- Messages
- 2,274
- Reaction score
- 887
- Points
- 955
Suggestion Topic: 3.4 Putting your Life at Risk
Suggestion Description: Police using lethal force is an issue and it should be distinguished from a criminal gun pointing and shooting to how criminals use lethal force and enforce 3.4.
Any actions taken by a player that may put their In-Character life, freedom from imprisonment or general well being at risk must be done so in a realistic fashion and for beneficial reasons.
The effect of 3.4 aims to portray the reaction of individuals when faced with gunpoint or a lethal threat by an officer and a criminal and to view the difference and showcase it so that both parties afford a realistic scenario and a realistic outcome.
This rule is specifically relevant to the violation of any In-Character law, meaning that murders, thefts, etc, are all expected to be conducted realistically;
A few common examples of unreasonable risks includes, but is not limited to:
Running on the highway without a justifiable reason
Loitering around the vicinity of a shootout you are not a part of or being within the line of fire from both intentional and accidental fire. Users must flee the scene of a shootout and wait for police to clear the scene and reopen the area to the public. This applies regardless of you being restrained or not.
Murdering a police officer(s) to avoid yourself or others receiving a minor punishment, such as a small ticket or a minor jail sentence
Loitering around the scene of a crime you committed with the intention of engaging in more combat
To not comply with reasonable orders given under the direct threat of a lethal weapon pointed at you, such as a mugging.
Committing a violent or serious crime, such as murder, theft, arson, etc. whilst knowing that police are in direct eyeshot of the scene you wish to commit the crime at.
After committing a crime, relevant precautions should be taken to avoid arrest or police attention, such as avoiding public places.
Some valid exceptions to flee while at gunpoint from explicitly police include:
While unarmed or while having not prompted lethal force while fleeing.
When in an active vehicle and you drive attempting to flee in a direction where no officers are standing or can be harmed.
You have committed a serious crime but lost possession or holstered your weapon and now only want to escape. (If you give officers any hints or signals that you may use lethal force again they are allowed to open fire OR if you murdered a government employee)
Some valid reasons to kill police officers include:
Risk of a long prison sentence
Preventing the imminent detection of drug production.
Committing a violent crime police would reasonably use lethal force to apprehend you for.
Preventing the imminent detection of a gun in your possession.
Why should this be added?:
- To allow the prevention of guns being confiscated the same way people are already allowed to protect their drugs. It would be ironic to say drugs are worth protecting but a gun is not because both cost thousands and both are an investment that one can be protected however the other is not currently so this would allow the floor to be even.
- To allow criminals and police to have distinguishable differences in how they use lethal force.
- Police would realistically rather apprehend a suspect instead of shoot them if they flee without lethal force being prompted by the officers.
- However a criminal on the other hand would not careless if he committed murder but as it stands now cops can shoot a felon in the back of the head even if his gun is holstered and he attempts to flee.
- This is a clear violation of policy and can classify as excessive negativity because it would be a brutal case of firing shots at someone who was not trying to kill you or any of your colleagues so that would be fixed.
-Civilians now that killed someone and attempted to flee have the reasonable doubt by police to assume they could be innocent but if they instead choose to try or succeed in taking the life of a government employee than they are a confirmed threat and may be shot on sight.
- Far less IA's in the long run to showcase improvement in lethal force usage.
- More tension and creativity in between each chase and a higher level of perception and quick thinking is required to set a higher standard so that they know when and when not shoot.
- Builds coordination, quick thinking, team effort, perception and decision-making abilities.
What negatives could this have?:
- Police will feel more impact from taking a life as they would get a smaller window of opportunity making it harder to decide when and when not to have a gun out however it is easier to balance.
Ex. 3 Officers chasing 1 guy. 2 officers have lethal (gun), one has a non-lethal (tazer).
This builds coordination and team effort instead of everybody pulling guns and gunpointing.
- Criminals will formulate creative ambush spots to use that extra time where they are unarmed and not a threat. As they already do in raids, banks or any scenario given that is allowed right now.
Suggestion Description: Police using lethal force is an issue and it should be distinguished from a criminal gun pointing and shooting to how criminals use lethal force and enforce 3.4.
Any actions taken by a player that may put their In-Character life, freedom from imprisonment or general well being at risk must be done so in a realistic fashion and for beneficial reasons.
The effect of 3.4 aims to portray the reaction of individuals when faced with gunpoint or a lethal threat by an officer and a criminal and to view the difference and showcase it so that both parties afford a realistic scenario and a realistic outcome.
This rule is specifically relevant to the violation of any In-Character law, meaning that murders, thefts, etc, are all expected to be conducted realistically;
A few common examples of unreasonable risks includes, but is not limited to:
Running on the highway without a justifiable reason
Loitering around the vicinity of a shootout you are not a part of or being within the line of fire from both intentional and accidental fire. Users must flee the scene of a shootout and wait for police to clear the scene and reopen the area to the public. This applies regardless of you being restrained or not.
Murdering a police officer(s) to avoid yourself or others receiving a minor punishment, such as a small ticket or a minor jail sentence
Loitering around the scene of a crime you committed with the intention of engaging in more combat
To not comply with reasonable orders given under the direct threat of a lethal weapon pointed at you, such as a mugging.
Committing a violent or serious crime, such as murder, theft, arson, etc. whilst knowing that police are in direct eyeshot of the scene you wish to commit the crime at.
After committing a crime, relevant precautions should be taken to avoid arrest or police attention, such as avoiding public places.
Some valid exceptions to flee while at gunpoint from explicitly police include:
While unarmed or while having not prompted lethal force while fleeing.
When in an active vehicle and you drive attempting to flee in a direction where no officers are standing or can be harmed.
You have committed a serious crime but lost possession or holstered your weapon and now only want to escape. (If you give officers any hints or signals that you may use lethal force again they are allowed to open fire OR if you murdered a government employee)
Some valid reasons to kill police officers include:
Risk of a long prison sentence
Preventing the imminent detection of drug production.
Committing a violent crime police would reasonably use lethal force to apprehend you for.
Preventing the imminent detection of a gun in your possession.
Why should this be added?:
- To allow the prevention of guns being confiscated the same way people are already allowed to protect their drugs. It would be ironic to say drugs are worth protecting but a gun is not because both cost thousands and both are an investment that one can be protected however the other is not currently so this would allow the floor to be even.
- To allow criminals and police to have distinguishable differences in how they use lethal force.
- Police would realistically rather apprehend a suspect instead of shoot them if they flee without lethal force being prompted by the officers.
- However a criminal on the other hand would not careless if he committed murder but as it stands now cops can shoot a felon in the back of the head even if his gun is holstered and he attempts to flee.
- This is a clear violation of policy and can classify as excessive negativity because it would be a brutal case of firing shots at someone who was not trying to kill you or any of your colleagues so that would be fixed.
-Civilians now that killed someone and attempted to flee have the reasonable doubt by police to assume they could be innocent but if they instead choose to try or succeed in taking the life of a government employee than they are a confirmed threat and may be shot on sight.
- Far less IA's in the long run to showcase improvement in lethal force usage.
- More tension and creativity in between each chase and a higher level of perception and quick thinking is required to set a higher standard so that they know when and when not shoot.
- Builds coordination, quick thinking, team effort, perception and decision-making abilities.
What negatives could this have?:
- Police will feel more impact from taking a life as they would get a smaller window of opportunity making it harder to decide when and when not to have a gun out however it is easier to balance.
Ex. 3 Officers chasing 1 guy. 2 officers have lethal (gun), one has a non-lethal (tazer).
This builds coordination and team effort instead of everybody pulling guns and gunpointing.
- Criminals will formulate creative ambush spots to use that extra time where they are unarmed and not a threat. As they already do in raids, banks or any scenario given that is allowed right now.
