Crim183-2

No brief on record.

No brief on record.

Rex v. Alexander Crim183-2d

FACTS: It is alleged that Alexander killed Lenora in retaliation for Lenora's theft of an item of Alexander's personal property. Prayer is for a fitting punishment for Alexander for the crime of murder. The court declines to punish.

DECISION: It is uncontroverted that Lenora did in fact commit theft against Alexander by stealing an item of his personal property. She reported, or rather bragged, of the theft over the public channel 'Threshold.' Nor is it seriously challenged that Alexander did in fact pursue Lenora and kill her. In the absence of a valid defense, Alexander would be guilty of murder. There is, however, a most valid defense.

The issue here is whether, when a citizen's property is stolen or attempted to be stolen, he may retaliate through the use of such force so as to cause death or serious bodily harm. This court has shown great deference to the use of self defense and retaliation by the victim of a crime committed upon his body. Indeed the court has recognized that even a citizen "accused [of a crime], when served with a summons, may have the right to attack the Police Officer as an enemy and further, he may have the right to pursue the Police Officer as he returns to the court to register a successful delivery." Rex v. Drazz, Crim182-2d. While service of summons is not itself the same as stealing property, the deference of this court to the integrity of the person is evident. Property is most important and a citizen's property is entitled to the greatest protections. In fact, property may be seen as an extension of the individual. Thus it seems clear, that by stealing property, the thief is essentially attacking the individual. The rule is clear that when an individual is attacked by another he may defend himself and may even retaliate to the extent of causing the death of the attacker. This court holds today that the privilege of retaliation in the face of actual bodily harm extends to the theft of property as well. When a citizen's property is harmed or stolen, he may defend that property through great force or retaliate with great force even to the extent of causing death.

Alexander has a valid defense to the charge of murder. His property was stolen. He identified the thief. He found the thief and he retaliated for the theft by killing her. This was no murder at all.

SENTENCE: None.

So ordered this 19th Day of Deep Chill 183 in the Kingdom of Sable.