AR on James Davis

[mango]

Your Steam/In-game Name: Daragh // Jonathan Good

His/Her Steam/In-game Name: "Tyrone" // James Davis @James Davis

His/Her SteamID: STEAM_0:0:104867899

Why Should This Player Be Punished:

What he did:

I went from behind when he went in his shop and I gunpointed him, he turns around and whilst he was under gunpoint with a gun aimed straight to his head, he pulls his beretta out and due to me only having 9 bullets in he won, but if I'd of had 15 bullets I'd of killed him which means the rules he broke would of been even more severe.

Rules he broke:

Spoiler: 3.4

Players must at all times act realistically, meaning that any actions taken that may put a player’s In-Character life, freedom from imprisonment and/or general wellbeing at risk must be done so in a realistic fashion, for realistically good/beneficial reasons and in such a way that can be justified as reasonable.

How it is not justifiable:

The rules he broke can't be justified unless he has a VERY good explaination, meaning that he would of have to known how many bullets I had in my gun and my current health status, etc. He was gunpointed with a gun straight to his head and he pulled out a gun and started to gun me down, I did shoot at him and I believe I did it him a couple of times as he spilt blood, however due to me having a lack of bullets he had the upper-hand and shot me down. At not any point did I state how many bullets I had in my gun or my health status, anyway it doesn't matter if he knew because I had around 10 bullets which is enough to kill him and my health was perfectly healthy, so in my eyes his actions are not justifiable. If I'd of had the full 15 bullets he would of been dead and him breaking the rules would of lead to his death but I only had 9 or 10 so he is lucky in that case, but it is still 3.4 either way, whether he killed me or not. Also, if I'd of had a good shot he would of been dead also, but just because I don't have a good shot doesn't mean he can pull a gun out under gunpoint nor does he know that anyway as I've never been in a gun fight with him, even if I ever was then he'd be breaking the new life rule.

Evidence (Demo Required):

Tick: 1:48

 

[TheFrozenMonkeyKing]

I think running around like that when getting shot at some people would call against rule 3.3 or such, but I won't comment further. If his plan was to run around like that, wait for you to empty your magazine so he easily could shoot you himself, that is of course against rule 3.4. Running around like a headless chicken when inside a room with a man pointing a weapon at you is not really the smartest choice.

A bitt iffy to see what is happening thanks to some animation bugs, but if you gave him commands before he pulled out his weapon, I will support this.

 

[James Davis]

In my deffence there was no command said, when a turned around there was man there in the dark and i did not spot the weapon. But you may be asking why? in the video you can clearly see that when i unlock my door i go into a animation this was the same animation that was happening at the moment. So you may be also asking why did i pull at my weapon? simple the reason why i did this is because there is a person on my property and also was vulnerable to mug i returned fire when he started shooting me that is when i noticed the weapon he had.

 

[JJannui]

As it stands, I am going to be supporting this Action Request.

From the evidence provided I have made my decision based on the fact that the user in question did in fact pull a firearm whilst under gun point. As previously mentioned, the animation bugs do not help in the clarity of the evidence however you can still see that there is a good second between when the attacking firearm would have been seen to when the defending firearm was drawn.

Spoiler: Firearm seen

Spoiler: Defending firearm drawn

Not being able to see / not being aware of the firearm has been brought up in defence to which the argument of commands being given has countered this. Of course this is currently not clear so a demo or a viewpoint of the situation from @James Davis would be highly appreciated and may even alter my decision.

 

[Blicky]

Accepted

User will receive a 3 day ban for 3.4.