Ignoring gunpoint from police?

[Tyla Jai]

dear staff

is it 3.4 to run away from gunpoint from a police officer because as a civilian you know its against policy for the police to shoot you for evading in a car, especially when you are no imminent threat to anybody.

therefore IT IS NOT against the rules to run from police under gp

Kind regards
tyla jai

Disclaimer: The following ban did not have ANY impact on me making this thread kind regards

 

[Collier]

If you have reason to believe that the offender you are pointing a gun at is a threat (or was a threat) and their intentions are unclear as well as their motives for running/fleeing, shoot them. Simple as. So yes, it is 3.4 to run off under gunpoint even if it is a Police Officer.

 

[Tyla Jai]

If you have reason to believe that the offender you are pointing a gun at is a threat (or was a threat) and their intentions are unclear as well as their motives for running/fleeing, shoot them. Simple as. So yes, it is 3.4 to run off under gunpoint even if it is a Police Officer.

Hi collier, you cannot shoot somebody because they were a threat, they must be an active imminent threat to engage, furthermore for arguments sake, in this situation you are not a threat but decide to run away regardless, maybe you're wanted for a drug offence, you can surely run from the police under gunpoint because there would be no reason for them to shoot you as you arent a threat.

 

[galactacus_jones]

If you have reason to believe that the offender you are pointing a gun at is a threat (or was a threat) and their intentions are unclear as well as their motives for running/fleeing, shoot them. Simple as. So yes, it is 3.4 to run off under gunpoint even if it is a Police Officer.

that's the wrong kind of logic i'm afraid, you can't reasonably shoot someone because their intentions are unclear in a situation which is inherently non-life threatening. before a firearm is used at all, all factors should be taken into account and a clear motive in some sense should be identified rather than people just being trigger happy

 

[Slayerduck]

the breach of 3.4 in these instances would stem from your breach of 4.1 which would make you culpable in the grander scheme of things i'm afraid

well if you followed the rules, laws and or policies in place then molly could have escaped without being shot meaning it wasnt 3.4

Well, as a matter of fact you're both wrong since there has never been an accepted IA complaint on me regarding the use of force. And trust me i received a LOT of them.

 

[Collier]

Hi collier, you cannot shoot somebody because they were a threat

that's the wrong kind of logic i'm afraid, you can't reasonably shoot someone because their intentions are unclear in a situation which is inherently non-life threatening.

If a murderer or somebody who shot at cops is found after the fact and runs away, it is very likely that they are armed and trying to find cover to pull their own guns and shoot the Officer.

 

[Tyla Jai]

Well, as a matter of fact you're both wrong since there has never been an accepted IA complaint on me regarding the use of force. And trust me i received a LOT of them.

thats the investigators discretion if you shoot people who break 3.4 but doesn't mean your actions aren't in breach of rules, laws and or policies as-well as being completely unrealistic.

 

[galactacus_jones]

If a murderer or somebody who shot at cops is found later and runs away, it is very likely that they are armed and trying to find cover to pull their own guns and shoot the Officer.

still stupid im afraid, you should wait until a firearm is 100% visible before even contemplating the use of a gun.

 

[Tilin]

On the topic of this. I come face to this every day. I don't care a lot about it... It makes my day more fun if people run from gunpoint. It spices up things and usually makes a situation a bit more difficult. The only time I don't like this is in a shootout...........

To cops:
You can shoot a suspect if you believe he's going to be danger to you or others whilst he's running or after he's done running.
If he poses little to no threat, you're not supposed to shoot. Get a taser. Tase them. It's better to break the taser policy and keep them on the ground for longer than to actually shoot them.

Just remember if somebody breaks 3.4 in a situation, you're still supposed to go through the use of force procedures. (I think Hanbook 5f - Use of Force, policy).

 

[Collier]

still stupid im afraid, you should wait until a firearm is 100% visible before even contemplating the use of a gun.

If I think allowing somebody to get behind cover is going to result in injury or death I will shoot them to prevent this from happening.

 

[Tyla Jai]

If a murderer or somebody who shot at cops is found later and runs away, it is very likely that they are armed and trying to find cover to pull their own guns and shoot the Officer.

there is the possibility of being armed absolutely which means you can take precautions e.g. gunpointing but if they then decide to run away and there is no clear indication that they want to shoot you or that they have a gun at all then you cannot just gun them up. In slayerducks video he shot somebody that was visibly unarmed which I feel is inappropriate and also in my scenario i suggested the offender was wanted for a drug offence, not murder, and decided to run away

 

[Slayerduck]

thats the investigators discretion if you shoot people who break 3.4 but doesn't mean your actions aren't in breach of rules, laws and or policies as-well as being completely unrealistic.

Whatever you say, but i just wanted to present you with data based on facts that prove that running away from LEO gunpoint is 3.4. You can say whatever you want regarding discretion or policy's/law but it doesn't change the fact that its 3.4 as you a risking yourself getting shot or/and killed.

 

[Tilin]

Well, as a matter of fact you're both wrong since there has never been an accepted IA complaint on me regarding the use of force. And trust me i received a LOT of them.

We'll get mr. @Shay as the head of internal affairs and part of CC to put it down here.
"If somebody breaks 3.4 and the officers shoots him for no reason, other than to enforce 3.4 IC-ly. Is it still punishable by IA?"

 

[Tyla Jai]

If I think allowing somebody to get behind cover is going to result in injury or death I will shoot them to prevent this from happening.

you're right in saying that provided you have some form of intelligence to suggest they are armed in the first place, but this scenario is about driving off under gp

 

[Slayerduck]

We'll get mr. @Shay as the head of internal affairs and part of CC to put it down here.
"If somebody breaks 3.4 and the officers shoots him for no reason, other than to enforce 3.4 IC-ly. Is it still punishable by IA?"

You're twisting words, saying its by definition 'for no reason' if 3.4 occurs. I don't think any officers shoots 'for no reason'

 

[Tyla Jai]

Whatever you say, but i just wanted to present you with data based on facts that prove that running away from LEO gunpoint is 3.4. You can say whatever you want regarding discretion or policy's/law but it doesn't change the fact that its 3.4 as you a risking yourself getting shot or/and killed.

it cant be 3.4 as the officer would not be permitted to shoot a car just because theyre evading, however im sure it would become 3.4 if they tried to evade whilst they knew the officer is permitted to shoot based on circumstances such as the nature of the crime and potentially having weapons on display

 

[Slayerduck]

it cant be 3.4 as the officer would not be permitted to shoot a car just because theyre evading, however im sure it would become 3.4 if they tried to evade whilst they knew the officer is permitted to shoot based on circumstances such as the nature of the crime and potentially having weapons on display

If they have no good reason to shoot your car then you have no valid reason to evade to begin with and its not worth increasing your ticket/jail sentence for so it would STILL BE 3.4. Contradictions are a bitch ;/

 

[galactacus_jones]

If they have no good reason to shoot your car then you have no valid reason to evade to begin with and its not worth increasing your ticket/jail sentence for so it would STILL BE 3.4. Contradictions are a bitch ;/

what if someone was wanted for physical assault (not deadly) and possession with intent to supply? that comes up to a good 8 years and 9k fine making it well worth evading yet it wouldn't warrant a car being shot up in the event of an evasion

 

[Slayerduck]

what if someone was wanted for physical assault (not deadly) and possession with intent to supply? that comes up to a good 8 years and 9k fine making it well worth evading yet it wouldn't warrant a car being shot up in the event of an evasion

Unless you beat up your wife, brother and some random man in the street then left them all to die to then go to the drug dealer and sell 500 cocaine you shoudn't assume they are going to stack charges. If you're an LEO i'm sure you know the policy's ?

 

[galactacus_jones]

Unless you beat up your wife, brother and some random man in the street then left them all to die to then go to the drug dealer and sell 500 cocaine you shoudn't assume they are going to stack charges. If you're an LEO i'm sure you know the policy's ?

still a very real possibility that they'll give you the maximum sentence for example i very much enjoy giving people large sentences because it upsets them

 

[Illuminathan]

is that always going to be justifiable?

Depends on the situation