SD v Crimsonexus (Remanded) 2025 Crim 45
SD v Crimsonexus (Remanded) [2025] Crim 45
| Date of judgment | 17th May 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Average787enjoyer |
| Charges | 1 charge of Police Brutality (Article 26 of the Criminal Code) |
| Verdict | Guilty of 1 charge of Police Brutality |
| Sentence | 1 week mute |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
REMANDED JUDGMENT by Judge Average787enjoyer
Section 1: Facts of the Case and Argumentation
[1] Defendant crimsonexus gave the “Arrested” role to mbh292 on March 18, 2025
[2] The prosecution argued that by (1) having the power to give other users the Arrested role and (2) by giving that role to mbh292 without legal justification, crimsonexus committed Police Brutality.
[3] The defense argued that because crimsonexus was not a member of the SDBI, they were not empowered to exercise the powers of a law enforcement officer under Article 26.
Section 2: Judgement
[4] The question before the Court is whether or not the defendant, as a user with the power to apply the arrested role on Discord, was empowered to arrest someone.
[5] In order to be subject to Art. 26 S2, the individual performing the arrest or detention need not be legally empowered to do so.
[6] The Merriam-Webster English Dictionary defines to “detain” as “ to hold or keep in or as if in custody.” The court finds that because giving someone the “in custody” role restricts them to channels visible to arrested people, applying the “Arrested” role (or equivalent) constitutes arrest or detention.
[7] Therefore, the court finds the defendant (crimsonexus, /u/iaccp) GUILTY of 1 charge of Police Brutality and sentences them to a 1 week mute, as sought by the prosecution.
ORIGINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Average787enjoyer<ref>Paragraph numbering retrospectively added. To distinguish it from the remanded judgment, the paragraph numbers have retrospectively been given A in front of them, e.g. [A3].</ref>
Section 1: Facts of the Case and Argumentation
[A1] Defendant crimsonexus gave the “Arrested” role to mbh292 on March 18, 2025
[A2] The prosecution argued that by (1) having the power to give other users the Arrested role and (2) by giving that role to mbh292 without legal justification, crimsonexus committed Police Brutality.
[A3] The defense argued that because crimsonexus was not a member of the SDBI, they were not empowered to exercise the powers of a law enforcement officer under Article 26.
Section 2: Judgement
[A4] The question before the Court is whether or not the defendant, as a user with the power to apply the arrested role on Discord, was empowered to arrest someone.’
[A5] However, while it may be tantamount to an arrest, the question remains of whether crimsonexus was empowered to arrest mbh292. The court finds in this regard that while crimsonexus had the ability to give mbh292 the arrested role, they were not empowered to arrest him.
[A6] The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary defines “empower” as “To invest legally or formally with power or authority; to authorize, license.” crimsonexus, not being delegated the legal authority to arrest by the Department of Justice, was not legally or formally invested with power or authority, and was therefore not empowered to arrest mbh292
[A7] Due to not being empowered to arrest mbh292, the application of the “Arrested” role should not legally be considered an arrest
[A8] Due to being neither a law enforcement officer nor a person empowered to exercise the powers of one, the Court finds crimsonexus not guilty of 1 charge of Police Brutality
Citations
<references />