- Staff
- #1
What rule do you wish to Edit/Add:
Adjusting the action of shooting someone who has a primary on their backs in raids if the raid is carried out by criminals.
Your version of the rule:
I can’t fill this out sadly, as despite not being listed as an example of 2.5, raiding someone And shooting someone who has a gun on their backs still counts apparently.
Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited:
Someone with a rifle on their back is still a threat regardless of them having the gun or not. Literally 98% of the people who have a primary weapon on them will use it, it doesn’t matter if you catch them off guard because every time I’ve caught someone off guard in their own base with a rifle on them they often try pulling it.
In my opinion, if you have the ability to, and can see armed people inside a base, sniping them should be a viable option, and also under rule 3.6, we are supposed to do things to stay alive as much as possible. Tactically taking out armed opposing criminals in a raid from a safe distance before they have the chance to try killing you is a viable option.
As a criminal, you’re already breaking the law, and will probably have to fight off wave after wave of police officers as well as defenders.
If someone is carrying a rifle around inside their property, their quite clearly and obviously going to use it if you raid. It’s a no brainer.
The majority of people who have rifles on their backs are also defending something expensive like drugs, and growing drugs should run the risk of a spontaneous death.
This obviously shouldn’t apply to cops doing raids as cops are bound by rule 4.1 to follow the law. (not that fucking cops follow this anyways as is)
Adjusting the action of shooting someone who has a primary on their backs in raids if the raid is carried out by criminals.
Your version of the rule:
I can’t fill this out sadly, as despite not being listed as an example of 2.5, raiding someone And shooting someone who has a gun on their backs still counts apparently.
Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited:
Someone with a rifle on their back is still a threat regardless of them having the gun or not. Literally 98% of the people who have a primary weapon on them will use it, it doesn’t matter if you catch them off guard because every time I’ve caught someone off guard in their own base with a rifle on them they often try pulling it.
In my opinion, if you have the ability to, and can see armed people inside a base, sniping them should be a viable option, and also under rule 3.6, we are supposed to do things to stay alive as much as possible. Tactically taking out armed opposing criminals in a raid from a safe distance before they have the chance to try killing you is a viable option.
As a criminal, you’re already breaking the law, and will probably have to fight off wave after wave of police officers as well as defenders.
If someone is carrying a rifle around inside their property, their quite clearly and obviously going to use it if you raid. It’s a no brainer.
The majority of people who have rifles on their backs are also defending something expensive like drugs, and growing drugs should run the risk of a spontaneous death.
This obviously shouldn’t apply to cops doing raids as cops are bound by rule 4.1 to follow the law. (not that fucking cops follow this anyways as is)
Last edited by a moderator:
