Ban request on GamingPeach/David Peach

[Bruh Lightyear]

Your Steam/In-game Name: The Classiest of Bears/Hal Lavkatzo
His/Her Steam/In-game Name: GamingPeach/David Peach & Saltguy/Hjalmar Winroth
His/Her SteamID: Peach is STEAM_0:0:83369436
Why Should This Player Be Punished:
I'm just going to lay out the charges here: 3.4, 3.6 and 2.1, possibly 3.3, 1.3 and 1.4 as well.

The situation starts with Saltguy/Hjalmar Winroth firing shots in the bazaars, I check it out and find that he has just emerged from a shop. I gunpoint him and try to arrest him, however, he starts shooting me after I try to arrest him. I shoot Hjalmar into unconsciousness and then proceed to clear the area while requesting backup and an ambulance.
I bring the body next to my car while waiting for the ambulance. This is where Peach comes in. Peach starts touching and stepping on the body for no reason other than for the lulz or something, breaking 2.1 and 3.4. How? I warned him that I would fine him or even arrest him for tampering with evidence, and who wants to touch a body that has been shot multiple times? The answer is no one, people, usually, do not like feeling up corpses. Actions like this are unrealistic and breach 2.1.

We then continue this dance until he goes to a trunk and opens it while tensions are high, as the OOC talk with him later reveals, he might have gotten into the trunk without the keys to it, which is 3.3. He uses the justification that it might not have been locked, but that is just bullshit. You can't just magically make something out of the air because a glitch exists that allows you to do so. I thought that he might be getting a weapon, so I draw my firearm and warn him not to come close, guess what? He gets right in my face(3.6) and goes on and on about how what he gets out of a trunk while having dealings with an officer is his business. After the situation cools down, he says that somehow, there was no aggression behind his actions and that I was being excessive. Let's take a look at law 11.11 for a second:
11.11 Right to Use Firearms

LEOs may only use their firearms when a suspect(s) is posing a direct threat to any other member of the public and/or is believed to be intent on harming any other such person(s) (appropriate evidence, as defined under section 10.3, must have been obtained when acting on such a belief).

Look at that last bit. Or is believed to be intent on harming any other such person(s) (appropriate evidence, as defined under section 10.3, must have been obtained when acting on such a belief).

This clause means I can act on suspicion, especially if someone has just reached into a container, such as a pocket, or trunk, to get something. Especially if they are acting aggressively just after doing so. Peach's beautiful counter-argument is that I couldn't have been sure. That's the point, if someone is producing an item from a container during heated conversation, especially when you are law enforcement, you can assume that it might be some kind of weapon, especially if you did not tell them to get something from the trunk. Which would be against the rules, hence why I don't do it.

Mattismadforcod arrives shortly after, and tells Peach that he shouldn't mess with the body. After Matt leaves, Peach goes on a tangent about the definition of the public and how I shouldn't be a police officer, and how my use of my firearm was invalid despite his obvious aggression and possible possession of a weapon. I try to indulge him in the LOOC in the hope that he will stop, but he keeps on going until I give up. He then goes on and on, saying that I was somehow wasting police time when calling for backup on a violent person, then caps it all off by saying that I shouldn't be in the police force, despite not doing anything wrong. This additional tirade could be viewed as 1.3 or 1.4. As it was quite obviously OOC. With the in depth analysis of word meaning, concept of wasting police time, etc. But I know that I cannot be completely sure.

Evidence (Demo Required):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xaybf7doc7pkz18/perpheads_demo_2015-6-3 18-06-14.dem?dl=0 (Updated for Daymon)
https://www.mediafire.com/?h3ql4b3ribuu537 (MediaFire Link)
Tick:31500 onwards.

I couldn't fit this into a comment, but Peach needs some help with defining the public.
So here are some links for him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/public
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/public

 

[KeiwaM]

Uhm. Im not going to watch the demo cause im about to go off. Though im gonna believe what you said (Gonna watch demo tomorrow). There is nothing wrong in shooting when you've done a /me. It indicates nowhere how long you are doing the action. I Wil decide wether or not it was a too short period tomorrow.

Over to Peach. throwing a body around for no reason is indeed 2.1 and 3.4. It is also very much 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 to say such things in an OOC-Manner.

I Will watch the demo tomorrow. For now i will -Support it on Saltguy and +Support it on Peach. This will possibly change when i've watched the demo.

 

[GamingPeach]

Okay, so i never actual dragged the body i never touched the body i went over to the trunk and look inside and i didn't have access i can't help the fact its a bug, i understand you are unaware if i grabbed a weapon but me up in your face still isn't a valid reason to pull a gun on me i didn't show any threat to your life by going close to you isn't a threat, yes i went close to the body because i was intriguing as their were gun shots and more and then he is dead i want to know why you shot him, he was a new friend of mine, that was simple the reason for me staying near the body, if you simple wanted me to go away you should have placed some barriers stating am not allowed past the line if i was to go past the barriers then i would be breaking 2.1,3.3,3.4 as their was no barriers i wanted to be near it i wanted to know what happened. You quoted a law, i picked sections, "
posing a direct threat" i didn't pose a direct threat to you. "
or is believed to be intent on harming any other such person" By me going into a trunk, that cant be classed as intent on harming.
i am guessing you evidence is me walking up to you? "
appropriate evidence, as defined under section 10.3, must have been obtained when acting on such a belief" that isn't enough evidence to draw your firearm. An officer wouldn't pull a gun over me walking up to them asking them questions as they walk backwards, officer you should of held your ground, so you broke 3.3 and 2.1 by drawing your firearm on a public member for going in to a contain and asking you questions and stating factual information.

(This are my thoughts as a member of Perpheads)

The last section wtf i found this on your second link "Open to or shared by all the people of an area or country:"

 

[Bruh Lightyear]

• Okay, so i never actual dragged the body i never touched the body i went over to the trunk and look inside and i didn't have access i can't help the fact its a bug, i understand you are unaware if i grabbed a weapon but me up in your face still isn't a valid reason to pull a gun on me i didn't show any threat to your life by going close to you isn't a threat, yes i went close to the body because i was intriguing as their were gun shots and more and then he is dead i want to know why you shot him, he was a new friend of mine, that was simple the reason for me staying near the body, if you simple wanted me to go away you should have placed some barriers stating am not allowed past the line if i was to go past the barriers then i would be breaking 2.1,3.3,3.4 as their was no barriers i wanted to be near it i wanted to know what happened. You quoted a law, i picked sections, "
  posing a direct threat" i didn't pose a direct threat to you. "
  or is believed to be intent on harming any other such person" By me going into a trunk, that cant be classed as intent on harming.
  i am guessing you evidence is me walking up to you? "
  appropriate evidence, as defined under section 10.3, must have been obtained when acting on such a belief" that isn't enough evidence to draw your firearm. An officer wouldn't pull a gun over me walking up to them asking them questions as they walk backwards, officer you should of held your ground, so you broke 3.3 and 2.1 by drawing your firearm on a public member for going in to a contain and asking you questions and stating factual information.
  
  (This are my thoughts as a member of Perpheads)
  
  The last section wtf i found this on your second link "Open to or shared by all the people of an area or country:"

Hmm, this seems a little untrue. Let's take it apart:

Okay, so i never actual dragged the body i never touched the body

Your first statement is true, I thought you were dragging the body, but you weren't in fact. But, 'i never touched the body'. Hmm, look at these:

Looks like you might have gotten a little close for comfort.

i went over to the trunk and look inside and i didn't have access i can't help the fact its a bug, i understand you are unaware if i grabbed a weapon but me up in your face still isn't a valid reason to pull a gun on me i didn't show any threat to your life by going close to you isn't a threat

First of all, let's look a special little rule:

2.3 Bugs and Glitches- The abuse and/or exploitation of a bug/glitch will not be tolerated; any player who experiences and/or who is aware of a bug/glitch must report it either to an administrator or on the forums.

It looks like you abused that glitch to get your kicks in RP. Don't know how, but I won't judge.

Now, about how you possibly grabbing something from a container and getting up in my face 'isn't a valid reason': it is. You want to know why? Because grabbing something from a container (possibly a weapon), and then getting up in my face while yelling at me, possibly to get into attack range, is very aggressive! Very much so! How can you not see that?

yes i went close to the body because i was intriguing as their were gun shots and more and then he is dead i want to know why you shot him, he was a new friend of mine, that was simple the reason for me staying near the body

I don't understand why you did that. People usually run away from gunshots, not go towards the source. You could also inquire later about why I shot him. Also, Hjalmar/Saltguy was a new friend of yours?

You can also see that this is recent as it was yesterday at 9:41 PM AKA 21:41. I will replace it with another puush when it becomes a solid calender date.

Next line, please!

if you simple wanted me to go away you should have placed some barriers stating am not allowed past the line if i was to go past the barriers then i would be breaking 2.1,3.3,3.4 as their was no barriers i wanted to be near it i wanted to know what happened.

I forgot to set up barriers, but this is a shit argument. If an officer tells you to go away and stay away from the body, you do it. How in the actual world do barriers make people break rules? There is no rule stating that. I was telling you to go away. You should have went away.

You quoted a law, i picked sections, "
posing a direct threat" i didn't pose a direct threat to you. "
or is believed to be intent on harming any other such person" By me going into a trunk, that cant be classed as intent on harming.
i am guessing you evidence is me walking up to you? "
appropriate evidence, as defined under section 10.3, must have been obtained when acting on such a belief" that isn't enough evidence to draw your firearm. An officer wouldn't pull a gun over me walking up to them asking them questions as they walk backwards, officer you should of held your ground, so you broke 3.3 and 2.1 by drawing your firearm on a public member for going in to a contain and asking you questions and stating factual information.

If you could pay attention and revise, you would know that I didn't pick 'posing a direct threat', but rather, 'is believed to be intent on causing harm to others'. You get something from a trunk then get in my face. OOC, I was actually thinking you were going to stab me. You also weren't 'asking questions'. You were yelling in my face over and over about how it's your business what you get out of the trunk when I don't ask you to.

This also just makes me cringe:

officer you should of held your ground, so you broke 3.3 and 2.1 by drawing your firearm on a public member for going in to a contain and asking you questions and stating factual information.

No, I'm not going to 'hold my ground' for someone who is getting up in my face after getting something from a container and is being very violent. This would be unarguable if it were a pocket. They are both containers, but you can use force if someone reaches into their pocket when tensions are high.

Also, 3.3 and 2.1? Really? First of all, I didn't take the firearm out of my holster with my nose or anything. So that's not 3.3. Second of all, 2.1? Asking me questions? Factual information? First of all, stop saying that what you were talking about was factual. It was anything but, and your use of that word is completely redundant. Second of all, you are completely ignoring how aggressive you were and how you had just gotten an item from a trunk.

Here's something else, taking things out of context!

The last section wtf i found this on your second link "Open to or shared by all the people of an area or country:"

Yes, that was one of the meanings of public when used a certain way, here some more meanings of 'public' on the Oxford Dictionary:

The first and third were the ones I wanted you to look at. Please, observe things before you make statements.

• (This are my thoughts as a member of Perpheads)

We are all members of the community; please don't fish for sympathy.

 

[GamingPeach]

Sorry But by pressing T on a car is not

• exploiting a bug/glitch as it has no effect, it just a message that pops in chat, i have no idea why it does that. i will comment later.

 

[Bruh Lightyear]

This will be a fairly short post, but Peach, just because a bug does not have a significant effect does not mean you can use it. It doesn't matter how severe the bug is. It still gave off the effect of making it seem like you could have gotten into the trunk, which you would not have been able to do without it. Also, about your statement on RP during the situation, yes, RP is emergent, but that does not mean it has no rules. RP still has to be contained, and you crossed the line.

 

[KeiwaM]

Aight so i watched the demo now

Laws/Rules broken by David:

Law 8.4 - Destruction of Evidence. Touching a body IRL would be destruction of evidence since you could mess things up.
Rule 1.1 & 1.3 - Disrespectful Behavior & Slandering. David were delaying the RP sit by complaining about his gun and calling him a pig
Rule 3.3 - Realistic Actions. Peach did touch the body and opened the trunk of 3 cars including a police cruiser. Realistic? Nah.
Rule 3.4 - Putting your life at risk. David intentionally broke laws in front of a police officer and bringing his freedom into risk.
Rule 3.24 - In and Out of character. Without any message David started saying that the officer pulled his gun without a reason and it was 4.1. Law 4.1 is unlawful detainment. He was talking about rule number IC without informing about OOC.

@Saltguy did not break any rules. You didn't have him under gunpoint and he shot you while you tried to handcuff him (Unskilled aim Saltguy xDD)

So in my opinion David should be given a ban for rule 1.1, 1.3, 3.3 and 3.24. I Have no opinion on the lenght though. Perma is too long doe.
Hjalmar should not be punished since he was following the rules at all times.

David Peach: +Support

Hjalmar Winroth: -Support

 

[Mekls]

Just so you know, opening a trunk dosn't mean that he took something out. Not only that, it also means that he put something in.

 

[GamingPeach]

Aight so i watched the demo now

Laws/Rules broken by David:

Law 8.4 - Destruction of Evidence. Touching a body IRL would be destruction of evidence since you could mess things up.
Rule 1.1 & 1.3 - Disrespectful Behavior & Slandering. David were delaying the RP sit by complaining about his gun and calling him a pig
Rule 3.3 - Realistic Actions. Peach did touch the body and opened the trunk of 3 cars including a police cruiser. Realistic? Nah.
Rule 3.4 - Putting your life at risk. David intentionally broke laws in front of a police officer and bringing his freedom into risk.
Rule 3.24 - In and Out of character. Without any message David started saying that the officer pulled his gun without a reason and it was 4.1. Law 4.1 is unlawful detainment. He was talking about rule number IC without informing about OOC.

@Saltguy did not break any rules. You didn't have him under gunpoint and he shot you while you tried to handcuff him (Unskilled aim Saltguy xDD)

So in my opinion David should be given a ban for rule 1.1, 1.3, 3.3 and 3.24. I Have no opinion on the lenght though. Perma is too long doe.
Hjalmar should not be punished since he was following the rules at all times.

David Peach: +Support

Hjalmar Winroth: -Support

Okay, so i never touched the body, disrespectful and slandering how was a delaying the rp, what did i say that was disrespectful that would break rule 1.1 that was an ic complain, i never said he was breaking 11.11 in any shape or for which was breaking 4.1, therefor i never broke 3.24 which your claiming, 3.4 you say i broke if you could kindly state what law i broke? and 3.24 is wait what are u chatting???

 

[John Daymon]

Can't access the demo, please update the link.
[DOUBLEPOST=1433852606,1433699025][/DOUBLEPOST]Accepted; Peach will be given a warning for 3.3 by tea-bagging a body as it's something you dont do irl... Saltguy will be given a warning for 3.4 by stepping away from you several times while under gunpoint...

About the gunpoint from Saltguy on you; I feel that it's not necessary to you or saltguy a warning for this as he shouldn't have gotten his hands up in the air like he did; We do have /act surrender for a reason. By that I mean that he shouldn't have taken his gun out as he would have to take his hands down and then reach for the gun...

Frank will also be given a warning for 3.4 by dragging a body around for absolutely no reason at all.