>>33212
There's a difference between catching someone in the act and pursuing someone only on hearsay. These two situations are incomparable. And either way, HanTzu (who is not my muppet) had a right to pearl DarkCrow and Kallak on Versailles land, just like you would have the right to pearl me if you caught me griefing or committing theft on your land. ESPECIALLY when they were already known griefers from the incident just weeks before with GTA. However, let's not open up this subject again- while the hate boners people have for me are flattering, they get in the way of actual dialogue that contributes to the issue at hand.
Perhaps I should have been more specific- my point is I personally don't think one has the right to pearl someone outside Chan land without verifiable proof of their crime. This is especially prudent in cases where Rick is now in the Mt A vault, and there will be no hope for extradition (if /k/ had that in mind) because there is no proof of his alleged crimes.
The case with Savvy seems pretty open and shut. You have evidence, theres no doubt he did what he did, there will be no issues pearling him if he shows up and if he's pearled in Mt A, the evidence will allow an extradition.
With Rick, i'm not convinced, and i'll continue defending "innocent until proven guilty". That said, don't mistake anybody's defense of the FACTS as defense of CRIMINALS.