Denied Jobban Appeal - Dwice - Robert Ust

Discussion in '[Closed] Un/Ban Appeals [Archive]' started by YellowSnake, Apr 15, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Raptorblaze

    Raptorblaze Head Coder Staff Member


    Scenario: The captain removes weapons from the Armory.
    Premise 1: Petty theft specifies items that one does not have access to, belong to others, or belong to the station as a whole.
    Premise 2: Theft further specifies the stealing of dangerous or restricted items such as weapons, but still requires that the conditions of Petty Theft be met.

    Definition 1: Let us define "belonging to" as items which either spawn on a person, or spawn in a unique role's assigned locker (the heads, warden, quartermaster are the only unique roles with lockers) This is because contents of a storage room, such as the armory or medical storage, do not belong to any individual, but to anyone with access.
    Definition 2: Let us define limited supply as "nonrenewable" or "exceedingly difficult to replace"
    Definition 3: Let us "Belonging to the station" as generally accessible by any member of the station crew

    Argument 1: The captain taking a weapon from the armory does not meet Definition 1, as the contents of the armory do not belong to any individual, but to anyone with access (Warden, HoS, Captain) to be distributed as they see fit.
    Argument 2: The weapons present in the armory do not meet Definition 2, the price of a weapons crate (containing an assortment of these weapons and more) from supply is 30 supply units. Within 5 minutes of the round start, this allows for 4 of these crates to be ordered AND delivered to the station. I'd say it pretty clearly does not meet the definition.
    Argument 3: The contents of the armory are not generally accessible, and therefore (obviously) do not meet definition 3.

    Argument 4: Due to Arguments 1, 2, and 3, the captain taking weapons from the armory does not meet the requirements of petty theft (Premise 1)

    Conclusion: As Theft requires the scenario to first satisfy the requirements of Petty Theft (Premise 2) and the requirements of Petty Theft are not met (Argument 4), The only logical conclusion is that the scenario does not constitute theft.


    Tell me which part you disagree with, because it seems pretty straightforward to me.
  2. Sam Guivene

    Sam Guivene Well-Known Member

    Um, this is the kind of thing that belongs in the space law thread and not in this ban appeal thread, as its been established that even if it was theft it was still excessive force on his part, therefore the resolution of this debate has no merit on the case
    QuantumWings likes this.
  3. PistolPete

    PistolPete ForumGuard Staff Member

    Here is what I disagree with, Raptor.

    Definition 2: Limited Supply - Under Space Law, the exact example given is a doctor stealing all the surgery tools and hiding them, which are immediately replaceable utilizing the Autolathe. Your definition of limited supply does not match the precedent already set by Space Law.
    Argument 3: The contents of the armory are generally not accessible, but are understood to be utilized for security's use. All extra law enforcement gear is stored there, to include riot suits and shields, flashbangs, and handcuffs as well as the aforementioned weapons. The Captain starts the round with three weapons personally available to him, all capable of lethality as well as the best armor on the station. This leads me to believe that the armory should be reserved for use by Security.
    QuantumWings likes this.
  4. RebelAmerica

    RebelAmerica ForumGuard Staff Member

    This is getting off track and is not going anywhere, the jobban applied here is going to stay.

    Appeal denied.

    PS: If you got access to something, you can't be charged with theft.
    Rob Ust and Raptorblaze like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page