Action Request (poopyface993/Tommy Vega/Kevin Vega)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
157
Reaction score
385
Points
430
Your Steam Name: 2766
Your Roleplay Name: Omar Smith
Your SteamID: STEAM_0:0:35074350

Player's Steam Name: poopyface993/Tommy Vega/Kevin Vega
Player's Roleplay Name: Dont know
Player's SteamID: STEAM_0:0:76009250
STEAM_0:0:178830296
STEAM_0:0:80516646

Why should this player be punished?: Two people started shooting at me in my house when I was standing inside by the window and the third one was shooting at my house aswell. I had just came back to my house after dying and I had no interaction with them up until the point that they started shooting at me.

Evidence Link: https://medal.tv/clips/62895378/d1337v6zhwDk
 
Last edited:
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
145
got told By Chris that was his house and then he said someone is raiding his house so that's why we all turned up and we thought you was in the house raiding the last communication I got is he is in the house kill him so really it was a miss-communication.
 
Messages
66
Reaction score
24
Points
195
Location
Netherlands
Ye we ware planning to raid you we had picklocks. If we find the person in question that we are planning to raid we are allowed to open fire even if we idnt pick yet / hold up at gun point. as long as we can see an weapon on you
 
Messages
227
Reaction score
43
Points
360
dont think thats true ,not sure however i would love to find out if it applies the way u said
 
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,271
Points
795
Location
London, United Kingdom


We have reviewed this extensively and have taken into account @Electronic Revlolutions statement provided by way of a comment. We find that his statement is immaterial; we only consider a raid to have been initiated as to when a bomb has been dropped, a bobby pin used, or a crowbar used - simply having the means to lockpick on you is not sufficient enough for a raid to be considered in-progress. As no raid had been initiated, opening fire through the window simply because he was the occupier and had a gun on his back constitutes excessive negativity.

As such, all three users listed will be receiving a warning for 2.5.

Reviewed with @Double J and @Racxes
 
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,271
Points
795
Location
London, United Kingdom



The decision has been amended

After discussions with Administration it has been concluded that our reasoning for acceptance in this instance was not wholly correct.

Administration have advised that if in-order to initiate a raid you need to kill a visibly armed occupant, then this is permitted - provided that you then continue to raid and do not attempt to leave the area. 2.5 would only come into play here if you had killed @2766 through the window/side of the house and then drove off.

However, the raiders were unable to continue with the raid as @2766 successfully subdued them. He then exited the house to continue killing potential raiders and was then killed by @Electronic Revlolutions . As they were unable to continue to raid by virtue of being killed then it cannot be said that they did in-fact break 2.5. As such the warnings will be removed from file.

For the purposes of clarity for future situations: you are allowed to shoot at person(s) occupying a property who are visibly armed, through a window, provided that the following are met:
1) you are doing so as part of initiating a raid, and;
2) you continue the raid after killing or shooting them and do not attempt to leave/exit the area of the raid. If you do leave after killing them through the window, this is what would constitute 2.5.

Further review and input provided by @Hayden
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top