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.​

 

[CodezBlack]

If severe enough. Should stay this way. Actually gonna laugh if you can get banned for running a red light as a cop. First offense is ok, the next ones are just piss-takes.

 

[Momo]

@Daigestive The reason why we specifically checked when the incident had occurred is that we initially noticed a difference between this persons rank at the time of creation of the complaint and the rank the person held in the video. We came to the conclusion the incident must have happened at least 2 months ago but possibly a lot more. And yes we were indeed urged to deal with the complaint quickly as the person in question was being considered for a command role, however, did this not play into the outcome of the complaint. And why would it what do I stand to benefit from being biased in a complaint against someone I barely know.

To address the fact that we usually don't check when an incident occurred. Indeed we don't, nor did I claim we do, it would be a massive waste of time to this for every single complaint. In this case, however, it was very obvious the incident has occurred a long time ago. The defendant had mentioned this in his statement and the video evidence confirmed this also.

You're also not "translating" what I am saying you're deciding for yourself what our reasons must've been for doing something to make it suit your own narrative. I really do find it quite interesting how you somehow know more than the people involved.

 

[Daigestive]

@Momo I wish PSD put extra effort in for me to gain a command position the next day. What you've said shows ur committee is biased towards higher ranking officer potentially applying for command positions which is the reason why we created a committee for it not to be biased...

 

[rat]

a committee trying to stop bias run by people biased by only communicating with other high ranking officers.

of course its biased the plpd regulates itself bro

 

[Momo]

@Daigestive As usual you're reading exactly what you want to read so it says exactly What you would like it to say. Fast tracking a complaint because someone is being considered for a command role isn't uncommon at all.

This exactly why I usually don't respond to your "criticism" you'll read what you want read no matter what is being said anyway.

 

[Daigestive]

@Momo you literally repeated what I said then told me I'm lying. If you cant read properly how can we excpect you to see the 6h requirement and know what the difference between sustain amd exonerate is.

 

[Momo]

@Daigestive I wouldn't go as far as to say you're lying. You are, however, consistently taking what I have said and presenting it in such a way that it no longer portrays what I actually meant.

Let's take this as an example: "I wish PSD put extra effort in for me to gain a command position the next day". You are making it sound like the defendant requested we dealt with his complaint so he could be Captain. Whilst, in fact, this isn't true, nor is it what I sad.

The fast-tracking of a complaint is something that is requested by the recruiting division, no the person applying for a role. Any division is able to request and we'll do our best to deal with as quickly as possible. This is no way biased or unreasonable in my opinion as we have a perfectly good reason to fast- track a complaint. This reason obviously being that the recruiting division can continue with their recruitment cycle.

If you do for whatever reason believe that fast-tracking a complaint to speed up the recruitment for a role is somehow biased than I am not here to convince you otherwise. I do, however, completely disagree.

Everything else you mentioned is entirely irrelevant to the issue I am willing to address and can hardly be considered an argument.

 

[Ayjay]

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.

Everything police related that needs to be covered via the rules is already there, Police Officers are city employees meaning they have to adhere to section 4 rules.

I'm not sure anyone wants to be banned or warned by staff for not announcing themselves in a raid, or other similar policy breaches. We have Internal Affairs for a reason, and will discipline/remove any Officers that don't follow our policies and procedures.

That being said, anything that blurs the line between a rule/policy breach should be reported and dealt with by staff. Something can be both, consistently breaking the rules whilst on-duty isn't an excuse to get a lesser punishment.

I'm pretty sure you get where I'm going with this, it's not really needed.

Thanks for your suggestion though.