Remove law 4.6 Confiscation

[northnortheast]

Is this a new law or a change to a current law: Change

What law do you wish to change/add: Remove law 4.6 Confiscation

Why should this change/addition be made: This law is already covered by server rule 3.17 Confiscation almost verbatim and is therefore redundant; the rules on what items the officer can confiscate and what permission they must have first are described in department policies and the Officer's Handbook and if an officer disobeys those then they are subject to internal punishment.

What is the aim of this change/addition: Remove an obsolete law.

 

[Avid Feminist]

Rules and laws are different things... ???

 

[northnortheast]

Rules and laws are different things... ???

By this merit you may aswell take away laws like

By what merit, exactly? Could you elaborate?

5.3 Identity Theft

Identity theft in-character is not against the rules

10.1 Causing Harrassment, Alarm or Distress

Causing distress in-character is not against the rules

I fear you have misunderstood my suggestion or not read it at all, here is a table to assist:

Law 4.6 Confiscation	Rule 3.17 Confiscation
No weapons or evidence shall be confiscated by Law Enforcement when immediate harm is at risk, such as under gun fire or assailants nearby. Evidence is permitted to be confiscated if the officer is unable to watch over the evidence and leaving it where it is would risk it being tampered with by a member of the public.	Police shall not confiscate any weapons or evidence when there is an immediate risk of harm, unless they are unable to watch over the evidence, and leaving it would risk tampering by the public. Police also must not confiscate when highly outnumbered or are very likely to lose. This extends to Police impounding vehicles.

There is no part in this law that is not already covered by a rule. As stated this law has nothing to do with confiscating weapons without a valid reason and I find it unrealistic that the police would find an officer has committed misconduct by risking their life for a confiscation that was otherwise completely lawful (though I'm not sure that this has actually happened before).

 

[Avid Feminist]

The rule is there to persecute people OOC, the law is there to persecute people IC.
This was all yap so I removed it.
@northnortheast

 

[Avid Feminist]

By what merit, exactly? Could you elaborate?

The merit of no OOC rule breaks should be dealt with IC too.

Causing distress in-character is not against the rules

Harassment is

There is no part in this law that is not already covered by a rule.

OOC rule breaks should be dealt with IC as well, especially for police.

Identity theft in-character is not against the rules

It can be, recently Rafi and some other geezers coppied Jimmy Gerrard's name and outfit and they got in trouble OOC.

 

[northnortheast]

The rule is there to persecute people OOC, the law is there to persecute people IC.

This is just a description of the difference between the server laws and the server rules.

This allows further persecution of officer IC by increasing the Misconduct 03 - Policy to a Gross Misconduct 12 - Criminal Activity.

Why is this necessary? There aren't laws that prevent an officer from breaking rule 3.4 by disobeying gunpoint, for example, would you argue that we have a law for each rule that also applies to police?

If the officer managed to follow every policy in their confiscation of an item (the item in question was seized legally under asset forfeiture after confirming with a supervisor if applicable), but put their life at undue risk by picking it up while surrounded, then surely they should only face out-of-character action, as from the eyes of a police department, the officer has done everything right?

The same thing happens when an officer, for example, doesn't obey gunpoint. The officer is punished administratively via OOC methods.

Confiscating is cringe and should be punished harshly. It's annoying to get the guns back.

Does this not apply to any rule break? How does this being a law help anyone get the guns back? You don't get double the guns back if your refund request is based on both an IA and an Action Request. If anything, it just muddies the waters.

The merit of no OOC rule breaks should be dealt with IC too.

I did not say this. This is a specific case as stated in the suggestion.

Harassment is

I hope that you are aware that the boundaries and definitions for harassment in-character and out-of-character are slightly different.

OOC rule breaks should be dealt with IC as well, especially for police.

Refer to my previous argument, why in this case is it necessary?

 

[mocho]

Rules and laws are separate things, users get punished both through internal affairs / supervisor sits as well as OOC for confiscating when it's not appropriate to; users have been warned and banned over 3.17.

It's like lidally yin and yang you can't have one without the other imo.

 

[Avid Feminist]

This is just a description of the difference between the server laws and the server rules.

Why is this necessary? There aren't laws that prevent an officer from breaking rule 3.4 by disobeying gunpoint, for example, would you argue that we have a law for each rule that also applies to police?

Refer to my previous argument, why in this case is it necessary?

Persecution in character allows for officers to hold themselves to a higher standard. If it is a serious rule break, it also gives time for staff to deal with it.

If the officer managed to follow every policy in their confiscation of an item (the item in question was seized legally under asset forfeiture after confirming with a supervisor if applicable), but put their life at undue risk by picking it up while surrounded, then surely they should only face out-of-character action, as from the eyes of a police department, the officer has done everything right?

The same thing happens when an officer, for example, doesn't obey gunpoint. The officer is punished administratively via OOC methods.

Policies are there so officers do the right thing from the eyes of the police department. They don't care if you pull out a gun to kill some dangerous raiders. That is an issue for staff. But if you pull out a gun and shoot innocent civilians then obviously its an issue. PD only worries about things that affect it similarly with staff. I doubt you could RP a scene whereby a supervisor is giving out and reprimanding an officer simply for being heroic and rescuing himself. HOWEVER, if they shoot hostage takers without any prior negotiation then obviously its a police issue.


Nothing else was of merit to be honest. Laws are there to hold officers to a higher standard, to buy time for staff to deal with incidents or just for RP purposes.

 

[northnortheast]

Policies are there so officers do the right thing from the eyes of the police department. They don't care if you pull out a gun to kill some dangerous raiders. That is an issue for staff. But if you pull out a gun and shoot innocent civilians then obviously its an issue. PD only worries about things that affect it similarly with staff. I doubt you could RP a scene whereby a supervisor is giving out and reprimanding an officer simply for being heroic and rescuing himself. HOWEVER, if they shoot hostage takers without any prior negotiation then obviously its a police issue.

This is actually exactly the point I am making!

If it ever comes down to just Law 4.6, the officer has done everything right policy-wise in making a good and justified confiscation with permission from their superiors. From the PD's perspective, the officer has done everything right in taking an illegal item away from a dangerous scene where it could have potentially been used against them or others, the only difference being that there were criminals/threats nearby. To roleplay this is silly when it could just handled like the out-of-character violation to the game rules that it is.

 

[Avid Feminist]

This is actually exactly the point I am making!

If it ever comes down to just Law 4.6, the officer has done everything right policy-wise in making a good and justified confiscation with permission from their superiors. From the PD's perspective, the officer has done everything right in taking an illegal item away from a dangerous scene where it could have potentially been used against them or others, the only difference being that there were criminals/threats nearby. To roleplay this is silly when it could just handled like the out-of-character violation to the game rules that it is.

Lets say a SWAT team goes in to clear a building with armed suspects. And lets say its a 5 man team and 1 man decides to abandon the rest of them to collect evidence. This officer would then be reprimanded for being a danger to the rest of his team.

 

[Sindarin]

Generally speaking, officers are only punished in the PD by staff for extreme offenses (MRDM on Duty etc)
It should be both a law and a rule to permit both staff and IA to handle it

If it was just a rule, officers could be dumb and do it constantly, and while staff could punish them, their PD records would remain cleaner then they should
If it was just a law, it would make it a bit harder to handle staff wise (although to be fair, the rule preventing violations of the law also covers this), having a rule for it just makes it easier for people to understand