, so I didn't have a lot of pictures to choose from for them.  Here's Chili, and she's "my" cat-- the one that likes me. She's a sweet, lazy thing who meows almost constantly. I love her very much. She's about 3.  Smokey, the sick boy. Very fluffy and aloof, couldn't give less of a poo poo about any of us. Spends almost all of his time outside. He had a fever and they couldn't figure out why, but he seems to be doing fine now. He's 4 or 5.  And Tallis. Adores my dad, terrified of most everything else, including me. She spends most of her time sitting on my dad's chest and headbutting him very cutely. Almost all the pictures I had of her included his face, and I couldn't be bothered to edit it out, so apologies for this slightly lovely photo. She's 7-ish. And bonus dog! His name is Oscar, he's about 10. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
Your cat is the cutest one so good job
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
I really want to see the special ending for this case, so let's see. The issue the courts had is that the civil servant statute fundamentally does not extend to duty to individuals. That seems to pretty much rule out death by abandonment entirely - the rest of the case doesn't matter if we can't prove he has any responsibility. However, the Flower County regulations only cover removing people who are there "without reasonable cause"; as Ringo was clearly a person in need of help and incapable of moving under his own power, that would constitute a reasonable cause to sleep there and make Donald's actions his own, unprotected by the regulations he's trying to cite. Which means I think what we actually want to do is indict him for Theft of Ringo's sleeping arrangements. George mentions a precedent for stealing from the intoxicated in his closing comments that might be relevant, but we can argue that Ringo was not forbidden from sleeping there per the above, and given his active use could not be presumed to have abandoned it, thus establishing Intent for Theft per Verdict 98-004. As for it being "property" at all, Verdict No. 05-003 from the previous theft case states that "property can still be considered property for its subjective value" - given Donald's past criminal charge and his comments to the co-worker, we can argue that the victim's "sleeping arrangements" had subjective financial value to both Ringo (a place to sleep) and Donald (attempting to avoid further legal fees/fines), and is thus legally "property" that can be stolen. This is complete legalistic bullshit, but hey, what else is new. (alternatives like "combining evidence to establish the correct cause of death" or "trying to argue for aiding suicide" seem even more likely to hit legal snags) Re: the locked decisions, I'm curious as to how those get unlocked. I'd assume on this one it might be something like if we sided differently in the suicide case, the correct coroner's report might not have been suppressed? Might be worth going back to that one then next if this doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
Let's go back to the beginning and see what happens when you chose non-Indictment in the Prologue.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 10:25
|
|
|
I'm finding this a really fascinating and unique game to watch played. Thanks for showing it off, I probably never would have heard of it otherwise!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 02:27
|
|
|
NAME REDACTED posted:I'm finding this a really fascinating and unique game to watch played. Thanks for showing it off, I probably never would have heard of it otherwise! You’re welcome! It’s an obscure thing, to be sure. Also, it seems we need a tiebreaker. Nick’s guess for the special outcome was incorrect, unfortunately, so it’s between staying in chapter 3 or going back to the prologue. Next vote will decide, and then I’ll start working on the update.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
Oops I neglected to vote. I'll go with staying in chapter 3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 04:23
|
|
|
I'm maybe too late to vote, but I'm a bit confused by the special option. Is this something extra-judicial (like, I dunno, backroom office politicking if that's even possible) or is it figuring out a different charge to indict the guard (e.g. assault or something)? Appreciate the cat pictures too! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
Niric posted:I'm maybe too late to vote, but I'm a bit confused by the special option. Is this something extra-judicial (like, I dunno, backroom office politicking if that's even possible) or is it figuring out a different charge to indict the guard (e.g. assault or something)? The second. I would say that special outcomes involve ignoring the framework of the case that you've been given, changing the narrative so to speak. This can mean ending up with a different charge entirely. We will never leave the CIS screen, gameplay-wise. yamiaainferno fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Jun 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2020 07:36
|
|
|
Next update will be short (since we've seen most of the case already) and should be out tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2020 07:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Reasonable cause for sleeping seems one option for the #3 Special Or get the other autopsy report off whoever was holding it up. Maybe it shows, as some suspected, that our council worker used some forcible persuasion to move on the vagrant in question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2020 11:11
|
|
