Ban Dispute

[3izu]

Appealing for: Ban
Appeal type: Dispute
Which staff member banned you: Flugs

Your Steam Name: IZ
Your In-game Name: Carl Johnston
Your Steam ID: STEAM_0:1:56013197

Why were you banned?: 3.4 - User killed two other users within direct eyeshot of a police officer. | User killed a police officer and a medic after not reporting a case of defending his friend because the medic was DNAing the body of the person he killed in the defence of others. He could have easily lied his way out of this regardless of whether the medic had taken DNA or not. Accepted AR(s).
Why do you feel the ban's invalid?:
I don't get why those Action requests were accepted. I didn't even get to tell everything that I had to say. It was closed because we were "Spamming" the chatbox.


In the first Action request with Bollond, Larry comes up to me tells me he got shot. this is the video. I follow both Natalie and Larry, when larry tries to go in I shoot him before he tries to kill Natalie. The gun was then taken, there was only the body at Bazaar shop 4. I didn't report it because I thought Natalie tried murdering him. Bollond comes and I hear him say something about DNA, so it meant DNA was being taken. Which was what the medic literally was doing.

They're saying that they wouldn't arrest me or anything, but in reality, if they weren't killed I would've been arrested. What cemented the idea in my head to kill both Bollond and the medic is that the officers were already busy with something else. I didn't even look at the scoreboard or anything like that. I did it because I knew I would get away with it and if I didn't kill them I wouldn't get away, lying may seem easy but because of the circumstances of the situation. where the body had no gun, and that Natalie said something different. It wouldn't confirm her story and he wouldn't believe us. He's only saying he would arrest me for small charges but he won't. This is my POV, I only entered when he started talking about DNA.


For the second Action Request with Farstad, I literally killed them in self-defense. they both were planning on killing us and Farstad literally muted the audio of the video he sent in the AR, where he was talking to Paulie saying stuff. You can also hear Lucifer talking about them killing Natalie from his phone. I don't get why you're saying that after 10 minutes it wouldn't be my priority. It was literally my priority to get back at them. The officer didn't even arrest me because it was LITERALLY SELF DEFENSE.
my POV

All those ARs, I thought I was following the rules. Because years ago, these same things happened to me and I was the victim of this, when I make an F6 I would just get told that they weren't wrong. So from all this learning experience of me getting warned and banned. Literally done nothing. I just feel that I am wronged by these Action requests being accepted.

I wasn't given a chance to show my POVs or my demo, nor did they ask for their demos. Like I felt that it was jumped straight to a conclusion without asking the right questions.


Additional Comment(s):
Evidence (Required for all server bans):

 

[Hayden]

We have decided to deny this dispute. We have determined that both situations you were in the wrong and the ban was justified. I will quickly explain our reason for denying both so you understand why. For the first situation where you killed two civillians in front of a police officer, you broke 3.4 as there is an example provided underneath the rule states that you shouldn't commit 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. At the point where you shot him, the users posed no visible threat to you and you should have let the police officer deal with the situation instead of escalating the situation.

For the second situation where you killed the police officer and medic, it was completely unnecessary. Marcus was already in the process of convincing the officer that it was self defence, so killing both of them wasn't justified. We've gathered this based on the fact he says "I don't know if you have to DNA as he's admitted to it". You should have focussed on working with Marcus to convice the cop it was self defence, which it seems to be from reviewing the entire situation. You should avoid escalating situation in the future as you're well within your right under the penal code to defend yourself or others, which you did as the suspect was armed.

Reviewed with @Mim​