Warning Dispute (Acerius)

[LunkLoafGrumble]

Punishment Type: Warning
Appeal Type: Dispute
Which staff member issued the punishment?: Acerius
How long were you banned/blacklisted for?: Not Applicable

Your Steam Name: LunkLoafGrumble
Your Roleplay Name: Peter Winter
Your SteamID: STEAM_0:1:87827058

Why were you banned/blacklisted?: 3.4, 3.19 - User attempted to elude police over a mistaken belief that their associate was wanted by police when they weren't, however when the user was eventually caught up to they failed to surrender. The user was hit with a baton multiple times whilst running up the stairs but still failed to surrender, which resulted in them being knocked down.

Why should this appeal be considered?: Hey!

Let's start with 3.4:
So i was driving from road crew to intersection. I passed pd when i saw my a friend getting arrest by police, while passing by he gave me the impression he was in need and i let him enter my car and we drove off. After a short chase the car got stuck and we continued on foot. We split up and the officer followed me when i ran up the stairs. Reaching the top the officer hit me for the first time with his baton and did not stop hitting me until i was on the unconscious. For this situation i received the warning 3.4. I feel this is unjustified because the officer stepped out of bound and if he acted like in the guide lines i would have been arrested for a minor charge and let go. For this reason an internal complaint was created and accepted. So in my opinion i did not risk my life because the part where i became unconscious should not have happened.

3.19: The main reasoning was because i was driving in a mini cooper. I don't agree with his because the mini is a very capable due to its small size, its fits where other cars don't. Also, the min cooper is fully upgraded and has a top speed of 45 mph. Here is an example of using its size as an advantage https://streamable.com/02li6h. If this means its not allowed evading police with a mini cooper fully upgraded. It should also be not allowed to try to escape with: Volvo 850R, Ford Crown Victoria, GMC Sierra, Hummer H1, Mini Cooper S 2011, Basically every car under 200K. The stop speed off all those cars are similar or lower than a fully upgraded mini and the cars are bigger and don't fit everywhere. So in my opinion I did have a reasonable chance of escaping because its has been done before with a mini.

Additional Information: Sorry for the late dispute i was waiting for the outcome of the internal complaint.

 

[Ellie]

After a discussion with several staff members we're asking you to provide evidence that shows the individual at the police department reached out to you.

You have 24h, fail to provide any kind of evidence; this dispute will get denied.

 

[any name you wish]

Hi! Generally, it's good practice to be honest and truthful when writing a dispute as failing this tends to hurt your case! That aside let's dive into some of the stuff you neglected to mention for whatever strange reason you'd want to omit these facts. Firstly I'll begin by providing an overview of the situation from my perspective (as I was the one who reported you).

I was on duty patrolling in the PLPD RTU Porche when I spotted yourself driving a Mini Cooper 1965 around the City Hall fountain, pretty strange behaviour from someone allegedly attempting to elude police if you ask me. Given this, I attempted to pull you over as obviously driving around the City Hall fountain is unacceptable and would be considered reckless driving (12.12 Reckless Driving would only leave you liable to 4 years imprisonment, a $3,500 fine and asset forfeiture). Upon the activation of my emergency lights and sirens which I intended for you to perceive as an indication from me instructing you to pull over at the nearest safe location in accordance with the Paralake Penal Code, you failed to stop and instead left the park via the market, doing a U-turn before eventually meeting the road and speeding off towards the city, violating a red light in the process. Here we can see you've further broken several laws from my point of view for no reason at all. You've gone from a 12.12 charge which as indicated above would only be relatively minor to breaching 12.3 & 6.5 increasing your liability to 5 years imprisonment and a $5000 ticket at maximum. I then initiated a pursuit which I am trained to do as a requirement of me holding my role as a road traffic officer and I authorised myself to use tactical contact as I am entitled to do due to me holding the rank of Sergeant within the PLPD. Using these authorisations I attempted to stop you to little success originally and I must admit you escaped my vision for a short while when I asked other units to begin searching for you around the city area.

I made contact with you for a second time, still in the city, which begs the question were you actually intending to escape or were you simply minging about (I have my suspicions as to the answer). I was more successful with stopping you this time using my previous authorisations which allowed me to use tactical contact I used my vehicle to wedge your vehicle against a lamppost meaning you were unable to escape and instead abandoned the vehicle and ran away on foot. You have not broken any further laws here however you have continued with clear intent which would only serve to increase your sentence rather than mitigate any potential punishment.

You, along with your friends, ran up to the top of City Garage where it was likely your intention to abuse the Monorail in order to aid your escape. I would have to check my demo but I believe your friends did in fact board the monorail. It was within the City Garage that I instructed you to stop multiple times which you did not, I did use my baton against you multiple times in an attempt to induce compliance. I determined that taser would've been inappropriate given the number of suspects and your already apparent intent on breaking the law and not facing justice. You moved up to the top of the City Garage where you were stopped briefly but evidently still trying to escape as you were spinning around very quickly and attempted to run away. I hit you with my baton a few more times in order to induce compliance to which you did not respond whatsoever, this caused to be knocked unconscious.

I do agree that this warning is somewhat incorrect as clearly you broke more rules than stated on the warning however lets go ahead and unpack which rules you broke and why now that we have a truthful version of events to go by.

1.4: The very nature of your dishonesty during this appeal and during your interactions with @Acerius when he was handling the report invited a potential breach of rule 1.4. This rule is designed to make the enforcement of rules easier for staff and to punish people who go out of their way to deny the truth and pervert the course of justice.

3.3: Rule 3.3 states "All actions a player makes must be done as realistically as possible". You have blatantly violated this rule through your actions in more than one way, you have shown complete disregard for the normal practices and actions of a person which you should be aiming to emulate whilst roleplaying. You failed to accurately represent the damage that would've been done to your person from the repeated baton strikes, you failed to act realistically with you spinning around, effectively throwing your mouse halfway across Europe in order to aid your unlawful escape.

3.4: You needlessly put your life and freedom at risk for fleeing the police for no reason at all. You blatantly disregarded this rule when you decided to recklessly drive and then evade police in a dangerous manner. Not only did you on multiple occasions fail to properly value your freedom you also failed to properly value your life when you refused to surrender to myself where you clearly had no other suitable alternative. This is one of the most blatant and intentional breaches of 3.4 I think I have ever seen, you act with complete disregard for the experience of other people and the rules of the server. Furthermore, you yourself admit to breaching this rule as specifically mentioned under 3.4 is "Loitering around the scene of a crime you committed with the intention of engaging in more combat" which can also in my opinion be interpreted and applied to this situation here as you broke traffic laws around the scene of your alleged crime of aiding and abetting however I do not for a moment believe you genuinely thought you or your friend were wanted by police and are merely using this as some pathetic excuse when you've quite clearly been caught out here and in the report where you changed your story more than once.

3.6: This rule is similar to 3.4 in that you should aim to stay alive at all times. You violated this rule by failing to inform me of your state and allowing me to instead baton you to a state of unconsciousness from which you did not recover. This rule violation very much ties into the aforementioned breaches as your manner of driving coupled with you failing to play realistically for someone who has sustained your level of injury.

3.15: You drove with complete disregard for the wellbeing of your vehicle for no good reason in your attempt to escape and induced others to cause damage to your vehicle which was in no way beneficial to you.

3.19: Again this rule ties into a lot of the aforementioned as you failed to play realistically and evaded for no reason. (see 3.3 & 3.4)

3.20: Pretty sure you disconnected whilst unconscious as well?

3.22: You violated the red light at the intersection which as per 3.22 must be obeyed except with reasonable excuse. Given you were in a Mini Cooper as we've already established and agreed upon it's clear your vehicle was not in a position to make the crossing fast enough and did potentially cause grave danger to other road users and their vehicles which is exactly what the rule is intended to prevent.

So there we have it, my full account of what happened in this situation. The fact you've waited this long to submit a dispute is also suspicious as it of course should be submitted as soon as reasonable to allow for memories to be fresh and for the best possible evidence to be provided. I didn't provide any evidence to @Acerius at the time other than my statement and I believe he came to his decision on the basis of this as well as the fact you kept changing your story in the report with Acerius. I would be more than happy to be corrected on any facts and will reply to any evidence which you might have and I would be willing to provide my own evidence in order to counter this as you clearly are someone who has a nodding acquaintance with the rules at best only in a leap year.

 

[LunkLoafGrumble]

Hi! Generally, it's good practice to be honest and truthful when writing a dispute as failing this tends to hurt your case! That aside let's dive into some of the stuff you neglected to mention for whatever strange reason you'd want to omit these facts. Firstly I'll begin by providing an overview of the situation from my perspective (as I was the one who reported you).

I was on duty patrolling in the PLPD RTU Porche when I spotted yourself driving a Mini Cooper 1965 around the City Hall fountain, pretty strange behaviour from someone allegedly attempting to elude police if you ask me. Given this, I attempted to pull you over as obviously driving around the City Hall fountain is unacceptable and would be considered reckless driving (12.12 Reckless Driving would only leave you liable to 4 years imprisonment, a $3,500 fine and asset forfeiture). Upon the activation of my emergency lights and sirens which I intended for you to perceive as an indication from me instructing you to pull over at the nearest safe location in accordance with the Paralake Penal Code, you failed to stop and instead left the park via the market, doing a U-turn before eventually meeting the road and speeding off towards the city, violating a red light in the process. Here we can see you've further broken several laws from my point of view for no reason at all. You've gone from a 12.12 charge which as indicated above would only be relatively minor to breaching 12.3 & 6.5 increasing your liability to 5 years imprisonment and a $5000 ticket at maximum. I then initiated a pursuit which I am trained to do as a requirement of me holding my role as a road traffic officer and I authorised myself to use tactical contact as I am entitled to do due to me holding the rank of Sergeant within the PLPD. Using these authorisations I attempted to stop you to little success originally and I must admit you escaped my vision for a short while when I asked other units to begin searching for you around the city area.

I made contact with you for a second time, still in the city, which begs the question were you actually intending to escape or were you simply minging about (I have my suspicions as to the answer). I was more successful with stopping you this time using my previous authorisations which allowed me to use tactical contact I used my vehicle to wedge your vehicle against a lamppost meaning you were unable to escape and instead abandoned the vehicle and ran away on foot. You have not broken any further laws here however you have continued with clear intent which would only serve to increase your sentence rather than mitigate any potential punishment.

You, along with your friends, ran up to the top of City Garage where it was likely your intention to abuse the Monorail in order to aid your escape. I would have to check my demo but I believe your friends did in fact board the monorail. It was within the City Garage that I instructed you to stop multiple times which you did not, I did use my baton against you multiple times in an attempt to induce compliance. I determined that taser would've been inappropriate given the number of suspects and your already apparent intent on breaking the law and not facing justice. You moved up to the top of the City Garage where you were stopped briefly but evidently still trying to escape as you were spinning around very quickly and attempted to run away. I hit you with my baton a few more times in order to induce compliance to which you did not respond whatsoever, this caused to be knocked unconscious.

I do agree that this warning is somewhat incorrect as clearly you broke more rules than stated on the warning however lets go ahead and unpack which rules you broke and why now that we have a truthful version of events to go by.

1.4: The very nature of your dishonesty during this appeal and during your interactions with @Acerius when he was handling the report invited a potential breach of rule 1.4. This rule is designed to make the enforcement of rules easier for staff and to punish people who go out of their way to deny the truth and pervert the course of justice.

3.3: Rule 3.3 states "All actions a player makes must be done as realistically as possible". You have blatantly violated this rule through your actions in more than one way, you have shown complete disregard for the normal practices and actions of a person which you should be aiming to emulate whilst roleplaying. You failed to accurately represent the damage that would've been done to your person from the repeated baton strikes, you failed to act realistically with you spinning around, effectively throwing your mouse halfway across Europe in order to aid your unlawful escape.

3.4: You needlessly put your life and freedom at risk for fleeing the police for no reason at all. You blatantly disregarded this rule when you decided to recklessly drive and then evade police in a dangerous manner. Not only did you on multiple occasions fail to properly value your freedom you also failed to properly value your life when you refused to surrender to myself where you clearly had no other suitable alternative. This is one of the most blatant and intentional breaches of 3.4 I think I have ever seen, you act with complete disregard for the experience of other people and the rules of the server. Furthermore, you yourself admit to breaching this rule as specifically mentioned under 3.4 is "Loitering around the scene of a crime you committed with the intention of engaging in more combat" which can also in my opinion be interpreted and applied to this situation here as you broke traffic laws around the scene of your alleged crime of aiding and abetting however I do not for a moment believe you genuinely thought you or your friend were wanted by police and are merely using this as some pathetic excuse when you've quite clearly been caught out here and in the report where you changed your story more than once.

3.6: This rule is similar to 3.4 in that you should aim to stay alive at all times. You violated this rule by failing to inform me of your state and allowing me to instead baton you to a state of unconsciousness from which you did not recover. This rule violation very much ties into the aforementioned breaches as your manner of driving coupled with you failing to play realistically for someone who has sustained your level of injury.

3.15: You drove with complete disregard for the wellbeing of your vehicle for no good reason in your attempt to escape and induced others to cause damage to your vehicle which was in no way beneficial to you.

3.19: Again this rule ties into a lot of the aforementioned as you failed to play realistically and evaded for no reason. (see 3.3 & 3.4)

3.20: Pretty sure you disconnected whilst unconscious as well?

3.22: You violated the red light at the intersection which as per 3.22 must be obeyed except with reasonable excuse. Given you were in a Mini Cooper as we've already established and agreed upon it's clear your vehicle was not in a position to make the crossing fast enough and did potentially cause grave danger to other road users and their vehicles which is exactly what the rule is intended to prevent.

So there we have it, my full account of what happened in this situation. The fact you've waited this long to submit a dispute is also suspicious as it of course should be submitted as soon as reasonable to allow for memories to be fresh and for the best possible evidence to be provided. I didn't provide any evidence to @Acerius at the time other than my statement and I believe he came to his decision on the basis of this as well as the fact you kept changing your story in the report with Acerius. I would be more than happy to be corrected on any facts and will reply to any evidence which you might have and I would be willing to provide my own evidence in order to counter this as you clearly are someone who has a nodding acquaintance with the rules at best only in a leap year.

Thank you for taking the time to write this. The only reason i waited to write this dispute is, i was waiting for the outcome of the internal complaint. It was closed yesterday and i saw it this morning and decided to write it. I did not mention our first encounter because i did not feel like it was part of the situation where for i received the warning. About changing my story, I think there was some miscommunication in the communication with Acerius in the report. Due to the impression the person gave me at police station I believed my actions were within the rules.

 

[LunkLoafGrumble]

By the person getting into my vehicle and asking to let him in, and seeing him committing 9.1 I felt he was in need.

Watch Evidence | Streamable

Watch "Evidence" on Streamable.

streamable.com

 

[any name you wish]

Thank you for taking the time to write this. The only reason i waited to write this dispute is, i was waiting for the outcome of the internal complaint. It was closed yesterday and i saw it this morning and decided to write it. I did not mention our first encounter because i did not feel like it was part of the situation where for i received the warning. About changing my story, I think there was some miscommunication in the communication with Acerius in the report. Due to the impression the person gave me at police station I believed my actions were within the rules.

The recklessly driving was the whole reason why you were being pulled over in the first place, the fact that you then decide to commit further offences in front of the PD is questionable.

 

[flugs]

Having reviewed the evidence provided, we have decided that your actions were in violation of the rules you were punished for. Perhaps Kay (who punched someone about once or twice) did request that you let him in your car, irrespective, you continuing to evade over such a minor offence was not a reasonable escalation and was, simply put, unnecessary. In this needless pursuit, the odds were stacked quite heavily against your favour given your slow speed versus that of two RTU cars. As to whether this was 3.19 is debatable, but your attempt to evade on foot despite being continuously hit with a nightstick needed no debate and was clearly a helpless escape effort. In addition to this, the fact that you were gravitating towards the monorail makes us question your intentions and I would like to make it very clear that utilising the monorail as a means to escape the police is also against the rules.

To reiterate; you should not attempt to escape the police when doing so is an unnecessary risk to your freedom and/or safety, and/or your chance of escape is slim. You were guilty of both in this situation. Feel free to create a staff complaint on myself and the staff members tagged below if you still disagree with this decision.

Reviewed with @Ellie and @Collier