Ban Request on Nickjedl

[Liam]

Your Steam/In-game Name: Liam / Liam Belinsky
His/Her Steam/In-game Name: nickjedl / Sam Vertongen
His/Her SteamID: STEAM_0:1:58678274
Why Should This Player Be Punished: I believe that Nickjedl, broke rule 2.5 as he did seriously negatively effect my role play experience. As you will see I was in a clear visible passive stance and he chooses to gun me down. I pause it to show that he could clearly see me and had a lot of time to react. I could of used act surrender but really, sometimes you just don't think to do things which I didn't, but that is no excuse for what he did.
Evidence (Demo Required): http://demo.ovh.eu/en/5515bcb4b0f59dbc93ae5cc7a1790354/
Tick: About 11300 (but see video below)

 

[Panda]

+Support

He clearly saw you with a holstered weapon on the ground and he kept shooting at you.

 

[Exnem]

As an officer, you clearly do want to get the gunman down on the ground asap but when NickjedI kept shooting you even if you were crouching on the ground he broke 4.1 (Law 11.11)

I don't see how he broke 2.5 to be honest, gunfights from my experience never have any roleplay in them. You don't roleplay that you are shooting, that is a thing that is actually occurring.
Watching Panda's GIF, that's roleplaying that you're shooting.
2.5 is a no on my part.

+Support

@nickjedl

 

[BooingBison]

Wow

I literally can't believe u still decided to upload a demo however I explained a lot of it in OOC already.

I kept shooting at you because:
1) You still had a gun on your back which you could have equipped as soon as I got closer to you.
So instead of breaking 3.4 and risking my life to come and restrain you I took the best option of temporarily disabling you until I had the chance of getting closer.
2) Other people were shooting at me at the same time, and as you opened fire first before I was not going to risk you shooting me down when I tried to stop the other people from shooting at me.

Also, it is not really 3.3 to expect me to stop shooting at you when you hit me 3 times already and nearly killed me.
You just simply standing up without even bothering doing the surrender act doesn't mean that I suddenly have to stop gunfire in hope you don't return fire.

Another thing is that you might have got a pistol in your hand as you were facing the other way (away from me) when I gunned you down, if I got closer you could have turned around and shot me anyways. Therefor I would be breaking 3.4.
This could've been simply avoided if you did bother doing act surrender so I could see both of your hands in a clear sight, which you didn't.
[DOUBLEPOST=1445438929,1445438882][/DOUBLEPOST]

He clearly saw you with a holstered weapon on the ground

No, he was behind his vehicle and I couldn't see him at all. When he got up I took the chance to eliminate any risks of me getting killed by a guy that just hit me 4 times already.
[DOUBLEPOST=1445438985][/DOUBLEPOST]

but when NickjedI kept shooting you even if you were crouching on the ground he broke 4.1

I couldn't see him crouching as he was behind his vehicle from my perspective, when he got up I took the chance of eliminating all risks of me dying because of a heavily armed man that opened fire first.

 

[Panda]

@nickjedl You can clearly see him

 

[Puffy Sandvich]

Wow

I literally can't believe u still decided to upload a demo however I explained a lot of it in OOC already.

I kept shooting at you because:
1) You still had a gun on your back which you could have equipped as soon as I got closer to you.
So instead of breaking 3.4 and risking my life to come and restrain you I took the best option of temporarily disabling you until I had the chance of getting closer.
2) Other people were shooting at me at the same time, and as you opened fire first before I was not going to risk you shooting me down when I tried to stop the other people from shooting at me.

Also, it is not really 3.3 to expect me to stop shooting at you when you hit me 3 times already and nearly killed me.
You just simply standing up without even bothering doing the surrender act doesn't mean that I suddenly have to stop gunfire in hope you don't return fire.

Another thing is that you might have got a pistol in your hand as you were facing the other way (away from me) when I gunned you down, if I got closer you could have turned around and shot me anyways. Therefor I would be breaking 3.4.
This could've been simply avoided if you did bother doing act surrender so I could see both of your hands in a clear sight, which you didn't.
[DOUBLEPOST=1445438929,1445438882][/DOUBLEPOST]

No, he was behind his vehicle and I couldn't see him at all. When he got up I took the chance to eliminate any risks of me getting killed by a guy that just hit me 4 times already.
[DOUBLEPOST=1445438985][/DOUBLEPOST]
I couldn't see him crouching as he was behind his vehicle from my perspective, when he got up I took the chance of eliminating all risks of me dying because of a heavily armed man that opened fire first.

First of all, lethal force isn't "temporarily disabling"
Second, by shooting him you're just giving him MORE of an excuse to shoot you out of self defense.

+support to this action request

 

[BooingBison]

First of all, lethal force isn't "temporarily disabling"
Second, by shooting him you're just giving him MORE of an excuse to shoot you out of self defense.

Sorry there is no such thing as a tazer so lethal force is the only thing I got to protect myself.

HE OPENED FIRE FIRST
I would be breaking 3.4 if I would just stop shooting immediately and walk up to him.

 

[Puffy Sandvich]

Too long for comment

Sorry there is no such thing as a tazer so lethal force is the only thing I got to protect myself.

HE OPENED FIRE FIRST
I would be breaking 3.4 if I would just stop shooting immediately and walk up to him.

Yes. he did at first, then surrendered. (insert number of play realistically here) An officer wouldn't shoot a man to death if he had done this. Well that's not true but if he DID he would've been dealt with severely. Just watch American News. I think the action request is both right and appropriate given the RP situation.

 

[Philip]

You have my support as this user broke:

2.1- You wouldn't shoot a person that put his gun down IRL would you?

4.1 - Broke law 11.11
"LEOs may only use their firearms when a suspect(s) is posing a direct threat to any other member of the public/LEO and/or is believed to be intent on harming any other such person(s) (appropriate evidence, as defined under section 10.4, must have been obtained when acting on such a belief)."

Nick broke 11.11 by shooting a person that did not pose a DIRECT threat to ANYONE at the moment as he holstered his weapon.

Even though it says in the law "believed to be intent on harming any other such person(s)" Nick did not need to fire any more bullets, he could've walked up to him and arrested him instead.

 

[BooingBison]

In this screenshot you can clearly see I couldn't see Liam crouching and when he got up I couldn't spend 2 seconds thinking of what he was doing so I took my chance to eliminate the risk of me getting shot by a heavily armed suspect that had shot me 4 times before.

And when he got up I couldn't make up if he was still a threat or not, as he didn't do act surrender.

 

[Panda]

He is clearly facing the other way and you still shoot him. Also you missed a couple times but he still didn't return fire.

 

[BooingBison]

I didn't take the risk of him turning around again and shooting me anyway as that would be 3.4.

If he just bothered doing act surrender I wouldn't have shot anymore as I could see what was in his hands.

Even though it says in the law "believed to be intent on harming any other such person(s)" Nick did not need to fire any more bullets, he could've walked up to him and arrested him instead.

If I walked up to him and he turned around and opened fire again I would be breaking 3.4

Another thing: Why did Aaron pick me up in the middle of a shootout so I unequipped my gun? I'm serious that also ruined a lot of the RP for me.

And again:
Why do you people think I knew what was going to happen next at that moment?
In my eyes giving Liam the opportunity to shoot me down is breaking 3.4

 

[Ash]

Accepted,

There was no reason to continue firing your firearm, as he wasn't a direct threat anymore at that time and was surrendering. You clearly had sight on him with your firearm and wasn't in a position to use your firearm anymore. In addition, you state that if you would have apprehended the suspect he may have pulled a firearm out towards you, well no- If you had him at gun point then you could possibly make an Action Request against that.

After discussing it with another moderator we have decided that @nickjedl will be permanently banned due to a high warning and ban rate.

"2.1; 2.5; 4.1- User shot down a civilian upon surrendering. Due to a high warning count (17) and a high ban count (8) the ban will be permanent."