Double standards - Confiscating weapons. 3.18 edit.

[Husky]

What rule do you wish to Edit/Add: 3.18 Storages and Trunks

Your version of the rule: While their life is in immediate danger a player must not use their storage boxes/trunks to avoid losing valuable items that the player is currently holding on their person, this is also including the confiscation of firearms or illegal items whilst on duty as an LEO. This includes detaching weapon attachments with the intention of avoiding their loss.

Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited: Currently if an Officer confiscates a firearm it would lead to a simple IA and a slap on the wrist, however if a civilian did this it would lead to a ban and in some cases long term depending on their record of rule breaks. The double standards of current within the PD compared to that of civilians is silly, although covered by IA I believe negatively effecting a player in such a way should be punishable via the rules and not just "3.4".

 

[A1L]

Does Law 4.6 not cover this? And if they break that they can get fucked for 4.1?

"No weapons or evidence shall be confiscated by Law Enforcement when immediate harm is at risk, such as under gun fire or assailants nearby. "

4.1 Follow the Law
Government employees must at all times follow the entirety of the law.

 

[Husky]

Although its covered by it, staff rarely enforce. There should be a clear statement within the rules along side with the law imo, its also slightly more lenient that the criminal version.

 

[A1L]

Yeah very true I guess, however I'd assume a more enforcement of Rule 4.1 than an actual rule change, possibly an edit for that?

 

[Ashur]

Then enforce it

 

[Husky]

@A1L Perhaps, could be better to do both. Staff tend to not enforce anything versus cops

 

[A1L]

@Husky Possibly, although is it really necessary for the edition of the rule when there is already a rule in place, just possibly more has to be enforced since I hardly see it enforced at all. Just I guess needs to be enforced more and more strict since I think sometimes it has happend a lot recently too.

 

[Bnjemann]

Just saying "I thought it was clear when I confiscated but flankers came" usually is how any sit for an early confiscation begins and ends.

 

[Husky]

And then its "Well sorry Husky, although he swiped 4 M82's and an M4 you will have to make an IA!!!"

 

[Collier]

Typically we will still investigate if it was reasonable to assume something like that though @Saint Wylde

 

[Bnjemann]

I personally don't feel as though this rule addition would come under 3.18 since storing something and confiscating something are almost 2 completely different topics. Maybe adding a new section 4 rule regarding police officers could be introduced with this paragraph included in the rule? Either way, its a brilliant suggestion, I just don't think it fits with the rest of rule 3.18 and would be better as its own rule.

 

[Bnjemann]

@Collier Think I've seen 1 person actually punished by staff for confiscations as described in this post, the rest of the punishments I've seen for confiscations were because of flat out illegal confiscations like someones entire trunk being seized for an irrelevant crime.

 

[Adrish]

This seems to be quite a large issue that hasn't been properly addressed, and when addressed we are hit with 'Make an IA complaint.'

Whereas IAs do work and often the report is sustained, it takes a while. As I've heard some IAs stay open for weeks. However, I feel though it's come to a point where when a police officer breaks a rule, we are referred to IA and they rarely receive punishment from staff. For example, an officer could ram into my car at 80mph and kill me, and I'd be told to make an IA instead of an AR where the officer has broken the law thus breaking 4.1 (as well as 3.4).

@Saint Wylde, we could change the name of the Rule to Confiscation, Trunks & Storages if that helps?

Yes, the rule 4.1 exists but it seems to be ignored half the time and essentially the IA are the new staff team for the Police.

I personally feel like the rule 4.1 should be enforced more and that a member of staff is able to look over current IAs (or a staff member in IA) and ensure that if a rule is broken such as 3.4 or 'minge-grabbing' that they are also dealt with by a staff member. Of course this isn't for other minor incidents such as someone being arrested for the wrong reason etc. This is something that needs to be looked into and requires a lot more clarification.

 

[Ashur]

"Yes, the rule 4.1 exists but it seems to be ignored half the time and essentially the IA are the new staff team for the Police. "
Then why is there a need for a new rule?
The rule already exists, if you feel like it isn't enforced then either make a staff complaint on the person(s) not enforcing it, or report people doing it and address rule 4.1, or if it's in an IA, make an complaint on the person who failed to enforce it.

 

[Adrish]

If the staff team have collectively decided to let IA handle these situations, then what is a staff complaint going to do?

 

[Hendricks]

It’s already against the rules, if they aren’t dealing with it then they clearly aren’t doing their job as staff so therefore one should just make a staff complaint if they’re not happy about it

 

[Ashur]

@Adrish as far as I am aware, TinySlayer and Ayjay are probably more than happy to demote staff who aren't doing their jobs correctly and or not enforcing rules.

So because there is a IA it can exempt you from the server rules?

 

[Deleted member 6228]

Just have confiscating weapons take time, you have to put it into a evidence bag after all. If officers are forced to stand still for a minute or two, they'll change their minds about minge confiscating quickly

 

[Adrish]

So because there is a IA it can exempt you from the server rules?

That's the exact issue we are talking about, it happens a lot. People are told to make an IA where people have broken a law, thus broken 4.1

The reason why staff don't enforce it is because that IA have to deal with hit first, as some staff members don't have enough policy knowledge/police knowledge to know that they have gone against policy. However by doing so, it means that some people can break rules as a police officer, and receive no staff punishment.

Do you really want me to make an IA, wait 2 weeks, and then inform a staff member? It should be enforced from the start, and if it was then this rule change doesn't need to happen. But as it does, it shows that the current system of letting IA deal with things doesn't work.

It's not as easy as you think.

 

[Mage]

Then why isn't every accepted IA followed by a warning/ban for 4.1? An accepted IA means they must've broken the law in some way so therefore breaking rule 4.1. Yet this is never the case and hardly enforced, don't lie, IA is a freebie to avoiding punishments sometimes, and it's not like the PD have extra stuff to follow, there are civilian-only rules as well.