The only rule here that I feel I need to justify my actions for is rule 3.4, so:
3.4 Putting your Life at Risk - 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
Using a firearm in the method that I demonstrated is a realistic way to kill someone.
for realistically good/beneficial reasons and in such a way that can be justified as reasonable.
I had reason to believe that I would spend at least 4 years in prison if I did not take extreme action; I will explain my respective reasoning for this below:
1. The LEO seemingly charged me with a violation of a traffic law and an anti-social law; I have personally witnessed people imprisoned for such offences by LEOs who are seemingly unable to properly and effectively uphold the law and complete their duties. Next, I will explain why I believe the LEO that I had killed could also be described as seemingly unable to properly and effectively uphold the law and complete their duties:
1a. The LEO had seemingly charged me with a traffic offence that I did not commit; there is no law that prevents me from parking where I had parked, and there is a law that does allow me to park there.
1b. The LEO had seemingly charged me with anti-social behaviour; I did not verbally abuse this officer DIRECTLY (the word 'directly' is quoted from the respective law) - I instead stated that if the LEO were attempt to ask/demand money from me in a 'mugging' context, that he could "go fuck himself". As the LEO had not implied that he would attempt to mug me, and presuming that he did not intend to mug me, this was not a direct demonstration of verbal abuse.
1c. The LEO had arrived on the scene with 1 other LEO in response to a shooting resulting in the death of the member of the public; the LEO, after looking at the corpse proceeds to seemingly disregard the murder and look-into a traffic violation involving potential witnesses and suspects of that murder; this demonstrates that the LEO is incapable of effectively prioritising - in my experienced opinion, it is unwise to not treat potential suspects of an aggravated murder with extreme caution, not properly question potential witnesses, and to treat a inconsequential parking violation with a higher priority than a murder.
1d. I only pulled my weapon as a direct response to a sudden and unexpected movement from the LEO; when the LEO had 'equipped' the ticketing 'tool', I had presumed that they were using their handcuffs - the animation is very similar; the LEO had also aimed the ticket at me, implying that it was not a traffic ticket, as that is typically aimed at vehicles. Below, I will justify why I was at an increased state of alert and hence more inclined to pull my weapon:
2a. As I explained within 1a through to 1c, I did not trust the LEO to effectively perform their duties and readied myself for them to continue to perform erratically and unexpected; as they were an armed LEO, I was ready to respond to an illegal use of their firearm or other such potentially dangerous tools.
2b. The reason I was at the scene was to murder another member of the public and so was already at a heightened state of readiness to use my firearm; this member of the public had already tried to kill me once and I believe that they would try to kill me again and would not be safe until they were either dead and/or effectively appeased; I specifically believe that I was not safe as they knew of my place of work.
A person who was seemingly the friend of the person who I was looking for, had just been shot and killed by a number of armed members of the public - this is when the LEOs arrived and so, as a result of the unexpected shooting, I was at an even more heightened state of alert and more willing/ready to use my firearm.
2c. The vehicle that had seemingly belonged to the man, who I was looking to kill, was parked at the Police Department and so it had seemed likely that this man was in the area at the time. While speaking with the LEO, I was fully aware that this man was likely to be nearby and likely to be armed; it was apparent to me that while speaking to the LEO that I might seem to be distracted and open to an attack; because of this, I was also aware that if I was to be taken into custody for any reason that I would likely be unable to defend myself as a result of being handcuffed and/or disarmed.
2ci. My concern about being attacked was later validated as I had been shot by the man, that I was looking to kill, immediately after shooting the LEO who I had later killed.
3. If I were to be arrested, I would also be likely to be searched; this would also likely lead to being charged with the illegal use of a firearm, which is a somewhat serious offence; as a result, this would lead to an increased prison sentence.
Risks are deemed to be unreasonable when it can’t be appropriately and effectively justified; for example, if a player was to rob the bank and fail, leading to their death, that player would be expected to demonstrate to an administrator that they had a realistic and reasonable plan and/or mind-set to succeed.
This statement, with reference specifically to the example provided, implies that justification can be made in the form of the action leading to a successful resolution - The man who I was looking to kill had effectively been killed; the government officials who visually witnessed me commit the respective crimes had all been effectively killed; I effectively escaped the area of the crime; I was never killed; I was never arrested; an arrest warrant was never issued for my name.
This rule is specifically relevant to the violation of any In-Character law, meaning that murders, thefts, etc, are all expected to be conducted realistically; for example, if a player kills another player, which results in the former’s death and/or imprisonment, it will mean that the player has failed and unless they can effectively and appropriately demonstrate/prove that they had a realistic and reasonable plan to succeed, an appropriate punishment will be enacted.
This statement, with its respective closing sentence, implies that a punishment will be enacted if a player fails to effectively justify a failed criminal action; this inherently implies that a punishment will not be enacted if the crime was successful, hence meaning that it would not be against this particular rule.
A common example would be for a player to murder a Police Officer in order to avoid receiving a traffic ticket; this would likely result in the enactment of an administrative punishment because this specific example is deemed to be inappropriate - this is because the risk (death/life-imprisonment) involved with the murder of a Police Officer is grossly disproportionate to the benefit of avoiding a traffic ticket, typically.
As I have explained above, I do not believe that I would only receive a traffic ticket as a result of my actions.
To close, my actions in question lead to the ensuring that I would not spend time in jail and the death of a person who would wrongfully attempt to limit my freedom, cause financial harm to me, and abuse their power.
