Dutch Kids Convicted For Stealing Virtual Magic Amulet

from the are-you-kidding-me? dept

It's been over five years ago since we pointed out how silly the world would be if we started bringing real world justice into virtual worlds. It sets up a ridiculous situation, since the way any virtual world works is based on how it's programmed. If there's a problem with an action, it should be up to whoever controls the game to fix the problem, rather than the real world police. If you start setting a precedent where the "theft" of a virtual item in a video game is considered theft, then how do you deal with online worlds where theft is a part of the game? If the game allows it, then it should be a part of the game.

Even with plenty of people warning about how ridiculous it would be for police to get involved in searching for a stolen magic sword, it seems that hasn't stopped people from going to the police. In the past, the lawsuits have usually been for other crimes besides theft, though. We had one for illegal computer access, after a woman logged into a boyfriend's account and deleted his virtual objects. In another case, someone was charged with copyright infringement for "copying" weapons.

However, now we have a case of an actual theft charge in the Netherlands. Two kids have been convicted of theft of a (I kid you not) "virtual amulet and a virtual mask" in the game Runescape. The details are pretty scarce, but apparently the two kids "coerced" another kid to hand over the items, and to the court that's as good as theft:
"These virtual goods are goods (under Dutch law), so this is theft."
I have to admit I don't know much about Runescape, but a quick look at the website mentions that it can involve "fights to the death." Does that mean we'll soon have murder charges stemming from the game? Update: Some folks in the comments have helpfully filled in some of the details that were lacking from the original article. The two kids in this case apparently beat up and threatened at knifepoint (in real life) the other kid in order to get him to give them the virtual amulet. As others in the comments point out, it sounds like they should have been charged with assault and battery, but still not theft.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Pieter Hulshoff, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 7:27am

    Threats

    As questionable as the ruling may be, do realize that this "theft" was the result of RL threats to the victim. The "cooercing" was not done within the game.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 7:39am

    From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    I agree that going to court over a virtual amulet may come off as petty but that does not mean there is an area of concern.

    Imagine if your a network administrator running a virtual server on your network. Someone then manages to force you to wipe your server (by holding a gun to your head, threats, whatever) leaving you without a major compononet of the network. While someone didnt actually take a physical server and destroy it. They did manage to take a virtual server and wipe it from your network. In this setting it would seem much more of a legitimate concern.

    I dont think the Dutch courts have it all wrong here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Ima Fish, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 7:43am

    If Pieter Hulshoff is correct and if this was a real life threat, then I have to agree that it was in fact theft. Imagine if under threat I make you move all of your music files to my hard drive. You no longer have your music and now I have it. That's theft. It's no different than if I made you turn over your CD collection to me. The fact that it is data on a hard drive or data on a CD makes no difference.

    So in answer to your question, "Does that mean we'll soon have murder charges stemming from the game?" the answer is "yes" if it involves a real life murder. Just as this case involved a real life theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    MadJo (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 7:55am

    Indeed, the two kids had physically threatened, kicked and beaten up the other kid in order to get the items.

    Hypothetical question for Mike, if there is a game where you can buy (with real money) items for use inside that game, and then someone comes by (either off or online) and threatens/forces you into handing those items, items you bought, over to him (outside of the game mechanics and rules), would you consider that to be theft? Or would real world laws not apply in that case either?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Matt, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 7:56am

    the real issue here has been sidestepped

    It's not that the virtual item is the theft.

    The charges have 0 to do with anything virtual in the case, which is more accurately mike's point.

    Mike, runescape is a free equivalent of ultima online...think MMO type game, less graphical world of warcraft equivalent if that helps.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    A. L. Flanagan, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 7:58am

    Wrong charge?

    I don't know Dutch law, but in the US they wouldn't bother with a theft charge. You've got a case for assault and battery without any legal gray areas.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 7:59am

    Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    This is not a virtual server. This is a game.... A GAME! He sued over losing something in a game! GET A GRIP PEOPLE!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Casey, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 8:07am

    Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    The line between the real world and the virtual world is becoming increasingly blurred. As soon as you are monetizing the virtual world, the real world has no choice but to get involved. In this case, the fact that a virtual asset was lost is irrelevant as there was still a loss - the fact that the loss is intangible is (as ruled in this case) a nonissue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Johnny Canada, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 8:18am

    Peter's post

    Go back up and read Peter's post (# 4)

    Then make your comments.

    There was actual physical violence involved.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    John Doe, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 8:25am

    Re:

    Once again, Mike, your report does not include all the facts. How is RIAA going to take you serious? How are you ever going to get free music?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 8:39am

    Wake up and realize that an infraction occurred. An individual that shares the world with you has been coerced as you say to give up his in game items.

    You didn't mention that said coercion was at knifepoint.
    You didn't mention that the game items are comparable to someone stealing something of yours that you find valuable. (unless of course you are so obtuse as to believe that only your views of value are important)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Ima Fish, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 8:39am

    Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    "This is a game.... A GAME! He sued over losing something in a game! GET A GRIP PEOPLE!"

    Please provide your address. I'll come to your house and put a gun to your head and steal your wallet. Then I'll say,

    This is a wallet.... A WALLET! He sued over losing stuff out if his wallet! GET A GRIP PEOPLE!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    michael, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 8:39am

    novel plot

    This sounds like something out of a Charles Stross novel, such as "Halting State".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Jed, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 8:41am

    Re: Facts

    TechDirt is not omniscient, nor should you expect it to be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 8:52am

    Re:

    Good point MadJo. An example of this would be a poker site. Texas No Limit Holdem is a game that can played online where can buy (with real money) items for use inside a game. (These would be the poker chips).

    As I said before at first glance it may seem petty convicting two kids over a virtual amulet and mask. But that does not mean there is an area of concern. I dont think the Dutch courts have it wrong here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Kissinger, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:02am

    The object involved, albeit virtual, represents a certain value. This can be deduced both from the fact that it sells for money as that it was the subject of theft. Because of that, it is a good ruling. Let me remind you that money is also virtual.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    charlie potatoes, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:06am

    details not so scarce if you look for them....

    The boys were sentenced to community service of 200 and 160 hours for kicking and hitting their victim and threatening him with a knife until he transferred a virtual amulet and mask to them while playing Runescape......

    This seems to put a different spin on the crime . Maybe you guys should try Google before you write an article with 'scarce' facts.... but thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    TechDude, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:16am

    Some snippets from the runescape official rules:

    "2. Isn't it up to me what I do with my items & account?

    No, the terms and conditions state that your character, account and items are, and remain, the property of Jagex. "

    "Game items must only be exchanged for other items/services within the game. Exchanging game items for items or other benefits in other online games, real-life money or other real-life benefits is not allowed."

    http://www.runescape.com/kbase/viewarticle.ws?article_id=2082

    Even looking directly at Jagex (owner of Runescape) rules, this cannot really be called "theft" in that they own every item and character present in the game.

    This trial should not be about stealing, but rather about the physical threats, as people have said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Sether, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:17am

    Virtuality is a nonissue

    As Casey said, virtuality is a nonissue. People deride virtual goods on the logical basis that because virtual goods are *potentially* infinite, and because they are not tangible, they are valueless. Not so. The money in your bank account, and the balance on your credit card, are equally intangible; someone with access to those computers could simply change the numbers that represent your virtual assets, but these virtual numbers are very real to you nonetheless.

    Think of it this way: if time is money, then whatever you spend your time on has value to you. If you spend it in pursuit of a virtual sword instead of a paycheck, then that virtual sword is still an INVESTMENT of sorts. Couple that with the fact that "virtual" assets like the magic sword are seen as valuable by an entire community of people: the value of the sword becomes very real indeed. People who say "it's just a game" are missing the point - yes, these are games, but they are also financially-based communities.

    Analogy: If I buy a house in rural Italy, I - and everyone in Italy - think of it, rightly, as having VALUE. Saying that a magic sword has no value is *exactly* the same as saying that my country villa is worthless, simply because you've never been to Europe. The difference is that, because these games are 100% manmade and controlled, it IS possible to have bad inflation or for property values to drop.

    The lesson here is that everything is worth what somebody will pay for it... and in virtual worlds, game items hold value just like a dollar bill does. (Note that we use fiat currency, by the way - it's *really* just worthless bits of paper, right? So can I have yours?) Conclusion: If you steal or destroy someone's valued assets, you are behaving unethically and ought to be punished by law. Of course, it's a whole new field of law, and it'll be a real quagmire to sort out exactly what's legal and what isn't and what penalties should be. But once that happens, you'd better believe that online assets will start seeing real-live taxation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Mike Walters, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:18am

    Consider the venue

    Of course, you have to remember that the Dutch once based their economy on the tulip bulb. Thousands of florins were spent on individual bulbs. When the tulip "bubble" burst, many people were ruined financially. I think the value of an unplanted tulip bulb could be considered somewhat "virtual".

    Then again, looking at worldwide markets today, I wonder how much of the world's wealth can be considered "real".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Gregory Booth, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:19am

    Re: Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    I'm not sure how you can possibly view both of these as the same. I understand that there was external coercion (sp?). I don't, however, think that makes virtual theft the same as real world theft. Should the children be charged with assault? Absolutely! How about threat/intimidation charges? Again yes! But theft seems to be stretch and a move onto a slippery slope.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Joe, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:21am

    Oh i fear for the world

    Now you just have to wonder how much longer until there is a stalking charge where a virtual character follows another without their consent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Urza, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:24am

    Who gives them authority?

    Ok, punish the kid for the threats. That much is obvious. But, while yes, this item does have real-world value, being a virtual world the theft should be handled by the owners of said virtual world. Yes, you can transfer real world money into game money. But that's like converting my US money into Canadian money. And when you give that money to your character, it's live me giving my Canadian money to a Canadian citizen. So, if one Canadian steals some money from another Canadian, even if that money originally came from somebody in the US, the US courts have no right to handle that matter. The Canadian courts should.

    Your characters don't live in the real world. They don't exist in the real world. They aren't under the jurisdiction of any real world courts. Otherwise, as Mike said, you'll start having murder charges for in-game duels. Or, if you consider your came characters your property, you'll have theft charges for killing those characters. And maybe charges of slavery for 'owning' those characters.

    Yes, what the kid did was wrong. Yes, he should be punished. But no, they shouldn't be able to charge him with theft. Perhaps blackmail or extortion or something.

    Anyways, the theft actually occurred in the US, as that's where Runescape's servers appear to be located, so even if you want to say real world courts can have jurisdiction, I think it's hard to say the Dutch court had jurisdiction in this case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Rose M. Welch, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:25am

    Re: Threats

    So shouldn't the charge and subsequent conviction be made for real-life threats and harassment?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Rose M. Welch, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:28am

    Re:

    Oh, thank you! After reading all of the comments about violence magically transforming non-theft into theft, I was afraid I was the only person with a brain here...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    Ima Fish, Aren't you the one that is always speaking out against emotional arguments? Yeah...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Rose M. Welch, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:32am

    Ohhh! Good question!

    If using real-life threats and assault to coerce someone into giving you a virtual item is theft, does that mean that using real-life threats and assault to coerce someone until their Second Life character has sex with your SL character is real-life rape? How about using real-life threats and assault to coerce someone to take their low-level WoW character into a high-level area, thus making them die. Is that real-life murder?

    Just curious...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:42am

    Re: Ohhh! Good question!

    Sounds like assault and battery and to the second question, the only answer I have is another quesetion. Are you mentally handicapped?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Rose M. Welch, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:47am

    Re: Re: Ohhh! Good question!

    Nope. That might be a question better directed at all of the people who keep commenting and insisting that using real-life threats and assault to coerce someone into giving you a virtual item is theft. If it's theft, then the other is rape, and the last is murder. If the logic doesn't carry into other situations, it's not usually very logical.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Ohhh! Good question!

    Never said it was theft, troll. But nice try.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:53am

    Re: Threats

    As questionable as the ruling may be, do realize that this "theft" was the result of RL threats to the victim. The "cooercing" was not done within the game.

    Then they should have been charged with assault and battery. It's still not theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    umm, huh?, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:54am

    Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    big difference between a game and a commercial network

    virtual server is still a server, just no hardware

    items in a game are data at best

    next thing, people will be accused of assault over PVP battles

    there's a word for an inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy...schizophrenic

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    chris (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:55am

    Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    Imagine if your a network administrator running a virtual server on your network. Someone then manages to force you to wipe your server (by holding a gun to your head, threats, whatever) leaving you without a major compononet of the network.

    it's already illegal just about everywhere to threaten someone, doubly so when a gun is involved. it doesn't matter what you tell a person to do at gunpoint, holding someone at gunpoint is illegal just about everywhere.

    if this case really did involve real world menacing or coercion, why isn't that the charge and conviction instead of the virtual theft?

    tricking someone in a game into doing something stupid is not illegal, if anything it *might* be a terms of service violation.

    does this mean we can press charges against spawn killers? how about we try team killers for treason? that one will be funny to watch since in the US it carries the death penalty.

    this is the danger of unintended consequences. so if there is some sort of game server failure and you have to roll the world back two days, does that mean i have a case for theft since my two days are now gone?

    a virtual world belongs to it's creators, and those creators should handle these issues, not the real world police.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:55am

    Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    Imagine if your a network administrator running a virtual server on your network. Someone then manages to force you to wipe your server (by holding a gun to your head, threats, whatever) leaving you without a major compononet of the network. While someone didnt actually take a physical server and destroy it. They did manage to take a virtual server and wipe it from your network. In this setting it would seem much more of a legitimate concern.

    That's a very different scenario. What we're talking about is an *in game* environment. The point is that issues in the game can be settled by the gaming administrators. Kick out the others, and return the virtual goods. It's as easy as that.

    I have no problem if the kids were charged with assault and battery for the real world actions, but it wasn't theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:57am

    Re:

    If Pieter Hulshoff is correct and if this was a real life threat, then I have to agree that it was in fact theft. Imagine if under threat I make you move all of your music files to my hard drive. You no longer have your music and now I have it. That's theft. It's no different than if I made you turn over your CD collection to me. The fact that it is data on a hard drive or data on a CD makes no difference.

    If the coercion was in real life, then I can see a charge of assault and battery, but it's still not theft.

    The music file example isn't correct, because here we're talking about a virtual world where there IS a de facto gov't: those who run the servers. They can "return" the missing merchandise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    In Real Life..., Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:58am

    Re:

    The basis for any legal action has to be the threats and coercion, no matter whether they were delivered in person or via chat features in game. Damages, if any, would need to be based on emotional distress, which could easily be caused by loss of virtual items. The items are worthless in real world terms, but losing them is like losing any intangible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    www.custompcmax.com, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:58am

    Brilliant!

    Fortunately this is just the Netherlands, or this would start a very scary precident. The virtual item really has no value. Sure, you might be able to sell it to some other gamer, transfer ownership in exchange for money. But, it isn't real. I look at it more as you would be selling the work you did to get the item, not the actual virtual item. Once we stray into those items having true real world value, then we have a serious problem on our hands. There will be thousands and thousands of lawsuits stemming just from World of Warcraft about character theft, "ninja looting" and other scams that occur every day to people. In fact, I would be afraid to play, as you could easily be manipulated into looking like you stole something.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re:

    Once again, Mike, your report does not include all the facts. How is RIAA going to take you serious? How are you ever going to get free music?

    Um. I recognize you're just trolling, but must I point out the obvious? I wrote the post based on the AP article, which did not include those details. I have since updated the post to include those details.

    And, as another commenter pointed out, no one said that I was omniscient. I write based on what is known at the time, and then half the reason we have these comments open is so that people can add in details that were missing. That's the point.

    Finally, the additional facts that have been mentioned don't change the point. Theft was still the wrong charge.

    I stand by the post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    chris (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:59am

    Re: Peter's post

    then why isn't the charge for physical violence which is already illegal?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:00am

    Re:

    Hypothetical question for Mike, if there is a game where you can buy (with real money) items for use inside that game, and then someone comes by (either off or online) and threatens/forces you into handing those items, items you bought, over to him (outside of the game mechanics and rules), would you consider that to be theft? Or would real world laws not apply in that case either?

    I think you could make a case for assault there, but not theft. The transfer of virtual goods could and should then be handled in the game.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:03am

    Re:

    Wake up and realize that an infraction occurred. An individual that shares the world with you has been coerced as you say to give up his in game items.

    Then the lawsuit should have been for assault. Not theft.

    You didn't mention that said coercion was at knifepoint.

    That was not in the original AP story.

    You didn't mention that the game items are comparable to someone stealing something of yours that you find valuable. (unless of course you are so obtuse as to believe that only your views of value are important)

    Value is meaningless here. Let's say there's an online MMO where part of the goal is to steal goods from others. Would you still consider it theft, even if it's valuable? The point is that if it's in the game, it should be taken care of in the game, otherwise, you're going to run into problems.

    If you build a great character in a game, and it has value, and another character kills your character, is that theft?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    chris (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:04am

    Re: Oh i fear for the world

    if only the real world had instanced settings :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:04am

    Re:

    The object involved, albeit virtual, represents a certain value. This can be deduced both from the fact that it sells for money as that it was the subject of theft. Because of that, it is a good ruling. Let me remind you that money is also virtual.

    Value is meaningless here. As I pointed out above, what if you built a valuable character in an MMO (valuable characters are often sold) and then another character kills it in a fight.

    Is that theft?

    Of course not. It's a part of the game. Anything that happens in the game should be dealt with in the game.

    If there was assault out of the game, then the charge should be assault, not stealing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    nasch, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Ohhh! Good question!

    Thanks for posting this, it kind of broke a mental logjam for me. The question I now find myself asking is, who owned the amulet? Was it the kid? No, the amulet only exists in the game, and the kid doesn't exist in the game. The kid's *character* owned the amulet (well legally the game publisher owned it, and still owned it after it was "given" to the bullies). So they're charging a real person with stealing from a virtual person. Yes, the threat/assault/whatever charges are spot on, I'm only talking about the theft.

    If you steal from a real person, whether you're stealing something virtual or real, it could be theft. For example, if they'd coerced his account details from him and then changed his password, that could be described as stealing his account, even though it has no physical existence. If you steal from a virtual person, no real court should be involved as long as that's all that took place. Keep in mind that I'm saying any real illegal activities surrounding any such "stealing", such as threats or violence, would still be perfectly fair game legally. But if you don't do anything illegal in the real world, and only steal from someone who doesn't really exist, that "crime" should be dealt with in the game/virtual world/whatever.

    Did I get something wrong there?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:05am

    Re: details not so scarce if you look for them....


    This seems to put a different spin on the crime . Maybe you guys should try Google before you write an article with 'scarce' facts.... but thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.


    We wrote the article based on what the AP had reported, which did not include that. So, is it that we should Google or that the AP should Google?

    Either way, I have since updated the post, based on this info, and it does not change things one bit. The kids should have been charged with assault, not theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:06am

    Re:

    Even looking directly at Jagex (owner of Runescape) rules, this cannot really be called "theft" in that they own every item and character present in the game.

    That's a great point! Thanks TechDude.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Sether, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:06am

    No slippery slope...

    Mike's post 5 years ago said "isn't beating people up and taking their stuff the whole point of these games?", to paraphrase. Mike, *if* that is part of the game, then yes - people will lose their stuff because they're losing the game, and they'll only complain if they're weenies.
    That's not the issue.
    The problem is that online games - just like real life - have plenty of people who try to cheat the system (whatever that system happens to be, and games can vary greatly) to get an advantage. The argument that the assets involved are worthless is invalid, as I argued in my previous comment.
    Now we get to what's right and wrong.
    Murder, stalking, slavery etc. are not illegal IF THEY ARE PART OF THE GAME, and no lawyer will question that, for all you dunces trying to argue a slippery slope. It doesn't matter what you CAN do in the game, be it kidnapping or robbery or genocide.

    BUT, if you try to cheat the system, by holding a kid at knifepoint in RL or by e-mailing somebody a virus with a keylogger, it IS more than just assault and battery - it's cheating a system, just like robbing a convenience store is cheating our real life system of wages and commerce. We have no legal precedent to punish this kind of cheating, probably because its consequences are so minor compared to robbing someone in real life - but that doesn't make such behavior ethical or unworthy of legal recourse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:11am

    Re: Virtuality is a nonissue

    Couple that with the fact that "virtual" assets like the magic sword are seen as valuable by an entire community of people: the value of the sword becomes very real indeed. People who say "it's just a game" are missing the point - yes, these are games, but they are also financially-based communities.

    So answer this: if I build up a valuable character in the game, and someone else kills it in a battle in the game, is that theft?

    If it's enclosed within a virtual world, it should be taken care of within that world. If it's allowed within the world, then whoever controls the world makes the laws. Bringing in outside laws is very dangerous and will basically destroy the ability to create any sort of real fantasy world, since they will all be governed by outside laws.

    Analogy: If I buy a house in rural Italy, I - and everyone in Italy - think of it, rightly, as having VALUE. Saying that a magic sword has no value is *exactly* the same as saying that my country villa is worthless, simply because you've never been to Europe.

    You're building a strawman here. NO ONE said that a magic sword has no VALUE. We're saying that the issue needs to be taken care of WITHIN the game world, because that's where the rules are set. Again, if theft is a part of the game, even if goods are valuable, is it still theft?

    You open up a huge can of worms if you allow real world laws into virtual worlds.

    Your Italy example is meaningless because that's no a virtual world.

    The lesson here is that everything is worth what somebody will pay for it... and in virtual worlds, game items hold value just like a dollar bill does

    And, again, no one said anything otherwise. So, no, that's not the "lesson."

    Conclusion: If you steal or destroy someone's valued assets, you are behaving unethically and ought to be punished by law.

    So, by this definition, any time anyone kills another character in one of these worlds, you ought to be punished by law. Sorry, I don't think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:13am

    Re: No slippery slope...

    BUT, if you try to cheat the system, by holding a kid at knifepoint in RL or by e-mailing somebody a virus with a keylogger, it IS more than just assault and battery - it's cheating a system, just like robbing a convenience store is cheating our real life system of wages and commerce.

    It is no more than assault or battery. The transfer of goods within the virtual world can be totally controlled by those who control the virtual world. So they can handle the return of the goods, and the kids should be charged only with assault (and potentially battery).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Rose M. Welch, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:19am

    Re: No slippery slope...

    if you try to cheat the system, by holding a kid at knifepoint in RL or by e-mailing somebody a virus with a keylogger, it IS more than just assault and battery - it's cheating a system, just like robbing a convenience store is cheating our real life system of wages and commerce.

    Sending is a virus is nothing like robbing a convenience store and both of those are very different from assualt and battery. They have nothing to do with one another. They are very different crimes with different charges associated with them.

    Even if that were true, wouldn't it be up to the game owner to press charges for the 'cheating' inside of their game?

    Theft did not occur. Virtual items that belonged to the game owners were transferred within the world of the game owners. The item belonged to the game owner in the first place and belonged to the game owner after the transfer. No theft occurred.

    If the game owners cancel someone's account, is that also theft of all of their virtual items?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Sean, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:21am

    Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    But your example, in regards to a gun to the head means there is immediate threat to your person. While it isn't made clear in the paragraph above if the 'coercion' was strongarming the kid or just convincing him via word, your point is lost here in my opinion.

    Someone holding a gun to your head and demanding you wipe your server is much different than convincing someone to give you an amulet. In the virtual world, no bodily, worldly harm was imminent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    MadJo (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:28am

    Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    He didn't sue anyone, he went to the cops to file the theft and assault, the police then went and arrested these two boys, and brought them before a judge, who then prosecuted them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    MadJo (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:35am

    Re: Re:

    So I come to your door, kick you and beat you, and threaten you, and demand that you transfer ownership of techdirt.com to me.
    And that does not count as theft?

    Sure, it's assault too. But I did deprive you from 'goods' that were yours to begin with. Sure it may be digital, but still, it was your property, and not mine. That is the core principle of theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Aris Katsaris, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:38am

    "We're saying that the issue needs to be taken care of WITHIN the game world, because that's where the rules are set."

    Absolute nonsense. No rules within the game world speak about what happens when in the real world someone threatens you with physical force. Real physical force and the threat thereof and all its repercussions are an issue for the real world courts.

    The criminality occurred in the *real* world, not the virtual one. It's an issue for real courts. The violence lead directly to the theft. The very REAL theft of a virtual object, not a virtual theft thereof.

    This isn't the case of a Rogue class using "pick pockets" to steal a magic item from a Wizard. Once again: The criminality happened in the real world, and as such it must be dealt with with real-life courts. The theft wasn't virtual, the theft wasn't part of the gameworld, the theft was a REAL-WORLD theft of a virtual object.

    It's the opposite that I find absurd: you believing that virtual courts must be instituted in-game to deal with real-life coercion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Monarch, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re:

    Yeah, and iTunes could return your music files also, as they are just bits and data.

    Theft is theft if forced to do something in real life due to threat of physical bodily harm. Just because it's a game should not dilute the fact that someone was "held up at knife point" in real life to hand over goods.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    MadJo (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 11:16am

    Re: Re: Virtuality is a nonissue

    So answer this: if I build up a valuable character in the game, and someone else kills it in a battle in the game, is that theft?

    It's not the same thing. This would be a better analogy:
    Say I build up a valuable character in the game, and someone corners me in the real life, and demands that I hand the controls over to that person.

    If the guys only threatened the boy, and hadn't used violence, it would still count as theft to me.

    I see your point, indeed, what you state isn't theft, but that isn't the case here. It wasn't done from within the game. These two kids came up to the other kid, and threatened him.

    Also, it's a misconception that the boy sued... no he reported the crime to the police who then took action.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    IT Dude, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 11:25am

    If i had know that...

    I would have charged countless people with 1st degree murder back in my WOW days.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 11:43am

    Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    Well Mike, it seems that you are getting a little defensive. You said, “What we’re talking about here is an “in game environment”. You are assuming that this must fall under that category and all should agree because you say so. Keep in mind I write this only to discuss the issue. I am not attempting a “Let’s get Mike campaign”. You keep repeating that “This is not Theft”! You may not be wrong about that. But I think you can make an argument that some sort of loss did occur here. And it really shouldn’t be out of the question that the victim does receive some sort of compensation for his losses from the courts.

    Most importantly the virtual loss stems from an incident that happened outside of the game mechanics or rules. You have said, “What if you kill another character in a MMO? Is that murder?” If it happens within the game mechanics or rules it would always just be part of the game. If you don’t like it don’t play the game. If someone takes steps (like in this case) to use real world crimes alter a virtual account of any type (Gaming, banking, shopping, etc..) I really don’t think it is at all out of the question to receive some sort of compensation from the courts for losses. (It should be obvious the murder charge is ridiculous but I understand why you are attempting to use it to push your point. What we are talking about here is some form of loss. I understand some hold no value to the “Magic Amulet”. But that does not mean the victim has suffered no loss).

    Should the courts play any role here? Your response to this is a resounding NO!!! You believe that this should just be resolved in game and should be open and shut. I disagree with you here. You are assuming the gaming administrators are going to do the right thing and boot the two kids who assaulted the other and return the merchandise. In actuality they don’t have to do anything unless they want to. You are attempting to create a whole different set of laws for this issue. There is no guarantee that anything will be done to correct the situation when you leave the decision up to the gaming administrators. You are assuming they will do the right thing. And eventually that will be a problem.

    So here is my question to you Mike: In your opinion should the courts be able to order the Gaming administrator to correct the problem by ordering the gaming company to return the lost goods and boot the two criminals? Or should they find the two kids guilty of vandalism, theft, etc? If you are of the opinion the court has no role here I see big problems- (Especially when it comes to online gambling. Imagine if someone put 2 million dollars in an account. And the Gaming administrators said wow, “Let just cash in take the 2 million and close the site. We make the rules so why not. We are immune from any kind of court action because it is an in game issue)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So I come to your door, kick you and beat you, and threaten you, and demand that you transfer ownership of techdirt.com to me.
    And that does not count as theft?


    Techdirt.com is, by its nature, a scarce good. A magic amulet in a game is not.

    Besides, we're talking about in a GAME WORLD, where those who run the game can easily fix the situation.

    The assault charges are all that should happen in the real world, not theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 11:45am

    Mike, you said: "It is no more than assault or battery. The transfer of goods within the virtual world can be totally controlled by those who control the virtual world. So they can handle the return of the goods, and the kids should be charged only with assault (and potentially battery)."

    The game owner can NOT handle any compensation, first, because the assault took place in real life. The virtual theft was a result of this crime, and because it's entirely out of the sphere of the game developer's power, there's no way for them to prove that any theft occurred. Even if they could, the game publishers run into the "printing money to reimburse robbery victims" dilemma. This is more likely to happen in virtual systems than in real life, but it's still not likely.

    To whoever said that "if the game owner shuts down your account and you lose your character, can you charge them with theft?":
    The answer is obviously no, because the publisher already reserved the legal right to do such things. Still feels like you've been stolen from, but that's irrelevant. Chances are you've been banned for a legitimate violation of the EULA, and you're really just suffering the only kind of punitive measure that game publishers can dish out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 11:46am

    Re:

    Absolute nonsense. No rules within the game world speak about what happens when in the real world someone threatens you with physical force. Real physical force and the threat thereof and all its repercussions are an issue for the real world courts.

    The assault, yes. But it's still not theft. If it is considered theft, then how is it different than in-game theft?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 11:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Virtuality is a nonissue

    Say I build up a valuable character in the game, and someone corners me in the real life, and demands that I hand the controls over to that person.

    Then that's assault if they threatened you.

    And then the game itself can handle returning the character to you. It's important to understand the distinctions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 11:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    By your logic, if you work for a year to build a character, acquire in game items, reputation, and the like, and then someone hacks your account and blows it all away, you haven't really lost anything, right? Except a year of work. How much do you earn a year? How would you feel if someone took all your copies the code you took a year writing?

    And then there is the concept of Good Will for which companies pay millions (or show as an asset worth millions on their balance sheet) and on which, in some jurisdictions, you pay tax. There isn't even an icon you can point to for that.
    Just because it is virtual doesn't mean that depriving someone of it isn't theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    Well Mike, it seems that you are getting a little defensive.

    Um. Explaining my position is not "defensive." It's simply explaining my position.

    Most importantly the virtual loss stems from an incident that happened outside of the game mechanics or rules. You have said, “What if you kill another character in a MMO? Is that murder?” If it happens within the game mechanics or rules it would always just be part of the game. If you don’t like it don’t play the game. If someone takes steps (like in this case) to use real world crimes alter a virtual account of any type (Gaming, banking, shopping, etc..) I really don’t think it is at all out of the question to receive some sort of compensation from the courts for losses.

    Again, the crime is assault in that case. The "losses" in the virtual world can be handled within the virtual world itself. Bringing in the real world courts opens a huge pandora's box.

    You are assuming the gaming administrators are going to do the right thing and boot the two kids who assaulted the other and return the merchandise. You are assuming the gaming administrators are going to do the right thing and boot the two kids who assaulted the other and return the merchandise. In actuality they don’t have to do anything unless they want to. You are attempting to create a whole different set of laws for this issue. There is no guarantee that anything will be done to correct the situation when you leave the decision up to the gaming administrators. You are assuming they will do the right thing. And eventually that will be a problem.

    No, I'm not assuming that they will. I'm assuming that if they *don't* (which is their choice) other players will take that into account, and potentially look to move to other games. You still don't need to involve the courts.

    So here is my question to you Mike: In your opinion should the courts be able to order the Gaming administrator to correct the problem by ordering the gaming company to return the lost goods and boot the two criminals?

    Nope. I think it's up to the gaming administrators, though, they should realize the consequences of not fixing the situation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 11:53am

    Re:

    The game owner can NOT handle any compensation, first, because the assault took place in real life. The virtual theft was a result of this crime, and because it's entirely out of the sphere of the game developer's power, there's no way for them to prove that any theft occurred. Even if they could, the game publishers run into the "printing money to reimburse robbery victims" dilemma. This is more likely to happen in virtual systems than in real life, but it's still not likely.


    I would think that a conviction on assault charges should be evidence enough for the gaming administrators to fix the problem.

    And who said anything about "printing money." They can just remove the amulet from the guys who got it and give it back to the original owner.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    By your logic, if you work for a year to build a character, acquire in game items, reputation, and the like, and then someone hacks your account and blows it all away, you haven't really lost anything, right?

    I didn't say that. I didn't say you hadn't lost anything. I said it should be handled *in the game*.

    By the very same logic, if you worked for a year to build a character, acquire in game items, reputation and the like, and then someone hacks you with a magic sword and blows you away, you think you should be able to go to the courts?

    No.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 11:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    If the article re Holland is interesting, then you should find the following of even more interest:

    http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/magazine/LandslideSep08_Kane.pdf

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Sether, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 12:09pm

    Re: Re:

    Mike, I think you should play one of these games, to get an idea of how they work!
    Let's see, it's different from in-game theft for two main reasons that I can see:

    1) Within the game, it's NOT theft. It's a simple transfer of resources, legal and acceptable. If you were some guy who somehow conned me into giving you my amulet and mask in the game, that's still not theft - that's me being stupid and losing my stuff. It's a gift, or a lopsided trade, as far as the game and those who control it are concerned.

    2) In-game theft would be part of the game system, and everybody has the same rules applied to them regarding it. Using real-life force to take somebody's stuff is not part of the system. Granted, the game system isn't as important as our real-life legal/financial system, but the thieves are still working OUTSIDE the system to take somebody's stuff: therefore, theft.

    Mike, I still get the feeling that you don't believe that virtual property is actually valuable. And in this particular case, you're probably right, because the "property" isn't really owned by the players. But take a look at this:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_/ai_n17104652

    An excerpt: 'After claiming the mall for US$70,067 the young Epsilon said, "I believe the Port Atlantis Mall is a great investment for the future. Entropia Universe is growing all the time and Port Atlantis is a meeting place for new players."
    The malls will provide instant cash revenue to their new owners.'

    This is virtual property in a game, worth tens of thousands of dollars, and it makes considerable real money for its owner/players. Now, instead of an amulet and a mask that the kid could've illegally ebayed for $5, what if it was a $70k virtual property that some dude was forced to sign over to a robber? Is the game publisher still 100% responsible for investigating what happened and addressing the victim's complaint? Granted, there are probably much greater safeguards in place for Entropia Universe (I HOPE), but the principle remains the same. Stealing a pack of Mentos wont' put you in jail for as long as stealing the crown jewels will, but you'll still get in trouble. Having a double standard for virtual property is not appopriate, in my mind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Mike, I still get the feeling that you don't believe that virtual property is actually valuable.

    Nope, I believe it's *quite* valuable. But that still doesn't make it theft in the real world.

    This is virtual property in a game, worth tens of thousands of dollars

    There's a lot more behind that Project Entropia story, btw, but I never said that virtual property isn't valuable. In fact, I think it's quite valuable.

    But the point is that it should be taken care of *in* the game.

    Having a double standard for virtual property is not appopriate, in my mind.

    It's not a double standard. It's a single standard. What happens in the game should be dealt with in the game. What happens out of the game can be dealt with out of the game.

    That's a single standard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    Ferin (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 12:31pm

    Could apply

    I'm not sure theft charges wouldn't apply. It sounds like there's some possibility that the kids meant to take these things and sell them for cash. Certainly the assault and battery charges should apply, but I'm not sure you can't call this theft on some level, or at least bring it up as an issue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Ima Fish, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 12:55pm

    Re: Re:

    "They can "return" the missing merchandise."

    Imagine walking out of a store and some people beat you up and steal what you've just bought. The store feels bad and offers to give you again for free what was stolen. If that happens, does that mean that the people did not steal from you?

    Your argument is that if you can replace what was stolen, it's no longer theft. That makes no sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Monarch, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re:

    "Let's say there's an online MMO where part of the goal is to steal goods from others. Would you still consider it theft, even if it's valuable? The point is that if it's in the game, it should be taken care of in the game, otherwise, you're going to run into problems.

    If you build a great character in a game, and it has value, and another character kills your character, is that theft?"

    Good point Mike, and if the kids beat up his character in game and stole his items that way, the police would have never and should have never been involved. BUT, as the theft was not from INSIDE the game, but from OUTSIDE the game, the issue is most definitely THEFT!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Ima Fish, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 12:59pm

    "As others in the comments point out, it sounds like they should have been charged with assault and battery, but still not theft."

    How is this "still not theft"? Would beating up and taking someone's CD's be theft? CDs are mere data, how is this any different? The fact that the kid could get the data back does not suddenly make the theft not a theft. As I state above, the victim getting his stolen stuff back is not a defense to theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 1:10pm

    Re:

    It has nothing to do with whether the items can be returned or not. The issue here is avoiding the clash between the courts and the virtual game worlds. If the courts believe that they can step in then no virtual game world will ever be able to create its own rules again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Rose M. Welch, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 1:14pm

    Re:

    As Techdude pointed out, the items in question did not belong to the boy. They belonged to Jagex. After the victim sent the amulet from one account to another, they still belonged to Jagex. No one ever took any items from Jagex. If I coerced Mike into transferring the Techdirt domain to me, it would be different, because ownership of the items changed. In this case, the owner was always Jagex. I'm not saying that there can never be any theft of virtual goods. I am saying that there was no theft in this situation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 2:49pm

    Thought Experiment

    I think there's a LARGE difference between physical ownership and custodial rights.

    In these games such as Runescape, or SecondLife, you are custodian of a set of bits and bytes on a server.

    Unless the person was able to convert the Amulet into something physical, such as Currency, it should have been difficult to prove something was actually stolen, because the bits and bytes still exist on a server somewhere, but in reality, the custodian of the digital asset changed.

    Maybe due to invested time in gameplay, the "victim" may believe that the asset has an intangible value convertible to currency, but in reality it doesn't have a market value outside of those playing the game.

    Kids these days need to get back into the real world- go outside and PLAY.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Peter, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 3:10pm

    court

    http://www.jeuridique.com Hello! Please find enclosed a link to the case. The traduction (google) is kinda bad but It is way better than what I could do. Sorry for the long text. I wouldn’t cut any part of it. I will personnaly write a post (in french) on my website about the case. I will try to come back to you with an english summary of my opinion. best regards, Peter, esq. ==== Full text… LJN: BG0939, Leeuwarden Court, 17/676123-07 VEV Print uitspraak Print ruling Datum uitspraak: Date ruling: 21-10-2008 21-10-2008 Datum publicatie: Date of publication: 21-10-2008 21-10-2008 Rechtsgebied: Territory: Straf Criminal Soort procedure: Type of procedure: Eerste aanleg - meervoudig First Instance - multiple Inhoudsindicatie: Contents Indication: Diefstal virtuele goederen, diefstal met geweld, online computerspel, veroordeling. Virtual property theft, robbery with violence, online computer game, conviction. Uitspraak Pronunciation RECHTBANK LEEUWARDEN COURT LEEUWARDEN Sector straf Criminal Division parketnummer 17/676123-07 VEV Prosecutor number 17/676123-07 VEV vonnis van de meervoudige kamer voor de behandeling van strafzaken dd 21 oktober 2008 in de zaak van het openbaar ministerie tegen de verdachte verdict of the full bench for the treatment of criminal dated October 21, 2008 in the case of the prosecution against the accused [verdachte], [suspect], geboren op [geboortedatum] 1992 te [geboorteplaats], born on [birth date] 1992 [birthplace], wonende te [adres verdachte] residing at [address suspect] De rechtbank heeft gelet op het ter terechtzitting gehouden onderzoek van 7 oktober 2008. The court has given the investigation at the hearing held on October 7, 2008. De verdachte is verschenen, bijgestaan door mr. RA Schütz, advocaat te Leeuwarden. The suspect appeared, assisted by RA Schütz, lawyer to Leeuwarden. Telastelegging Telastelegging Aan dit vonnis is een door de griffier gewaarmerkte fotokopie van de dagvaarding gehecht, waaruit de inhoud van de telastelegging geacht moet worden hier te zijn overgenomen. This is a verdict by the Registrar certified photocopy of the subpoena attached, revealing the content of the telastelegging should be considered to be over here. In de telastelegging voorkomende schrijffouten of kennelijke misslagen worden verbeterd gelezen. Telastelegging occurring in the clerical or manifest miss layers improved read. De verdachte is hierdoor niet in zijn belangen geschaad. The suspect is not in its interests. Vordering officier van justitie Claim Prosecutor De officier van justitie heeft ter terechtzitting gevorderd: The prosecutor argued at the hearing sought: - veroordeling voor het primair telastegelegde; - Conviction for primary telastegelegde; - oplegging van een werkstraf voor de duur van 180 uren subsidiair 90 dagen jeugddetentie, alsmede voorwaardelijke jeugddetentie voor de duur van vier weken met een proeftijd van twee jaar; - Imposition of a labor for the duration of 180 days 90 hours jeugddetentie alternative and contingent jeugddetentie for four weeks with a probationary period of two years; Overweging ten aanzien van het verzoek van de raadsman tot het horen van getuigen Consideration regarding the request of the counsel to the hearing of witnesses De raadsman heeft ter zitting bepleit om de zaak aan te houden als bedoeld in artikel 328 juncto artikel 315 van het Wetboek van Strafvordering, nu het volgens hem noodzakelijk is dat aangever, medeverdachte en de verbalisanten die het verhoor van verdachte hebben afgenomen als getuige worden gehoord. The counsel argued at the meeting called for the case to be held as provided for in Article 328 in conjunction with Article 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now it is necessary that principal, co-defendant and the compiling of the interrogation of suspects have declined as a witness be heard . De rechtbank geeft het door de raadsman hiertoe aangevoerde hierna letterlijk weer: The court gives the counselor put this back literally below: Cliënt ontkent de verweten gedragingen ten stelligste. Client denies the alleged conduct strongly. Hij stelt zelf geen geweld te hebben gebruikt en niet te hebben gezien dat de medeverdachte het geweld heeft gebruikt dat volgens de aangifte zou zijn gedaan. He claims himself to have used no violence and not to have seen that the co-defendant has used the violence that the declaration would be made. Het geweld en de bedreigingen die volgens de aangever zouden zijn verricht door [verdachte], past volstrekt niet bij het beeld dat van [verdachte] wordt verkregen uit de rapportage van de Raad voor de Kinderbescherming. The violence and threats which the declarant would be made by [suspect], not totally fit with the image of [suspect] is obtained from the reporting of the Council for the Child. Het is eigenlijk onvoorstelbaar dat iemand als [verdachte], zoals hij door de diverse referenten beschreven wordt, zomaar ineens een en eenmalig dergelijk gewelddadig gedrag zou vertonen. It is really inconceivable that someone like [suspect], as he described the various reviewers are, simply and suddenly a single such violent behavior would show. Volgens [verdachte] heeft de aangever ten onrechte de handelingen die mogelijk mededader [medeverdachte] heeft gepleegd, ook in verband gebracht met [verdachte]; mogelijk was de aangever door de handelingen van [medeverdachte] in de war, zodanig dat de aangifte een onjuist beeld geeft van de feiten. According to [suspects], the principal wrongly acts that may co-offender [co-defendant] has committed, also associated with [suspect] was the principal by the acts of [co-defendant] in the war, so that a false declaration picture of the facts. Uit het dossier blijkt dat de aangever flink overstuur was. The file shows that the principal was quite upset. Het feit dat medeverdachte [medeverdachte] [verdachte] ook belast, kan volgens [verdachte] mogelijk verklaard worden uit het feit, dat [medeverdachte] mogelijk heeft gedacht er zelf beter vanaf te komen als hij de schuld deels zou kunnen afschuiven of delen met [verdachte]. The fact that co-defendant [co-defendant] [suspect] also charged, in accordance with [suspect] may be explained by the fact that [co-defendant] may have thought themselves better from there to be partly to blame as he could buck or part by [ suspect]. [verdachte] geeft aan dat hij in eerste instantie heeft ontkend bij de politie, maar dat hij toen de politie hem niet geloofde en hem vertelde dat hij mogelijk veel langer op het bureau moest blijven, vervolgens maar de verdenkingen heeft beaamd. [suspect] indicates that he initially denied to the police, but when the police that he did not believe him and told him that he possibly much longer at the agency had to continue, but then has echoed the suspicions. Uit het proces-verbaal komt de in eerste instantie ontkennende houding van [verdachte] niet naar voren. The minutes in the first instance, the negative attitude of [suspect] is not raised. [verdachte] acht het op grond van het voorgaande noodzakelijk voor de waarheidsvinding dat de aangever, [medeverdachte] en de verbalisanten die het verhoor hebben afgenomen, als getuige worden gehoord; de aangever en [medeverdachte] om door te nemen in hoeverre de aangifte cq de verklaring juist zijn met betrekking tot de voor [verdachte] belastende onderdelen; de verbalisanten om te horen of [verdachte] in eerste instantie een ontkennende houding heeft aangenomen in het verhoor, en of [verdachte] de in zijn verklaring opgenomen tekst geheel spontaan heeft verteld, of delen van de aangifte en wellicht de verklaring van de medeverdachte die mogelijk zijn voorgehouden, heeft beaamd. [suspect] considers it on the basis of the foregoing necessary for the truth that the principal, [co-defendant] and the compiling of the interrogation have declined, as witness be heard, the principal and [co-defendant] to take the extent to which the declaration or the statement is correct with regard to the [suspect] incriminating parts, the compiling to hear or [suspect] in the first instance, has adopted a negative attitude in the interview, and whether [suspect], the text included in his statement has totally spontaneous told, or parts of the declaration and perhaps the statement by the co-defendant who may be held, has echoed his comments. Aangezien wegens een typefout in het adres in de brieven die ik [verdachte] in eerste instantie stuurde, deze brieven werden geretourneerd (in een laat stadium) en [verdachte] dus niet hebben bereikt, kon de zaak niet voor vrijdag 26 september 2008, zijnde tien dagen voor de zitting, met hem op kantoor besproken worden, hetgeen de reden is geweest dat niet tien dagen voor de zitting is verzocht de hierboven genoemde getuigen op te roepen. Since due to a typographical error in the address in the letters that I [suspect] in the first instance sent these letters were returned (in a late stage) and [suspect] is not reached, the case could not Friday, September 26, 2008, being ten days before the meeting, discussed with him in the office, which is the reason that not ten days before the session is called the above-mentioned witnesses to call. De rechtbank overweegt als volgt. The court is considering as follows. De raadsman heeft in zijn verzoek - kort gezegd -de betrouwbaarheid van de verklaringen in het proces-verbaal betwist. The counsel has in his request - in short, the reliability of the statements in the disputed minutes. Naar het oordeel van de rechtbank is dit verzoek naar juridische maatstaven onvoldoende onderbouwd en zijn uit de stukken en het verhandelde ter zitting, gelet ook op de verklaring van verdachte, geen aanwijzingen naar voren gekomen om deze personen nader te horen als getuige. In the opinion of the court is requested to legal standards and are insufficiently substantiated in the documents and traded at the session, given also the statement of accused, no evidence emerged for these people to be heard as a witness. Derhalve is de rechtbank van oordeel dat dagvaarding of oproeping van deze personen niet noodzakelijk is. Therefore, the court finds that summons or notice of such persons is not necessary. De rechtbank wijst aldus het verzoek van de raadsman af. The court thus indicates the request of the counsel off. Het bestanddeel ‘goed’ als bedoeld in artikel 310 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht The constituent ‘fine’ as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal Code De officier van justitie heeft - kort gezegd - ter zitting aangevoerd dat de virtuele amulet en het virtueel masker goederen zijn die onder het bestanddeel ‘goed’ als bedoeld in artikel 310 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht vallen en de raadsman heeft ter zitting het tegenovergestelde bepleit. The Public Prosecutor has - in short - argued in court that the virtual amulet and the mask virtual goods within the constituents are ‘good’ as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal Code and the counselor told the House advocated the opposite. De rechtbank overweegt als volgt. The court is considering as follows. In de onderhavige zaak is sprake van virtuele goederen, namelijk een virtuele amulet en een virtueel masker uit het online computerspel “RuneScape”. In this case there is virtual goods, namely a virtual amulet and a virtual mask from the online computer game “Runescape”. Het volgende is de rechtbank ambtshalve bekend over “RuneScape”. The following is the court ex officio known about “Runescape”. “RuneScape” is één van de grotere online spellen en vooral populair onder de jeugd. “Runescape” is one of the larger online games and especially popular among the youth. Miljoenen spelers, zogenaamde online gamers, over de hele wereld spelen het spel. Millions of players, so-called online gamers, all over the world play the game. “RuneScape” speelt zich af in een virtuele wereld, waarin spelers met karakters kunnen deelnemen aan die virtuele wereld. “Runescape” is set in a virtual world where players with characters who could participate in virtual world. Spelers kunnen onder meer opdrachten (’quests’) vervullen, tegen andere spelers vechten en andere activiteiten ontplooien. Players may include contracts ( “quests”) perform, fighting against other players and other activities. Hiervoor kan men onder andere ‘items’, zoals een masker of een amulet, verkrijgen. This may involve, inter alia, ‘items’ as a mask or an amulet, procurement. De items hebben elk afzonderlijk een waarde. The items each have a value. Die waarde wordt in dit spel uitgedrukt in ‘coins’ en die waarde fluctueert op basis van vraag en aanbod van die items. That value is in this game expressed in ‘coins’ value, which fluctuates based on demand and supply of those items. Met die ‘coins’ kan men als speler ’skills’ (vaardigheden) trainen. With these ‘coins’ can be as a player’ skills’ (skills) training. Hoe meer ‘coins’ de speler heeft, hoe sterker hij wordt in het spel “RuneScape”. The more ‘coins’ the player has, the stronger he is in the game “Runescape”. Aangever, verdachte en medeverdachte hadden elk een account, dat toegang gaf tot het spelen van “RuneScape” en waren ook actief speler van dit spel. Principal, and co-defendant had accused each one account, which gave access to the playing of “Runescape” and were also active player of this game. Aangever had in zijn account een virtuele amulet en een virtueel masker. Principal had in his account a virtual amulet and a virtual mask. Artikel 310 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht heeft als doel het vermogen van de burger te beschermen. Article 310 of the Penal Code aims at the ability of citizens to protect. Bij de beantwoording van de vraag of virtuele goederen, goederen in de zin van dat artikel zijn, dient dit in het oog te worden gehouden. In answering the question of whether virtual goods, goods in the meaning of that article, this in order to be considered. Er is een aantal criteria waaraan moet worden voldaan, wil er sprake zijn van een goed in de zin van genoemd artikel. There are a number of criteria that must be met for there to be a property within the meaning of that article. Allereerst is van belang of een goed voor de bezitter ervan waarde heeft. First of all, is important or good for the possessor of value. Deze waarde hoeft niet in geld uitgedrukt te kunnen worden. This value does not have money to be expressed. In de huidige maatschappij zijn de virtuele goederen uit het online computerspel “RuneScape” van grote betekenis geworden. In today’s society, the virtual goods from online computer game “Runescape” of great significance become. Voor grote aantallen online gamers hebben deze goederen waarde. For large numbers of online gamers these goods have value. Hoe meer virtuele goederen een speler heeft, hoe sterker hij is in het spel. The more a player virtual goods has, the stronger he is in the game. Bovendien worden de virtuele goederen voor geld gekocht en verkocht, bijvoorbeeld via internet of op het schoolplein. Moreover, the money for virtual goods bought and sold, including via the Internet or on the playground. Uit de onderhavige zaak blijkt ook dat het masker en de amulet voor zowel aangever als verdachte en medeverdachte waarde hadden. The case also shows that the mask and the declarant as a talisman for both suspect and co-defendant had value. Van belang is tevens dat een goed niet stoffelijk behoeft te zijn. Of interest is that not a mortal need to be. In de jurisprudentie is uitgemaakt dat ook niet-stoffelijke voorwerpen - zoals elektriciteit en giraal geld - als goed in strafrechtelijke zin worden aangemerkt. In the case law has determined that non-material objects - such as electricity and scriptural money - as well as in criminal sense. De virtuele amulet en het virtueel masker als bedoeld in de onderhavige zaak zijn geen stoffelijke goederen, alhoewel ze wel waarneembaar zijn. The virtual amulet and the virtual template as defined in this case are not material goods, although they are noticeable. Gelet op de bedoelde jurisprudentie is dat geen beletsel om ze als goed als bedoeld in artikel 310 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht aan te merken. Having regard to the said case law is that no impediment to them as well as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal Code to brands. Voorts blijkt uit de jurisprudentie dat een belangrijk kenmerk van een goed in strafrechtelijke zin is dat de wegnemer bij diefstal de feitelijke macht over het gestolen goed verkrijgt en de bestolene de feitelijke macht door het wegnemen daarover verliest. Furthermore, the jurisprudence that an important feature of a criminal sentence is that the actual theft wegnemer in power over the stolen goods and obtain the bestolene the actual power by removing it loses. Het bezit van het goed moet van de een naar de ander kunnen overgaan. The possession of the property must be of one to the other can pass. Met strafrechtelijk bezit wordt bedoeld het hebben van feitelijke macht. With criminal possession means having actual power. In de jurisprudentie is uitgemaakt dat het voorgaande niet het geval is bij een pincode, computergegevens en belminuten van een telefoonabonnement. In the case law has determined that the foregoing is not the case with a PIN number, computer and a phone call minutes. De in de onderhavige zaak bedoelde virtuele goederen, te weten een virtuele amulet en een virtueel masker, waren in het bezit van aangever. In this case referred virtual goods, namely a virtual amulet and a virtual mask, were in possession of principal. Alleen hij had de feitelijke macht over die goederen. Only he had the actual power over such goods. Het bezit van die virtuele goederen kan worden overgedragen, bijvoorbeeld door de goederen van het ene account naar het andere over te hevelen. Possession of such virtual goods can be transferred, for example, by goods from one account to another to transfer. In de onderhavige zaak zijn de goederen ook overgegaan, namelijk uit de feitelijke macht van aangever naar die van verdachte en de medeverdachte. In this case the goods are also made, namely from the actual power of principal to that of the suspect and co-defendant. Verdachte en de medeverdachte hebben de goederen van het account van aangever overgebracht naar het account van verdachte. Suspect and the co-defendant, the goods account of the principal transferred to the account of suspicious. Hierdoor is aangever de feitelijke macht over de goederen kwijtgeraakt en hebben verdachte en de medeverdachte de feitelijke macht daarover verkregen. This principal is the actual power over the goods and have lost the suspect and co-defendant on the actual power obtained. Nu de virtuele amulet en het virtueel masker als bedoeld in de onderhavige zaak aan de hiervoor genoemde criteria voldoen, is de rechtbank van oordeel dat deze virtuele goederen onder het begrip ‘goed’ als bedoeld in artikel 310 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht vallen en toebehoorden aan aangever. Now the virtual amulet and the virtual template as defined in this case to the above criteria, the court considers that these virtual goods under the concept of ‘good’ as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal Code and belonged to principal. Bewijsoverweging Proof Recital De raadsman heeft ter zitting aangevoerd dat verdachte de goederen zich niet wederrechtelijk heeft toegeëigend en vrijgesproken moet worden van het primair en subsidiair telastegelegde, nu de spelregels van “RuneScape” de gedragingen van verdachte en medeverdachte toelaten en zij derhalve niet strafbaar hebben gehandeld. The counsel has argued in court that the suspect goods are not unlawfully appropriated and should be acquitted of primary and alternative telastegelegde, now that the playing of “Runescape” the suspicious behavior and allow co-defendant and therefore not punishable acted. De rechtbank is van oordeel dat dit verweer moet worden verworpen, nu de handelingen van verdachte en medeverdachte buiten de context van het spel hebben plaatsgevonden en aldus niets met de spelregels van “RuneScape” te maken hebben. The court believes that this defense should be rejected, now the actions of defendant and co-defendant outside the context of the game have taken place and thus nothing to do with the playing of “Runescape” deal. Bewijsmiddelen Evidence De rechtbank past met betrekking tot het primair telastegelegde de volgende bewijsmiddelen toe: The court suits related to the primary evidence telastegelegde the following resources: 1. 1. de verklaring van verdachte afgelegd ter terechtzitting van 7 oktober 2008, welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: suspect made the statement at the hearing on October 7, 2008, which, essentially, including: Op 6 september 2007 zijn [medeverdachte], [slachtoffer] en ik naar het huis van [medeverdachte] in Leeuwarden gegaan. On September 6, 2007 are [co-defendant], [victim] and I went to the house of [co-defendant] went in Leeuwarden. [medeverdachte], [slachtoffer] en ik spelen allemaal het online spel “RuneScape”. [co-defendant], [victim] and I play all the online game “Runescape”. Een dag eerder hadden [medeverdachte] en ik via MSN met elkaar gesproken om virtuele goederen van de online game “RuneScape” uit het account van [slachtoffer] over te brengen naar ons account. A day earlier had [co-defendant] and I talked with each other via MSN to virtual goods from online game “Runescape” from the account of [victim] to bring to our account. Ik heb gezien dat [medeverdachte] [slachtoffer] heeft geslagen. I’ve seen that [co-defendant] [victim] has beaten. Ik heb ook gezien dat [medeverdachte] een mes heeft gepakt en daarmee richting [slachtoffer] liep. I have also seen that [co-defendant] has caught a knife and direction [victim] walked. Nadat ik was vertrokken uit de woning van [medeverdachte] en in mijn woning achter de computer zat, heeft [medeverdachte] mij via MSN gevraagd om weer terug te komen. After I was gone from the house of [co-defendant] and in my house behind the computer Saturday, has [co-defendant] asked me via MSN to come back. Ik kwam meteen naar zijn woning. I came straight to his home. Een virtueel amulet en een virtueel masker zijn door [medeverdachte] vanuit het account van [slachtoffer] overgebracht naar mijn account. A virtual amulet and a virtual mask by [co-defendant] from the account of [victim] transferred to my account. [medeverdachte] en ik zouden elk de helft van de waarde van die items krijgen. [co-defendant] and I would each provide half the value of those items get. 2. 2. het in wettelijke vorm opgemaakte proces-verbaal van verhoor verdachte (pag. 30, 32 en 33), welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: in the legal form formatted minutes of questioning suspect (pg. 30, 32 and 33), which, essentially, including: Ik heb [slachtoffer] op 6 september 2007 in een wurggreep genomen door zijn nek in te klemmen in mijn elleboog. I [victim] on September 6, 2007 in a stranglehold by his neck to terminals in my elbow. Ik spande mijn spieren aan, zodat [slachtoffer] geen lucht kon krijgen. I stretched my muscles, so [victims] could get no air. Wij hebben [slachtoffer] geslagen. We have [victim] beaten. Ik heb [slachtoffer] opzettelijk met mijn vlakke hand tegen zijn gezicht geslagen. I [victim] intentionally with my hand flat against his face beaten. Omdat [slachtoffer] niet meewerkte, heb ik hem de keel dichtgeknepen. Because [victim] was not cooperating, I gave him the throat clenched. Wij dwongen [slachtoffer] om in te loggen op die computer. We forced [victim] to log onto that computer. [slachtoffer] wilde niet zijn wachtwoord geven en inloggen op de computer om het spel te spelen. [victim] did not want to give his password and log on the computer to play the game. Doordat wij hem bedreigden, heeft hij op een gegeven moment wel ingelogd en het spel opgehaald. Because we threatened him, he at some point have to be logged and the game picked up. Ik bedreigde [slachtoffer] dat hij wel mee moest werken. I threatened [victim] that he had to do work. Als [slachtoffer] niet wilde meewerken dan zou ik hem nog meer klappen geven. If [victim] did not want to cooperate then I would give him more blows. Omdat wij [slachtoffer] bedreigden heeft hij zich ingelogd. Because we [victims] are threatened, he logged. Als wij hem niet bedreigd hadden, dan had hij vrijwillig nooit toegestaan dat wij aan zijn punten konden komen. If we had not threatened him, then he had never voluntarily allowed that we could come to his points. Uit de keukenla heb ik twee messen gepakt. The keukenla I caught two knives. Ik haalde het lemmet van beide messen over elkaar. I took the blades of two knives on each other. Mijn bedoeling was dat [slachtoffer] hiervan bang zou worden en zou meewerken om ons zijn wachtwoord en dergelijke te geven. My intention was that [the victim] this would be scared and would contribute to us to give password and such. Ook is [slachtoffer] tegen de grond gewerkt. Also, [victim] to the ground worked. Wij hebben hem toen geslagen. We have beaten him. Een dag eerder hebben [medeverdachte] en ik afgesproken dat we [slachtoffer] de volgende dag mee zouden nemen naar het huis van [medeverdachte] en dat we dan met geweld zouden proberen om die punten en het geld van [slachtoffer] te krijgen en we spraken af dat we over zouden gaan op geweld als ons plan zou mislukken. A day earlier [co-defendant] and I agreed that we [victims] the next day it would take to the house of [co-defendant] and that we would try to violence with these points and the money from [victim] to get and we agreed that we would go on to violence if our plan would fail. 3. 3. het in wettelijke vorm opgemaakte proces-verbaal van aangifte (pag. 17, 18, 19), welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: in the legal form formatted minutes of declaration (pg. 17, 18, 19), which, essentially, including: Ik doe al jaren een spelletje op internet. I am a long game on the Internet. Ik ben hier gemiddeld iedere dag meer dan 4 uren mee bezig. I’m here every day on average more than 4 hours doing. Het spelletje heet RuneScape. The game is called Runescape. Het is een spel waarbij je een klein poppetje bent dat geld kan verdienen door te werken. It is a game where you’re a little doll that can earn money by working. Ik ben erg rijk op Runescape en omdat ik rijk ben ook heel sterk. I’m very rich in Runescape and rich because I’m also very strong. Ik ben in dit spel bijna niet te verslaan. I’m in this game is almost impossible to beat. Vanwege mijn grote bezit op Runescape aan geld en goederen verander ik bijna iedere drie dagen mijn wachtwoord, omdat ik bang ben dat iemand erachter komt en mij hacked. Because of my great hold on to Runescape money and goods to change almost every three days my password, because I’m afraid that someone finds out and hacked me. [medeverdachte] wil graag dat ik hem geld en items geef in het spel. [co-defendant] would like that I give him money and items in the game. Ik fietste op 6 september 2007 mee met [medeverdachte] en [verdachte] naar de woning van [medeverdachte] te Leeuwarden. I cycled on September 6, 2007 along with [co-defendant] and [suspect] to the homes of [co-defendant] to Leeuwarden. Ik zag dat [medeverdachte] met een sleutel de deur van de flatwoning opendeed. I saw that [co-defendant] with a key to the door of the apartment house was open. Ik moest vervolgens met [verdachte] en [medeverdachte] meelopen naar een slaapkamer in de woning. I had then with [suspect] and [co-defendant] flour open to a bedroom in the house. Vervolgens moest ik van [medeverdachte] en [verdachte] meewerken om het geld en de goederen van mijn account over te zetten naar het account van [verdachte]. Then I had to [co-defendant] and [suspect] to contribute money and goods from my account into the account of [suspect]. Toen ik zei dat ik dat niet wilde, begonnen [medeverdachte] en [verdachte] mij te slaan en te schoppen. When I said that I did not want started [co-defendant] and [suspect] would store and shovels. Ik werd kennelijk opzettelijk en met kracht met tot vuisten gebalde handen tegen mijn hoofd geslagen. I was apparently intentionally, and with fists to force combined with hands against my head beaten. Zij sloegen mij opzettelijk en met kracht heel veel keren tegen mijn hoofd en tegen mijn ribben. They beat me with intent and effect a lot of times against my head and against my ribs. Door de klappen die ik kreeg, viel ik op de grond van de slaapkamer. By the blows that I got, I fell on the floor of the bedroom. Vervolgens voelde en zag ik dat beiden mij opzettelijk en met kracht schopten tegen mijn borstkas en mijn benen. Then I felt and saw that both me and deliberately kicked with force against my chest and my legs. Ook zag en voelde ik dat zij kennelijk opzettelijk en met kracht op mijn borstkas gingen staan. I also saw and felt that they apparently intentionally and went thoracic effect on my stand. Door de vele klappen en schoppen en doordat beiden met hun voeten op mijn borst gingen staan, voelde ik erg veel pijn. Because of the many blows and shovels and by both with their feet on my chest went to, I felt very much pain. Ik hoorde dat ze tegen mij riepen dat ze me dood zouden maken. I heard that she cried to me that they would kill me. Vervolgens zag en hoorde ik dat eerst [medeverdachte] naar de keuken liep en een mes ophaalde en dat kort daarop [verdachte] ook naar de keuken liep en twee messen ophaalde. Then I saw and heard that first [co-defendant] went to the kitchen and a knife was drawn and shortly after that [suspect] also ran to the kitchen and two knives drawn. Met de messen bedreigden [medeverdachte] en [verdachte] mij met de dood. With the knives threatened [co-defendant] and [suspect] me with death. Ik werd erg bang. I was very scared. Ik kon niets anders meer dan meewerken met [medeverdachte] en [verdachte]. I was nothing more than cooperate with [co-defendant] and [suspect]. Ik durfde niets meer te weigeren. I dared not refuse. Ik zag dat [verdachte] inlogde met zijn account op het spel RuneScape op de computer in de slaapkamer. I saw that [suspect] logged on his account at the game Runescape on the computer in the bedroom. Ik moest vervolgens met beiden mee naar een computer in de woonkamer van de flat waar ik met mijn account moest inloggen op het spel RuneScape. I had then with both to a computer in the living room of the apartment where I had to log in to my account on the game Runescape. Vervolgens moest ik onder dwang met mijn poppetje vechten tegen [verdachte] die het spel speelde vanaf de computer op de slaapkamer. Then I had with my doll forced to fight against [suspects] who played the game from the PC to the bedroom. Tijdens het vechten met het poppetje van [verdachte] bleef [medeverdachte] steeds bij mij staan in de woonkamer. During the fighting with the figure of [suspect] was [co-defendant] always with me in the living room. Ik zag dat [medeverdachte] en [verdachte] wisselden. I saw that [co-defendant] and [suspect] exchanged. Toen [verdachte] bij mij en de computer kwam staan in de woonkamer en [medeverdachte] naar de slaapkamer was, werd ik plotseling door [verdachte] met de stoel waarop ik zat naar achterover getrokken. When [suspect] to me and the computer came in the living room and [co-defendant] to the bedroom was, I was suddenly by [suspect] with the chair on which I was drawn back to. Ik lag op de grond en kreeg van [verdachte] weer klappen en schoppen op mijn hoofd en mijn lichaam. I was on the ground and was of [suspect] weather blows and kicks to my head and my body. Toen het ophield, zag ik dat [verdachte] op de stoel zat bij de computer in de woonkamer. When it ended, I saw that [suspect] on the chair was in the computer in the living room. Ik stond op en zag dat [verdachte] al mijn geld en goederen van mijn RuneScape-account overzette naar zijn eigen account, van mij stal. I got up and saw that [suspect] all my money and property from my account on Runescape continued to his own account, mine stable. Nadat [verdachte] al het geld en goederen van mijn account had gestolen, zag ik dat hij uitlogde. After [suspect] all the money and property from my account had been stolen, I saw that he uitlogde. Ook [medeverdachte] kwam erbij in de woonkamer. Also [co-defendant] was there in the living room. Door beiden werd ik vervolgens uit huis gezet. Both, I was put off house. 4. 4. het in wettelijke vorm opgemaakte proces-verbaal van verhoor medeverdachte (pag. 24, 25, 26 en 27), welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: in the legal form formatted minutes of questioning co-defendant (pg. 24, 25, 26 and 27), which, essentially, including: Vroeger was ik rijker in dit spel dan [slachtoffer], maar [slachtoffer] had een paar dagen geleden geluk gehad, want hij had spullen gevonden van een dode man en die man was heel rijk en had dus veel waardevolle spullen. Previously, I was richer in this game than [victims], but [victim] had a couple days ago lucky, because he had found belongings of a dead man and that man was very rich and had so many valuable things. Die spullen had [slachtoffer] gepakt en daardoor was hij in één klap heel rijk. That stuff had [victim] and therefore he was caught in a blow very rich. Ik werd daar eigenlijk wel jaloers van. I was there actually jealous of. Ik heb een paar keer aan [slachtoffer] gevraagd of ik wat geld of spullen van hem kon krijgen. I have a couple of times to [victim] asked if I have some money or things could get from him. Daarmee bedoel ik dan spullen of coins die je in dit computerspel gebruikt. I mean stuff than you or coins used in this computer game. Ik heb een vriend die [verdachte] (fonetisch) heet. I have a friend who [suspect] (phonetic) is called. Ik vroeg op 6 september 2007 of [verdachte] Runescape wilde spelen en ik zei verder dat ik van plan was om [slachtoffer] te hacken. I asked in September 6, 2007 or [suspect] Runescape wanted to play and I said that I was planning to [victim] to hacking. Hiermee bedoel ik dat ik spullen van hem af wilde pakken. I mean stuff that I wanted him to tackle. Hij vond dat goed en fietste met [slachtoffer] en mij naar mijn huis. He felt good and cycled with [victim] and me to my house. Ik ben met [slachtoffer] gaan vechten, omdat hij niet wilde inloggen. I’m with [victims] go fight, because he did not want to log. Ik heb hem geschopt, twee keer hard geschopt tegen zijn benen. I kicked him, twice kicked hard against his legs. Ik heb [slachtoffer] ook geduwd en getrokken. I [victim] also pushed and pulled. Ik heb hem naar de grond gewerkt. I got him to the ground worked. [verdachte] ging naar huis. [suspect] went home. Ik heb via MSN tegen [verdachte] gezegd dat hij weer moest komen, omdat [slachtoffer] niet wilde inloggen. I got through MSN against [suspect] said that he had to come back, because [victim] did not want to log. [verdachte] kwam meteen. [suspect] came immediately. [verdachte] heeft [slachtoffer] geslagen op zijn hoofd. [suspect] has [victim] beaten on his head. Ook kneep hij in het hoofd van [slachtoffer]. He also tweak in the minds of [victim]. [verdachte] heeft [slachtoffer] op de grond gegooid en [verdachte] en ik hebben bovenop [slachtoffer] gestaan. [suspect] has [victim] on the ground and thrown [suspect] and I have top [victim] before. [verdachte] en ik stonden om de beurt op zijn heupen en aan de zijkant van zijn ribben. [suspects] and I were to take turns on his hips and on the side of his ribs. We stonden niet echt op hem, maar drukten met een been op hem. We were not really him, but expressed with a leg on him. Ik ben toen naar de keuken gelopen en heb een mes uit een keukenla gepakt. I then walked to the kitchen and got a knife from a keukenla caught. Dit was een groot en dik vleesmes met een zwart handvat. This was a big and thick carving knife with a black handle. [verdachte] pakte ook twee messen. [suspect] also grabbed two knives. Eén van die messen was een scherp dun mes. One of those knives was a sharp thin knife. Ik maakte dreigende bewegingen met het mes in mijn hand. I made threatening gestures with the knife in my hand. Ik slingerde er wat mee. I slingerde out and get started. Ik stond daarbij ongeveer drie meter van [slachtoffer] af en liep richting [slachtoffer]. I was about three meters away from this [victim] off and walked toward [victim]. [verdachte] maakte met beide messen dreigende bewegingen door de messen heen en weer te bewegen. [suspect] made with two knives threatening movements by the blades to move back and forth. [verdachte] en ik wilden [slachtoffer] bang maken en ik heb tegen [slachtoffer] gezegd: “Ik maak je dood”. [suspects] and I wanted [victims] are scared, and I voted against [victim] said: “I make you dead.” We hebben de messen daarna teruggelegd en gezegd dat [slachtoffer] moest inloggen. We have the knives back then and said that [the victim] had to log. [slachtoffer] heeft toen ingelogd, omdat hij bang was. [victim] gave in, because he was scared. Hij heeft ingelogd op de computer in de woonkamer. He has logged on the computer in the living room. Ik ben toen achter de computer gaan spelen en heb spullen van hem gedropt. When I am behind the computer to play and have stuff from him dropped. Dit betekent dat ik spullen van hem op een andere plek heb neergelegd en ik wilde dit dan via die andere computer weer pakken, zodat het van mij werd. This means that I stuff him in a different place and I wanted to have deposited it through those other computer address, so it was me. Ik heb een amulet en een masker gedropt. I have an amulet and a mask dropped. Het masker, maar vooral de amulet zijn in dit spel veel waard. The mask, but the amulet in this game very much. [verdachte] en ik delen vaak spullen in dit spel en had ik er dus ook voordeel van. [suspects] and I share many things in this game and I therefore also benefit from. Ik zag dat [verdachte] [slachtoffer] hard op de grond gooide. I saw that [suspect] [victim] threw hard on the ground. U vraagt mij of [verdachte] en ik de diefstal van de coins hadden gepland. You ask me if [suspects] and I the theft of the coins had planned. [verdachte] en ik hadden dit inderdaad de dag ervoor al afgesproken via MSN. [suspects] and I had the day before this is indeed already agreed through MSN. Als [slachtoffer] niet met ons mee wilde werken, dan zouden wij hem slaan. If [victims] do not want to work with us, then we would save him. Dit was een idee van ons allebei. This was an idea of us both. 5. 5. het in wettelijke vorm opgemaakte proces-verbaal van bevindingen (pag. 21), welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: in the legal form formatted minutes of findings (pg. 21), which, essentially, including: Wij, verbalisanten, zagen op 6 september 2007 dat [slachtoffer] zichtbaar pijn had en zodanig onder de indruk was van dit alles dat [slachtoffer] maar moeilijk zijn verhaal kwijt kon aan ons verbalisanten. We, compiling it, saw on September 6, 2007 that [the victim] visible pain and had to be under the impression was that everything that [victims] but difficult story was lost to us compiling it. 6. 6. het in wettelijke vorm opgemaakte proces-verbaal van politie (pag. 4), welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: in the legal form formatted minutes of police (pg. 4), which, essentially, including: Na overleg met de officier van justitie werd door de verdachte [verdachte] de door hem en door medeverdachte [medeverdachte] in het spel Runescape gestolen goederen teruggegeven aan de rechtmatige eigenaar. After consultation with the public prosecutor was accused by the [suspect] by him and by co-defendant [co-defendant] in the game Runescape stolen goods returned to the rightful owner. Via een computer op het politiebureau te Leeuwarden werd door verdachte [verdachte] ingelogd in het voornoemde spel. Through a computer at the police station in Leeuwarden was suspicious [suspect] logged in the aforementioned game. Tevens werd door aangever het spel opgestart. It was also by providing the game started. Telefonisch werd door de aangever aan mij, verbalisant Veldman, doorgegeven dat op een gegeven moment hij alle door de verdachten gestolen goederen terug had ontvangen, waarna het spel weer werd beëindigd. Telephone by the principal to me, compiling Veldman, given that at any given moment by all the suspects had received stolen goods back, and the game ended. 7. 7. een schriftelijke geneeskundige verklaring dd 7 september 2008 met betrekking tot [slachtoffer] (pag. 37), welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: a written medical certificate dated September 7, 2008 with respect to [victim] (pg. 37), which, essentially, including: Uitwendig waargenomen letsel: External injuries observed: - drukpijn rechts op de borstkas; - Pressure on the right chest pain; - schaafwonden en drukpijn op de rechterschouder; - Grazes pressure and pain on the right shoulder; - drukpijnlijke rechterbil en rechterenkel. - Pressure sore right buttock and right ankle. Datum waarop werd onderzocht: 07/09/2007. Date has been examined: 07/09/2007. Geschatte duur van de genezing: 2 weken. Estimated duration of the healing: 2 weeks. Bovenstaande wettige bewijsmiddelen -in onderling verband en samenhang beschouwd- houden de redengevende feiten en omstandigheden in waarop de beslissing van de rechtbank steunt dat verdachte het hierna bewezenverklaarde feit heeft begaan. The above legal evidence-related and mutually-together, the reason decisive facts and circumstances in which the decision of the court that supports proven below the suspect has committed stated fact. Bewezenverklaring Proven Declaration De rechtbank acht het primair telastegelegde bewezen, met dien verstande dat: The court considers it primarily telastegelegde proven, with the proviso that: primair primary hij op 6 september 2007 te Leeuwarden, in de gemeente Leeuwarden, tezamen en in vereniging met een ander, met het oogmerk van wederrechtelijke toe-eigening heeft weggenomen een virtueel amulet en een virtueel masker van het online computerspel genaamd RuneScape, toebehorende aan [slachtoffer], welke diefstal werd voorafgegaan en vergezeld van geweld en bedreiging met geweld tegen [slachtoffer], gepleegd met het oogmerk om die diefstal voor te bereiden en gemakkelijk te maken, welk geweld en welke bedreiging met geweld hierin bestonden dat hij, verdachte, en zijn mededader die [slachtoffer] meermalen en met kracht met tot vuisten gebalde handen tegen het hoofd en de ribben en elders tegen het lichaam hebben geslagen en die [slachtoffer] tegen de borstkas en de benen en elders tegen het lichaam hebben geschopt en op het lichaam van die [slachtoffer] zijn gaan staan en messen in de richting van het lichaam van die [slachtoffer] hebben gehouden en met messen zwaaiende en slingerende bewegingen voor die [slachtoffer] hebben gemaakt en die [slachtoffer] hebben toegevoegd de woorden “ik maak je dood”, en die [slachtoffer] in zijn stoel achterover hebben getrokken en naar de grond hebben gewerkt en de nek van die [slachtoffer] in een wurggreep hebben genomen. he September 6, 2007 in Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden in the town, together and in association with another, with the intention of misappropriation has removed a virtual amulet and a virtual mask of the online computer game called Runescape, belonging to [victim] , The theft was preceded and accompanied by violence and threats of violence against [victim], with the aim of that theft to prepare and easy to make, what violence and threat of violence so that he existed, suspicious, and his co-offender that [victim] repeatedly and forcefully with fists until combined hands against the head and ribs and elsewhere against the body and have beaten the [victim] against the chest and the legs and elsewhere against the body and kicked on the body of that [victims] are going and knives in the direction of the body of the [victims] have taken with knives and swinging and swaying movements for those [victims] have made and that [victims] have added the words “I don ‘dead’ , And [victims] have back in his chair and pulled to the ground have worked and the neck of the [victims] have taken a stranglehold. De verdachte zal van het meer of anders telastegelegde worden vrijgesproken, aangezien de rechtbank dat niet bewezen acht. The suspect will be of more or else telastegelegde be acquitted because the court that no evidence eight. Kwalificatie Qualifier Het bewezene levert op het misdrijf: It provides evidence on the crime: primair diefstal, voorafgegaan en vergezeld van geweld en bedreiging met geweld tegen personen, gepleegd met het oogmerk om die diefstal voor te bereiden en gemakkelijk te maken, terwijl het feit wordt gepleegd door twee of meer verenigde personen. primarily theft, preceded and accompanied by violence and threats of violence against persons, committed with the intent for that theft to prepare and easy to make, while the offense is committed by two or more persons. Strafbaarheid verdachte Criminal suspect De rechtbank acht verdachte strafbaar nu niet van enige strafuitsluitingsgrond is gebleken. The eight suspected criminal court now not only defense is revealed. Strafmotivering Criminal Grounds De rechtbank neemt bij de bepaling van de hierna te vermelden strafsoort en strafmaat in aanmerking: The court takes in the provision of the following type and state criminal sentencing into account: - de aard en de ernst van het gepleegde feit; - The nature and seriousness of the offense; - de omstandigheden waaronder dit is begaan; - The circumstances under which it was committed; - de persoon van verdachte, zoals daarvan ter terechtzitting is gebleken en deze naar voren komt uit het uittreksel uit het algemeen documentatieregister en de rapporten van de Raad voor de Kinderbescherming dd 24 oktober 2007 en 19 september 2008; - The person accused, as it appeared at the hearing and this was reflected in the excerpt from the general registry documentation and the reports of the Council for the Child dated October 24, 2007 and September 19, 2008; - de vordering van de officier van justitie; - The application of the Prosecutor; - het pleidooi van de raadsman. - The argument of counsel. Verdachte heeft zich samen met een ander schuldig gemaakt aan diefstal met geweld. Suspect has together with another guilty of robbery with violence. Na daartoe tevoren gemaakte afspraak hebben zij een schoolgenoot mee naar huis genomen en hem onder bedreiging met woorden en messen en door een forse lichamelijke mishandeling gedwongen in te loggen op zijn account van het computerspel “RuneScape”. Advance appointment made with the approval of a school, they enjoyed back home and taken him under threat of words and knives and a strong physical abuse forced them to log into his account of the computer game “Runescape”. Zij hebben het slachtoffer op deze wijze voor hem en ook voor de daders van veel waarde zijnde goederen uit dit spel, te weten een virtuele amulet en een virtueel masker, uit jaloezie gestolen. They are victims in this way for him and also for the perpetrators of many goods are value for this game, namely a virtual amulet and a virtual mask, stolen from jealousy. Het slachtoffer heeft ten gevolge van deze benarde situatie lichamelijk en psychisch letsel ondervonden. The victim shall have the effect of this plight physical and psychological injuries suffered. De rechtbank tilt zwaar aan deze feiten. The court tilt heavily to these facts. Strafverzwarend acht de rechtbank dat verdachte, hoewel nog jong, weloverwogen heeft gehandeld en geen enkele verantwoordelijkheid neemt voor wat er is gebeurd. Penalties, the court suspect that, although still young, has acted deliberately and takes no responsibility for what happened. Verdachte heeft geen blijk gegeven van inzicht in het strafbare van zijn handelen en heeft een te positief beeld van zichzelf. Suspect has not shown an understanding of the criminal act and has a positive image of themselves. De omstandigheid dat verdachte niet eerder met politie en justitie in aanraking is geweest en dat er veel tijd is verstreken tussen het plegen van het feit en de zitting beschouwt de rechtbank als strafverminderend. The fact that defendant does not have prior police and the judiciary been in contact and that much time has elapsed between the commission of the offense and the session sees the court as punishment decreasing. De Raad voor de Kinderbescherming heeft over verdachte een tweetal rapporten uitgebracht, waaruit blijkt dat er zowel in de situatie op school als thuis geen problemen zijn gesignaleerd over het functioneren van verdachte. The Council for the Child has accused two reports, showing that both the situation at school and at home no problems have been reported on the operation of suspicious. De Raad onthoudt zich van het geven van een strafadvies, omdat verdachte een ontkennende houding heeft aangenomen. The Council refrain from giving an opinion punishment, because a suspect has adopted negative attitude. De officier van justitie heeft een werkstraf en daarnaast een voorwaardelijke jeugddetentie gevorderd. The prosecutor has a labor and a conditional jeugddetentie pleadings. Voor een feit als waarvan in casu sprake is, is in het algemeen een onvoorwaardelijke vrijheidsstraf passend. For a fact which in this case as there is in general an unconditional prison sentence is appropriate. De rechtbank zal hiertoe echter niet overgaan gelet op het feit dat verdachte ten tijde van het plegen van het delict 14 jaar was, hij nog niet eerder met politie en justitie in aanraking is gekomen en ook omdat er tussen datum delict en de terechtzitting veel tijd is verstreken. However, the court will not proceed in view of the fact that suspicious at the time of the commission of the offense was 14 years, he has not previously with police and the judiciary has come in contact and also because there date between offense and the hearing is a lot of time expired. Ook in het rapport van de Raad voor de Kinderbescherming is gesteld dat een jeugddetentie geen meerwaarde heeft. Also in the report of the Council for the Child states that a jeugddetentie no added value. De rechtbank kan zich derhalve vinden in de strafmodaliteit als door de officier van justitie aangegeven en zal verdachte een forse werkstraf opleggen. The court may therefore find themselves in the modality as punishment by the prosecutor declared a suspect and will impose strong labor. Een voorwaardelijke jeugddetentie zal verdachte worden opgelegd, teneinde hem er van te weerhouden in de toekomst weer de fout in te gaan. A contingent jeugddetentie suspect will be imposed, order him to stop again in the future the error in detail. Toepassing van wetsartikelen Application of laws De rechtbank heeft gelet op de artikelen 77a, 77g(oud), 77i, 77m(oud), 77n, 77x(oud), 77y(oud), 77z(oud), 310 en 312 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht. The court has given the articles 77a, 77g (old), 77i, 77m (old), 77n, 77x (old), 77y (old), 77z (old), 310 and 312 of the Penal Code. DE UITSPRAAK VAN DE RECHTBANK LUIDT, RECHTDOENDE: THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS RIGHT WAY: Wijst het verzoek van de raadsman tot het horen van getuigen af. Reject the request of the counsel to the hearing of witnesses away. Verklaart het onder primair telastegelegde bewezen, te kwalificeren en strafbaar in voege als voormeld en verdachte deswege strafbaar. Explains the Basic telastegelegde proven, and to qualify as criminal acts in the aforementioned and punishable deswege suspect. Veroordeelt verdachte te dier zake tot: Does a suspect animal matter to: Een werkstraf, bestaande uit het verrichten van 160 uren onbetaalde arbeid. A labor, consisting of the provision of 160 hours of unpaid work. De arbeid moet binnen 12 maanden zijn verricht. The work must be done within 12 months. Beveelt dat voor het geval de veroordeelde de werkstraf niet naar behoren verricht, vervangende jeugddetentie voor de duur van 80 dagen zal worden toegepast. Recommends that in case the convicted person’s labor is not properly carried out, jeugddetentie replacement for the duration of 80 days will be applied. Een jeugddetentie voor de duur van vier weken. A jeugddetentie for four weeks. Bepaalt, dat deze jeugddetentie niet zal worden tenuitvoergelegd, tenzij de rechter later anders mocht gelasten, op grond, dat de veroordeelde zich voor het einde van een proeftijd, welke hierbij wordt vastgesteld op twee jaren, aan een strafbaar feit heeft schuldig gemaakt. Determines that this jeugddetentie will not be implemented unless the judge later ordered otherwise, on the grounds that the convicted person has until the end of a probationary period in which it is set at two years, to an offense is guilty. Verklaart niet bewezen hetgeen aan verdachte meer of anders is telastegelegd dan het bewezenverklaarde en spreekt verdachte daarvan vrij. Declares no evidence to suspect that more or otherwise telastegelegd than the stated proven and suspected it goes free. Dit vonnis is gewezen door mr. BJ de Jong, voorzitter en tevens kinderrechter, mr. MJ Dijkstra en mr. A. This verdict has been delivered by Mr. BJ de Jong, President and childprotection, Mr. MJ Dijkstra and Mr. A. de Jong, rechters, bijgestaan door mr. G. de Jong, judges, assisted by Mr. G. Sannes, griffier, en uitgesproken ter openbare terechtzitting van deze rechtbank op 21 oktober 2008. Sannes, Registrar, and pronounced in open court of this court on October 21, 2008.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    jeuridique.com, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 3:21pm

    court

    http://www.jeuridique.com Hello! Please find enclosed a link to the case. The traduction (google) is kinda bad but it is way better than what I could do. Sorry for the long text. I wouldn’t cut any part of it. I will personally write a post (in French) on my website about the case. Best regards, Peter-Olivier Dumas, esq. ==== Full text… LJN: BG0939, Leeuwarden Court, 17/676123-07 VEV Print uitspraak Print ruling Datum uitspraak: Date ruling: 21-10-2008 21-10-2008 Datum publicatie: Date of publication: 21-10-2008 21-10-2008 Rechtsgebied: Territory: Straf Criminal Soort procedure: Type of procedure: Eerste aanleg - meervoudig First Instance - multiple Inhoudsindicatie: Contents Indication: Diefstal virtuele goederen, diefstal met geweld, online computerspel, veroordeling. Virtual property theft, robbery with violence, online computer game, conviction. Uitspraak Pronunciation RECHTBANK LEEUWARDEN COURT LEEUWARDEN Sector straf Criminal Division parketnummer 17/676123-07 VEV Prosecutor number 17/676123-07 VEV vonnis van de meervoudige kamer voor de behandeling van strafzaken dd 21 oktober 2008 in de zaak van het openbaar ministerie tegen de verdachte verdict of the full bench for the treatment of criminal dated October 21, 2008 in the case of the prosecution against the accused [verdachte], [suspect], geboren op [geboortedatum] 1992 te [geboorteplaats], born on [birth date] 1992 [birthplace], wonende te [adres verdachte] residing at [address suspect] De rechtbank heeft gelet op het ter terechtzitting gehouden onderzoek van 7 oktober 2008. The court has given the investigation at the hearing held on October 7, 2008. De verdachte is verschenen, bijgestaan door mr. RA Schütz, advocaat te Leeuwarden. The suspect appeared, assisted by RA Schütz, lawyer to Leeuwarden. Telastelegging Telastelegging Aan dit vonnis is een door de griffier gewaarmerkte fotokopie van de dagvaarding gehecht, waaruit de inhoud van de telastelegging geacht moet worden hier te zijn overgenomen. This is a verdict by the Registrar certified photocopy of the subpoena attached, revealing the content of the telastelegging should be considered to be over here. In de telastelegging voorkomende schrijffouten of kennelijke misslagen worden verbeterd gelezen. Telastelegging occurring in the clerical or manifest miss layers improved read. De verdachte is hierdoor niet in zijn belangen geschaad. The suspect is not in its interests. Vordering officier van justitie Claim Prosecutor De officier van justitie heeft ter terechtzitting gevorderd: The prosecutor argued at the hearing sought: - veroordeling voor het primair telastegelegde; - Conviction for primary telastegelegde; - oplegging van een werkstraf voor de duur van 180 uren subsidiair 90 dagen jeugddetentie, alsmede voorwaardelijke jeugddetentie voor de duur van vier weken met een proeftijd van twee jaar; - Imposition of a labor for the duration of 180 days 90 hours jeugddetentie alternative and contingent jeugddetentie for four weeks with a probationary period of two years; Overweging ten aanzien van het verzoek van de raadsman tot het horen van getuigen Consideration regarding the request of the counsel to the hearing of witnesses De raadsman heeft ter zitting bepleit om de zaak aan te houden als bedoeld in artikel 328 juncto artikel 315 van het Wetboek van Strafvordering, nu het volgens hem noodzakelijk is dat aangever, medeverdachte en de verbalisanten die het verhoor van verdachte hebben afgenomen als getuige worden gehoord. The counsel argued at the meeting called for the case to be held as provided for in Article 328 in conjunction with Article 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now it is necessary that principal, co-defendant and the compiling of the interrogation of suspects have declined as a witness be heard . De rechtbank geeft het door de raadsman hiertoe aangevoerde hierna letterlijk weer: The court gives the counselor put this back literally below: Cliënt ontkent de verweten gedragingen ten stelligste. Client denies the alleged conduct strongly. Hij stelt zelf geen geweld te hebben gebruikt en niet te hebben gezien dat de medeverdachte het geweld heeft gebruikt dat volgens de aangifte zou zijn gedaan. He claims himself to have used no violence and not to have seen that the co-defendant has used the violence that the declaration would be made. Het geweld en de bedreigingen die volgens de aangever zouden zijn verricht door [verdachte], past volstrekt niet bij het beeld dat van [verdachte] wordt verkregen uit de rapportage van de Raad voor de Kinderbescherming. The violence and threats which the declarant would be made by [suspect], not totally fit with the image of [suspect] is obtained from the reporting of the Council for the Child. Het is eigenlijk onvoorstelbaar dat iemand als [verdachte], zoals hij door de diverse referenten beschreven wordt, zomaar ineens een en eenmalig dergelijk gewelddadig gedrag zou vertonen. It is really inconceivable that someone like [suspect], as he described the various reviewers are, simply and suddenly a single such violent behavior would show. Volgens [verdachte] heeft de aangever ten onrechte de handelingen die mogelijk mededader [medeverdachte] heeft gepleegd, ook in verband gebracht met [verdachte]; mogelijk was de aangever door de handelingen van [medeverdachte] in de war, zodanig dat de aangifte een onjuist beeld geeft van de feiten. According to [suspects], the principal wrongly acts that may co-offender [co-defendant] has committed, also associated with [suspect] was the principal by the acts of [co-defendant] in the war, so that a false declaration picture of the facts. Uit het dossier blijkt dat de aangever flink overstuur was. The file shows that the principal was quite upset. Het feit dat medeverdachte [medeverdachte] [verdachte] ook belast, kan volgens [verdachte] mogelijk verklaard worden uit het feit, dat [medeverdachte] mogelijk heeft gedacht er zelf beter vanaf te komen als hij de schuld deels zou kunnen afschuiven of delen met [verdachte]. The fact that co-defendant [co-defendant] [suspect] also charged, in accordance with [suspect] may be explained by the fact that [co-defendant] may have thought themselves better from there to be partly to blame as he could buck or part by [ suspect]. [verdachte] geeft aan dat hij in eerste instantie heeft ontkend bij de politie, maar dat hij toen de politie hem niet geloofde en hem vertelde dat hij mogelijk veel langer op het bureau moest blijven, vervolgens maar de verdenkingen heeft beaamd. [suspect] indicates that he initially denied to the police, but when the police that he did not believe him and told him that he possibly much longer at the agency had to continue, but then has echoed the suspicions. Uit het proces-verbaal komt de in eerste instantie ontkennende houding van [verdachte] niet naar voren. The minutes in the first instance, the negative attitude of [suspect] is not raised. [verdachte] acht het op grond van het voorgaande noodzakelijk voor de waarheidsvinding dat de aangever, [medeverdachte] en de verbalisanten die het verhoor hebben afgenomen, als getuige worden gehoord; de aangever en [medeverdachte] om door te nemen in hoeverre de aangifte cq de verklaring juist zijn met betrekking tot de voor [verdachte] belastende onderdelen; de verbalisanten om te horen of [verdachte] in eerste instantie een ontkennende houding heeft aangenomen in het verhoor, en of [verdachte] de in zijn verklaring opgenomen tekst geheel spontaan heeft verteld, of delen van de aangifte en wellicht de verklaring van de medeverdachte die mogelijk zijn voorgehouden, heeft beaamd. [suspect] considers it on the basis of the foregoing necessary for the truth that the principal, [co-defendant] and the compiling of the interrogation have declined, as witness be heard, the principal and [co-defendant] to take the extent to which the declaration or the statement is correct with regard to the [suspect] incriminating parts, the compiling to hear or [suspect] in the first instance, has adopted a negative attitude in the interview, and whether [suspect], the text included in his statement has totally spontaneous told, or parts of the declaration and perhaps the statement by the co-defendant who may be held, has echoed his comments. Aangezien wegens een typefout in het adres in de brieven die ik [verdachte] in eerste instantie stuurde, deze brieven werden geretourneerd (in een laat stadium) en [verdachte] dus niet hebben bereikt, kon de zaak niet voor vrijdag 26 september 2008, zijnde tien dagen voor de zitting, met hem op kantoor besproken worden, hetgeen de reden is geweest dat niet tien dagen voor de zitting is verzocht de hierboven genoemde getuigen op te roepen. Since due to a typographical error in the address in the letters that I [suspect] in the first instance sent these letters were returned (in a late stage) and [suspect] is not reached, the case could not Friday, September 26, 2008, being ten days before the meeting, discussed with him in the office, which is the reason that not ten days before the session is called the above-mentioned witnesses to call. De rechtbank overweegt als volgt. The court is considering as follows. De raadsman heeft in zijn verzoek - kort gezegd -de betrouwbaarheid van de verklaringen in het proces-verbaal betwist. The counsel has in his request - in short, the reliability of the statements in the disputed minutes. Naar het oordeel van de rechtbank is dit verzoek naar juridische maatstaven onvoldoende onderbouwd en zijn uit de stukken en het verhandelde ter zitting, gelet ook op de verklaring van verdachte, geen aanwijzingen naar voren gekomen om deze personen nader te horen als getuige. In the opinion of the court is requested to legal standards and are insufficiently substantiated in the documents and traded at the session, given also the statement of accused, no evidence emerged for these people to be heard as a witness. Derhalve is de rechtbank van oordeel dat dagvaarding of oproeping van deze personen niet noodzakelijk is. Therefore, the court finds that summons or notice of such persons is not necessary. De rechtbank wijst aldus het verzoek van de raadsman af. The court thus indicates the request of the counsel off. Het bestanddeel ‘goed’ als bedoeld in artikel 310 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht The constituent ‘fine’ as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal Code De officier van justitie heeft - kort gezegd - ter zitting aangevoerd dat de virtuele amulet en het virtueel masker goederen zijn die onder het bestanddeel ‘goed’ als bedoeld in artikel 310 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht vallen en de raadsman heeft ter zitting het tegenovergestelde bepleit. The Public Prosecutor has - in short - argued in court that the virtual amulet and the mask virtual goods within the constituents are ‘good’ as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal Code and the counselor told the House advocated the opposite. De rechtbank overweegt als volgt. The court is considering as follows. In de onderhavige zaak is sprake van virtuele goederen, namelijk een virtuele amulet en een virtueel masker uit het online computerspel “RuneScape”. In this case there is virtual goods, namely a virtual amulet and a virtual mask from the online computer game “Runescape”. Het volgende is de rechtbank ambtshalve bekend over “RuneScape”. The following is the court ex officio known about “Runescape”. “RuneScape” is één van de grotere online spellen en vooral populair onder de jeugd. “Runescape” is one of the larger online games and especially popular among the youth. Miljoenen spelers, zogenaamde online gamers, over de hele wereld spelen het spel. Millions of players, so-called online gamers, all over the world play the game. “RuneScape” speelt zich af in een virtuele wereld, waarin spelers met karakters kunnen deelnemen aan die virtuele wereld. “Runescape” is set in a virtual world where players with characters who could participate in virtual world. Spelers kunnen onder meer opdrachten (’quests’) vervullen, tegen andere spelers vechten en andere activiteiten ontplooien. Players may include contracts ( “quests”) perform, fighting against other players and other activities. Hiervoor kan men onder andere ‘items’, zoals een masker of een amulet, verkrijgen. This may involve, inter alia, ‘items’ as a mask or an amulet, procurement. De items hebben elk afzonderlijk een waarde. The items each have a value. Die waarde wordt in dit spel uitgedrukt in ‘coins’ en die waarde fluctueert op basis van vraag en aanbod van die items. That value is in this game expressed in ‘coins’ value, which fluctuates based on demand and supply of those items. Met die ‘coins’ kan men als speler ’skills’ (vaardigheden) trainen. With these ‘coins’ can be as a player’ skills’ (skills) training. Hoe meer ‘coins’ de speler heeft, hoe sterker hij wordt in het spel “RuneScape”. The more ‘coins’ the player has, the stronger he is in the game “Runescape”. Aangever, verdachte en medeverdachte hadden elk een account, dat toegang gaf tot het spelen van “RuneScape” en waren ook actief speler van dit spel. Principal, and co-defendant had accused each one account, which gave access to the playing of “Runescape” and were also active player of this game. Aangever had in zijn account een virtuele amulet en een virtueel masker. Principal had in his account a virtual amulet and a virtual mask. Artikel 310 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht heeft als doel het vermogen van de burger te beschermen. Article 310 of the Penal Code aims at the ability of citizens to protect. Bij de beantwoording van de vraag of virtuele goederen, goederen in de zin van dat artikel zijn, dient dit in het oog te worden gehouden. In answering the question of whether virtual goods, goods in the meaning of that article, this in order to be considered. Er is een aantal criteria waaraan moet worden voldaan, wil er sprake zijn van een goed in de zin van genoemd artikel. There are a number of criteria that must be met for there to be a property within the meaning of that article. Allereerst is van belang of een goed voor de bezitter ervan waarde heeft. First of all, is important or good for the possessor of value. Deze waarde hoeft niet in geld uitgedrukt te kunnen worden. This value does not have money to be expressed. In de huidige maatschappij zijn de virtuele goederen uit het online computerspel “RuneScape” van grote betekenis geworden. In today’s society, the virtual goods from online computer game “Runescape” of great significance become. Voor grote aantallen online gamers hebben deze goederen waarde. For large numbers of online gamers these goods have value. Hoe meer virtuele goederen een speler heeft, hoe sterker hij is in het spel. The more a player virtual goods has, the stronger he is in the game. Bovendien worden de virtuele goederen voor geld gekocht en verkocht, bijvoorbeeld via internet of op het schoolplein. Moreover, the money for virtual goods bought and sold, including via the Internet or on the playground. Uit de onderhavige zaak blijkt ook dat het masker en de amulet voor zowel aangever als verdachte en medeverdachte waarde hadden. The case also shows that the mask and the declarant as a talisman for both suspect and co-defendant had value. Van belang is tevens dat een goed niet stoffelijk behoeft te zijn. Of interest is that not a mortal need to be. In de jurisprudentie is uitgemaakt dat ook niet-stoffelijke voorwerpen - zoals elektriciteit en giraal geld - als goed in strafrechtelijke zin worden aangemerkt. In the case law has determined that non-material objects - such as electricity and scriptural money - as well as in criminal sense. De virtuele amulet en het virtueel masker als bedoeld in de onderhavige zaak zijn geen stoffelijke goederen, alhoewel ze wel waarneembaar zijn. The virtual amulet and the virtual template as defined in this case are not material goods, although they are noticeable. Gelet op de bedoelde jurisprudentie is dat geen beletsel om ze als goed als bedoeld in artikel 310 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht aan te merken. Having regard to the said case law is that no impediment to them as well as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal Code to brands. Voorts blijkt uit de jurisprudentie dat een belangrijk kenmerk van een goed in strafrechtelijke zin is dat de wegnemer bij diefstal de feitelijke macht over het gestolen goed verkrijgt en de bestolene de feitelijke macht door het wegnemen daarover verliest. Furthermore, the jurisprudence that an important feature of a criminal sentence is that the actual theft wegnemer in power over the stolen goods and obtain the bestolene the actual power by removing it loses. Het bezit van het goed moet van de een naar de ander kunnen overgaan. The possession of the property must be of one to the other can pass. Met strafrechtelijk bezit wordt bedoeld het hebben van feitelijke macht. With criminal possession means having actual power. In de jurisprudentie is uitgemaakt dat het voorgaande niet het geval is bij een pincode, computergegevens en belminuten van een telefoonabonnement. In the case law has determined that the foregoing is not the case with a PIN number, computer and a phone call minutes. De in de onderhavige zaak bedoelde virtuele goederen, te weten een virtuele amulet en een virtueel masker, waren in het bezit van aangever. In this case referred virtual goods, namely a virtual amulet and a virtual mask, were in possession of principal. Alleen hij had de feitelijke macht over die goederen. Only he had the actual power over such goods. Het bezit van die virtuele goederen kan worden overgedragen, bijvoorbeeld door de goederen van het ene account naar het andere over te hevelen. Possession of such virtual goods can be transferred, for example, by goods from one account to another to transfer. In de onderhavige zaak zijn de goederen ook overgegaan, namelijk uit de feitelijke macht van aangever naar die van verdachte en de medeverdachte. In this case the goods are also made, namely from the actual power of principal to that of the suspect and co-defendant. Verdachte en de medeverdachte hebben de goederen van het account van aangever overgebracht naar het account van verdachte. Suspect and the co-defendant, the goods account of the principal transferred to the account of suspicious. Hierdoor is aangever de feitelijke macht over de goederen kwijtgeraakt en hebben verdachte en de medeverdachte de feitelijke macht daarover verkregen. This principal is the actual power over the goods and have lost the suspect and co-defendant on the actual power obtained. Nu de virtuele amulet en het virtueel masker als bedoeld in de onderhavige zaak aan de hiervoor genoemde criteria voldoen, is de rechtbank van oordeel dat deze virtuele goederen onder het begrip ‘goed’ als bedoeld in artikel 310 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht vallen en toebehoorden aan aangever. Now the virtual amulet and the virtual template as defined in this case to the above criteria, the court considers that these virtual goods under the concept of ‘good’ as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal Code and belonged to principal. Bewijsoverweging Proof Recital De raadsman heeft ter zitting aangevoerd dat verdachte de goederen zich niet wederrechtelijk heeft toegeëigend en vrijgesproken moet worden van het primair en subsidiair telastegelegde, nu de spelregels van “RuneScape” de gedragingen van verdachte en medeverdachte toelaten en zij derhalve niet strafbaar hebben gehandeld. The counsel has argued in court that the suspect goods are not unlawfully appropriated and should be acquitted of primary and alternative telastegelegde, now that the playing of “Runescape” the suspicious behavior and allow co-defendant and therefore not punishable acted. De rechtbank is van oordeel dat dit verweer moet worden verworpen, nu de handelingen van verdachte en medeverdachte buiten de context van het spel hebben plaatsgevonden en aldus niets met de spelregels van “RuneScape” te maken hebben. The court believes that this defense should be rejected, now the actions of defendant and co-defendant outside the context of the game have taken place and thus nothing to do with the playing of “Runescape” deal. Bewijsmiddelen Evidence De rechtbank past met betrekking tot het primair telastegelegde de volgende bewijsmiddelen toe: The court suits related to the primary evidence telastegelegde the following resources: 1. 1. de verklaring van verdachte afgelegd ter terechtzitting van 7 oktober 2008, welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: suspect made the statement at the hearing on October 7, 2008, which, essentially, including: Op 6 september 2007 zijn [medeverdachte], [slachtoffer] en ik naar het huis van [medeverdachte] in Leeuwarden gegaan. On September 6, 2007 are [co-defendant], [victim] and I went to the house of [co-defendant] went in Leeuwarden. [medeverdachte], [slachtoffer] en ik spelen allemaal het online spel “RuneScape”. [co-defendant], [victim] and I play all the online game “Runescape”. Een dag eerder hadden [medeverdachte] en ik via MSN met elkaar gesproken om virtuele goederen van de online game “RuneScape” uit het account van [slachtoffer] over te brengen naar ons account. A day earlier had [co-defendant] and I talked with each other via MSN to virtual goods from online game “Runescape” from the account of [victim] to bring to our account. Ik heb gezien dat [medeverdachte] [slachtoffer] heeft geslagen. I’ve seen that [co-defendant] [victim] has beaten. Ik heb ook gezien dat [medeverdachte] een mes heeft gepakt en daarmee richting [slachtoffer] liep. I have also seen that [co-defendant] has caught a knife and direction [victim] walked. Nadat ik was vertrokken uit de woning van [medeverdachte] en in mijn woning achter de computer zat, heeft [medeverdachte] mij via MSN gevraagd om weer terug te komen. After I was gone from the house of [co-defendant] and in my house behind the computer Saturday, has [co-defendant] asked me via MSN to come back. Ik kwam meteen naar zijn woning. I came straight to his home. Een virtueel amulet en een virtueel masker zijn door [medeverdachte] vanuit het account van [slachtoffer] overgebracht naar mijn account. A virtual amulet and a virtual mask by [co-defendant] from the account of [victim] transferred to my account. [medeverdachte] en ik zouden elk de helft van de waarde van die items krijgen. [co-defendant] and I would each provide half the value of those items get. 2. 2. het in wettelijke vorm opgemaakte proces-verbaal van verhoor verdachte (pag. 30, 32 en 33), welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: in the legal form formatted minutes of questioning suspect (pg. 30, 32 and 33), which, essentially, including: Ik heb [slachtoffer] op 6 september 2007 in een wurggreep genomen door zijn nek in te klemmen in mijn elleboog. I [victim] on September 6, 2007 in a stranglehold by his neck to terminals in my elbow. Ik spande mijn spieren aan, zodat [slachtoffer] geen lucht kon krijgen. I stretched my muscles, so [victims] could get no air. Wij hebben [slachtoffer] geslagen. We have [victim] beaten. Ik heb [slachtoffer] opzettelijk met mijn vlakke hand tegen zijn gezicht geslagen. I [victim] intentionally with my hand flat against his face beaten. Omdat [slachtoffer] niet meewerkte, heb ik hem de keel dichtgeknepen. Because [victim] was not cooperating, I gave him the throat clenched. Wij dwongen [slachtoffer] om in te loggen op die computer. We forced [victim] to log onto that computer. [slachtoffer] wilde niet zijn wachtwoord geven en inloggen op de computer om het spel te spelen. [victim] did not want to give his password and log on the computer to play the game. Doordat wij hem bedreigden, heeft hij op een gegeven moment wel ingelogd en het spel opgehaald. Because we threatened him, he at some point have to be logged and the game picked up. Ik bedreigde [slachtoffer] dat hij wel mee moest werken. I threatened [victim] that he had to do work. Als [slachtoffer] niet wilde meewerken dan zou ik hem nog meer klappen geven. If [victim] did not want to cooperate then I would give him more blows. Omdat wij [slachtoffer] bedreigden heeft hij zich ingelogd. Because we [victims] are threatened, he logged. Als wij hem niet bedreigd hadden, dan had hij vrijwillig nooit toegestaan dat wij aan zijn punten konden komen. If we had not threatened him, then he had never voluntarily allowed that we could come to his points. Uit de keukenla heb ik twee messen gepakt. The keukenla I caught two knives. Ik haalde het lemmet van beide messen over elkaar. I took the blades of two knives on each other. Mijn bedoeling was dat [slachtoffer] hiervan bang zou worden en zou meewerken om ons zijn wachtwoord en dergelijke te geven. My intention was that [the victim] this would be scared and would contribute to us to give password and such. Ook is [slachtoffer] tegen de grond gewerkt. Also, [victim] to the ground worked. Wij hebben hem toen geslagen. We have beaten him. Een dag eerder hebben [medeverdachte] en ik afgesproken dat we [slachtoffer] de volgende dag mee zouden nemen naar het huis van [medeverdachte] en dat we dan met geweld zouden proberen om die punten en het geld van [slachtoffer] te krijgen en we spraken af dat we over zouden gaan op geweld als ons plan zou mislukken. A day earlier [co-defendant] and I agreed that we [victims] the next day it would take to the house of [co-defendant] and that we would try to violence with these points and the money from [victim] to get and we agreed that we would go on to violence if our plan would fail. 3. 3. het in wettelijke vorm opgemaakte proces-verbaal van aangifte (pag. 17, 18, 19), welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: in the legal form formatted minutes of declaration (pg. 17, 18, 19), which, essentially, including: Ik doe al jaren een spelletje op internet. I am a long game on the Internet. Ik ben hier gemiddeld iedere dag meer dan 4 uren mee bezig. I’m here every day on average more than 4 hours doing. Het spelletje heet RuneScape. The game is called Runescape. Het is een spel waarbij je een klein poppetje bent dat geld kan verdienen door te werken. It is a game where you’re a little doll that can earn money by working. Ik ben erg rijk op Runescape en omdat ik rijk ben ook heel sterk. I’m very rich in Runescape and rich because I’m also very strong. Ik ben in dit spel bijna niet te verslaan. I’m in this game is almost impossible to beat. Vanwege mijn grote bezit op Runescape aan geld en goederen verander ik bijna iedere drie dagen mijn wachtwoord, omdat ik bang ben dat iemand erachter komt en mij hacked. Because of my great hold on to Runescape money and goods to change almost every three days my password, because I’m afraid that someone finds out and hacked me. [medeverdachte] wil graag dat ik hem geld en items geef in het spel. [co-defendant] would like that I give him money and items in the game. Ik fietste op 6 september 2007 mee met [medeverdachte] en [verdachte] naar de woning van [medeverdachte] te Leeuwarden. I cycled on September 6, 2007 along with [co-defendant] and [suspect] to the homes of [co-defendant] to Leeuwarden. Ik zag dat [medeverdachte] met een sleutel de deur van de flatwoning opendeed. I saw that [co-defendant] with a key to the door of the apartment house was open. Ik moest vervolgens met [verdachte] en [medeverdachte] meelopen naar een slaapkamer in de woning. I had then with [suspect] and [co-defendant] flour open to a bedroom in the house. Vervolgens moest ik van [medeverdachte] en [verdachte] meewerken om het geld en de goederen van mijn account over te zetten naar het account van [verdachte]. Then I had to [co-defendant] and [suspect] to contribute money and goods from my account into the account of [suspect]. Toen ik zei dat ik dat niet wilde, begonnen [medeverdachte] en [verdachte] mij te slaan en te schoppen. When I said that I did not want started [co-defendant] and [suspect] would store and shovels. Ik werd kennelijk opzettelijk en met kracht met tot vuisten gebalde handen tegen mijn hoofd geslagen. I was apparently intentionally, and with fists to force combined with hands against my head beaten. Zij sloegen mij opzettelijk en met kracht heel veel keren tegen mijn hoofd en tegen mijn ribben. They beat me with intent and effect a lot of times against my head and against my ribs. Door de klappen die ik kreeg, viel ik op de grond van de slaapkamer. By the blows that I got, I fell on the floor of the bedroom. Vervolgens voelde en zag ik dat beiden mij opzettelijk en met kracht schopten tegen mijn borstkas en mijn benen. Then I felt and saw that both me and deliberately kicked with force against my chest and my legs. Ook zag en voelde ik dat zij kennelijk opzettelijk en met kracht op mijn borstkas gingen staan. I also saw and felt that they apparently intentionally and went thoracic effect on my stand. Door de vele klappen en schoppen en doordat beiden met hun voeten op mijn borst gingen staan, voelde ik erg veel pijn. Because of the many blows and shovels and by both with their feet on my chest went to, I felt very much pain. Ik hoorde dat ze tegen mij riepen dat ze me dood zouden maken. I heard that she cried to me that they would kill me. Vervolgens zag en hoorde ik dat eerst [medeverdachte] naar de keuken liep en een mes ophaalde en dat kort daarop [verdachte] ook naar de keuken liep en twee messen ophaalde. Then I saw and heard that first [co-defendant] went to the kitchen and a knife was drawn and shortly after that [suspect] also ran to the kitchen and two knives drawn. Met de messen bedreigden [medeverdachte] en [verdachte] mij met de dood. With the knives threatened [co-defendant] and [suspect] me with death. Ik werd erg bang. I was very scared. Ik kon niets anders meer dan meewerken met [medeverdachte] en [verdachte]. I was nothing more than cooperate with [co-defendant] and [suspect]. Ik durfde niets meer te weigeren. I dared not refuse. Ik zag dat [verdachte] inlogde met zijn account op het spel RuneScape op de computer in de slaapkamer. I saw that [suspect] logged on his account at the game Runescape on the computer in the bedroom. Ik moest vervolgens met beiden mee naar een computer in de woonkamer van de flat waar ik met mijn account moest inloggen op het spel RuneScape. I had then with both to a computer in the living room of the apartment where I had to log in to my account on the game Runescape. Vervolgens moest ik onder dwang met mijn poppetje vechten tegen [verdachte] die het spel speelde vanaf de computer op de slaapkamer. Then I had with my doll forced to fight against [suspects] who played the game from the PC to the bedroom. Tijdens het vechten met het poppetje van [verdachte] bleef [medeverdachte] steeds bij mij staan in de woonkamer. During the fighting with the figure of [suspect] was [co-defendant] always with me in the living room. Ik zag dat [medeverdachte] en [verdachte] wisselden. I saw that [co-defendant] and [suspect] exchanged. Toen [verdachte] bij mij en de computer kwam staan in de woonkamer en [medeverdachte] naar de slaapkamer was, werd ik plotseling door [verdachte] met de stoel waarop ik zat naar achterover getrokken. When [suspect] to me and the computer came in the living room and [co-defendant] to the bedroom was, I was suddenly by [suspect] with the chair on which I was drawn back to. Ik lag op de grond en kreeg van [verdachte] weer klappen en schoppen op mijn hoofd en mijn lichaam. I was on the ground and was of [suspect] weather blows and kicks to my head and my body. Toen het ophield, zag ik dat [verdachte] op de stoel zat bij de computer in de woonkamer. When it ended, I saw that [suspect] on the chair was in the computer in the living room. Ik stond op en zag dat [verdachte] al mijn geld en goederen van mijn RuneScape-account overzette naar zijn eigen account, van mij stal. I got up and saw that [suspect] all my money and property from my account on Runescape continued to his own account, mine stable. Nadat [verdachte] al het geld en goederen van mijn account had gestolen, zag ik dat hij uitlogde. After [suspect] all the money and property from my account had been stolen, I saw that he uitlogde. Ook [medeverdachte] kwam erbij in de woonkamer. Also [co-defendant] was there in the living room. Door beiden werd ik vervolgens uit huis gezet. Both, I was put off house. 4. 4. het in wettelijke vorm opgemaakte proces-verbaal van verhoor medeverdachte (pag. 24, 25, 26 en 27), welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: in the legal form formatted minutes of questioning co-defendant (pg. 24, 25, 26 and 27), which, essentially, including: Vroeger was ik rijker in dit spel dan [slachtoffer], maar [slachtoffer] had een paar dagen geleden geluk gehad, want hij had spullen gevonden van een dode man en die man was heel rijk en had dus veel waardevolle spullen. Previously, I was richer in this game than [victims], but [victim] had a couple days ago lucky, because he had found belongings of a dead man and that man was very rich and had so many valuable things. Die spullen had [slachtoffer] gepakt en daardoor was hij in één klap heel rijk. That stuff had [victim] and therefore he was caught in a blow very rich. Ik werd daar eigenlijk wel jaloers van. I was there actually jealous of. Ik heb een paar keer aan [slachtoffer] gevraagd of ik wat geld of spullen van hem kon krijgen. I have a couple of times to [victim] asked if I have some money or things could get from him. Daarmee bedoel ik dan spullen of coins die je in dit computerspel gebruikt. I mean stuff than you or coins used in this computer game. Ik heb een vriend die [verdachte] (fonetisch) heet. I have a friend who [suspect] (phonetic) is called. Ik vroeg op 6 september 2007 of [verdachte] Runescape wilde spelen en ik zei verder dat ik van plan was om [slachtoffer] te hacken. I asked in September 6, 2007 or [suspect] Runescape wanted to play and I said that I was planning to [victim] to hacking. Hiermee bedoel ik dat ik spullen van hem af wilde pakken. I mean stuff that I wanted him to tackle. Hij vond dat goed en fietste met [slachtoffer] en mij naar mijn huis. He felt good and cycled with [victim] and me to my house. Ik ben met [slachtoffer] gaan vechten, omdat hij niet wilde inloggen. I’m with [victims] go fight, because he did not want to log. Ik heb hem geschopt, twee keer hard geschopt tegen zijn benen. I kicked him, twice kicked hard against his legs. Ik heb [slachtoffer] ook geduwd en getrokken. I [victim] also pushed and pulled. Ik heb hem naar de grond gewerkt. I got him to the ground worked. [verdachte] ging naar huis. [suspect] went home. Ik heb via MSN tegen [verdachte] gezegd dat hij weer moest komen, omdat [slachtoffer] niet wilde inloggen. I got through MSN against [suspect] said that he had to come back, because [victim] did not want to log. [verdachte] kwam meteen. [suspect] came immediately. [verdachte] heeft [slachtoffer] geslagen op zijn hoofd. [suspect] has [victim] beaten on his head. Ook kneep hij in het hoofd van [slachtoffer]. He also tweak in the minds of [victim]. [verdachte] heeft [slachtoffer] op de grond gegooid en [verdachte] en ik hebben bovenop [slachtoffer] gestaan. [suspect] has [victim] on the ground and thrown [suspect] and I have top [victim] before. [verdachte] en ik stonden om de beurt op zijn heupen en aan de zijkant van zijn ribben. [suspects] and I were to take turns on his hips and on the side of his ribs. We stonden niet echt op hem, maar drukten met een been op hem. We were not really him, but expressed with a leg on him. Ik ben toen naar de keuken gelopen en heb een mes uit een keukenla gepakt. I then walked to the kitchen and got a knife from a keukenla caught. Dit was een groot en dik vleesmes met een zwart handvat. This was a big and thick carving knife with a black handle. [verdachte] pakte ook twee messen. [suspect] also grabbed two knives. Eén van die messen was een scherp dun mes. One of those knives was a sharp thin knife. Ik maakte dreigende bewegingen met het mes in mijn hand. I made threatening gestures with the knife in my hand. Ik slingerde er wat mee. I slingerde out and get started. Ik stond daarbij ongeveer drie meter van [slachtoffer] af en liep richting [slachtoffer]. I was about three meters away from this [victim] off and walked toward [victim]. [verdachte] maakte met beide messen dreigende bewegingen door de messen heen en weer te bewegen. [suspect] made with two knives threatening movements by the blades to move back and forth. [verdachte] en ik wilden [slachtoffer] bang maken en ik heb tegen [slachtoffer] gezegd: “Ik maak je dood”. [suspects] and I wanted [victims] are scared, and I voted against [victim] said: “I make you dead.” We hebben de messen daarna teruggelegd en gezegd dat [slachtoffer] moest inloggen. We have the knives back then and said that [the victim] had to log. [slachtoffer] heeft toen ingelogd, omdat hij bang was. [victim] gave in, because he was scared. Hij heeft ingelogd op de computer in de woonkamer. He has logged on the computer in the living room. Ik ben toen achter de computer gaan spelen en heb spullen van hem gedropt. When I am behind the computer to play and have stuff from him dropped. Dit betekent dat ik spullen van hem op een andere plek heb neergelegd en ik wilde dit dan via die andere computer weer pakken, zodat het van mij werd. This means that I stuff him in a different place and I wanted to have deposited it through those other computer address, so it was me. Ik heb een amulet en een masker gedropt. I have an amulet and a mask dropped. Het masker, maar vooral de amulet zijn in dit spel veel waard. The mask, but the amulet in this game very much. [verdachte] en ik delen vaak spullen in dit spel en had ik er dus ook voordeel van. [suspects] and I share many things in this game and I therefore also benefit from. Ik zag dat [verdachte] [slachtoffer] hard op de grond gooide. I saw that [suspect] [victim] threw hard on the ground. U vraagt mij of [verdachte] en ik de diefstal van de coins hadden gepland. You ask me if [suspects] and I the theft of the coins had planned. [verdachte] en ik hadden dit inderdaad de dag ervoor al afgesproken via MSN. [suspects] and I had the day before this is indeed already agreed through MSN. Als [slachtoffer] niet met ons mee wilde werken, dan zouden wij hem slaan. If [victims] do not want to work with us, then we would save him. Dit was een idee van ons allebei. This was an idea of us both. 5. 5. het in wettelijke vorm opgemaakte proces-verbaal van bevindingen (pag. 21), welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: in the legal form formatted minutes of findings (pg. 21), which, essentially, including: Wij, verbalisanten, zagen op 6 september 2007 dat [slachtoffer] zichtbaar pijn had en zodanig onder de indruk was van dit alles dat [slachtoffer] maar moeilijk zijn verhaal kwijt kon aan ons verbalisanten. We, compiling it, saw on September 6, 2007 that [the victim] visible pain and had to be under the impression was that everything that [victims] but difficult story was lost to us compiling it. 6. 6. het in wettelijke vorm opgemaakte proces-verbaal van politie (pag. 4), welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: in the legal form formatted minutes of police (pg. 4), which, essentially, including: Na overleg met de officier van justitie werd door de verdachte [verdachte] de door hem en door medeverdachte [medeverdachte] in het spel Runescape gestolen goederen teruggegeven aan de rechtmatige eigenaar. After consultation with the public prosecutor was accused by the [suspect] by him and by co-defendant [co-defendant] in the game Runescape stolen goods returned to the rightful owner. Via een computer op het politiebureau te Leeuwarden werd door verdachte [verdachte] ingelogd in het voornoemde spel. Through a computer at the police station in Leeuwarden was suspicious [suspect] logged in the aforementioned game. Tevens werd door aangever het spel opgestart. It was also by providing the game started. Telefonisch werd door de aangever aan mij, verbalisant Veldman, doorgegeven dat op een gegeven moment hij alle door de verdachten gestolen goederen terug had ontvangen, waarna het spel weer werd beëindigd. Telephone by the principal to me, compiling Veldman, given that at any given moment by all the suspects had received stolen goods back, and the game ended. 7. 7. een schriftelijke geneeskundige verklaring dd 7 september 2008 met betrekking tot [slachtoffer] (pag. 37), welke -zakelijk weergegeven- onder meer inhoudt: a written medical certificate dated September 7, 2008 with respect to [victim] (pg. 37), which, essentially, including: Uitwendig waargenomen letsel: External injuries observed: - drukpijn rechts op de borstkas; - Pressure on the right chest pain; - schaafwonden en drukpijn op de rechterschouder; - Grazes pressure and pain on the right shoulder; - drukpijnlijke rechterbil en rechterenkel. - Pressure sore right buttock and right ankle. Datum waarop werd onderzocht: 07/09/2007. Date has been examined: 07/09/2007. Geschatte duur van de genezing: 2 weken. Estimated duration of the healing: 2 weeks. Bovenstaande wettige bewijsmiddelen -in onderling verband en samenhang beschouwd- houden de redengevende feiten en omstandigheden in waarop de beslissing van de rechtbank steunt dat verdachte het hierna bewezenverklaarde feit heeft begaan. The above legal evidence-related and mutually-together, the reason decisive facts and circumstances in which the decision of the court that supports proven below the suspect has committed stated fact. Bewezenverklaring Proven Declaration De rechtbank acht het primair telastegelegde bewezen, met dien verstande dat: The court considers it primarily telastegelegde proven, with the proviso that: primair primary hij op 6 september 2007 te Leeuwarden, in de gemeente Leeuwarden, tezamen en in vereniging met een ander, met het oogmerk van wederrechtelijke toe-eigening heeft weggenomen een virtueel amulet en een virtueel masker van het online computerspel genaamd RuneScape, toebehorende aan [slachtoffer], welke diefstal werd voorafgegaan en vergezeld van geweld en bedreiging met geweld tegen [slachtoffer], gepleegd met het oogmerk om die diefstal voor te bereiden en gemakkelijk te maken, welk geweld en welke bedreiging met geweld hierin bestonden dat hij, verdachte, en zijn mededader die [slachtoffer] meermalen en met kracht met tot vuisten gebalde handen tegen het hoofd en de ribben en elders tegen het lichaam hebben geslagen en die [slachtoffer] tegen de borstkas en de benen en elders tegen het lichaam hebben geschopt en op het lichaam van die [slachtoffer] zijn gaan staan en messen in de richting van het lichaam van die [slachtoffer] hebben gehouden en met messen zwaaiende en slingerende bewegingen voor die [slachtoffer] hebben gemaakt en die [slachtoffer] hebben toegevoegd de woorden “ik maak je dood”, en die [slachtoffer] in zijn stoel achterover hebben getrokken en naar de grond hebben gewerkt en de nek van die [slachtoffer] in een wurggreep hebben genomen. he September 6, 2007 in Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden in the town, together and in association with another, with the intention of misappropriation has removed a virtual amulet and a virtual mask of the online computer game called Runescape, belonging to [victim] , The theft was preceded and accompanied by violence and threats of violence against [victim], with the aim of that theft to prepare and easy to make, what violence and threat of violence so that he existed, suspicious, and his co-offender that [victim] repeatedly and forcefully with fists until combined hands against the head and ribs and elsewhere against the body and have beaten the [victim] against the chest and the legs and elsewhere against the body and kicked on the body of that [victims] are going and knives in the direction of the body of the [victims] have taken with knives and swinging and swaying movements for those [victims] have made and that [victims] have added the words “I don ‘dead’ , And [victims] have back in his chair and pulled to the ground have worked and the neck of the [victims] have taken a stranglehold. De verdachte zal van het meer of anders telastegelegde worden vrijgesproken, aangezien de rechtbank dat niet bewezen acht. The suspect will be of more or else telastegelegde be acquitted because the court that no evidence eight. Kwalificatie Qualifier Het bewezene levert op het misdrijf: It provides evidence on the crime: primair diefstal, voorafgegaan en vergezeld van geweld en bedreiging met geweld tegen personen, gepleegd met het oogmerk om die diefstal voor te bereiden en gemakkelijk te maken, terwijl het feit wordt gepleegd door twee of meer verenigde personen. primarily theft, preceded and accompanied by violence and threats of violence against persons, committed with the intent for that theft to prepare and easy to make, while the offense is committed by two or more persons. Strafbaarheid verdachte Criminal suspect De rechtbank acht verdachte strafbaar nu niet van enige strafuitsluitingsgrond is gebleken. The eight suspected criminal court now not only defense is revealed. Strafmotivering Criminal Grounds De rechtbank neemt bij de bepaling van de hierna te vermelden strafsoort en strafmaat in aanmerking: The court takes in the provision of the following type and state criminal sentencing into account: - de aard en de ernst van het gepleegde feit; - The nature and seriousness of the offense; - de omstandigheden waaronder dit is begaan; - The circumstances under which it was committed; - de persoon van verdachte, zoals daarvan ter terechtzitting is gebleken en deze naar voren komt uit het uittreksel uit het algemeen documentatieregister en de rapporten van de Raad voor de Kinderbescherming dd 24 oktober 2007 en 19 september 2008; - The person accused, as it appeared at the hearing and this was reflected in the excerpt from the general registry documentation and the reports of the Council for the Child dated October 24, 2007 and September 19, 2008; - de vordering van de officier van justitie; - The application of the Prosecutor; - het pleidooi van de raadsman. - The argument of counsel. Verdachte heeft zich samen met een ander schuldig gemaakt aan diefstal met geweld. Suspect has together with another guilty of robbery with violence. Na daartoe tevoren gemaakte afspraak hebben zij een schoolgenoot mee naar huis genomen en hem onder bedreiging met woorden en messen en door een forse lichamelijke mishandeling gedwongen in te loggen op zijn account van het computerspel “RuneScape”. Advance appointment made with the approval of a school, they enjoyed back home and taken him under threat of words and knives and a strong physical abuse forced them to log into his account of the computer game “Runescape”. Zij hebben het slachtoffer op deze wijze voor hem en ook voor de daders van veel waarde zijnde goederen uit dit spel, te weten een virtuele amulet en een virtueel masker, uit jaloezie gestolen. They are victims in this way for him and also for the perpetrators of many goods are value for this game, namely a virtual amulet and a virtual mask, stolen from jealousy. Het slachtoffer heeft ten gevolge van deze benarde situatie lichamelijk en psychisch letsel ondervonden. The victim shall have the effect of this plight physical and psychological injuries suffered. De rechtbank tilt zwaar aan deze feiten. The court tilt heavily to these facts. Strafverzwarend acht de rechtbank dat verdachte, hoewel nog jong, weloverwogen heeft gehandeld en geen enkele verantwoordelijkheid neemt voor wat er is gebeurd. Penalties, the court suspect that, although still young, has acted deliberately and takes no responsibility for what happened. Verdachte heeft geen blijk gegeven van inzicht in het strafbare van zijn handelen en heeft een te positief beeld van zichzelf. Suspect has not shown an understanding of the criminal act and has a positive image of themselves. De omstandigheid dat verdachte niet eerder met politie en justitie in aanraking is geweest en dat er veel tijd is verstreken tussen het plegen van het feit en de zitting beschouwt de rechtbank als strafverminderend. The fact that defendant does not have prior police and the judiciary been in contact and that much time has elapsed between the commission of the offense and the session sees the court as punishment decreasing. De Raad voor de Kinderbescherming heeft over verdachte een tweetal rapporten uitgebracht, waaruit blijkt dat er zowel in de situatie op school als thuis geen problemen zijn gesignaleerd over het functioneren van verdachte. The Council for the Child has accused two reports, showing that both the situation at school and at home no problems have been reported on the operation of suspicious. De Raad onthoudt zich van het geven van een strafadvies, omdat verdachte een ontkennende houding heeft aangenomen. The Council refrain from giving an opinion punishment, because a suspect has adopted negative attitude. De officier van justitie heeft een werkstraf en daarnaast een voorwaardelijke jeugddetentie gevorderd. The prosecutor has a labor and a conditional jeugddetentie pleadings. Voor een feit als waarvan in casu sprake is, is in het algemeen een onvoorwaardelijke vrijheidsstraf passend. For a fact which in this case as there is in general an unconditional prison sentence is appropriate. De rechtbank zal hiertoe echter niet overgaan gelet op het feit dat verdachte ten tijde van het plegen van het delict 14 jaar was, hij nog niet eerder met politie en justitie in aanraking is gekomen en ook omdat er tussen datum delict en de terechtzitting veel tijd is verstreken. However, the court will not proceed in view of the fact that suspicious at the time of the commission of the offense was 14 years, he has not previously with police and the judiciary has come in contact and also because there date between offense and the hearing is a lot of time expired. Ook in het rapport van de Raad voor de Kinderbescherming is gesteld dat een jeugddetentie geen meerwaarde heeft. Also in the report of the Council for the Child states that a jeugddetentie no added value. De rechtbank kan zich derhalve vinden in de strafmodaliteit als door de officier van justitie aangegeven en zal verdachte een forse werkstraf opleggen. The court may therefore find themselves in the modality as punishment by the prosecutor declared a suspect and will impose strong labor. Een voorwaardelijke jeugddetentie zal verdachte worden opgelegd, teneinde hem er van te weerhouden in de toekomst weer de fout in te gaan. A contingent jeugddetentie suspect will be imposed, order him to stop again in the future the error in detail. Toepassing van wetsartikelen Application of laws De rechtbank heeft gelet op de artikelen 77a, 77g(oud), 77i, 77m(oud), 77n, 77x(oud), 77y(oud), 77z(oud), 310 en 312 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht. The court has given the articles 77a, 77g (old), 77i, 77m (old), 77n, 77x (old), 77y (old), 77z (old), 310 and 312 of the Penal Code. DE UITSPRAAK VAN DE RECHTBANK LUIDT, RECHTDOENDE: THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS RIGHT WAY: Wijst het verzoek van de raadsman tot het horen van getuigen af. Reject the request of the counsel to the hearing of witnesses away. Verklaart het onder primair telastegelegde bewezen, te kwalificeren en strafbaar in voege als voormeld en verdachte deswege strafbaar. Explains the Basic telastegelegde proven, and to qualify as criminal acts in the aforementioned and punishable deswege suspect. Veroordeelt verdachte te dier zake tot: Does a suspect animal matter to: Een werkstraf, bestaande uit het verrichten van 160 uren onbetaalde arbeid. A labor, consisting of the provision of 160 hours of unpaid work. De arbeid moet binnen 12 maanden zijn verricht. The work must be done within 12 months. Beveelt dat voor het geval de veroordeelde de werkstraf niet naar behoren verricht, vervangende jeugddetentie voor de duur van 80 dagen zal worden toegepast. Recommends that in case the convicted person’s labor is not properly carried out, jeugddetentie replacement for the duration of 80 days will be applied. Een jeugddetentie voor de duur van vier weken. A jeugddetentie for four weeks. Bepaalt, dat deze jeugddetentie niet zal worden tenuitvoergelegd, tenzij de rechter later anders mocht gelasten, op grond, dat de veroordeelde zich voor het einde van een proeftijd, welke hierbij wordt vastgesteld op twee jaren, aan een strafbaar feit heeft schuldig gemaakt. Determines that this jeugddetentie will not be implemented unless the judge later ordered otherwise, on the grounds that the convicted person has until the end of a probationary period in which it is set at two years, to an offense is guilty. Verklaart niet bewezen hetgeen aan verdachte meer of anders is telastegelegd dan het bewezenverklaarde en spreekt verdachte daarvan vrij. Declares no evidence to suspect that more or otherwise telastegelegd than the stated proven and suspected it goes free. Dit vonnis is gewezen door mr. BJ de Jong, voorzitter en tevens kinderrechter, mr. MJ Dijkstra en mr. A. This verdict has been delivered by Mr. BJ de Jong, President and childprotection, Mr. MJ Dijkstra and Mr. A. de Jong, rechters, bijgestaan door mr. G. de Jong, judges, assisted by Mr. G. Sannes, griffier, en uitgesproken ter openbare terechtzitting van deze rechtbank op 21 oktober 2008. Sannes, Registrar, and pronounced in open court of this court on October 21, 2008.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 4:00pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Imagine walking out of a store and some people beat you up and steal what you've just bought. The store feels bad and offers to give you again for free what was stolen. If that happens, does that mean that the people did not steal from you?

    No, that involves physical products in the real world. Totally different scenario.

    Your argument is that if you can replace what was stolen, it's no longer theft. That makes no sense.

    No, that's not my argument. My argument is that you live by the rules of the virtual world, not by the real world when in the virtual world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 4:02pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Good point Mike, and if the kids beat up his character in game and stole his items that way, the police would have never and should have never been involved. BUT, as the theft was not from INSIDE the game, but from OUTSIDE the game, the issue is most definitely THEFT!

    The assault was outside the game. The "theft" if you can call it that, was inside.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 4:03pm

    Re:

    How is this "still not theft"? Would beating up and taking someone's CD's be theft? CDs are mere data, how is this any different?

    No, a CD is a physical product. That is not within a virtual world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 4:23pm

    Mike jumping the gun...again

    With Mike increasingly writing and making comments about cases (and things) before he even follows through with the entire story, techdirt is becoming more like a grocery tabloid paper than any reputable news story-like site

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 4:41pm

    Re: Mike jumping the gun...again

    With Mike increasingly writing and making comments about cases (and things) before he even follows through with the entire story

    Hmm. Increasingly? I wrote the post based on the AP article, same as I've done for years. No changes at all. I read the entire story, and I wrote it up based on that.

    That's been the point of Techdirt all along, and why we leave the comments open. We never claim to be journalists. We never claim to have the whole story. We have the comments open so people can add more details, as they often do, and we quite often will update a post (as we did this time) with those details.

    So... um... why are you saying something's changed? We've always been this way, and I see no reason to change.

    techdirt is becoming more like a grocery tabloid paper than any reputable news story-like site

    Fascinating. We're not journalists, and never claimed to be. But can you point me to a single fact we got wrong?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    Donald, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 7:21pm

    Virtual Goods = No Law???

    Ok, I read that all people agree that the PHYSICAL violence justify the ruling, whereas if these were all on-line, this should not be a crime.

    SOOOO...

    If I manage to convince you to give me your Paypal password and then transfer all your "virtual" money to my account, is that theft? after all, its just online!

    No? just because paypal is real money?

    What happened if some objects in these games trade for real money in the real world (say, via ebay?)

    Where do you draw the line?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 8:07pm

    Re: Virtual Goods = No Law???

    If I manage to convince you to give me your Paypal password and then transfer all your "virtual" money to my account, is that theft? after all, its just online!

    Uh. Money is a scarce good. It's not in a virtual world. It's in the real world.

    This isn't difficult.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Wayne, Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 9:21pm

    Whats yours is mine?

    Nobody commented about 'why' 2 teenagers would bully a 3rd teenager 'outside' the game in order to gain something 'inside' the game. Hmmm, maybe because the items in question are difficult to ascertain and additionally they hold some value to those involved.

    All of these idiotic comments above that belittle the courts, (and the child who seeks justice) w/out looking into the matter first would undoubtedly change their mind if the 13yr old was their child.

    1. Said child plays a game.
    2. Manages to get some popular ingame items.
    3. Is threatened repeatedly by two others.
    4. Relinquishes the items.
    5. Seeks justice.
    6. Receives justice.
    7. Becomes punchline for the immature.

    I find it to be an absolutely crying shame that I am in the smaller percentile when I say that #7 does not belong.

    We as a community simply should not need to negate others feelings with humour when we don't understand.

    If you see a similar situation in the future, dedicate some time to learn the facts and make an educated decision... or just shut up and trust that the courts have acted accordingly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 10:29pm

    Re: Whats yours is mine?


    1. Said child plays a game.
    2. Manages to get some popular ingame items.
    3. Is threatened repeatedly by two others.
    4. Relinquishes the items.
    5. Seeks justice.
    6. Receives justice.
    7. Becomes punchline for the immature.


    Uh, no. Man. The point is that they sought justice for the WRONG THING. I have no problem with them seeking justice for ASSAULT or BATTERY (if there was battery), but it was NOT THEFT.

    I find it to be an absolutely crying shame that I am in the smaller percentile when I say that #7 does not belong.

    Please, actually read what we said before you slam us for saying it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    identicon
    Rose M. Welch, Oct 23rd, 2008 @ 12:22am

    Hmmm, maybe because the ...

    Hmmm, maybe because the items in question are difficult to ascertain and additionally they hold some value to those involved.

    Are you trying to say that the items in question are difficult to understand or that they are hard to obtain?

    Getting to use an in-game item is not the same as owning an in-game item. Really, it's not. You have to agree that the entire virtual world and the characters and items in it belong to Jagex before you can even play the game. It's part of the Terms of Service. So it's very clear that this child did not own the amulet or mask.

    When the jerks forced him to transfer those items, they were simply transferred from one pocket of Jagex ownership to another. No one stole anything from Jagex. No theft occurred.

    I have three kids. I am a gamer. I can certainly sympathize with the people in question. I think it's a shitty situation. I think those kids need a stiff sentence and therapy for the assault and the underlying purpose. But they didn't steal anything from the boy or Jagex. And that is exactly how I would feel if it was my child.

    Furthermore, I don't think that anyone is making fun of the victim. There have been some derisive comments toward the idiots who were so wrapped up in the game that they assaulted someone, but I haven't seen anyone make any noises about the poor kid who just wanted to play some Runescape.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    Azrael, Oct 23rd, 2008 @ 12:48am

    Sorry to tell you Mike but a ...

    Sorry to tell you Mike but a magic amulet is by definition a VERY scarce good. I played Runescape for 2 years and i coudn't get one. Trust me, this is definitely theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    identicon
    PackieIX, Oct 23rd, 2008 @ 1:03am

    heheheheheh, you guys, lol, ...

    heheheheheh, you guys, lol, lollollollol, your so noob, lo. wtf, man i might go ot prison for awile, LOL.

    but seriously, its just a game, if they did actually assualt, the kid, thne yeah, assault, but wtf? i mean, yeah, that would piss me off, but, seriosuly, lol, jsut play the game some more, and btw, magic amulet, one of the easiest items in the game to get,

    Azrael = epic Phail

    Packie

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    identicon
    MadJo, Oct 23rd, 2008 @ 3:52am

    But then still that 'virtual ...

    But then still that 'virtual theft' had to be reported somewhere?
    And there's where the sentence of the judge comes in. Otherwise I could just claim that that amulet was mine, and demand that the owners of the Runescape game return it to me, because I claim you stole it from me (while in all actuality I probably sold the item to you).
    It would inherently fall to a he-said-she-said problem. I doubt that the makers of any game would like to get that kind of headache.

    The game only 'sees' a valid transaction between two characters. It doesn't know what happened in real life prior to that transaction. Nor does it have to.

    So instead, the assault should have been added to the charges, next to the theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    MadJo, Oct 23rd, 2008 @ 9:10am

    Fortunately you are just from ...

    Fortunately you are just from the US, otherwise I'd feel slighted by the first sentence in your comment. :P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Mpopal, Oct 23rd, 2008 @ 9:45am

    You said this would happen next...

    You said this would happen next Mike. Who knew it would be so fast.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    identicon
    Sam, Oct 23rd, 2008 @ 1:30pm

    Well yeah he was under knifepoint and was beaten up. Oh and about people saying it wasn't theft...it was the Netherlands guys lol

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    identicon
    Duane, Oct 24th, 2008 @ 6:47am

    stealing

    People get busted for stealing HBO all the time. Those movies are just an electronic virtualization of a film. Has HBO lost any actual property?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    identicon
    Holly Jahangiri, Oct 24th, 2008 @ 7:07am

    At least this one may be charged correctly...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    identicon
    Dellusions, Oct 26th, 2008 @ 4:00pm

    How do you guys figure this?

    I love the people saying that duels and PVP fights should be considered assault, if this is considered theft. Let's check the definitions for these words, shall we?

    _____
    assault and battery

    –noun Law.
    an assault with an actual touching or other violence upon another.
    _____

    theft
       /θɛft/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [theft] Show IPA Pronunciation ,
    –noun
    1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking or carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.



    For assault, or assault and battery, you must physical threaten, or touch someone else. For theft, you must take someones goods away from them.

    For those of you who feel this is not theft; To put this in other terms, lets say you bought stock in google, and I made you transfer those stocks to my account for free, you think I should not be charged with theft?

    This kid bought a piece of someone elses property, and it was extorted from him, it's theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    identicon
    Austin Clark, Oct 27th, 2008 @ 2:45pm

    Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    A game that takes REAL time and REAL effort to achieve certain merchandise... How would you like to spend months playing a game seriously, and have it all go down the drain because some a-hole can't play the game honestly??? Even though its a game, it is still your right to keep what you have rightfully earned.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    Austin Clark, Oct 27th, 2008 @ 2:48pm

    Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.

    PvP is PART OF THE GAME, stealing is NOT... They broke the law by breaking the games RULES.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    identicon
    teri barton, Nov 6th, 2008 @ 3:09pm

    crime

    thats so stoupid i cant believe he would be charged just for that but it is bad for someone to threaten a knife to just a kid its not worth it at all who ever that parent is to that kid i feel so bad for that parent so sorry !!!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    identicon
    JR, Nov 18th, 2008 @ 10:19am

    So they beat, kicked, and strangled this kid. They threatened him with death and waved kitchen knives....and the suspects are charged with 'virtual theft'??

    This just doesn't make sense. Assault and battery should have been the charge. Depending upon the level of injury, even attempted murder.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This