3.4 Rule discussion

[MalekIsWeird]

If an individual is selling drugs, then they are gunpointed from behind by a person or a group while the victim is distracted with a weapon on passive, should he be allowed to resist?

In my opinion, the current exemption to gunpoint in the 3.4 guide is a bit dishonest to the general idea of 3.4 being that one should avoid unnecessary risk so there is a bit of a loophole that can currently be abused.

This can result in awkward situations such as, but not limited to, 1 person being faced with multiple individuals gunpointing him while his weapon is passive as their weapons are on attack aimed at him (Assuming there is no special condition that would naturally nullify gunpoint altogether such as nearby cover) then turning around to raise a firearm in this case to resist is objectively just suicide as by the time he kills 1, the other people in the enemy group will simply execute the victim. Thus the risk is unnecessary as there is no realistic means of survival despite the firearm in passive, especially if the victim does not have an automatic to spray it behind them giving them a better justification.

Another example is the following video below where 1 victim and 1 mugger, while the victim was distracted back turned talking to the drug dealer. The mugger had connected the cold metal of his revolver to the back of the head of the victim; ordering him to surrender. If violence was chosen:

The Mugger would need to pull a trigger on the head he's already aiming at to win

The Victim would gamble it's only one mugger, turn around, try to spot the killshot, line it up and finally take down the threat if he's lucky enough to have picked a fight with 1 guy.

 

[Biggo]

He just broke GP

 

[Biggo]

He just broke GP

And if the other guy then pulled a gun after you ran off, you would probably get comped because the first guy broke a rule. And I think that if someone does that at drug dealer, instead of them just getting a warning, the mugger should get the drugs or money off them

 

[MalekIsWeird]

He just broke GP

under 3.4 guide, he did not initially.

Having a weapon in passive exempts you from obeying orders under gunpoint no matter how stupid it would be to resist. This is why I am opening a discussion to highlight the irony and gauge the community's opinions while stating mine.

Personally, I think if there is literally no feasible chance of survival aside from surrender (ex. being gunpointed in the back of the head while distracted or being aimed at by multiple people while your gun is on passive with no cover nearby) then one should do so, regardless if they have weapon in passive or not.

 

[SomeUser]

under 3.4 guide, he did not initially.

Having a weapon in passive exempts you from obeying orders under gunpoint no matter how stupid it would be to resist. This is why I am opening a discussion to highlight the irony and gauge the community's opinions while stating mine.

Personally, I think if there is literally no feasible chance of survival aside from surrender (ex. being gunpointed in the back of the head while distracted or being aimed at by multiple people while your gun is on passive with no cover nearby) then one should do so, regardless if they have weapon in passive or not.

Honestly i kinda agree i had a discussion with scoot after one of my bans i know why this is the case but in some respect if you have something pointed behind you and there on passive i would be nice too have them surrender, however now i would just shoot them at this point

 

[money]

Person in video with gun in passive broke 3.4 - you must react to shoot immediately if you disobey commands.

Regardless if they are behind you, as long as you have a gun out you may turn around and shoot.

If there is multiple people, it would depend on the situation and how heavily you are outnumbered.

 

[Efan]

Person in video with gun in passive broke 3.4 - you must react to shoot immediately if you disobey commands.

Regardless if they are behind you, as long as you have a gun out you may turn around and shoot.

If there is multiple people, it would depend on the situation and how heavily you are outnumbered.

PERP Rule Scholar

 

[Collier]

@money beat me to it, but yes, he is correct. Lingering with a gun in passive and being intentionally indecisive puts your life at incredible risk. If he had chosen to fight back immediately, that'd have been fine, but his decision to face you, stall and then disarm himself to run away put his life at significantly more risk than he started out with.

3.4 isn't "the gunpoint rule", it is designed to stop players from taking unnecessary and unrealistic risks and force them to attempt to mitigate risk to their lives at every avenue. In this instance, every action the player took increased his risk, rather than mitigating it.

 

[Bnjemann]

The person who ran put himself under clearer gunpoint than possible by standing there, The "3.4 guide" technicality you think would have allowed it in this instance is not applicable as the action wasn't immediate, I would have shot him by the point he'd decided to run personally when he just stood there staring into the distance with his back turned like he has to programme his movements like he's one of these things

 

[MalekIsWeird]

If there is multiple people, it would depend on the situation and how heavily you are outnumbered.

but that's just not how the rules are enforced at all.

There was an incident where me and a friend gunpointed a victim selling with a revolver on passive while we had automatics aimed at him cornering him at docks within point-blank range. When he was reported for retaliating and getting himself killed, the staff member exonerated him under the aforementioned alibi shown in this photo: