Ban Dispute (Valentine)

[ExcelentAxelent]

Punishment Type: Ban
Appeal Type: Dispute[Evidence]
Which staff member issued the punishment?: Valentine
How long were you banned/blacklisted for?: 3 Days

Your Steam Name: ExcelentAxelent
Your Roleplay Name: Axel Ent
Your SteamID: STEAM_0:0:160695669

Why were you banned/blacklisted?: 3.4

Why should this appeal be considered?: I think due to the situation the 3.4 sadly is not validated, I did value my life and I was never risking my freedom. I managed to speak with the cops and even obtain my friends gun back minutes after meaning clearly it was out of sight of any officer or government employee, Therefore I claim the ban is invalid, For the others, They were never apprehended either, 2 of 3 died in the scene and the other also spoke with the cops, We were never suspects of a crime commited. The rule 3.4 says the officer needs to have direct eyesight on the situation which in this case as stated by the person whom reported it did not have as they were still far away (top of harbour lane) and therefore could not see me, which means I did not risk getting shot by officers or to be apprehended by them. Therefore I would say the claim that I broke 3.4 commiting a crime whilst knowing to be in eyesight of an officer to be incorrect.

Additional Information: I can provide the demo if given the information of which demo it would be, I would like to request it to be reviewed within 24 hours as I think the staff in question Valentine made a too quick to judge verdict without checking if I ever was in any eyesight.

 

[ExcelentAxelent]

Also I would like to add that IF I wouldve been in eyesight, Officers wouldve detained me at least to make sure, However no evidence on me was ever found.

 

[Ellie]

So you're saying that when you and your friend stood at veikkos shooting at cops, you did not see any cops? I'm confused

 

[ExcelentAxelent]

We did not see any cops after the 4 that responded had died, Until later after I had already killed the person. However If a cop would have direct eyesight on the situation (as the ban is for that reason) , Would I not have been shot at/arrested by them? They didnt further respond until I already killed the person, Which when I noticed more cops showing up, I stopped the counter raid, Collected my friend his gun (with a cop's permission, he even checked if I or my friend was wanted) But there was no type (visual or dna) on us. Meaning cops had no clear eyesight on the crime scene. Now Valentine mentioned that it is "widely known in the community & agreed upon by staff" that if there is cops in the vicinity (whether holding a perimeter and have NO eyesight on the crime scene) would still be counted as "having an eyesight on the crime scene" , Now how should I know something is widely agreed upon/known by the community if its not within the rules.

 

[ExcelentAxelent]

Im aware not every rule can be specified till it fullest but important details like these should definitely be defined within the rules if bans are handed out for them. Even though the original rule was not broken.

 

[ExcelentAxelent]

So you're saying that when you and your friend stood at veikkos shooting at cops, you did not see any cops? I'm confused

Also we did NOT shoot any cops, the raiders did and we waited till they killed the 4 officers before started the counter raid, If more officers would've been on the crime scene we would've called it off, but as this clearly did not seem to be the case we opened fire.

 

[ExcelentAxelent]

Now also please correct me if I am wrong, But the crime scene would be defined by the following factors :
My shooting location(s)
The location where the suspect died.

Which Neither the suspect dying or me shooting was scene in eyesight or the cops.

I get it that the rule is bend a little bit by saying its widely agreed upon, But that holds the same accountability as e.g.
Your driving through a village as a tourist where the max speed would be 80km/h.
You are driving 79km/h however the community throws rocks at your vehicle because the community widely agreed upon only driving 50km/h.

You technically didnt break the law, yet still you get punished.

Now read it with a grain or bucket of salt but it makes as much sense as having a widely agreed upon non-written or specified rule but still handing out punishments for it.

 

[Ellie]

Now also please correct me if I am wrong, But the crime scene would be defined by the following factors :
My shooting location(s)
The location where the suspect died.

Which Neither the suspect dying or me shooting was scene in eyesight or the cops.

I get it that the rule is bend a little bit by saying its widely agreed upon, But that holds the same accountability as e.g.
Your driving through a village as a tourist where the max speed would be 80km/h.
You are driving 79km/h however the community throws rocks at your vehicle because the community widely agreed upon only driving 50km/h.

You technically didnt break the law, yet still you get punished.

Now read it with a grain or bucket of salt but it makes as much sense as having a widely agreed upon non-written or specified rule but still handing out punishments for it.

The quote was "It's widely known" that counter a raid when police is still on the scene falls under 3.4 because you're not only risking your life but also imprisonment. And it is a real rule so this comparison of non-written rule is incorrect for this situation.

Please upload demo; perpheads_demo_2023-6-13 00-37-55

 

[ExcelentAxelent]

demo [wetransfer]

 

[ExcelentAxelent]

Okay, But if the scene extends till the top of harbour lane, This technically means its considered as "1 zone", Therefore counter raids would be valid till the top of harbour lane as well in that case by that logic?

I'm aware 3.4 is a real rule, however it says the officers need direct eyesight on the crime scene, Which the crime scene for this would've been me shooting at the person behind the car, If an officer had direct eyesight on that I would've understood the claim of 3.4, however No officer was able to see it.

By the current logic being followed this would mean e.g. that if a player get shot at business shop 1 (i believe thats the one near the parking lot) and someone would kill someone in bazaar, the person shooting someone in bazaar would get banned. The officers would not have seen the incident happen, however as they are in the direct area it would be considered 3.4?

Also the line of the rule I got banned for states "whilst knowing that police are in direct eyeshot" --

• Committing a violent or serious crime, such as murder, theft, arson, etc. whilst knowing that police are in direct eyeshot of the scene you wish to commit the crime at.

I'm pretty sure there has been no police seeing me commit the murder (as counter-raid) therefore the crime was not committed in eyeshot of an officer.

 

[Ellie]

Before you counter you should always investigate the scene, which you guys failed to do because there was still atleast one more officer at Harbor lane who was most likely respond and push down towards the lifealerts.

 

[ExcelentAxelent]

As this was my first counter ever, I thought 3.4 applied to the extend of a "direct eyeshot" Therefore only looked as far to see if any officer was in the direct vicinity.
Maybe as addition to rule 3.4 or 5.3 add something along these lines.

• When countering an on-going raid you need to make sure there are no officers in the local area that would be able to respond, to the crime scene. If an officer is holding a perimeter this officer will be counted as active on the scene and therefore you are not allowed to counter the raid until the officer left, or died and no other officers remain at the scene.

 

[Ellie]

You and your friend should have made sure the area was fully clear but instead you decided to sit around and spectate the shootout and waiting for the cops to die, which still falls under rule 3.4.

If you having trouble understanding the rule feel free to message a staff member for any clarification.

Reviewed with @Super_