*letter sent to Barrister Fawkes*

Concerning the Incident in the Arena with Tuur, Rollo Stoneshield, and the Duergar:

Private,

It appears that your ruling is based on an inaccurate understanding of the events that transpired. I'm quite disappointed that you did not further question me when you felt my statements were contradictory when they are actually quite clear.

I understand that you have already made a decision in this incident and likely feel that it is somewhat moot. Yet I feel most unsatisfied with this outcome and would like further clarification. The fact that you approached me concerning the case after you issued this "judgement" indicates to me that you were aware that I was likely displeased with the result, and were making an effort mollify me.

I find that quite interesting, yet not at all the purpose of this communication. So once again, I will state the events in an attempt to clear up the confusion you obviously were experiencing when you came to this questionable decision on how to handle my charges.

As stated, when I saw the madman repeatedly land blow after blow upon my insensate kinsman, I ran from my vantage point to the ramp and entered the arena floor.

Sir, I am a trained healer, both in the divine and mundane arts. I am sure that my training in this area far outweighs yours, and suffice to say that repeatedly landing blows on a senseless person's head can be quite lethal.

This abuse necessitated immediate and hasty action to prevent these repeated and likely lethal blows to Tuur. Why you feel that this very logical response of a trained healer to prevent a likely act of murder could possibly constitute grounds for the aggressor to attack a healer is quite myopic from my viewpoint.

To infer that I could even possibly be charged with assaulting him due to my actions is insulting and indeed quite laughable. It appears to me a quite transparent attempt to bully one into a docile response and to discourage them from questioning the wisdom, even the motives behind such an inconsequential verdict.

When I entered the arena, I wanted to make quite sure that I was not attacking him, so I came to a complete stop. This position was, as I said, a significant distance from the beating that was being administered. I then cast a spell which further strengthens my armor in case I was attacked in the process of aiding the unconscious and savaged Tuur.

After I cast this spell of protection, the Duergar then noticed that I had entered the Arena. Although I was standing quite motionless to avoid conflict which would prevent me from treating Tuur's apparently severe trauma, he attacked. With a yell, he sprinted halfway across the Arena floor to me and attempted to hurt me with his warhammer.

This begs the question that I had hoped answered when you abruptly and quite rudely ran away to deal with a minor incident of spellcasting...How can you affix such irrevelant criteria that you discuss at length in your letter to the fact that this Duergar CLEARLY attacked WITH A WEAPON another citizen without warning or provocation?

There is no mention in sanctuary law that I am aware that allows a citizen the right to attack another because they THINK they MIGHT be attacking them! Your decision in this matter is based on conditions that have no bearing on the law. The law clearly states that attacking another with a weapon is illegal, and the sentence is exile or stoning.

If you would be so kind, I'd like a copy of those parts of Sanctuary Law that stipulate conditions that a citizen is allowed to attack another. As I see no place in our report that refutes my statement, it appears that there is no doubt that he attacked me with a weapon.

The point in question seems to be if there are situations where it is lawful to do so. I heartily disagree with your assessment that my actions allowed a man obviously committing a criminal act to attack me. But this is not important. The law says it is a crime to attack another citizen with a weapon. That he did is not is not disputed.

I am curious to see what part of Sanctuary Law your verdict is based upon, and will be eagerly awaiting a copy of those sections that relate to your contention that citizens are allowed to assault others with a weapon without they themselves being attacked in any way.

Obviously it goes without saying that if you are unable to provide me copies of Sanctuary Law that clearly state stipulations allowing one to attack others, I will wonder what your decision is based upon, and will certainly be calling for a review of how you handled this investigation.

~ Thane Rollo Stoneshield ~

Eleasis 25, 151 Thane Stoneshield Barak-Tor Regard Complaint over Decision

Thane, I am a bit of a legal scholar. While you are correct that there is no law stating you have the right to defend yourself from a reasonably perceived threat to your safety, there is also no law in Sanctuary forbidding slavery.

This is because of the existance of what scholars call "common law". It is a series of "laws" set through the precedent of past judicial decisions by both the Council and its trials as well as the decisions of Watch personelle in the many cases that come before them. It was also these common law decisions that caused me to discard your allegations of attempted murder I might add.

The common law essentially makes it clear that advancing on someone with a weapon drawn, regardless of the rational behind it, is invariably an acceptable justification to attack that individual. The alternative to finding Chk not guilty of assaulting you would actually to have been to declare his reasoning for attack unjustified.

In that situation, again the common law gives a firm precedent. If Chk was unjustified in attacking you, it would mean that both he and you would be guilty of assault. You instigated this second assault by interfering in an already violent altercation and had a weapon readied in hand to further by all extents and appearances further violence. The proper course of action was to alert the Watch or the Spellguard to stop the violence.

My option therefore was to find Chk not guilty on the second charge or to charge you both. In light of your testimony and the statement that you were "rushing" not "walking" to aid Tuur, I declared your intentions pure enough that I prefered not to see you punished for your role in this second assault.

You are certainly welcome to disagree with this decision based as it is on the law of Sanctuary and supported by 150 years of previous decisions. Your concerns should be directed to Sergeant Salina Marshall, if she does not agree you have a final option of appealing to Sheriff Ronus Graiden.

Filed Private Barrister Fawkes

Private Fawkes,

I thank you for your prompt and professional response to my letter. However, I am most disappointed that you are unable to list a specific section of Sanctuary Law to validate your reasoning, instead referring to some nebulous and undocumented precedence, which is not substantiated by specific cases and therefore impossible to refute.

It seems that Sanctuary Law is then subject to the whims of the officer that handles a complaint, and enables to forumulate his or her own interpretation of the Law. I would think this a matter for a judge to decide, but I will defer matters of procedure to your word until I have a chance to discuss this with Sergeant Marshall and Sheriff Graiden.

One would think this creates a potentially illogical precedence in the laws of Sanctuary. By your specious reasoning, any citizen my run over and assault any other who has moved into the vicinity with weapon drawn and then stood motionless as I did.

Additionally, by your own ruling, this Duergar was in the midst of a crime. Does this mean that any citizen that draws a weapon upon witnessing a crime is then fair game to be attacked by the ciminal without recourse? Or that the victim's benefactor is then potentially guilty of assault for the mere act of drawing said weapon while another citizen is brutally beaten?

I seriously question the wisdom of such interepretation of the law, as it violates every precept upon which ordered societies are built.

As a law-abiding citizen and vigorous adherent to the concepts of a lawful society, I scoff at the notion that it is an illegal act to defend a victim of a crime with reasonable force. If that is indeed your interpretation, you had best increase your jail accomadations by a factor of ten because nearly every citizen here for a significant period of time has assisted the victim of a brutal attack with force.

I also trust that the next time a citizen is insulting and draws a weapon in my immediate presence, that based upon this ruling, it is within my legal right to initiate an attack upon that person who has just assaulted me.

It seems you are creating a dangerous legal precedence here, one that the Watch does not have the manpower to control, if citizens are able to respond to perceived threats in the manner in which you have described.

I would have thought that the actual iniation of a physical attack with a weapon far outweighs the simple brandishment of a weapon. Perhaps you would be so kind as to further elucidate as to why these two acts are in effect the same crime?

~ Thane Rollo Stoneshield ~

24th Nightall 150 A citizen is arrested for brandishing a weapon. No one was harmed or threatened, the citizen was charged with minor crimes and fined fifty gold coins.

In this situation, brandishing a weapon is found to be a crime.

4th Hammer 150 A citizen approaches a halfling and states he likes to kill and eat gnomes. The halfling responded that he was in fact a gnome. The citizen then struck him twice with a bare fist.

The halfling responded by running and pelting the citizen with darts until a combination of exhaustion and wounds knocked the citizen to the floor.

The citizen was charged with assault. This was even though the halfling used weapons to defend himself.

In this situation, responding to assault is not found to be a crime even when harsher methods are used in the response. These darts caused enough serious wounds to incapaciate the citizen.

Alturiak 19th

A man witnesses a situation he believes is a crime. When the Watch fails to intervene in a manner he finds acceptable he stated "I'll deal with the law myself" and assaults the suspected criminal.

He is charged with assault.

In this situation, a citizen intervened to correct a wrong or handle a breach of the law. The violence that resulted is his responsbility therefore.

Tarsakh 23rd

Arrested: Freddy Wilks, Brendo Wilks, Becky Blake

Crime: Serious

Multiple armed assaults on each other in the streets over a dispute over funds. The woman drew steel on the two men in the rock, and they then attacked her outside as well. Seen by Rollo Stoneshield.

I think this case is particularly helpful as you served as a witness and it involves a woman drawing steel who is then attacked by the Wilks brothers. All three citizens are charged with serious crimes.

When you witnessed this situation you did not voice any complaint at that time. It is a situation identical to the one between yourself and Chk with the ameliorating exception that your defense was your desire to rescue Tuur.

The cases above highlight my reasoning.

1) Vigilantism is punishable under law. A lawful society must insist that only those authorized by the law to intervene in stopping a criminal act may do so.

2) Drawing a weapon is a crime, punishable by time served for minor crimes, confiscation of the weapon, or a fine generally of 25 gold.

3) Citizens do have the right to defend themselves from perceived threats, and are even allowed to respond with more force than is used against them, provided it does not result in irreparable harm to the instigator.

By these precedents, I should have found you guilty of assault. Considering your involvement in the community and your sincere statement that you were attempting to intervene to save Tuur's life, I decided to show you leniency.

By showing you leniency, it would have clearly been unjust to punish Chk. The law of Sanctuary is subject to the interpretive wisdom of the Watch. By my reasoning, drawing a weapon and standing anywhere in the city is a crime. I merely leavened the justice of Sanctuary with compassion for your situation.

Filed Private Barrister Fawkes