THE PEOPLE v. Scott Summers - The Murder of Charles Francis Xavier

[Striderblack01]

It occurs to me that trials are something that are inherently dramatic and not handled particularly well in the X-men comics.
Whenever someone is on ‘trial’, it pretty much consists of characters verbally ganging up on someone with no real repercussions (short of hurt feelings and temporary exclusion).

This presents an opportunity for formality as well as frivolity – an internet specialty.

And since we appear to be hopelessly doomed to litigating this particular character’s crimes, even at the slightest provocation:
This internet court, THE PEOPLE’S COURT, will now move to formally charge one, SCOTT SUMMERS, hitherto known as THE DEFENDANT, with a series of charges based on his lengthy, and some might argue, criminal career.

These charges include, but are not limited to (in order of JUICY-NESS):

• The Murder of Charles Francis Xavier
• The Military Recruitment of Children [War Crime]
• Acts of Domestic Terrorism
• Abandoning His Mentor’s Ideology of Peaceful Coexistence
• Being a bad Husband & a dead-beat Father
  (Let it be known that NO charge is too petty or frivolous for THE PEOPLE’S COURT)

The Murder of Charles Francis Xavier

All rise as the Honorable Judge, StriderBlack01, enters the Courtroom.

Be seated.

The entirety of this thread/trial shall be dedicated to the case regarding the murder of Charles Francis Xavier.
As Charles, the alleged victim, was an American citizen, we shall proceed in accordance to US law.

I've outlined a few arguments below I believe to be particularly helpful and pertinent.
But you are the attorneys - it's up to you to make whatever case you choose.

The Prosecution, AKA, THE STATE

First-degree murder
Any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Felony murder, a charge that may be filed against a defendant who is involved in a dangerous crime where a death results from the crime,[12] is typically first-degree.[13]

Second-degree murder
Any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned in advance.[14]

Voluntary manslaughter
Sometimes called a crime of passion murder, is any intentional killing that involves no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot under a spur-of-the-moment choice, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[15]

Involuntary manslaughter
A killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional or negligent act leading to death. A drunk driving–related death is typically involuntary manslaughter (see also vehicular homicide, causing death by dangerous driving, gross negligence manslaughter and causing death by criminal negligence for international equivalents). Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional", because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself.[16]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Degrees


The DEFENSE

Self-Defense
In the U.S., the general rule is that "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another." In cases involving non-deadly force, this means that the person must reasonably believe that their use of force was necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful physical harm. When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death. Most states no longer require a person to retreat before using deadly force. In the minority of jurisdictions which do require retreat, there is no obligation to retreat when it is unsafe to do so or when one is inside one's own home.

Mental Disorder
The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for his or her actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act.
A defendant claiming the defense is pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-d...United_States)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense


A Word on Court Decorum

Anyone replying to this thread is encouraged to identify themselves, whom they represent, their specific argument/rebuttal - with citations also being highly encouraged.
Though this is not meant to be a joke thread, jokes will be permissible in accordance to Internet Law. Degeneracy, however, will not be tolerated.
I encourage you as officers of the court, to be formal, serious, peaceable, and original in your silliness.

For Example:

Jennifer Walters, for the DEFENSE.
THE DEFENDANT is not guilty by reason of insanity. The Phoenix Force is an irresistible alien entity that fundamentally compromised my client’s mental capabilities. Under its thrall, my client believed that he was a cosmic force that had moved beyond the concepts of right and wrong, lawful and unlawful.

Everett Ross, for the STATE.
And yet, under this supposed irresistible entity’s thrall, THE DEFENDANT managed to briefly cure world-hunger. Does that sound like the actions of a man who has moved beyond the concepts of right and wrong?

The Verdict

In preparation for this trial, I pondered the possibility of building suspense and excitement by way of creating a follow-up thread one week from today specifically dedicated to the jury's verdict. However, as many of these arguments have been brought forth previously, I thought it would only serve to try The People's patience.

Or to put it more succinctly, we are living in a TLDR-World, and I am a TLDR-Girl.

Hence, if you have any enough information to render your verdict - you may do so.
However, if you truly wish to embody the spirit of this exercise, I implore you to keep an open mind and make your eventual judgement based on the strength of the arguments presented.

The Court will now hear all arguments.

[Tycon]

this is gonna be fun

[AHRNIHAL]

"Abandoning His Mentor’s Ideology of Peaceful Coexistence"

Since when this count as a crime?

[spirit2011]

let's see what Scott thinks about crimes while being possessed
scottRc.jpg

[AHRNIHAL]

The verdict:
1.Shamed by humans.
2.Jail time
3.Death by Dr. Doom.
4.Death by Black Bolt.
5.Death by fart gas.
6.Deathkiss by former wife.
7.Shamed by his peole.
8.Forging false document to frame him in the eyes of public.
9.Shamed by the X-men.
10.Shamed by the avengers.
11.Death by gutting(wolverine).

[Glio]

let's see what Scott thinks about crimes while being possessed
scottRc.jpg

-Guys, do you remember when we decided that we could not judge Wanda because she was possessed?
-Yes, but Wanda is a Avenger



It's self-defence/insanity. It is self-defense in the sense that he was defending himself to avoid having his memory erased again as in Deadly Genesis, it is insanity that he could not control how hard he defended himself because of the Phoenix.

[Striderblack01]

"Abandoning His Mentor’s Ideology of Peaceful Coexistence"

Since when this count as a crime?

There is no crime too small for the PEOPLE'S COURT.

The verdict:
1.Shamed by humans.
2.Jail time
3.Death by Dr. Doom.
4.Death by Black Bolt.
5.Death by fart gas.
6.Deathkiss by former wife.
7.Shamed by his peole.
8.Forging false document to frame him in the eyes of public.
9.Shamed by the X-men.
10.Shamed by the avengers.
11.Death by gutting(wolverine).

Don't get too ahead of yourself, councilor.
If the jury renders a guilty verdict, then, and only then, will we proceed to sentencing.

This is MY Courtroom!

<bangs gavel>

[9th.]

[Snoop Dogg]

What'sHisFace for the DEFENSE. Now, look. We can say a lot about Cyclops. He's a mutie. His costume choices can be questionable. He has weird fetishes only telepaths can satisfy. But, in this instance, he does not bear the brunt of the responsibility. After all, he was having relations with a space chicken. Bestiality. I'd love to say "lock that hoe up!" But prisons have varying success in our SOCIETY. So we instead ask for an hour of community service for every AvX issue (including tie-ins), a sex offender registration, a ban from farms, an ankle bracelet, and no solo series for 5 years.

This is justice.

[FluffyCyclopsRLZ]

Jennifer Walters: "As per THE PEOPLE vs. That Maybe-Maybe-Not Jean Grey cosplayer, THE PEOPLE vs. James Howlett, THE PEOPLE vs. Wanda Maximoff, THE PEOPLE vs. Lucas Bishop, THE PEOPLE vs. Robert Drake and numerous other judicial precedents, we shouldn't even be here. That being said, if this is about the DEFENDANT inadvertently hurting people's feelings by not strategically putting out, then the DEFENSE will graciously concede the validity of such charges, step aside and let the obtuse jerk fend for... I mean, the DEFENDANT present his own case."

[xhx23x]

Jennifer Walters: "As per THE PEOPLE vs. That Maybe-Maybe-Not Jean Grey cosplayer, THE PEOPLE vs. James Howlett, THE PEOPLE vs. Wanda Maximoff, THE PEOPLE vs. Lucas Bishop, THE PEOPLE vs. Robert Drake and numerous other judicial precedents, we shouldn't even be here. That being said, if this is about the DEFENDANT inadvertently hurting people's feelings by not strategically putting out, then the DEFENSE will graciously concede the validity of such charges, step aside and let the obtuse jerk fend for... I mean, the DEFENDANT present his own case."

heheheheheh

[phoenixzero23]

Jennifer Walters: "As per THE PEOPLE vs. That Maybe-Maybe-Not Jean Grey cosplayer, THE PEOPLE vs. James Howlett, THE PEOPLE vs. Wanda Maximoff, THE PEOPLE vs. Lucas Bishop, THE PEOPLE vs. Robert Drake and numerous other judicial precedents, we shouldn't even be here. That being said, if this is about the DEFENDANT inadvertently hurting people's feelings by not strategically putting out, then the DEFENSE will graciously concede the validity of such charges, step aside and let the obtuse jerk fend for... I mean, the DEFENDANT present his own case."

Lol, so true.

let's see what Scott thinks about crimes while being possessed
scottRc.jpg

He was pretty supportive of Jean on the same situation.
tumblr_ptonewE1VM1r8zw1to1_500.jpg

[jwatson]

Not guilty by way of it didn't really bother me. It was clear in the story that the Phoenix was affecting the mental health of those who it inhabited so I never really blamed Cyclops for it.*shrugs* But I wouldn't say he was actually insane at the time. And to the rest Cyclops did what he had to do. He was a mutant hero imo. I thought Cyclops looked great as a character going through it all, Morrison run, Bendis Run, Gillen, on the hero front. I actually gained a new appreciation for him. It was the other characters that looked dumb down in comparison by default.

I'm not touching the deadbeat husband one. I'm going to say the statue of limitations have expired. I use to feel strongly on it but I don't really care anymore. It's done.

[Zelena]

I don't know the correct terms in English but shouldn't he examined by a psychatrist to conclude if he could be held responsible at the moment of the murder? First?

[Striderblack01]

This is justice.

The Court recognizes Attorney, Snoop Dogg for the DEFENSE.

Is it your intention to argue that THE DEFENDANT suffered from Diminished Capacity by way of Bestiality (Jean Grey, aka The Phoenix), and is therefore guilty but insane?
And that your plea-bargain with the State would entail a permanent ankle bracelet and sex offender registration with no solo series for 5 years?

That seems mighty lenient, considering the last time the DEFENDANT had a solo series, it was as a time-displaced teenager going on space adventures in 2015.
If the court accurately recalls.

(So far, you're winning this thread.)

I'm assuming the State has proof that Jean Grey is human woman, and not a space-chicken.
Would any one care to present arguments/evidence on this?