Ban Request on Luke Person

[Eddie]

Your Steam/In-game Name: HeaTz / Eddie Stallone
His/Her Steam/In-game Name: Luke / Luke person
His/Her SteamID: STEAM_0:1:7218412
Why Should This Player Be Punished: Me and Aidan were driving away from the farm in my car, when Luke decides to ram us making us frontal crash, he gets out and takes us both on gp saying were arrested for reckless driving then he beats Aidan to death, and abuses his trusted rank by taking his physgun and throwing me in the air killing me. Would like refund for my car damage
Evidence (Demo Required): Picks me up with physgun and kills me - http://demo.ovh.eu/en/115fd7c798179cf502a8cb16f1a42e18/
Here he shoots my car for no reasonhttp://demo.ovh.eu/en/2e41ac93592282a72461289fc014aab7/
Tick: From beginning, only 3 minutes long demo

Blacklist from cop, removed trusted rank and ban is what should be done

 

[Puffy Sandvich]

He didn't just ram us, He was on the wrong side of the road as well. Then later, he said he was "Too hurt to roleplay" when Arron/Faith came. Upon examination Arron/Faith said we didn't say anything very disrespectful so he also lied in an admin situation.

 

[Eddie]

Removed: Demo fucked up aint able to upload

 

[KeiwaM]

After seeing the demo i'll give a huge +Support

Luke clearly was driving in the wrong side of the road. He didn't have any reason to gunpoint you either. Hitting you with the nightstick wasn't nessescary at all either. And what is up with the physgun? "You broke 1.1 by being very disrespectful to me" and you get thrown up in the air. Luke is clearly abusing his powers. He should be removed from trusted, get supervisor removed and get banned.

 

[Puma]

What do you mean by "Using physgun to throw me in the air"?

 

[Eddie]

Here he just shoots my car again for no reason: http://demo.ovh.eu/en/2e41ac93592282a72461289fc014aab7/

 

[Ayjay]

As you can see from the video, luke swerves out and collides with the OP's car and attempts to convict him of 'reckless' driving when infact it was Luke to blame. Luke uses a valid excuse of him being subject to a murder inquiry, however I doubt any solid evidence was given for such acts to be taken place.

Luke uses his physgun and practically impersonates an Administrator, and uses his physgun to pretty much end the situation and abuses his right as a user. He is no way allowed to do this, if he has a problem with the user he should directly contact an Administrator; just due to his previous role it gives him no jutstifcaiton to use such actions.

I personally would ban luke for 1 week, on top of his three other bans possibly longer with removal of his honorary member rank, and removal from supervisor.

 

[Luke]

Luke clearly was driving in the wrong side of the road.

As you can see from the video, luke swerves out and collides with the OP's car and attempts to convict him of 'reckless' driving when infact it was Luke to blame.

The suspect's vehicle also was on the wrong side of the road, speeding, when the decision was made to attempt to forcefully stop the vehicle. I had a passenger in my car at the time, so it was deemed safest to point my car facing the suspect's vehicle, rather than stopping sideways on the road.

He didn't have any reason to gunpoint you either.

Luke uses a valid excuse of him being subject to a murder inquiry, however I doubt any solid evidence was given for such acts to be taken place.

As described under section '10.3' of the Paralake Laws, I had sufficient evidence to believe that the 2 suspects were involved in the attempted murder of a LEO, and had sufficient reason to forcefully detain them. Whether or not the player's demo, shown here, shows this, is immaterial.

Hitting you with the nightstick wasn't nessescary at all either.

The suspect failed to cooperate and resisted arrest; non-lethal force was used to subdue the suspect, as described under section '11' of the Paralake Laws. The suspect, while failing to cooperate, also broke multiple rules when they said words that I believe to be the effect of "just kill me".

Luke is clearly abusing his powers.

Luke uses his physgun and practically impersonates an Administrator, and uses his physgun to pretty much end the situation and abuses his right as a user. He is no way allowed to do this, if he has a problem with the user he should directly contact an Administrator; just due to his previous role it gives him no jutstifcaiton to use such actions.

There have only ever been 2 members of staff, with the appropriate authority, to comment on the role of the 'Honorary' rank. The first member of staff was the 'Head Senior Admin' who created the rank, and I was the second and last member of staff, the 'Head Administrator', to officially comment - the last comment made was that a player who holds the 'Honorary' rank is not expected to administrate, but instead has similar abilities to that of an 'Enforcer' and may enforce the rules when they are in a position to do so appropriately, and have the desire to; when appropriate, an administrator should be contacted to assist, if necessary.

I have not been contacted by a member of staff with the appropriate authority, about the role of the 'Honorary' rank, nor has any appropriate and official forum post been created on the subject; this means that the comments made by the previous Head Administrator are the only ones valid and noteworthy in this situation.

 

[Ayjay]

There have only ever been 2 members of staff, with the appropriate authority, to comment on the role of the 'Honorary' rank. The first member of staff was the 'Head Senior Admin' who created the rank, and I was the second and last member of staff, the 'Head Administrator', to officially comment - the last comment made was that a player who holds the 'Honorary' rank is not expected to administrate, but instead has similar abilities to that of an 'Enforcer' and may enforce the rules when they are in a position to do so appropriately, and have the desire to; when appropriate, an administrator should be contacted to assist, if necessary.

Luke, I've been there when you've been told not to use it in place as an Administrator; I've been there when you've been told not to use your physgun due to you not being an administrator.

Your defense is 'the physgun was intended to have similar abilities of an Enforcer' No Luke, if we wanted you to have similar powers to an Enforcer... you'd have Enforcer.

Let's quote your friend, the 'head Senior Administrator' who created this rank:

Honorary - Anyone can become an Honorary. However, this position can only be offered to you if you are deemed worthy. You are given a forum title and a super physgun. The reason you are given a super physgun is because you are trusted with it. You are trusted to use it to enhance roleplay in a way others can not and not to abuse that power as well.

The rank is said to be given to trusted people, who are deemed worthy - You use it to enhance roleplay and to not abuse the power.

What you did, did it enhance roleplay? No. You abused your power and your right as an honorary member and overall ruined the roleplay situation - You simply abused the physgun you were trusted with, and used it to your own benefit to end the roleplay situation. After killing his friend, you felt he deserved the same fate due to you being too lazy to carry on with the situation.

How about you allow an Administrator to deal with it, rather than you abusing your power and taking it into your own hands.

Other things you should read:

2.6 Reporting a Rule-Breaker- If it is believed that another player has broken a rule, the ‘/report’ function should be used to inform an Administrator. If a player(s) is in a role-play situation with another player(s) who has broken a rule, after the ‘/report’ function has been used, the former player(s) should continue the role-play situation as best as to their ability, and within the confines of the rules, until either it has ended and/or an Administrator intervenes.

Administrator - An administrator is a member of staff who holds the rank of Enforcer, Moderator, Administrator, Senior Administrator, or Owner; please see the following forum thread for details about the staff ranking system

 

[Niko]

The suspect's vehicle also was on the wrong side of the road, speeding, when the decision was made to attempt to forcefully stop the vehicle. I had a passenger in my car at the time, so it was deemed safest to point my car facing the suspect's vehicle, rather than stopping sideways on the road.

The suspect's vehicle wasn't on the wrong side of the road when it came towards you, especially since there aren't any road markings on the dirt-road. And it is no way safest to drive head first into another vehicle to stop it. Rather, it's the worst method possible, as you put everyone's life at risk. A head-on collision, especially at that speed, is a high risk, and people would definitely get horribly injured, or even die.

As described under section '10.3' of the Paralake Laws, I had sufficient evidence to believe that the 2 suspects were involved in the attempted murder of a LEO, and had sufficient reason to forcefully detain them. Whether or not the player's demo, shown here, shows this, is immaterial.

You had sufficient reason to detain, but without the proper evidence of them actually performing any crime, such as another officer calling it over the radio, you should not instantly try to ram them off the road, but rather pull them over safely.

I have not been contacted by a member of staff with the appropriate authority, about the role of the 'Honorary' rank, nor has any appropriate and official forum post been created on the subject; this means that the comments made by the previous Head Administrator are the only ones valid and noteworthy in this situation.

As you are not an official member of staff, your "honorary" rank is only believed to enhance roleplay (As mentioned by @AyJay ), rather than administrate, and even abuse your power. Simply slaying a player of the server, is not a proper punishment. You should've instead followed the rules and made a report, then continue to RP through the situation.


I do not deem you reason to ram the vehicle valid, nor your reason to 'slay' Eddie for a 1.1 rulebreak.
I fully support this ban request.

 

[Sir CaptainSpaghetti]

+Support

It is disgusting and cringe worthy that Luke thinks he can break rules and then abuse his position (I think this position should be revoked) to "slay" a person and ruin the roleplay entirely.

To make matters worse he decides to blatantly lie and make excuses for his actions instead of admitting that he was wrong, as the demo clearly shows that he is.

I am glad to see that people are standing up for this BR, as I feel it truly shows Luke's behavior in full, he is infamous to many users for being an abusive LT and this is a very valid example of what he has done time and time before (minus the physgun abuse).

As he has only recently been unbanned, I would say Luke should receive a 2 week ban, along with the removal of both his supervisor rank and his trusted rank, as he has abused both...

 

[Krzeszny]

Let's start with the laws Luke has broken, and then go to the rules.

1:

Spoiler: 1.8 Physical Assault

The act of intentionally physically-assaulting (making aggressive contact with) another member of the public with the intent to cause bodily, mental and/or emotional harm.

Luke was intentionally hitting the suspect to force him on his knees from pain instead of pushing him on his knees by using /me

2:

Spoiler: 4.1 Unlawful Detainment

The act of using Threats, as defined under Section 1.7, and/or committing an act(s) of Physical Assault, as defined under Section 1.9, to detain another member of the public without just cause (see Section 4.2) is a criminal offence.

Luke has swerved onto the wrong side of the road and wanted to arrest both the driver and the passenger for reckless driving. Yes, the driver was speeding and driving recklessly (before Luke could see him) but he definitely detained the passenger without a just cause.

3:

Spoiler: 5.3 Manslaughter - Murder in the Third Degree

The act of unintentionally committing murder as a direct result of intoxication, recklessness, negligence, etc.

...by killing the passenger who wasn't cooperating.

This is something he mentioned above (but didn't break)
4:

Spoiler: 8.8 Cooperation with Law-Enforcement Personnel

If asked to stop by law-enforcement personnel, a member of the public is expected to immediately cease their current activity and speak with the Police Officer(s); any attempt to evade law-enforcement personnel when asked to stop is a criminal offence.
If arrested by law-enforcement personnel, a member of the public is expected to provide their full cooperation with Police Officer(s); any attempt to avoid compliance and/or delay the process is a criminal offence.

"any attempt to avoid compliance and/or delay the process is a criminal offence."
But an attempt to avoid compliance isn't a reason to kill or assault using lethal force. And speaking of lethal force...

5:

Spoiler: 11.9 Handling the Pursuit of a Suspect(s)

When pursuing a suspect, LEOs must take the utmost caution to ensure the safety of any nearby members of the public, the safety of the suspect, and the safety of fellow LEOs.

Force may only be used if the suspect(s) is at risk of escaping, is posing a direct threat to other person(s) 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).

"Force may only be used if the suspect(s) is at risk of escaping, is posing a direct threat to other person(s) and/or is believed to be intent on harming any other such person(s)"
At risk of escaping? Nope. Posing a threat? Nope. Believed to be intent on harming? Nope, he was handcuffed.
Edit: I agree that he was at a small risk of escaping, but it doesn't allow him to forget about the safety of the suspect.

Under what circumstances could he have used force, then? Under 11.10 and 11.11. Both have been broken.

6:

Spoiler: 11.10 Handling an Aggressive Suspect(s)

When handling a suspect(s) who is not cooperating and who is/has become aggressive, it is important to remain in/take control of the situation, and, if necessary, to use the appropriate non-lethal equipment provided; ie: the baton. See Section 11.9 for additional details.

Thinking logically, a baton becomes lethal if used to hit someone 14 times repeatedly and kill him or make him unconscious. Besides that (even if the baton can't be called lethal), the suspect wasn't even aggressive, so Luke musn't have used the baton to hit him at all.

7:

Spoiler: 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).

Why did Luke think he had a reason to use firearms after he had himself caused a road accident? Even if it had been the suspects' fault, he wouldn't have had reasons to use firearms.

That's it for the part with 7 broken laws. Now let's look at the rules.

Edit: I've forgotten that Luke had also broken law 9.5 road markings. That still makes it 7 laws - a "compensation" for 11.9.

2.1 Play Realistically
Do the police in real life police hit suspects in the head (the suspect was knocked out in this situation) to force them on their knees? They (should) use force, but not excessive force.

2.5 Excessive Negativity
Outright slaying someone with a "honorable" physgun. And don't tell me it was a social experiment.


4.1 Follow the Law
...

That's about it. Thanks for reading.

 

[Puffy Sandvich]

The suspect's vehicle also was on the wrong side of the road, speeding, when the decision was made to attempt to forcefully stop the vehicle. I had a passenger in my car at the time, so it was deemed safest to point my car facing the suspect's vehicle, rather than stopping sideways on the road.

No we weren't. Check the demo. It show's we're on the CORRECT side of the road, and if you can show us evidence that we were wanted for a reason such as that. You can show me. Other than that, that entire post seems to be bullshit.

 

[M]

1:

Spoiler: 1.8 Physical Assault

The act of intentionally physically-assaulting (making aggressive contact with) another member of the public with the intent to cause bodily, mental and/or emotional harm.

Luke was intentionally hitting the suspect to force him on his knees from pain instead of pushing him on his knees by using /me

This doesn't apply to LEOs as they have a separate provision for aggressive and non-compliant suspects under section 11.

2:

Spoiler: 4.1 Unlawful Detainment

The act of using Threats, as defined under Section 1.7, and/or committing an act(s) of Physical Assault, as defined under Section 1.9, to detain another member of the public without just cause (see Section 4.2) is a criminal offence.

Luke has swerved onto the wrong side of the road and wanted to arrest both the driver and the passenger for reckless driving. Yes, the driver was speeding and driving recklessly (before Luke could see him) but he definitely detained the passenger without a just cause.

This doesn't apply to LEOs as they have a separate provision for detainment under section 11. It's perfectly fine to suspect him as an aid to the criminal for that initial time, and restrain him as he is in a restricted area.

3:

Spoiler: 5.3 Manslaughter - Murder in the Third Degree

The act of unintentionally committing murder as a direct result of intoxication, recklessness, negligence, etc.

...by killing the passenger who wasn't cooperating.

This is something he mentioned above (but didn't break)

He didn't break this, the use of force is prescribed under section 11, and it is described as non-lethal equipment - the unrealistic response by the other player was what resulted in it becoming murder.

4:

Spoiler: 8.8 Cooperation with Law-Enforcement Personnel

If asked to stop by law-enforcement personnel, a member of the public is expected to immediately cease their current activity and speak with the Police Officer(s); any attempt to evade law-enforcement personnel when asked to stop is a criminal offence.
If arrested by law-enforcement personnel, a member of the public is expected to provide their full cooperation with Police Officer(s); any attempt to avoid compliance and/or delay the process is a criminal offence.

"any attempt to avoid compliance and/or delay the process is a criminal offence."
But an attempt to avoid compliance isn't a reason to kill or assault using lethal force. And speaking of lethal force...

Law 11.9 and 11.10 cover Luke's response to the situation. Also, it could be argued that he wasn't aggressive, but the dictionary definition of the adjective could easily match up to the lack of compliance - he is ready to confront by not actively complying.

5:

Spoiler: 11.9 Handling the Pursuit of a Suspect(s)

When pursuing a suspect, LEOs must take the utmost caution to ensure the safety of any nearby members of the public, the safety of the suspect, and the safety of fellow LEOs.

Force may only be used if the suspect(s) is at risk of escaping, is posing a direct threat to other person(s) 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).

"Force may only be used if the suspect(s) is at risk of escaping, is posing a direct threat to other person(s) and/or is believed to be intent on harming any other such person(s)"
At risk of escaping? Nope. Posing a threat? Nope. Believed to be intent on harming? Nope, he was handcuffed.

Under what circumstances could he have used force, then? Under 11.10 and 11.11. Both have been broken.

See above. He is at risk of escaping, also, because there is a large woodland area next to him and he isn't complying with the demand.

6:

Spoiler: 11.10 Handling an Aggressive Suspect(s)

When handling a suspect(s) who is not cooperating and who is/has become aggressive, it is important to remain in/take control of the situation, and, if necessary, to use the appropriate non-lethal equipment provided; ie: the baton. See Section 11.9 for additional details.

Thinking logically, a baton becomes lethal if used to hit someone 14 times repeatedly and kill him or make him unconscious. Besides that (even if the baton can't be called lethal), the suspect wasn't even aggressive, so Luke musn't have used the baton to hit him at all.

There is no provision for the way that it can be used, it is just described as provided non-lethal equipment. As argued above, by not complying he is clearly ready to confront and therefore aggressive by definition.

7:

Spoiler: 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).

Why did Luke think he had a reason to use firearms after he had himself caused a road accident? Even if it had been the suspects' fault, he wouldn't have had reasons to use firearms.

He had reason to use firearms because they were believed to be suspects in a crime whereby LEOs had previously been killed. As such, he could believe that they could respond in a harmful way to the police detainment.

2.1 Play Realistically
Do the police in real life police hit suspects in the head (the suspect was knocked out in this situation) to force them on their knees? They (should) use force, but not excessive force.

Given the nature of what they are suspected of, not complying directly gives him a chance to resist more harmfully, and the suspect who is associated with a murderer could easily dissolve into the woodland.

There's also no evidence suggestive of where he was hitting the suspect, so please, let's not jump to conclusions here.

2.5 Excessive Negativity
Outright slaying someone with a "honorable" physgun. And don't tell me it was a social experiment.

It was an appropriate response as dictated by the guidelines of the honorable rank, or can at least be inferred as such. If you are arguing that punishing a player in an OOC context applies to this rule, go and make a complaint against every ban ever issued.

 

[Luke]

As you are not an official member of staff, your "honorary" rank is only believed to enhance roleplay (As mentioned by @AyJay ), rather than administrate, and even abuse your power. Simply slaying a player of the server, is not a proper punishment. You should've instead followed the rules and made a report, then continue to RP through the situation.

This is not correct - what AyJay quoted is out of date as I had changed the role of the 'Honorary' rank after I took the position of 'Head Administrator', and not once did I say that it was made to "enhance roleplay". What you think I should have done is immaterial as the only member of staff (who has commented thus far) with the authority to dictate how I should handle the situation disagrees:

a player who holds the 'Honorary' rank is not expected to administrate, but instead has similar abilities to that of an 'Enforcer' and may enforce the rules when they are in a position to do so appropriately, and have the desire to; when appropriate, an administrator should be contacted to assist, if necessary.

What should happen next is for an appropriate member of staff to either agree with me, or officially change the role of the 'Honorary' rank.

 

[M]

I just want to add something regarding the car crash.

The suspects were not even on the road at all, meaning that the driver of the cruiser who would typically look for someone on the actual road before merging onto it would be immediately disadvantaged.

As Luke was otherwise compliant with other traffic laws, there is no definite suggestion that the crash was intentional. Additionally, the outright shocked response to the crash furthers the argument of the crash being inadvertent and without malice.

The road was marked out as a dirt path, and as such, the drivers were still driving outside of road markings by being on the grass area. An accident was easily caused by your speed and lack of due attention, whereas Luke can't be specifically to blame as his attentiveness can't really be held to account in such an exceptional circumstance.

 

[Deleted member 5920]

I just want to add something regarding the car crash.

The suspects were not even on the road at all, meaning that the driver of the cruiser who would typically look for someone on the actual road before merging onto it would be immediately disadvantaged.

As Luke was otherwise compliant with other traffic laws, there is no definite suggestion that the crash was intentional. Additionally, the outright shocked response to the crash furthers the argument of the crash being inadvertent and without malice.

The road was marked out as a dirt path, and as such, the drivers were still driving outside of road markings by being on the grass area. An accident was easily caused by your speed and lack of due attention, whereas Luke can't be specifically to blame as his attentiveness can't really be held to account in such an exceptional circumstance.

Chris, don't try and defend him, he slayed someone for breaking 1.1, which is not his job.

He beat a suspect to death, and he clearly swerved in front of him, there's a time to quit defending Luke, and now is that time.

 

[Panda]

In the last part Luke yells ''Oh my god!'' So I do not believe that he did it intentionally. Mostly an accident as Luke was turning to the gravel road? Then Luke made it Eddies fault.

 

[M]

Just going to steal Panda's GIF for a moment to comment on the crash further:

As you see here, the lane he is in initially is on a crash course to the farm fence:

The dirt road also awkwardly joins up with the leftmost lane (from recording perspective).

Niko argues this:

But the road markings law says this:

And with the fence - assuming as it isn't argued that he was speeding, and that his speed from the video can be perceived as at the speed limit - and awkward joining to the dirt road in question, without countering in the possibility of a speeding car not even on the proper road, Luke changed into the wrong lane in order to avoid a collision.

Ironic, given that it caused a collision, but like I said - Luke isn't expected by law to consider that a car will dart across without actually being on what is understood to be the road.

 

[Krzeszny]

Ok, no quotes because I don't feel like copying and pasting everything.

Nothing says in the Law of Paralake that laws from section 1, 4 or any other section do not concern LEOs.
Now think about 5.3 and the rule 2.1 in real life. You wouldn't kill someone with a baton, especially handcuffed, not even hit him because he wasn't cooperating. You would force him on his knees (by using /me, and if he used and won a /roll, then you could hit him for breaking 11.10).

You're right with 11.9 but not 11.10 - Luke almost always breaks 11.10

"When handling a suspect(s) who is not cooperating and who is/has become aggressive"
Not cooperating and who is/has become aggressive. Don't play on definitions because
"these laws are NOT open to interpretation" B

I could say the situation already code 4, but nevertheless he violated 11.11 not because he was chasing the suspects but because he crashed into them and tried to blame them of causing it. Since he wasn't chasing them, he couldn't just aim his gun at them after the road accident. It's not even realistic!

Oh, and you know what? 9.5 road markings! You can't say Luke hasn't broken 9.5.

After reading your last message, I can only agree that the suspect has broken 9.5, but clearly Luke has broken 9.5 as well and don't even try to disagree.

And last, but not least, excessive negativity is excessive negativity!
But I will let a high rank administrator judge whether slaying someone is acceptable or not. If it is acceptable, why can't we all slay rule breakers instead of reporting them? Oh wait, slaying for what? Why has Luke slayed the driver in the first place?

In my opinion you're right only with 11.9.