Crim211-1

*See:* Case history

# Brief for the King, submitted by Dalaena
```

King's Brief For the Prosecution of Torm for the Assault of Tangel submitted by Dalaena

The facts of the case are relatively simple. Arathan was caught stealing from Torm who then became extremely enraged. Tangel became involved when he was chosen as the representative of his guild to deal with the situation. Apparently, the thieves guild had dared each other into trying to steal from Torm, who was traveling with Yanda at the time. They were caught and decided pay back all that Torm thought had been stolen. Tangel was the instrument in keeping Torm in place so that everything could be returned.

Kanin was a witness to the fact that Torm muted Tangel during Tangel's attempt at delaying Torm. Kanin stated that Tangel did not try in any way to provoke a fight though Yanda was becoming increasingly foul in attitude and language. Tangel did appear to be the reason that Yanda was so upset. He was asked to shut the fuck up several times. Finally, Torm muted him. Both Yanda and Torm agree that there could possibly have been a fight if Torm did not take action and mute Tangel. They both agree that Tangel's statements were antagonistic to them since no one likes to be told that they might have misplaced the money which they believed to be stolen off of them.

Other witnesses declare that Tangel was not being offensive just talkative. Several questioned the muting since muting has long been considered extreme measures to take upon someone. Again, this muting was done with an intent to prevent a battle, but it was still assault.

# Brief for the Defense, submitted by Ashyr
```

There is no question that Torm muted Tangel. He won't deny it. However, it was done to prevent a more serious crime: murder. Had Torm not muted Tangel, there would have been a fight in the tavern and someone (most likely Tangel) would probably have died.

But the issue at hand here is whether muting someone, for whatever cause, is assault. There currently is no precedence for this. Muting is non-violent and non-painful. It magically prevents the target from uttering any phrases. It is by no means the same as hitting them over the head with a club. There was no harm done and in this situation, it allowed everyone to cool off without bloodshed.

The fact is Torm was the victim of assault. He was assaulted three times within a matter of seconds by the thief Arathan, in front of witnesses. On the final attempt, Arathan managed to pilfer some coin. Torm was assaulted on a "dare." When Torm expressed his anger over the assaults in the tavern, Tangel began a litany of double talk to cover for Arathan. As the conversation progressed, Tangel became more antagonistic toward Torm and Yanda, with all three parties becoming increasingly angry. So Torm muted him. It should be noted that the coin was later returned to Torm, evidence that he was indeed assaulted and robbed.

If muting Tangel indeed constitutes assault, then justice should be served. However, justice should be tempered with mercy when the situation calls for it. This is such a situation. I eagerly await the wisdom of the Judge.

Ashy the canonical curate

Supplicant to Bilanx.

## Judgment: Crim211-1j

```
King's Bench of Sable

                        )
Rex,                    )
                        )
                        )
v.                      )       Crim211-1
                        )
                        )       DECIDED: Thawing 21, 211
Torm                    )
________________________)
```

**Charge:**

Torm stands accused of the aggravated assault of Tangel.

**Findings of Fact:**

1) Torm was either robbed, or believed he was robbed.

2) This enraged Torm.

3) Tangel was not involved in any robbing of Torm.

4) Tangel was muted by Torm.

**Discussion:**

Despite attempts by the defense to argue in the contrary, muting or silencing in any form is a severe assault that is extraordinarily painful and humiliating to the victim. The power to speak is one of the basic abilities of all humanoid beings and it is something all hold very dear. The ability to speak one's mind is something all Sableans cherish. Muting someone is a very, very grave attack. To assert otherwise is nothing short of outrageous and absurd.

The prosecution has met its burden of proof by showing that Torm did in fact mute Tangel. Further, the prosecution has presented evidence and testimony that Tangel was not inciting heated argument in the tavern- rather, it was other people who were being antagonistic. Regardless, simply arguing one's point strongly would not be sufficient reason to justify being muted.

The defense has made 2 main arguments. The first is that Torm was robbed, and thus it is understandable why he was so angry. The second is that in muting Tangel, Torm prevented the possibility of a fight or murder, since Tangel was being "antagonistic". Both of these defenses will be addressed below:

*1) "The fact is Torm was the victim of assault. He was assaulted three times within a matter of seconds by the thief Arathan, in front of witnesses. On the final attempt, Arathan managed to pilfer some coin."*

If Torm feels he was robbed by Arathan, his recourse is to either obtain justice against Arathan himself, or seek out a Justicar. Being stolen from by one person does not somehow create a legal right to assault, attack, or slay a completely different person. This defense is completely invalid.

*2) "When Torm expressed his anger over the assaults in the tavern, Tangel began a litany of double talk to cover for Arathan. As the conversation progressed, Tangel became more antagonistic toward Torm and Yanda, with all three parties becoming increasingly angry. So Torm muted him"*

The defense has failed to present any type of argument or precedent for how someone defending another person via words is justification for an attack or a muting. Tangel is certainly within his right to mention other possibilities for how Torm lost his coin. Tangel can outright say "I do not believe you Torm, I do not think Arathan stole from you." The only time someone's words can justify an attack is when a serious and real insult is involved. Disagreement, even heated and stern disagreement, does not constitute insult.

From the evidence and testimony presented to the court, it seems very clear that Torm and his allies and clanmates were as antagonistic, if not more so, than Tangel was in this situation. The difference is that Tangel used only words, whereas Torm used a brutal and hideous attack. If this situation had actually come to a fight, Torm and his allies would be standing trial for murder right now, and would most likely be convicted.

Even if the facts are viewed in a light most favorable towards the defense, and it is assumed that Torm was robbed and Tangel was antagonistic in his speaking in the Green Griffon Tavern, this court could not find any justification whatsoever for the muting of Tangel.

The court would also add that it finds actions such as Torm's to be utterly repugnant. This was abuse and misuse of god given abilities for vain and selfish purposes. One cleric did not wish to hear the opinions of another citizen, and in an act of outrageous arrogance, silenced him. Shameful.

**Holding:**

*Aggravated Assault:* Guilty

**Sentence:**

Torm will pay 10 orb to a Justicar and 5 orb to Tangel. Payment to Tangel shall be witnessed by a Justicar.