Black Stories 2013 ~ Case 04: Surprise

[capt. h]

> Did the crime involve "probing"?

> Did the crime involve kidnapping?

> Did the crime involve cows?

[BT]

> Did the crime involve "probing"?

> Did the crime involve kidnapping?

> Did the crime involve cows?

NO, NO, NO

[LaserTurtle]

Was the defendant protected by diplomatic immunity?

[capt. h]

> Can the defendant comprehend his crime?

> Is the defendant physically within the courtroom?

> Was the defendant's crime violent?

> Was the defendant's crime financial?

[Raitaki]

> Was there a threat of retribution if the defendant is harmed/confined by humans?

> Was the court adjourned because it failed to come up with any sentences that would possibly be a punishment to the defendant?

> Was anyone within the court manipulated somehow?

> Was the defendant the last of its kind?

> Did the defendant bribe the humans with something valuable to them?

[BT]

> Can the defendant comprehend his crime?

NO

> Is the defendant physically within the courtroom?

NO

> Was the defendant's crime violent?

NO

> Was the defendant's crime financial?

NO

I think it won't be hard to figure everything out with the identity of the defender. You've already narrowed it down by quite a bit.

[FinnKaenbyou]

>Was the defendant's crime trespassing?

[capt. h]

Is star trek involved?

[BT]

Whoops, missed Raitaki's questions last time. They're pretty good, sorry!

> Was there a threat of retribution if the defendant is harmed/confined by humans?

You could very well say that

> Was the court adjourned because it failed to come up with any sentences that would possibly be a punishment to the defendant?

I think that's a YES

> Was anyone within the court manipulated somehow?

NO

> Was the defendant the last of its kind?

NO

> Did the defendant bribe the humans with something valuable to them?

There was no bribery involved - answered by your manipulation question, really

>Was the defendant's crime trespassing?

NO

Is star trek involved?

Nope

MAN apparently I missed this too:

Was the defendant protected by diplomatic immunity?

NO

[Raitaki]

Hmm...I think the only major thing left we have to find out is the crime itself :V

> Was the defendant charged with causing property to Earth or any of its spacebound possessions? (This includes satellites, space shuttles currently on space missions and their crew, etc.)
> Was the defendant responsible for any deaths of Earth life, or any modifications to their habitats or genetics?
> Was the defendant charged with interfering with major Earth affairs and politics? (includes economy, media, etc.)
> Was the defendant a representative appearing in court representing its own race?

[capt. h]

Is the plaintiff non-human?

Is the courtroom on earth?

[BT]

Hmm...I think the only major thing left we have to find out is the crime itself :V

If you find that you find everything else, though I don't know how easy that'll be. It's -slightly- specific

> Was the defendant charged with causing property to Earth or any of its spacebound possessions? (This includes satellites, space shuttles currently on space missions and their crew, etc.)

NO

> Was the defendant responsible for any deaths of Earth life, or any modifications to their habitats or genetics?

YES

> Was the defendant charged with interfering with major Earth affairs and politics? (includes economy, media, etc.)

NO

> Was the defendant a representative appearing in court representing its own race?

NO

Is the plaintiff non-human?

NO, she's human

Is the courtroom on earth?

YES

[capt. h]

> Was the defendant responsible for any non-human deaths?

> Was the defendant responsible for any alterations to earth genetics?

> Was the defendant responsible for modifications to earth habitats?

(For specificity)

[BT]

> Was the defendant responsible for any non-human deaths?

Assuming you mean "charged with" over "responsible for": NO

> Was the defendant responsible for any alterations to earth genetics?

Err, what do you mean by earth genetics?

> Was the defendant responsible for modifications to earth habitats?

Assuming you mean "charged with" over "responsible for": NO

[Raitaki]

> Was the defendant charged with altering any traits or genes that can be inherited in any Earth organism?
> Was the defendant charged for the death of any Earth life? If yes, then I'll add the following question:
> Was the defendant charged for: the deaths of human beings? the deaths of animals? the deaths of plant life? the destruction of habitats? the "deaths" of microorganisms necessary for the well-being of Earth life?

If each of the above questions is answered YES at some point: > Did the defendant engineer some kind of disease or toxic substance and unleash it somewhere on Earth?

[capt. h]

Did the defendants actions result in the death of non human life?

Did the defendants actions result in modifications to earth habitats?

Did the defendant modify the dna of an orgasnism on earth?

(I am not asking whether he was charged with any of these.)

> Did the defendant have a relationship with the plaintiff?

[Raitaki]

lol capt h your first 3 are all included in what I just posted

[capt. h]

Charged versus resulted. Charged is what you are arrested for, resulted means it happened, but it wasn't why youre on trial.

[LaserTurtle]

Guys wait.

What if we're going about this the wrong way?

> Is the defendant a meteorite?

[Raitaki]

But who would put a meteorite on trial? And what could a meteorite do that's not violent? :V

[Conqueror]

Defendant was stated to be living.

>Is the defendant a bacteria or some other microbial organism a la the Andromeda Strain?

[BT]

> Was the defendant charged with altering any traits or genes that can be inherited in any Earth organism?

YES

> Was the defendant charged for the death of any Earth life? If yes, then I'll add the following question:

NOt exactly

> Was the defendant charged for: the deaths of human beings? the deaths of animals? the deaths of plant life? the destruction of habitats? the "deaths" of microorganisms necessary for the well-being of Earth life?

I'll be nice here and state that the deed was done to a human being (I might have answered this already, in fact, though I don't know)

If each of the above questions is answered YES at some point: > Did the defendant engineer some kind of disease or toxic substance and unleash it somewhere on Earth?

I don't like the phrasing of this, but this somewhat of a YES

Did the defendants actions result in the death of non human life?

Actions at any point in time? That's most certainly a YES, I'd say

Did the defendants actions result in modifications to earth habitats?

Certainly, YES

Did the defendant modify the dna of an orgasnism on earth?

YES

> Did the defendant have a relationship with the plaintiff?

NOthing special

> Is the defendant a meteorite?

NO

But who would put a meteorite on trial? And what could a meteorite do that's not violent? :V

This case isn't the most logical / calculated thing out of the plaintiff, I assure you

Defendant was stated to be living.

>Is the defendant a bacteria or some other microbial organism a la the Andromeda Strain?

Nipping this in the bud. Although I said it was "alive" early on, it was to address the claim that the defendant was "dead". You'd certainly address the defendant as "alive" and not "dead", even though they're not any of what we call "living beings". I don't mind doing this because we should be done at any moment now.

[DNAbc]

The defendant is a virus?

[BT]

The defendant is a virus?

NO

[Conqueror]

Is the defendant carbon-based?

[BT]

Is the defendant carbon-based?

Specify what you mean by "carbon-based".

[theshirn]

Is the defendant sentient?

[BT]

Is the defendant sentient?

NOpe

[LaserTurtle]

does the defendant have genetic material?

[Yaersulf]

>Is the defendant's existence due to sentient life?