What if he runs

[MalekIsWeird]

Please hear me out fully here:

If the law says:

4.2 Duties of a Law enforcement officer​

Any Law enforcement officer who fails to carry out any of their duties to the best of their ability commits the offence of failing to carry out duties and is liable for punishment. Duties of a Law enforcement officer include but are not limited to acting in the best interests of the city, acting in accordance with the Paralake Police Department Code of Ethics, acting in accordance with any orders given to them by a Law enforcement officer who is senior in rank and acting in the safest way possible.

would it not be considered "unethical" and "not in the best interest of the city," or even as far to go as breaking law 10.1 for officers to resort to deadly force as a primary option whether that be shooting or simply gunpointing somebody who hasn't posed a deadly threat (no gun on back in public area and hasn't shown any deadly threat). I think it is so I'm bringing it up, especially because that player once gun-pointed is to abide by 3.4 or find a way to shoot (given they even did a bad enough crime that they CAN shoot otherwise they MUST surrender at gunpoint). It seems like from my personal experience that far too often do I see officers pull guns on everything instead of utilizing batons or tazers to extend roleplay to get that quick win on the suspect. My problem with this is on the criminal side they can't run if gunpointed by an officer KNOWING that officer is not allowed to shoot them until that suspect poses a deadly threat, nor is that criminal allowed to pull a gun unless they did a crime bad enough to require it paired with the skill required to be able to somehow break sight of the gunpoint. On the flip side the cop can simply gunpoint anybody for anything to easily force them to surrender.

In my opinion it would simply be appropriate for officers to be liable to a punishment if they misuse said firearm to gunpoint anybody who didn't pose a deadly threat as it does obviously cause alarm and distress as well as nullify the purpose of having your tazer or baton when one of your colleagues is just gonna whip out a beretta m9 to force anybody to surrender instantly. Now is it completely valid to say this can already be handled through IA? sure but after all I've witnessed I'd say most people get lazy and most people don't report this type of stuff or they do then 20 other sweater cops come up and do the same thing. I am wondering what people think, maybe I am over reacting but I also feel like there is definitely room for improvement here on our side as PLPD.

 

[Sindarin]

If a suspect has a firearm and flees into a point of cover, or draws their firearm, or performs any other non - compliant actions using said firearm the officer's life is in danger. A firearm being held by a suspect presents a clear and present danger to a officer of the PLPD due to the nature of well... guns kill people... If you are stupid and fail to comply and make aggressive actions, such as running into cover or pulling your gun, you are making yourself a threat to the life of a officer, hence it is justified for you to be shot. This is to cover your point of what if they run.

"In my opinion it would simply be appropriate for officers to be liable to a punishment if they misuse said firearm to gunpoint anybody who didn't pose a deadly threat as it does obviously cause alarm and distress as well as nullify the purpose of having your tazer or baton when one of your colleagues is just gonna whip out a beretta m9 to force anybody to surrender instantly."

I mean, they are... Situations like that clearly violate the PLPD SOP, and as such you are free to submit a IA report for it to be handled, what you are suggesting is already fully in effect, as situations like you described can be classed as Gross Misconduct 10 (Excessive Force) or 11 (Shooting Violation) based on the situation.

Here is the use of force policy for your viewing pleasure, as stated before please submit a IA report on a officer who is in clear violation of it:

 

[Exnem]

If a suspect has a firearm and flees into a point of cover, or draws their firearm, or performs any other non - compliant actions using said firearm the officer's life is in danger. A firearm being held by a suspect presents a clear and present danger to a officer of the PLPD due to the nature of well... guns kill people... If you are stupid and fail to comply and make aggressive actions, such as running into cover or pulling your gun, you are making yourself a threat to the life of a officer, hence it is justified for you to be shot. This is to cover your point of what if they run.

"In my opinion it would simply be appropriate for officers to be liable to a punishment if they misuse said firearm to gunpoint anybody who didn't pose a deadly threat as it does obviously cause alarm and distress as well as nullify the purpose of having your tazer or baton when one of your colleagues is just gonna whip out a beretta m9 to force anybody to surrender instantly."

I mean, they are... Situations like that clearly violate the PLPD SOP, and as such you are free to submit a IA report for it to be handled, what you are suggesting is already fully in effect

Here is the use of force policy for your viewing pleasure, as stated before please submit a IA report on a officer who is in clear violation of it:
View attachment 15382

To add onto this; Suspects who have committed violent crime, are suspected of having committed violent crime or are about to commit a violent crime can be gunpointed.

A driver who has been recklessly driving around the map would fall under law 9.8, which is cause for gunpoint.
Check section 9 of the law, and if the gunpoint does not fall under that section, it is usually not within SOP.
Cars have, can and will be used as weapons, and as such should be treated that way.
There are specific times when and when not to gunpoint a reckless driver.
Minor reckless driving include running stop signs, drifting into opposite lanes, but correcting before fully ending up on the wrong side. Putting the vehicle into a drift in turns, etc.
Major reckless driving include driving over sidewalks, ramming walls, other cars or even hitting pedestrians at low speeds. These types of drivers are usually a danger to the public and should be gunpointed.

A person who is unarmed, but actively punching someone, and in the process of knocking them out is causing serious bodily injury to somebody else, which is grounds for gunpoint. If they fail to cease their actions after orders then you can even open fire on the subject as their continued actions will lead to the imminent death of the victim. Don't turn off your brain and just spam left click, though. In many situations I've seen inexperienced officers end up shooting not just the suspect, but the victim in the crossfire as well. Get a better angle before shooting, and preferrably one with an empty backdrop so that your missed shots don't hit anybody in the background.

 

[Dom (͡o‿O͡)]

Atm with the increase off sweaters, a lot off them are still breaking gun point, there is also many experienced people breaking gun point as well.
At the moment I believe if officers with tasers primarily use them it could put officers in further risk of their life as with the taser u have 1 shot and then u need too reload, simply the taser reach is also not long enough as well. Most of the time using ur gun may be needed

 

[Chase]

Articulation is key... Totality of the circumstances. You better have a reason for the forced used prior to using the force.

 

[Inchs]

If someone is running from under gunpoint, in RP I'm not going to assume they're breaking a rule, I'm going to assume they have a gun and are about to pull it. Personally I wouldn't shoot them as it'd be an easy IA but you bet the second they try anything they're dead

 

[Sneaky]

If someone is running from under gunpoint, in RP I'm not going to assume they're breaking a rule, I'm going to assume they have a gun and are about to pull it. Personally I wouldn't shoot them as it'd be an easy IA but you bet the second they try anything they're dead

IA doesn't actually prosecute that, right? If you don't follow the rules and ruin roleplay that way, because that's litteraly what you're doing, what gives you the right to then run to IA. If i have you under gunpoint and you run away, I'm willing to bed im going to get 360 BHOP'd by you.

 

[A1L]

IA doesn't actually prosecute that, right? If you don't follow the rules and ruin roleplay that way, because that's litteraly what you're doing, what gives you the right to then run to IA. If i have you under gunpoint and you run away, I'm willing to bed im going to get 360 BHOP'd by you.

10.4 Where it transpires through the submitted evidence that a violation of the Server Rules has taken place and the Defendant has relied on that fact in their defence, then it is at the discretion of the Complaint Committee as to whether they choose to exonerate the complaint.

 

[Bnjemann]

The issue arises when a cop gunpoints a player for a mundane reason to begin with. Drawing or even readying a weapon is considered use of force both in real life and within the PLPD. You shouldn’t draw a weapon on a suspect you couldn’t justify having to attack them with said weapon.

However, officers aren’t being punished for this very often. Why? People aren’t making complaints on officers doing this, that’s why. As a long serving member of CC, prior to this being a member of IA, I can probably count on my fingers how many cases of an officer pointing a firearm to apprehend a non violent suspect I’ve seen go through IA. The only regular cases we see are when the officer shoots someone down, not drawing the weapon.

The ONLY real solution is simply to make CC more aware of officers doing this by making IAs and we can resolve this issue by making examples of officers who are using 3.4 to their advantage to avoid having to deal with them fairly.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

I saw everybody's replies and I think they're all good takes.
I totally agree with @Bnej

In my personal opinion I would draw the line of distinction between which gunpoint by cop is deadly and which isn't. Sure the gun can always kill somebody but I don't enjoy having to subscribe to the idea that cops should be treated like criminals in the sense that if they gunpoint oh it's over. Obviously the SOPs say don't do gross misconduct and don't gunpoint without necessary reason. However the rules say if you get gunpointed you must surrender indiscriminately which is ignorant of the common sense behind that a criminal and a cop have differences in their RoE.

I hope to explain my opinion better through an example:
Major reckless driver (Current deadly threat via reckless endangerment), gets chased by police and crashes disabling his vehicle. He exits and is no longer a deadly threat because he has no weapons visible, not on his back; not in his hands and he isn't in his car anymore. Police have multiple people chasing this guy some with tazers some with guns ready to respond lethally. The suspect is gunpointed to surrender but he continues to run. He gets shot in the back, he makes an IA in response and the cop who shot him in the back is exonerated because the complaint committee felt it's ok since rules were broken.

This is where I disagree personally with how things currently are since no matter which side I would be involved in during this interaction I would not be satisfied with the result. I believe that the line of distinction is very important as it plays into a prisoner policy as well as showing more of a distinction between a cop style and a criminal style detainment method which the whole idea behind it is to positively encourage officers to coordinate more to result in more alive suspects being arrested instead of 10-45Ds then a code-4.