Ban Dispute (Nazeer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
307
Reaction score
76
Points
350
Location
PD Holding Cell
Punishment Type: Ban
Punishment Subtype: Server Ban
Appeal Type: Dispute[Evidence]
Which staff member issued the punishment?: @Nazeer
How long were you banned/blacklisted for?: 1 Week

Your Steam Name: sasuke0115
Your Roleplay Name: Amy Jordan
Your SteamID: STEAM_0:1:243856479

Why were you punished?: 3.4 - User was under direct gunpoint by a Civilian after scamming a player, he accelerated towards the armed gunman and ran him over. He then stopped and exited his vehicle to kill the armed gunman, engaging himself in a gunfight that could have been easily avoided if he drove away. // Extended by Nazeer for 3.24 - User used LOOC as if it is IC chat in the middle of the raid, trying to bait the defenders to push out.

Why should this appeal be considered?: I would like to begin by first showing off rule 3.4. this is part of the rule itself: "To not comply with reasonable orders given under the direct threat of a lethal weapon pointed at you, such as a mugging.". in the clip provided i have never been orderd at gunpoint to do anything. the user had more than enough time to say "get out" or "stop the car" but they failed to do so. Also nazeer stated that im supposed to wait for the gunman to give me orders? that makes literally no sense. in a real life scenario why would i wait for someone to tell me to put my hands up. i would literally just say "shit, my bad" and start backing away and then pull out my gun. also lets say the user DID tell me to get out. its obvious he was going to kill me right after, he wouldnt let me leave after i dropped him the money right? that makes sense. therefor if im already risking my life if i get out i might as well prolong my life and have an attempt to live. Literally if i would have gotten out i would have been killed and by me NOT getting out i almost saved my life. About the "driving away" part im more than allowed to KOS someone if they gunpointed me. Also the person i was scamming did not have any visible weapon, the only one with a visible weapon was the one i ran over. i literally see no reason why i should be banned as it also says in the rule 3.4 that breaking 3.4 is only if i dont respond and agree to orderds under direct GP. There was GP but no orders there for no rule break of 3.4. also considering the fact that again, if i would have gotten out i would have died 30 seconds later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your ban has been extended to 2 weeks for 3.24 - User used LOOC as if it is IC chat in the middle of the raid, trying to bait the defenders to push out.

I have edited the ban reason in this dispute to the new one. A staff member will look into this dispute soon.
 
i never baited you out i literally said "come out pussy" "no balls". its not a bait since you choose

pGTpQJ5.png
 
from "hold on nazeer i need to make smth rq" to "and fucking 1 rat gonna be hiding in the corner like pain did" are from before the raid. what nazeer was talking about is the next 2 messages and then the next ones are literally chit chatter until my friend brang crowbars. Petarde means fireworks
 
image.png

My involvement was a discussion about rule 3.4 where you claimed that you don't have to comply with gunpoint if the guy isn't giving you any command, so I felt it was important to correct your misunderstanding of this rule.

Either way, I will not deal with this dispute.
 


I will be handling this dispute. @sasuke0115 how many of the people who ended up shooting you were seemingly acquainted with the invidual with whom you were conducting the deal?
 
there seemed to be a total of 3 members, this being Alex Cooper (the buyer) Edward hustle the visibly armed guy and Priti who was lingering around dressed the exact same as Alex Cooper and on their phone. After that i was talking to my friend on my phone (via text) and he told me to go the parking lot. To which my org member followed me as he knew i was scamming Alex Cooper due to me scamming other people and them knowing i wouldnt sell anything and my friend that was already aware of the ongoing scam who was also armed at the time.
 


After checking the logs and reviewing additional footage, it has become evident that two org members of @sasuke0115 were there to defend them, one of which joined the gunfight, the other walked away as it was happening. Given that the assumption was that the fight would be on equal footing, I can not agree that the fight constituted an excessive risk.

As for running over the first gunman, given that they were hit and ragdolled before they were able to fire a single bullet, I'd say the odds were about even there as well.

I would like to make a minor correction for precedent's sake to the following statement:
would like to begin by first showing off rule 3.4. this is part of the rule itself: "To not comply with reasonable orders given under the direct threat of a lethal weapon pointed at you, such as a mugging.". in the clip provided i have never been orderd at gunpoint to do anything.
3.4 is not just the gunpoint rule, it would more appropriately be described as the "risk" rule. Giving someone who is pointing a gun at you a reason to pull the trigger simply because no orders were uttered, does not comply with rule 3.4. This has little to do with this situation though, so it has no bearing here, but I felt it appropriate to make this distinction.

As for the 3.24 extension, I will require additional information, and will deal with that separately. Reviewed with @Bnjemann
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top