Cops and rule 3.4

[Kurze]

So at the moment I've seen various things happening and I've been wondering about the following case:

Recently, there was a mass shootout, and all cops but 2 cops stayed alive and a dispatch. Those 2 cops full-on went into the group and rammed them even though they knew there were at least 5 people present, 4 fully heavily armed wanted suspects, and 1 civ (NPC). 1 cop got insta killed after they crashed into the people and the other cop managed to kill 4 other heavily armed wanted suspects alongside a civ(NPC).

I'm wondering this is 3.4 right?

Because they were both fully aware that there were 4 heavily armed suspects at the scene and yet crashed into them and killed them. as 3.4 is meant to make things more "realistic" wouldn't waiting for back-up getting a description of the people and tailing them be more "realistic" instead of full-on risking their lives for the glory.

 

[Efan]

If this is referring to the situation I was involved in it also breaks duty of care policy. Arguably it doesn’t break 3.4 because he did use the car to knock most of us down as I was shot whilst I was ragdolled / stuck in the car after getting up without a chance to fight back.

 

[The HitMan]

With that logic as soon as I go on duty it's 3.4.

 

[flugs]

Can you elaborate on how they killed the 4 armed suspects? Whilst yes in some specific scenarios it could be considered 3.4 for them to try and match 4 heavily armed suspects, it comes down largely to strategy. If they strategically killed the suspects in such a way that the risk to themselves was minimised significantly enough to make the risk worth taking, I see no issue. There are also finer details such as was backup coming, what was dispatch doing to give them an advantage, etc.

 

[Kurze]

@flugs They full-on rammed 4 suspects and a civ(NPC) they had the advantage because the suspects got ragdolled and they were finished off. I'd hardly say it was strats that lead to their death, I'd say pure luck they all got ragdolled.

 

[flugs]

@flugs They full-on rammed 4 suspects and a civ(NPC) they had the advantage because the suspects got ragdolled and they were finished off. I'd hardly say it was strats that lead to their death, I'd say pure luck they all got ragdolled.

Typically we don’t allow people to full-speed ram others in most situations, but besides that; using their vehicles to incapacitate the assailants sounds like it was effective here and I wouldn’t throw that under 3.4.

 

[Kurze]

Dummy cant reply on a reply

 

[Kurze]

Typically we don’t allow people to full-speed ram others in most situations, but besides that; using their vehicles to incapacitate the assailants sounds like it was effective here and I wouldn’t throw that under 3.4.

I think it was fully unneeded, as a civ was also killed by this action.

 

[flugs]

I think it was fully unneeded, as a civ was also killed by this action.

Thing is, if they’re executing this “plan” (or could just have been an on-instinct action, I don’t know the situation well) with the intention of taking down these armed suspects for the preservation of life, collateral damage should really go through the in-character means of dealing with situations like this (i.e. IA or Supervisor). By killing a civilian in the execution of their duties, they’ve committed gross misconduct - and I think that should be pursued via IA as opposed to OOC, in this situation.

As I said though, I don’t really know the details of this situation so I can’t make an accurate call. Not all police-related issues should go through IA, but from how this has been described, it sounds like something that should be dealt with IC. Would you like to take this into a PM to discuss further?

 

[The HitMan]

I think it was fully unneeded, as a civ was also killed by this action.

I'm sorry did you want him to ask them to step out of the vehicle politely? Also criminals do the exact same thing yet that never gets addressed.

 

[Alliat]

It could also be argued that you have to 'protect and serve' as an officer. There fore officers can take bigger risk than civillians. Because they have to protect the public.

 

[MegaFro]

With that logic as soon as I go on duty it's 3.4.

with your logic its 3.4 to play perpheads

 

[Kurze]

I'm sorry did you want him to ask them to step out of the vehicle politely? Also criminals do the exact same thing yet that never gets addressed.

@flugs No I get your point and i understand!

@The HitMan no, backing away and replanning would be the bet thing lol. They shouldn't of approached them in the first place

 

[Bert]

This would not be 3.4 in my opinion however you could make an argument for some other rule infractions. The police officers prior to making the decision have a job to uphold and are required by law to do anything within their power to uphold the law while also taking their lives into account. If the police officers in question determined that they had a reasonable chance of knocking over, or killing at least 3 out of 5 suspects with their vehicle then it would be worth it, after which they could use their firearms to engage any remaining suspects. Depending on how the cops acted you could argue for 3.3 and 3.4 if for example the officers drove directly into a brick wall in order to hit the suspects with guns.

 

[Exnem]

with your logic its 3.4 to play perpheads

It's 3.4 to be an armed suspect around callum if he's in a car, he just runs you over.

 

[Double J]

It's not that hard to execute a good plan, providing that you are able to justify it if it comes to an IA.
I don't see any breach of 3.4 here, however, @flugs made a good point.
You could say, any cop who is on duty and a raid happens when it's just them, they are then breaking 3.4 by this logic.
I may have read this wrong, so apologise in advance if I have.

 

[joey]

Rather than a thread complaining about this - even though it may be very valid - it would be more beneficial for you to make an AR on the officers involved.

If cops decided to Bonzai their asses into a shootout they can be whacked for a fair few rule breaks but it's very dependent. Police officers are always to comply with 3.4, however, sometimes to uphold the law is beneficial enough to justify risky actions.

 

[Kurze]

Rather than a thread complaining about this - even though it may be very valid - it would be more beneficial for you to make an AR on the officers involved.

If cops decided to Bonzai their asses into a shootout they can be whacked for a fair few rule breaks but it's very dependent. Police officers are always to comply with 3.4, however, sometimes to uphold the law is beneficial enough to justify risky actions.

I think you dont fully grasp the point. I was merely asking and trying to understand how it would not be 3.4.

 

[ΙεΙίος1]

Realistically they should have waited for backup instead of driving towards their death (even if 1 of the officers apparently clutched the shootout). If 3.4 was enforced like this though it could also be argued that you can't defend your property in most situations if you are basing alone against a large amount of raiders or cops in general.
The rule isn't that strict though, in order to make the gamemode more enjoyable. Not saying that it would be awful if 3.4 was that realistic tho, just would be difficult to suddenly make this type of change.
Just my opinion.

 

[Henry]

With that logic as soon as I go on duty it's 3.4.

it's 3.4 to drive a bloody car on the highway at this point!