Rule Suggestion (3.4 Putting your Life at Risk)

[MalekIsWeird]

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.

 

[Th3rrorist]

-rep
If I understand it correcly you want to change rule in favor for crims
You made in total 3 suggestions to make plpd usless with limited power or wanting to add investigation that would take hour to close 1 criminal case
I don't see a point of changeing rule becouse:

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).

We already have to make last second decision what weapon we need to withdraw so it won't be excessive

This builds coordination and team effort instead of everybody pulling guns and gunpointing.

We already have team and coordination in plpd since otherwise we couldn't catch crims if there is a puirsuite we give eachother info so we can block off and gp suspect its not just gunpoint

- 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.

If they are unarmed why should they get themselves armed and join a shootout that may or may not have thier friend in it (you didn't specify if its org member that sees shootout or murder suspect that see a shootout and want to join)

I don't know why you want to almost get rid off plpd by theese suggestion is it just idea from fivem or to make yourself an easy game after looking at your ban/warn situations but I don't see that people like thoose ideas

If thats not what you ment please explain a bit more and correct me

 

[MalekIsWeird]

We already have to make last second decision what weapon we need to withdraw so it won't be excessive

I didn't say we do not make a last second decision I said it would build upon it, you clearly misunderstood again. I very specifically gave an example and said this "build" upon it. Again

Ex. 3 Officers chasing 1 guy. 2 officers have lethal (gun), one has a non-lethal (tazer).

Policy already states that criminals who are not a lethal threat do not prompt lethal force. Meaning my suggestion is if someone has committed murder (on a civilian not a government employee) but has not pulled one out in hand they are also not a lethal threat. This is nothing new, this is realistic. Your goal as an officer is not to gun point everybody it is to apprehend the suspect.

We already have team and coordination in plpd since otherwise we couldn't catch crims if there is a puirsuite we give eachother info so we can block off and gp suspect its not just gunpoint

Now the suspect gets out and tries to escape on foot unarmed after you and every other officer gun pointed them. There is a level of coordination that is REQUIRED of you as a officer to apprehend a suspect. Instead cops now are too lazy so they use the indifference between gunpoint by an officer and a criminal which makes zero sense because a criminal can shoot you at any given time, a officer can not no matter what because their policy clearly forbids that if you have not prompted deadly force. That is why it BUILDS and not INTRODUCES which is a big difference.

If they are unarmed why should they get themselves armed and join a shootout that may or may not have thier friend in it (you didn't specify if its org member that sees shootout or murder suspect that see a shootout and want to join)

I did not specify because the rule already specifies that any uninvolved party may not enter a shootout if they're not involved.

I don't know why you want to almost get rid off plpd by theese suggestion is it just idea from fivem or to make yourself an easy game after looking at your ban/warn situations but I don't see that people like thoose ideas

I stopped fiveM a while ago and this is rooted from real body cam, research and play time. Staff have seen the improvement and I showcase my expertise in high intensity situations many times and showcase good roleplay as seen clearly in my recent posts. Bans have been at a decline and I only want the better for the community.

If thats not what you ment please explain a bit more and correct me

There ya go

 

[The HitMan]

It's difficult to compare GTA 5 to gmod as they are completely different games. This server is all about being ' fast paced ' so people don't want to conduct investigations as they take far longer depending on the circumstances. As much as you want people to do so it simply won't happen. Interms of the pd people use the ' shoot first, ask questions later ' approach as I've seen plenty of times. New officers don't get any form of training in dealing with certain situations ( pre whitelist it was the same) after the whitelist people got vigorous amount of training when joining and now we have taser training yet nothing Regarding firearms. A rule change won't simply solve the issue, it's a much bigger issue.

 

[Matthew]

this is actually a good suggestion idk why running at gunpoint when its a cop gunpointing you isnt allowed theyre obviously not gonna blast you dead

 

[proctologist]

when i am unarmed and the police know this, and they stick a gun in my face i tell them "what are you gunna do, shoot me?". they never do because they put their guns away because theyll lose their online policeman job if they shot me.

 

[curak]

when i am unarmed and the police know this, and they stick a gun in my face i tell them "what are you gunna do, shoot me?". they never do because they put their guns away because theyll lose their online policeman job if they shot me.

If i have a reason to believe you might have a gun on you and you don't comply under direct gunpoint I will shoot you. Seeing as i already pulled my gun in the first place. I don't pull a gun if you're not a (possible) threat to my life

 

[Maia]

when i am unarmed and the police know this, and they stick a gun in my face i tell them "what are you gunna do, shoot me?". they never do because they put their guns away because theyll lose their online policeman job if they shot me.

If I have my gun out and telling you to put your hands up I will not lower my weapon until you do so. If, for any reason, I feel like there's more threats in the area I will 100% shoot you

 

[Bnjemann]

At the end of the day the decision to shoot is down to the Officer, not some guaranteed safety net of “use of force” and you can’t guarantee that someone pointing a gun at you to Provoke a set response won’t shoot you for not complying with that request. Furthermore police officers aren’t necessarily allowed to point a gun at someone they wouldn’t potentially have to shoot so again, moot point.

- 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.

The reason you’re allowed to shoot cops to defend drugs production has nothing necessarily to do with the value of the drugs, more so the fact that gaining a felony drugs charge realistically would put a massive dent in your ability to ever grow drugs again, effecting your criminal empire significantly. On top of this, the drugs production charges carry far heftier sentences and larger financial losses, including the loss of weapons, planters, seeds, and time you’ve spent grinding for this next profit. The whole point of shooting cops to defend drugs is that if the cops succeed you’re losing more than at least 1 batch essentially, you’ll also become known as a drug supplier to them if they catch you and charge you.

The guns on the other hand are mere tools and allowing people to protect their guns by killing cops would just greenlight the act of carrying a gun openly as a forced PVP event. Drugs do not have this effect, as they are placed entities that are inconvenient to display publicly for this purpose.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

If i have a reason to believe you might have a gun on you and you don't comply under direct gunpoint I will shoot you. Seeing as i already pulled my gun in the first place. I don't pull a gun if you're not a (possible) threat to my life

That's excessive use of force right there and is exactly the problem. Realistically cops don't just shoot anybody EVEN IF THEY CONFIRM that person has a gun. Only until that suspect draws or reaches do they open fire. Meaning the weapon HAS to be unholstered transforming them from a person fleeing and evading into a deadly threat. Not everybody with a gun is a deadly threat that's not how life works and especially not how this game should because honestly with that logic you can really shoot anybody you want. "I know you have a gun and I told you to stop so if you run haha pew pew dead, oh you didn't try to kill me at all? next time don't be like the 99% of other players who illegally transport and forget a pistol on themselves for protection." You understand what I mean? I am not saying this to insult you, but rather to advise you and let you know what's right and realistic as a police officer.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

At the end of the day the decision to shoot is down to the Officer, not some guaranteed safety net of “use of force” and you can’t guarantee that someone pointing a gun at you to Provoke a set response won’t shoot you for not complying with that request.

This is straight up in correct, I'm sorry I just must disagree as this makes zero sense why you would lay the power down upon an officer rather than his policy.

The policy quite literally says that you use lethal force when a deadly threat is present. Someone with a gun holstered is not a deadly threat which is present. It is a fact a officer must follow the policy otherwise cops can just rob people and raid freely. If we did not use that "guaranteed safety net" then we look like criminals, we CANNOT shoot someone who doesn't have a gun in hand or is reaching for one. That person is NOT a threat until he has a gun out.

The worst he can do is punch you or tickle you but he needs a lot of time to unholster before you with your team coordination and setup already have half non-lethal, half-lethal.

Ex. 4 Officers arrive, One radios for half the units on scene to have non-lethal prepared while the rest remain lethal for safety.

You have your guns out first. This is what every officer does realistically and sometimes cops realistically don't even have guns out first and they still clap with all the armor and numbers and backup we got. I think it's fair to say cops aren't criminals so we shouldn't act like them.

The guns on the other hand are mere tools and allowing people to protect their guns by killing cops would just greenlight the act of carrying a gun openly as a forced PVP event. Drugs do not have this effect, as they are placed entities that are inconvenient to display publicly for this purpose.

I feel you on this one and I can actually really see where you're coming from. I certainly believe that guns are not just "tools" because sure we might not mind losing an ak or two but nobody who does not have a lot of money likes to lose his guns just as much as he does not like to lose his drugs. Both if convicted can count as a big hit because on top of the fine you lose a expensive gun you spent thousands on. However it makes sense why killing cops for them is a bad idea. I strongly believe though still that retrieving them safely should be an option.

Ex. Your friend just got spotted by one cop alone with an Ak illegally transporting. The cop attempts to apprehend him and arrest him when your friend doesn't comply and tries to run he gets cuffed. You run over and gun point the officer demanding him to release the cuffs and then grab his service firearm and place it on the ground just far enough for you to enter your vehicle and drive off safely. Nobody got hurt and since there was not an excessive number of cops it would not be a risk of life or unrealistic.

Let me know your take on this though I am sure we can come to understand.

 

[curak]

That's excessive use of force right there and is exactly the problem. Realistically cops don't just shoot anybody EVEN IF THEY CONFIRM that person has a gun. Only until that suspect draws or reaches do they open fire. Meaning the weapon HAS to be unholstered transforming them from a person fleeing and evading into a deadly threat. Not everybody with a gun is a deadly threat that's not how life works and especially not how this game should because honestly with that logic you can really shoot anybody you want. "I know you have a gun and I told you to stop so if you run haha pew pew dead, oh you didn't try to kill me at all? next time don't be like the 99% of other players who illegally transport and forget a pistol on themselves for protection." You understand what I mean? I am not saying this to insult you, but rather to advise you and let you know what's right and realistic as a police officer.

I already mentioned that i only take a gun out if i believe said person is a (possible) threat to my life. If you decide to just fail to comply with orders i shoot, rather then putting my gun away and get shot when i try to cuff that person. It's not because you have a gun and you surrender it will be confiscated. I'm more than happy to let you keep your gun if it was proven you had nothing to do with the situation. It makes no sense that i should put my life at risk because someone doesnt want to follow rule 3.4 and surrender when gped by an officer for a good reason.

check this comp for example. All these people are a possible threat to my life, however failed to comply under direct gunpoint.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

I already mentioned that i only take a gun out if i believe said person is a (possible) threat to my life. If you decide to just fail to comply with orders i shoot, rather then putting my gun away and get shot when i try to cuff that person. It's not because you have a gun and you surrender it will be confiscated. I'm more than happy to let you keep your gun if it was proven you had nothing to do with the situation. It makes no sense that i should put my life at risk because someone doesnt want to follow rule 3.4 and surrender when gped by an officer for a good reason.

check this comp for example. All these people are a possible threat to my life, however failed to comply under direct gunpoint.

Form whatever opinion you wish, regardless the facts are cops are different than criminals and are supposed to apprehend and deescalate. Your tools which are provided to you for that exact purpose are always ready and especially at your rank it is a level very well suited with equipment like a tazer for someone running.

Do not misunderstand, if you are alone then by all means apprehend a suspect with a gun out the whole time but if you are alone that's unfortunate. Cops realistically don't just shoot someone because they feel like he's a deadly threat. No, he has to actually POSE a deadly threat. There's a gigantic difference. If you are alone and a suspect is fleeing it's better to keep your gun trained and still attempt to apprehend them however there is no lawful reason to open fire at them as they turn their back no weapon in hand fleeing (assuming he or she has not harmed an officer) because that empty hand can't kill you until YOU decide to put down your gun and this is extreme bad case scenarios. Most cases you would have a partner and you SHOULD have a partner so that if you do have to apprehend a suspect one has a gun while the other tazes and as I saw in your video a individual ran without any gun in hand at 1:30 for example ran without any guns with his fists high up in the air so you could clearly tell if he draws. Assuming he didn't kill any officers or harm you guys realistically ,which is my belief strongly, there should be no reason to put him down like a dog because he's fleeing and instead you can call for backup, Chase him on foot and taze him.

 

[curak]

Form whatever opinion you wish, regardless the facts are cops are different than criminals and are supposed to apprehend and deescalate. Your tools which are provided to you for that exact purpose are always ready and especially at your rank it is a level very well suited with equipment like a tazer for someone running.

Do not misunderstand, if you are alone then by all means apprehend a suspect with a gun out the whole time but if you are alone that's unfortunate. Cops realistically don't just shoot someone because they feel like he's a deadly threat. No, he has to actually POSE a deadly threat. There's a gigantic difference. If you are alone and a suspect is fleeing it's better to keep your gun trained and still attempt to apprehend them however there is no lawful reason to open fire at them as they turn their back no weapon in hand fleeing (assuming he or she has not harmed an officer) because that empty hand can't kill you until YOU decide to put down your gun and this is extreme bad case scenarios. Most cases you would have a partner and you SHOULD have a partner so that if you do have to apprehend a suspect one has a gun while the other tazes and as I saw in your video a individual ran without any gun in hand at 1:30 for example ran without any guns with his fists high up in the air so you could clearly tell if he draws. Assuming he didn't kill any officers or harm you guys realistically ,which is my belief strongly, there should be no reason to put him down like a dog because he's fleeing and instead you can call for backup, Chase him on foot and taze him.

All i will reply to this: just follow gunpoint lol

 

[Collier]

No, never. A gun is a gun, it can kill you all the same no matter who is holding it.