Action Request

[Lelios1]

Okay so to clear this all up, I was informed to we could raid if there had been a recent raid, as there could still be suspects in the building, as far as using the police computer, I could have, but I didn't think to, the 911 call was from there, an officer ran in and said he was shot, so we took it as the raid was still on going, and thought you were a raider, so I thought when you surrendered, it was because you would be breaking 3.4 otherwise, as you versus all the cop force wouldn't go well, so we came in and searched the house for any suspects, as you were the raider suspect currently then, we were checking the apartment to make sure no one else was in there with guns waiting or anything, and after that we found drugs, we then were told you owned the apartment so arrested you, we raided as you tried to kill an officer, making us think you were the raider.

You are just saying that you brought OOC info (the rule 3.4) IC as you thought based on the rule.
Also if you read my statement, how would the doors be locked if the apartment was raided? Would the raiders magically lock the doors? And if they could, why would they? You made poor decisions and broke the laws. There is really no excuse. It was the officer's fault at the first place to enter without announcing that he was a LEO and you decided to ignore Sneaky who was cuffed. You really had no reason to search the house.
Also answer me this, you saw dead bodies outside the house, as they cannot be the house owner they were surely raiders right? You entered the house, 1 LEO hot shot, the shooter surrendered and was cuffed. There were no bodies inside meaning that the owner would not be dead. If you have a brain then you would assume that he was the owner and you would have done a little research before rushing in and wanting action.

 

[Not european]

And for the SWAT has broken 2.1 Play Realistically by breaching without asking a supervisor.

Yes because a SWAT officer in real life wouldn't breach a fucking door after a raid had happened which involved heavy gunfire and he also has 3 other officers telling him to breach because there is a risk of raiders being behind the door and a risk of there being persons in need. Now ya'll are just pulling shit out of your ass just to try and get me a warning this is false for obvious reasons. I'm not gonna wait for the so called "raider" who the officers are telling me are behind the door to come out and fucking shoot every last one of us cause that is fucking stupid it's not my fault that the officers acted unrealistically and refused to check the owners ID or go in the police computer to check hell I don't even have a vehicle with access to the PD computer so I couldn't do it myself if I wanted to.

 

[Deleted member 4141]

This situation is slightly complex with a bit answering to do from both sides if possible, lmao. If not then some things will remain unanswered though I believe they should be to reduce the complexity of the situation to a minimum.

Rules I believe the government workers broke:
- 1.4 - The reason I believe strongly that this rule was broken is because there was no reason for them to raid the property which violates the law 3.7 (The right to enter private property) and 3.8 (Right to restrict private property), personally I believe they had broken the law 3.7 as they had no reason to enter the property which is justifiable within the law and within their knowledge before entering the property. Also I believe in a situation like that Sneaky quite possibly asked them to leave the property before the whole shootout or to not raid it as it had not obstructed any investigation, especially if Sneaky had admitted to defending himself from the raider. The other law which I previously stated is 3.8, they had not restricted the area as we can see a female citizen standing just outside the door staring at the whole situation. Thus causing problems not only to Sneaky but to other players as the whole situation had not be played out realistically. Along with quite possibly ruining the experience of any players around or in the area.

- 2.5 - Closely tying in with the breakage of 1.4 as their actions had excessive negative effect on Sneaky due to them conducting a raid on the apartment when in reality their reason for it was not justifiable, "Someone might be inside" "To make sure you are safe" are not justifiable reasons unless there had been several claims of Sneaky kidnapping someone or Sneaky being taken hostage though that wouldn't make sense as he had called the police after the raider got dealt with.

- 3.3 - They had not requested for permission for the highest ranking officer on duty to permit them to conduct a search upon Sneaky's apartment which they didn't need to as it had not been obstructing the investigation unless the shootout or whatever had happened between Sneaky and the raider took inside of the apartment. Which they would then have permission to enter the property to look at the crime scene however if there had been no previous reports of any criminal activities in the apartment then they wouldn't have permission to search the premises under the 3.7 as he would've had the right to tell them to leave the property after conducting the investigation. Also as stated previously, they had not restricted the area which realistically should've taking place due to the shootout and the officer's having the safety of their own secured in case Sneaky had backup from any of the other apartments and the safety of any people walking past or trying to get into their apartments by restricting the area and indicating that entering the area is not available at the moment.

- 4.1 - As stated before, their actions were not in sync with the law which is primarily why it had been broken. I had stated the two laws which they had broken however I also strongly believe that 3.2 (Use of force) had been broken as the use of their force was not necessarily which can slightly also entwine with the law 2.2 (Necessity) Which is basically where their actions against the law were necessary to secure their safety and what not which makes their actions justifiable which they weren't.

- 4.3 - They had not ensured the safety of any of the other inhabitants by going straight into the gun fight when they could've had officers restricting the area and also ensuring that the other people around were not armed ready to fire. And ect with all the other reasons I had previously stated somewhere above

The rules which I personally think Sneaky broke:
- 3.4 - As you had straight away gone into a gunfight instead of asking for a high ranking officer to arrive at the scene and deal with the confusion from the officers sides and you calling in the crime which could've easily resulted in you dying and losing anyway. They obviously are in the wrong for their actions however it doesn't justify you going into a shootout as you could've died and were definitely risking your life until you had given up and let them arrest you.

- 3.10 - 3.11 - I have also came to the conclusion that your prop placement is in no way realistic nor is it stable as realistically those concrete barriers would've crush the lights along with that single plank and either crushed you or fell towards the entrance. So I think that maybe next time you base you should place your props in a way which is realistic. Along with not violating the server rules which these barraciades have.

--

Personally it's hard to see who actually initiated the whole thing as we can only see the police going in with Sneaky having his gun pointed at the door which doesn't show them coming to the conclusion that they should enter the property or proper interaction with the police from Sneaky's side to show that he tried to explain the situation beforehand thus which is why I believe that the shootout initiated as there were no social interactions before the whole event and by interactions I mean face to face and not over the door.

 

[Smeris]

- 3.4 - As you had straight away gone into a gunfight instead of asking for a high ranking officer to arrive at the scene and deal with the confusion from the officers sides and you calling in the crime which could've easily resulted in you dying and losing anyway. They obviously are in the wrong for their actions however it doesn't justify you going into a shootout as you could've died and were definitely risking your life until you had given up and let them arrest you.

Sorry but i have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Simple steps of what i did:

- heard my door getting bobby'd
- Stood still for a moment to call 911
- Get my gun out and shoot one guy
- Await until police arrives at the corner of my appt. wall.

As you had straight away gone into a gunfight instead of asking for a high ranking officer to arrive at the scene

How can i ask for a higher ranking officer when i'm in cuffs? I yelled at the cops that they cannot do that and need a supervisor etc.

They obviously are in the wrong for their actions however it doesn't justify you going into a shootout as you could've died and were definitely risking your life until you had given up and let them arrest you.

Do you understand that i am the one being raided here, and that im NOT a raider? The officer entered my appartment without stating he was police or that police were on scene. Me seeing a person move in with a gun instantly makes me think there's another raider. As soon as i realised he was an officer i put away my weapon and walked to him unarmed on my knees.
I didn't shoot the officer on purpose, why would i do that if i was being raided AND called 911?

 

[Lelios1]

1.4 - The reason I believe strongly that this rule was broken is because there was no reason for them to raid the property which violates the law 3.7 (The right to enter private property) and 3.8 (Right to restrict private property), personally I believe they had broken the law 3.7 as they had no reason to enter the property which is justifiable within the law and within their knowledge before entering the property. Also I believe in a situation like that Sneaky quite possibly asked them to leave the property before the whole shootout or to not raid it as it had not obstructed any investigation, especially if Sneaky had admitted to defending himself from the raider. The other law which I previously stated is 3.8, they had not restricted the area as we can see a female citizen standing just outside the door staring at the whole situation. Thus causing problems not only to Sneaky but to other players as the whole situation had not be played out realistically. Along with quite possibly ruining the experience of any players around or in the area.

1.4 isn't for IC purposes, only for OOC.

2.5 - Closely tying in with the breakage of 1.4 as their actions had excessive negative effect on Sneaky due to them conducting a raid on the apartment when in reality their reason for it was not justifiable, "Someone might be inside" "To make sure you are safe" are not justifiable reasons unless there had been several claims of Sneaky kidnapping someone or Sneaky being taken hostage though that wouldn't make sense as he had called the police after the raider got dealt with.

This doesn't break 2.5, but it breaks laws and breaking laws break 4.1 as they are gov officials.

3.3 - They had not requested for permission for the highest ranking officer on duty to permit them to conduct a search upon Sneaky's apartment which they didn't need to as it had not been obstructing the investigation unless the shootout or whatever had happened between Sneaky and the raider took inside of the apartment. Which they would then have permission to enter the property to look at the crime scene however if there had been no previous reports of any criminal activities in the apartment then they wouldn't have permission to search the premises under the 3.7 as he would've had the right to tell them to leave the property after conducting the investigation. Also as stated previously, they had not restricted the area which realistically should've taking place due to the shootout and the officer's having the safety of their own secured in case Sneaky had backup from any of the other apartments and the safety of any people walking past or trying to get into their apartments by restricting the area and indicating that entering the area is not available at the moment.

3.3 is for unrealistic movement.

4.1 - As stated before, their actions were not in sync with the law which is primarily why it had been broken. I had stated the two laws which they had broken however I also strongly believe that 3.2 (Use of force) had been broken as the use of their force was not necessarily which can slightly also entwine with the law 2.2 (Necessity) Which is basically where their actions against the law were necessary to secure their safety and what not which makes their actions justifiable which they weren't.

The laws they broke are: 3.2 Use of force (blowing up the doors), 3.7 (they had no warrant and no reason to enter/search the other rooms) and 3.9 (arresting him for more years than the laws sneaky broke state).

4.3 - They had not ensured the safety of any of the other inhabitants by going straight into the gun fight when they could've had officers restricting the area and also ensuring that the other people around were not armed ready to fire. And ect with all the other reasons I had previously stated somewhere above

I don't believe that 4.3 is meant for these situations. I believe that this rule is meant to punish gov employees who do not perform their duties and by that I mean LEOs staying at the PD not patroling or medics not responding to life alerts etc.

3.4 - As you had straight away gone into a gunfight instead of asking for a high ranking officer to arrive at the scene and deal with the confusion from the officers sides and you calling in the crime which could've easily resulted in you dying and losing anyway. They obviously are in the wrong for their actions however it doesn't justify you going into a shootout as you could've died and were definitely risking your life until you had given up and let them arrest you.

The officers never gave a chance for Sneaky to defend himself in the situation. They ignored him completely. He also called 911 to avoid any confusion like this (too bad that he didn't succeed it).

3.10 - 3.11 - I have also came to the conclusion that your prop placement is in no way realistic nor is it stable as realistically those concrete barriers would've crush the lights along with that single plank and either crushed you or fell towards the entrance. So I think that maybe next time you base you should place your props in a way which is realistic. Along with not violating the server rules which these barricades have.

Sneaky was already punished for that.

 

[Blicky]

Accepted

All of the officers and SWAT on the scene will all receive a 5 day ban from the server, and will also receive a 2 week suspension from the police force. They should've stated that they were PLPD as they were entering the property and they had no reason to search your property. The doors were locked and you had surrendered, a few checks on the police computer would've shown that you were the rightful owner of the property. Also, Matt's justification of you possibly harboring suspects is invalid, why would anyone help someone who's just tried to raid and kill them hide from the cops.