4.9: Police officers

[Bnjemann]

What rule do you wish to Add: 4.9: Law Enforcement
Your version of the rule:

4.9 Law enforcement:

Police officers are expected at all times to follow the PLPD Policies provided Here .

Why do you believe this rule should be Added:
There is no rule regarding police officers and this confuses a lot of new players. Also a large number of newer officers don't seem to know the existence of the policies handbook.​

 

[mango]

Policy Break ---> IA Complaint

Rule Break ---> Report/AR

Both ---> IA Complaint and Report/AR

There's no need for this rule as policy breakages should be dealt with internally rather than as a punishment. If it's a policy breakage and not a rule breakage then it's clearly not severe enough so there's no point in making following them a rule.

 

[Sorle]

This can segway into discretion being manipulated to argue that a police officer is breaking rule 4.1 in the case of a policy break etc. and people will start getting warned for relatively minor mistakes, as policies often cover the smaller situations and issues.

They are already shown to the PLPD website to actually play as a police officer, and within the application process they are instructed to read the handbook and general policies.

This opens too many opportunities for negative manipulation without providing enough benefit to justify it.

 

[NightLock]

This seems like more of an IA thing than a rule thing. And if they don't read the policies handbook it's their own fault, it's not exactly hidden away. Feels like something that should more be added onto the applications for cops on PLPD

 

[Dom_]

Or just include this in rule 4.1

 

[Jimmy]

no i dont think a cop should get a warning for going to fredys with his shotgun on his back

 

[Dom_]

Don't really think this is necessary anyway, officers are dealt with quickly via IA complaints, if you are bothered enough about what an officer has done then fill one out, it's not exactly a difficult process, however you could argue that a reprimand isnt enough in some cases? This is mainly an issue with the outcome of IAs and people not being happy that the officer hasnt received a demotion, seems that people are more worried about the effectiveness and harshness of IA and PSD's punishment of these officers rather than the sort of punishment (warning/ban opposed to a demotion/reprimand/written warning etc).

Complaints are dealt with, its just the relatively lenient outcomes of some IA complaints that people seem to be annoyed with and therefore i don't think making this a rule would be a good addition at all.

 

[Daigestive]

dumb

 

[Daigestive]

Rather Staff deal with policy breaks rather than psd. Hostage situations where a cop causes them all to be killed recklessly are only dealt with by IA even though a lot of people are negatively affected. Unlawful raids, searches and charges should be dealt with by staff rather than IA before some btec warrior says rule 4.1 and starts naming the rights. They are rights not laws. Not only do I believe staff are 100x more competant than the inactive btec commitee that decides on complaints I think @Aquaa said it was People Services Department. In severe cases it should be dealt with by staff even if its a policy breakage just not every policy.

 

[CodezBlack]

How?

 

[Daigestive]

Captain authorises execution of cuffed suspect= Lets talk. CPL shoots someone he's told over radio shot at officers WW. PSD is a joke, answer that @Super_

Leniency isnt the problem. Consistency and voting for friends is.

 

[Daigestive]

cop today shot a hostage taker using a grenade causing 6 unarmed people to die. Is that not a severe enough policy breakage?

 

[CodezBlack]

I think that you should be able to break policies if it would prevent your death if justified and can be proved afterward. A police officers life is valued by society than a criminal's so it would seem ethical to put your life before their's and policies to ensure you come out alive. There have been many videos posted on the forums showing officers getting rekt because they died following policies. Should they do what I am suggesting a lot more would survive or at least for longer.

 

[CodezBlack]

Funny when people cause others to lose sometimes months of progress over something that could take them no longer than a few hours to a day to get. Talk about selfishness...

 

[Aquaa]

what is psd

 

[Daigestive]

Duty of care, acting in best interest of the city. This is the dumbest shit Ive ever heard

 

[CodezBlack]

It should only be dealt with staff if the policy break is severe enough. For example, a cop shooting a hostage and/or hostage taker causing it to go to shit. A cop running a red light should not cause him to be demoted and banned.

 

[Daigestive]

I dont understand what your point is? explain?

 

[CodezBlack]

let's say I make an innocent mistake and some bratty child who lost his coke that he spent hours growing caused me to lost months of progress within the department. It would be better for him to lost his shit rather than mine because mine took longer to get and will take longer to get back.

 

[Jimmy]

He should be given a medal for culling the population