STATE OF RIDGEWAY
FINDKILLREPEAT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-412
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
v.
BETATHEWOLFGAMER
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
ARGUMENT
I. PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSAULT DEFENDANT
Defendant alleges that my client assaulted the plaintiff, at the very start of their interaction. That
is simply untrue. Assault is defined as “"Any individual who intentionally and voluntarily caused
reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact is assault.” Defendant alleges that
my client “aggressively” approached the defendant by saying “What you looking at.” Those, in no way,
fit the definition of assault. My client has the right to disrespectfully verbally engage with the police,
which he does do. What this statement isn’t however, is a statement that shows there will be immediate
harmful or offensive contact. It may be rude, it may be vulgar, it may be downright annoying, but it is
not in any way shape or form “fighting words.”
Defendant alleges that “Beta didn’t know whether or not FKR had a knife on their person: they
could have.” This simply goes against all police training, why did the defendant choose to stay in that
very area, instead of backing away and establishing more distance. Defense alleges that my client “was
within close striking distance and could have pulled a knife and stabbed Beta to death.” This is an insane
assumption. So - anyone who is in this arbitrarily defined “close striking distance” is liable for assault?
That would be insane. Plus, if the defendant truly believed that my client was possessing a knife, or
other melee option why didn’t the defendant walk away? Isn’t the defendant trained to maintain distance
so that he can counter that? Instead, the defendant willingly puts himself into the middle of a group of
people - and doesn’t leave after they get upset that he just interjected himself into their space - and then
proceeds to batter my client for being upset that a police officer has interjected himself into their space.
II. DEFENDANTS ARREST WAS NOT LAWFUL
Defense tries to argue that my client assaulted them - which they didn’t. If he truly believed that,
then why did the defendant arrest my client for “failure to comply” instead of assault? Nonetheless, the
charge my client was arrested on was “failure to comply.” That's absurd. My client was peacefully and
civilly conducting his business as a citizen of the State of Ridgeway - a fact that the defense admits in
their response - until the defendant walks over to my client and the group my client was hanging out
with, interjects himself, refuses to leave, and simply gets upset and arrests my client out of rage, just
because my client isn’t happy a police officer is there. There was no reason for the police officer to be
there in the first place, to stay there (against his training), and then to quickly and harshly arrest my
client. The police officer willingly placed himself in a corner, and then pretended that he was assaulted,
in order to arrest my client. “Beta concedes that they battered FKR unnecessarily and used excessive
force.” This officer was here, maliciously, to cause a fight. He placed himself in a situation, knowing
what he was doing, against his training, in order to garner an arrest. Imagine this - a user goes AFK, a
police officer walks up to them, lawfully asks them to move, and upon the user not doing so, gets
arrested for failure to comply. This statute allows for too much abuse if that type of arrest is deemed
okay. It is not okay. It must be stopped here and now.
III. DEFENDANT MET MENS REA WHEN COMMITTING BATTERY, AND THE
PENALTY MEETS THE LIABILITY
The defense admits “Beta concedes that they battered FKR unnecessarily and used excessive
force,” and then goes on to say that it was just a “law enforcement technique.” In no world have I ever
seen “excessive force” be deemed as an appropriate “law enforcement technique.” Regardless, battery is
defined as “"Any individual who brings unconsented harmful or offensive contact against another
person is battery.” This was an unconsented batter, check. This was harmful, my client took damage,
check. This was offensive, the defense admits he used excessive force, check. The defendant acted
knowingly that his conduct would hurt my client, he admits. That’s mens rea for battery.
The defense admits it, again “While Beta is liable for battery, Beta should not be subjected to the
outrageous damages that FKR is claiming.” The defense needs to read the law here. The end of the
definition of battery, as stated above, ends with “shall be liable for punitive damages up to $2,500.” We
are seeking that exact number in our relief. It is a statutory request.
IV. PLAINTIFF HAS CLEAN HANDS
Defense alleges that because my client “committed assault,” he comes with unclean hands. My
client did not commit an assault. My client therefore has clean hands.
V. PARTIES ARE NOT EQUALLY AT FAULT
Defense alleges that because my client “committed assault,” and that the defendant battered my
client out of the same conduct. That not equally at fault, battery is actual physical harm while assault is
the premedatator to battery, there doesn’t need to be physical harm for assault. Thus, they’re not equal.
Furthermore, my client did not commit an assault, so there is no equal fault, because my client is not at
fault for assault.
VI. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ARE NOT FOUNDED UPON AN ILLEGAL ACT
Defense alleges that because my client “committed assault,” the legal action filed was founded
upon an illegal act. My client did not commit an assault. My client therefore is not basing this legal
action upon an illegal act.
CONCLUSION
The motion to dismiss should be denied, and the legal action shall continue.
Respectfully Submitted,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant FindKillRepeat
By and through their Attorneys,
/s/ OfficerVideoGame
OfficerVideoGame, RSB#17124
Dated: July 15th, 2022
