Rule Suggestion (3.4 Putting your Life at Risk)

[Ary]

Suggestion Topic: 3.4 Putting your Life at Risk
Suggestion Description: I suggest adding onto the Rule and specify that any given command from the police under gunpoint should be treated as any other gunpoint situation.

In my special brain 3.4 didn't automatically mean that i have to comply with police orders under gunpoint if i'm unarmed.

The logic behind it is that in RP, citizens trust that the Police force won't shoot unarmed civilians even after doing crimes such as speeding or have a warrant out for something non-lethal. Even if it were lethal, i am unarmed and so i assume i can try to run away from the cops, even at GP.

I had to receive a warning / talk to moderators before understanding that GP is GP, no matter who is behind the gun.
It does break my immersion quiet a bit, but rules are rules.

So my suggestion is to please complete the rules with adding one more line to it, specifying that when Police GP you, they are not exempt from the rules and whoever denies commands under GP from Police will be punished for 3.4

Why should this be added?:
3.4 being more specific and saving time in 3.4 cases regarding incompliance with GP from Police.

What negatives could this have?:
none

 

[Acerius]

A lethal weapon doesn't become a balloon animal just because it's being held by a police officer as opposed to a civilian.

If we were to capture every single specific scenario down to its finer details in the rules it would become too onerous, as well as prescriptive. You just need to think a little bit - phrases like "such as" within the rules show that it is merely an example and not an exhaustive list.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

Contrary to popular opinion I completely get where you're coming from. For example, People who play FiveM or other dark rp servers would be so used to serious RP having a difference between cop GP or crim GP in terms of valuing life since the cop will not actually pose a lethal threat unless you give them a reason to shoot so some rule makers allow you to flee using that to your advantage.

Obviously, here it's different. People saying it's common sense clearly don't come from the same environment as others and or are not willing to comprehend that someone can easily mistake the 3.4 rule as including the aforementioned distinguished restrictions in terms of who is gunpointing.

That said, clearly the community doesn't want this to be made an example to explain to the new players who come from such communities so this addition sadly most likely won't be added despite it, in my opinion, being only beneficial to clarifying what you said about "GP is GP."

 

[Ary]

Contrary to popular opinion I completely get where you're coming from. For example, People who play FiveM or other dark rp servers would be so used to serious RP having a difference between cop GP or crim GP in terms of valuing life since the cop will not actually pose a lethal threat unless you give them a reason to shoot so some rule makers allow you to flee using that to your advantage.

Obviously, here it's different. People saying it's common sense clearly don't come from the same environment as others and or are not willing to comprehend that someone can easily mistake the 3.4 rule as including the aforementioned distinguished restrictions in terms of who is gunpointing.

That said, clearly the community doesn't want this to be made an example to explain to the new players who come from such communities so this addition sadly most likely won't be added despite it, in my opinion, being only beneficial to clarifying what you said about "GP is GP."

Thanks for getting my perspective. I personally don't care so much. I cared enough to point it out on the forums and management. It will not change a thing in my life if this rule gets changed or not. It might help the management though, thats why i made this thread

 

[oretty]

This community has a really hard time discerning common sense and immense experience in a particular roleplay environment.

Unless you are perceived as an imminent threat to others, police are not going to shoot you in the back as you flee from them in real life. That's common sense.

Having rules that enrich gameplay is fine, but a lot of them seem arbitrary if your 'common sense' is based in reality and not perp.

 

[Ary]

The amount of people downvoting is astonishing as if I were to suggest changing the rules.
All I am suggesting is adding a few words to the rules to expand on the matter.
I sincerely don't understand how this could have any negative impact.

 

[Goonsberg]

The amount of people downvoting is astonishing as if I were to suggest changing the rules.
All I am suggesting is adding a few words to the rules to expand on the matter.
I sincerely don't understand how this could have any negative impact.

Because where does it end?

You are right, your change adds more words to expand the rule, but there is infinite examples we could expand on, when will it end!!!!

 

[Ellie]

So basically, you want to add more words that says that you need to comply with gunpoint from everyone, and not only civilians? or the other way around, I'm genuinely befuddled about your confusion of how 3.4 is formulated.

A deadly weapon is still a deadly weapon and you should do everything in your power to stay alive, and in these cases, complying with orders from someone who points a gun at you is increasing your chances to stay alive.

 

[DnChops]

the rp behind it is that you know that the feds wont shoot you. ingame and in real life. if you run from feds, they are not going to catch a fucking murder charge just because you ran from them. it makes no sense that you cant break 3.4 from feds when you know they will not kill you in game and in real life if you show no sign off being a threat to life. watch some american respond saying "fuck around and find out" like shut the fuck up mate your not killing someone just because they ran from you

 

[money]

The amount of people downvoting is astonishing as if I were to suggest changing the rules.
All I am suggesting is adding a few words to the rules to expand on the matter.
I sincerely don't understand how this could have any negative impact.

Because,

rules assume that every party abides by them. In your original post, you stated 'speeding' and a very broad 'warrant for something non-lethal'. Police should not be pointing guns and shooting at you for strictly speeding or strictly minor crimes - this goes against the rules as they must abide by the use of force law, amongst other things. You should report them.

in this case, more often than not, people evade police instead of pulling over and start driving at high speeds in map's residential or low-speed populated areas, crashing into cars or near-causing crashes, prompting armed threat where possible to stop you, so you don't escape and do it again.

 

[Kieron Patton]

I would say that speeding off for a minor traffic offence and it escalating to gunpoint is fair because in real life police will escalate the chase as the speed and reckless driving is a threat to the lives of other drivers/pedestrians.

Also, police chasing after people over minor offences because they’ve committed a non violent crimes would take up too much time and wouldn’t be very fun for those playing police.

 

[Ary]

Because where does it end?

You are right, your change adds more words to expand the rule, but there is infinite examples we could expand on, when will it end!!!!

To answer your question, who knows?
Meaning that this is not even a rule change, its a clarification.
I joined maybe a month ago and am just getting confident not getting warned every 50 hours.
I would assume you underwent many revisions of the rules for many different reasons.
If this is too little to change by its own, than so be it.
If this is a little issue, than dismiss it.
I personally got confused and personal, because i felt like i understand RP and 3.4
For me it felt like i missed something, for not taking it very literal on "direct threat of a lethal weapon pointed at you".
1. Point: it doesn't say ANY direct threat
2. Point: its followed by example of mugging.
3. Point: weapons are as lethal as the wielders capabilities and intent

So if the intent of a police officer is to investigate, de-escalate and bring justice with as little casualties as possible....
Than i can assume he is not gonna shoot me after I steal 500$ or 500000$ and run away unarmed. Aka not breaking 3.4 in my mind.

I don't suggest changing the rule so I can run away from Police GP. I only suggest expanding and clarifying in a couple of words that Police GP is the same as Civ GP.

For example:
"To not comply with reasonable orders given under any direct threat of a lethal weapon pointed at you, such as a mugging or commands from the police force."

 

[Bnjemann]

A gun is a gun, it fires with mouse 1. When it hits people it hurts and kills them. Guns are not animate objects by any means. They exist to serve only the intentions of those wielding them. A gun won’t say “Hey I’m not gonna shoot this guy, he’s unarmed” as the gun does not possess any decision making skills.

A cop is pointing the weapon at you because it is the last resort before physically taking your life. Whether or not you agree with the circumstances the weapon was pointed at you under being lawful for a cop you should just comply.

Your logic of “this cop won’t shoot me because that’d be illegal” works both ways, and it would be safer to interpret it as “This cop is acting above my perception of the law by pointing his gun at me when I don’t deserve it, I’d better do as they say otherwise they’ll probably kill me” if you want to value your life.

As someone who has been within all parts of the internal affairs process for longer than I’d like to admit, I can tell you with confidence that officers who prove this “Cops cannot shoot the unarmed, and as an unarmed guy, I don’t need to comply because there’s no risk without him getting in trouble” thought process wrong are not punished at all. The Complaints Committee mandate not only allows us to, but actively encourages us to exonerate any and all complaints where the complainant or affected parties whole defense against the cop was their inept ability at following server rules resulting in this action taken.

Anyone who thinks “I didn’t know it was against the rules if a COP points a gun at you and you don’t comply” When the rule specifically states that you must follow reasonable order under gunpoint has intentionally overthought the scenario beyond the simple confines of the rule and applied their own personal exclusion for that scenario when in reality no such exclusion exists within the rule.

 

[Akeno Himejima]

TL;DR, If you wouldn't do it irl, don't do it here.

 

[Efan]

Everything that could be said has already said.