Limelight Forums

(Aug 29, 2017, 12:10 AM)Wesley Lawrence Wrote: [ -> ]A long situation told short, I was given a weapons (w) blacklist for the duration of 3 hours.
The reason: excessively using lethal force towards a vehicle and the driver of the vehicle without the vehicle posing any threat to myself, other officers, our vehicles or civilians in the area. (Rule 12.12/12.12b).

I feel like this is not accurate as the bus/van is seen to drive into our vehicles and ForceGhost at the beginning of the incident, and the driver of the bus showing disobedience towards the commands I was handing out to him during the situation.

Whether or not he had come to a stop, the facts that he had run into our vehicles, into another LEO, and was still behind the wheel, the suspect was still a threat until he complied and exited the vehicle. Thus when he decided to press on the gas pedal and try to accelerate forward, he became an active threat.

12.12 - You cannot kill unarmed people or those who no longer pose a threat (injured, unconscious, handcuffed, etc). 

[font=Lato, sans-serif]12.12b - You can shoot at fleeing vehicles only if the drivers are armed and dangerous or if they are clearly a threat to citizen/officers with the way they are driving. 

[/font]The driver, while not listening to commands didn't pose a threat at that time regardless of what happened prior. He was at a halt.

The vehicle/bus was not fleeing nor was it even moving.

A lot of police departments around the world are at a point of being instructed to shoot to end such a threat in situations relating to vehicles running into crowds of people, or police as that suspect is now such a potential risk, they cannot take the chance the attacker(s) either continue to drive into people, detonate some kind of explosive or attempt to get out and attack people in other ways.

While a beanbag shotgun was in fact used in this case, showing a lack of intent to kill, the death of the suspect was in no way intentional or malicious. In no way could I or anyone else have predicted that it would cause the body to fly backwards, above the back of the bus, and slam 3 meters behind the bus killing the suspect almost instantly.

You are comparing everything in this situation with real-life. Wesley, what would a bean bag do to a vehicle in real life? Would it force the person out? If it doesn't pose a threat to them I do not think so. Because that happens in-game. Your intention to use the LTL was to get him out and you are saying that he wouldn't have died in real-life however he wouldn't be forced out in real life also.

I've seen LTL's break windows, I've seen some, up close do even more damage. If you were in a position to be threatened by the bus even doing a slight nudge, what would the LTL do in real life? Keep in mind that you aimed upwards because the bus was higher and I do believe you are not supposed to shoot above the chest especially the head area.


This is my second blacklist on my history, but really the only one that I am not agreeing with and wish to have removed from said history as I have completed the three hours I was initially punished for but still feel like the force that was applied due to the game's engine/ragdoll physics was not the correct force a bean bag round should do.

Therefore, on the counts of:
- Never having such a situation happen before; Thus requires more patience and observation.
- The bus driver basically dramatically exploding out of his vehicle (which is not the effect a bean bag round should do) and that being something I could not have prevented; The LTL in real life should not even force him out if we are talking about real life mechanics.
- Me knowingly and willingly changing to less-lethal to (TRY and) prevent the death of the driver but due to the game’s engine, this didn’t go as planned; LTL but not Non-Lethal.
- The removal of damage the bean bag round on vehicles in one of the recent fixes; I do not agree with, and do not support. If the damage is to be removed the ejecting should also be removed.
- My intention not being usage of lethal but enforcing a less-lethal action at the bus driver; LTL but not non-lethal and even up close Beanbag is as dangerous as a normal round and considering you were close enough to be threatend by a nudge you shouldn't have used it.
- The vehicle being a danger to myself, other officers, civilians in the area and our vehicles both in the beginning and during the incident and accelerating that threat by pressing down on the gas pedal; You were assuming that the vehicle was a threat and shot when it did a nudge, you weren't sure if it was going to move at all. 
- My unawareness to the (ineffective) spike strip being deployed in between the bus and the van; Don't Police have to be always in contact and aware of their surroundings and if you aren't then this is not factor that would matter in this UBL.
- My unawareness of the bus driver lagging (as that was mentioned later after the blacklist was issued) as I would’ve been more lenient towards his disobedience;
This wasn't taken into consideration just was used as a slight insight and if the bus driver should be given a FearRP breakage along with NLR.

I’d like to formally request for the blacklist to be removed from my history.

Evidence:

Less-Lethal: Bean-Bag Rounds - Article - POLICE Magazine

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://m.policemag.com/article/60/punching-bags Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://m.policemag.com/article/60/punching-bags Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://m.policemag.com/article/60/punching-bags
“The 12-gauge bean bag round offers law enforcement an effective and efficient alternative to deadly force.”

Through my research I learnt that an upclose shot with a bean bag can count as dangerous as a normal one.

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_bag_round Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_bag_round Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_bag_round

Internet might be able to give some more insight on why the fix was pushed the same day I was given a blacklist. From what I assume is that it was pushed because the force that the bean bag round did to the person I shot was not accurate as to what it would do in a real world application of the round and thus, I could not have known the round was going to have such an impact on him.

After only having discharged one round, I did not shoot again because of the impact it had due to (probably) the game’s engine/ragdoll physics and thus I feel like this was not the effect the bean bag round had, but the effect the game’s engine/ragdoll physics had.

The fix I do not agree with, and I still do not support. If you are saying that the impact is caused by the game engine's or ragdoll physics then I do believe the person being ejected from the bus in the first place is an oversight.
If the beanbag poses no danger to a person in a bus and resulted in you using it, why should it eject the person? If the person is ejected doesn't that mean it works similar to how it works when the person is not in a vehicle? Wouldn't that mean if still shot up close, the bean bag would pose lethal threat?

The blacklist was issued after the player report being thoroughly investigated and researched. I've requested views on it from  and have afterwards confirmed it various staff members. 

And if we are to draw IRL comparisons and articles, here please go through this as well;

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://mic.com/articles/123410/nonlethal-weapons-are-much-more-lethal-than-police-want-you-to-think#.Gygzhui1Q Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://mic.com/articles/123410/nonletha....Gygzhui1Q

(Aug 29, 2017, 01:12 AM)Bambo Wrote: [ -> ]12.12 - You cannot kill unarmed people or those who no longer pose a threat (injured, unconscious, handcuffed, etc). 

[font=Lato, sans-serif]12.12b - You can shoot at fleeing vehicles only if the drivers are armed and dangerous or if they are clearly a threat to citizen/officers with the way they are driving. 

[/font]The driver, while not listening to commands didn't pose a threat at that time regardless of what happened prior. He was at a halt.

The vehicle/bus was not fleeing nor was it even moving.

Keep in mind that the one bean bag round that I fired was not the thing that killed the bus driver, the game's engine did. I only fired one bean bag round at someone that was disobedient towards direct orders I was giving him AFTER coming to a halt. He then willingly and knowingly decided to press down on the gas pedal at which it was an attempt at fleeing. The driver of the bus was a threat to civilians and officers by the way they were driving and I am not going to wait 5 minutes to actually see it ramming into more vehicles just to attempt and get the vehicle to a stop at that point. We had it stopped and it decided to try and get away.

You are comparing everything in this situation with real-life. Wesley, what would a bean bag do to a vehicle in real life? Would it force the person out? If it doesn't pose a threat to them I do not think so. Because that happens in-game. Your intention to use the LTL was to get him out and you are saying that he wouldn't have died in real-life however he wouldn't be forced out in real life also.

It would certainly force a person out of such a situation if they are threatened by it. Sadly enough because the bus driver didn't give any response, I couldn't see whether or not it had any effect on him, so I decided to discharge a shot at him.

I've seen LTL's break windows, I've seen some, up close do even more damage. If you were in a position to be threatened by the bus even doing a slight nudge, what would the LTL do in real life? Keep in mind that you aimed upwards because the bus was higher and I do believe you are not supposed to shoot above the chest especially the head area.

I aimed upwards but did not aim at his head. I am aware as to where I have to aim in terms of applying different types of force on a person. You also keep mentioning this bean bag round doing so much damage to someone on a closer range but these videos of a local SWAT team and one of an American LEO might convince you different:

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://youtu.be/7_uYY59KZOU?t=14s Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://youtu.be/7_uYY59KZOU?t=14s Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://youtu.be/7_uYY59KZOU?t=14s

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://youtu.be/zutfi0oQYmg?t=1m20s Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://youtu.be/zutfi0oQYmg?t=1m20s Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://youtu.be/zutfi0oQYmg?t=1m20s


Thus requires more patience and observation.

You don't have enough time for more patience and observation during a split second situation though, Bambo.

The LTL in real life should not even force him out if we are talking about real life mechanics.

I am sure there are moments where a LTL round was shot at a person, forcing him out of the vehicle he was in.

LTL but not Non-Lethal.

Non-lethal in this case would have been my ram, but no way was I going to get closer to the bus than I already was to try and strike this guy out of his vehicle. I can already imagine what would have happened when I would move in and the guy would start accelerating.

I do not agree with, and do not support. If the damage is to be removed the ejecting should also be removed.

Personal opinions about a certain fix being pushed through should not be able to deter whether or not a situation was a honest mistake, whether or not the engine did cause the death and whether or not the punished player should get a second chance though.

LTL but not non-lethal and even up close Beanbag is as dangerous as a normal round and considering you were close enough to be threatend by a nudge you shouldn't have used it.

I wasn't 'just threatened by a nudge'. I was threatened by a vehicle that had rammed a few of our vehicles beforehand and decided to accelerate a bit more after already coming to a complete halt with me shouting multiple commands at him regarding not to do so.

You were assuming that the vehicle was a threat and shot when it did a nudge, you weren't sure if it was going to move at all. 

I wasn't just assuming the vehicle was a threat, the vehicle had been a threat and became a threat again. I was sure that if I were just going to stand there and stare at it, that it'd start moving again as I didn't hear the spike strip be properly deployed.

Don't Police have to be always in contact and aware of their surroundings and if you aren't then this is not factor that would matter in this UBL.

I had contact and awareness about my surroundings when I first entered the situation. Once you're in such situation, you rely on other officers. As I didn't have contact with officers nearby me, ForceGhost was focussed on the detained suspect and I was focussed on the driver, the time between that and the person accelerating was too fast to be able to look around me to try and dash away. Nor was I going to dash away if I could because the driver would continue to drive into vehicles and possibly citizens or fellow officers again.

This wasn't taken into consideration just was used as a slight insight and if the bus driver should be given a FearRP breakage along with NLR.

That is not the issue right now. The issue is that he did disobey commands and that it could have been caused by his lag. Again, if I had been aware of this during the situation, I would have been way more lenient in my response to him getting ready to hit the road again. But, I wasn't made aware.

Through my research I learnt that an upclose shot with a bean bag can count as dangerous as a normal one.

But it isn't though. If you want to do research, we can discuss this properly together. But as aforementioned videos show, bean bag rounds are often effective in taking down (dangerous) suspects and only cause immense pain when applying them to said suspects. Yes, things go wrong but things could've gone a lot more wrong had I used a lethal option.

The fix I do not agree with, and I still do not support. If you are saying that the impact is caused by the game engine's or ragdoll physics then I do believe the person being ejected from the bus in the first place is an oversight.
If the beanbag poses no danger to a person in a bus and resulted in you using it, why should it eject the person? If the person is ejected doesn't that mean it works similar to how it works when the person is not in a vehicle? Wouldn't that mean if still shot up close, the bean bag would pose lethal threat?

Exactly, I don't need the person to be ejected from their vehicles nor did I ever say I wanted them to be ejected. But he was ejected and that's what got him killed. I am just saying that the fix made it impossible for someone to be wounded due to a situation like this and that I should get laid off for being involved in such a situation now that it has been solved.

The blacklist was issued after the player report being thoroughly investigated and researched. I've requested views on it from  and have afterwards confirmed it various staff members. 

I know that, and I don't completely question that aside from some of the facts you used to describe the 'excessive usage of lethal force'. Again, the driver died because of a different influence than my bean bag round and I do not believe the output of force I gave that day was the reason to his death entirely.

And if we are to draw IRL comparisons and articles, here please go through this as well;

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://mic.com/articles/123410/nonlethal-weapons-are-much-more-lethal-than-police-want-you-to-think#.Gygzhui1Q Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://mic.com/articles/123410/nonletha....Gygzhui1Q

Not that it isn't about the same category of weaponary, but keep in mind that article is mostly about tasers. We're talking about a single bean bag round here, which shouldn't have given the bus driver more than a LOT of pain and a BIG bruise. Also, that article states that the majority of bean bag rounds used has a positive outcome. Either way, the outcome would have been better rather than had I used my Glock instead. Keep in mind that most bean bag rounds are only about 40 grams.

Quote:Dangers[edit]
A bean bag round can severely injure or kill in a wide variety of ways. They have caused around one death a year since their introduction in the U.S.[2] A round can hit the chest, break the ribs and send the broken ribs into the heart. A shot to the head can break the nose, crush the larynx or even break the neck or skull of the subject. This is why many officers are taught to aim for the extremities when using a bean bag round. A strike in the abdominal area can cause internal bleeding or strike the solar plexus which can disrupt breathing or heartbeat, but such a hit is generally safer than most other areas as well as presenting a larger target than an extremity. Fatalities are occasionally the result of mistaking other shotgun rounds for bean bags.[2]

In 2013, in Park Forest, Illinois, an autopsy showed that a 95-year-old man had died from hemoperitoneum as a result of being shot by police with a bean bag gun.

Quote:David Klinger, senior research scientist for The Police Foundation in Washington, D.C. who is an expert on police decision-making and the use of deadly force, said that officers are trained to fire the beanbag rounds at some distance, rather than being up close, and to aim at the extremities.
Typically, we don't want officers to fire the beanbag shotgun rounds in close proximity, but there's always, like anything else, extenuating circumstances," Klinger said.

(Aug 29, 2017, 02:49 AM)Enzyme Wrote: [ -> ]Situation summed up:

Bus was stuck on a van. The bus managed to move with the help of the van under it, and the fact that there was a driver in the van. As the driver of the van stepped out of the vehicle, the bus was unable to move. The bus was stuck and it was caught in a tough position where it wasn't able to move. You shot the instant the engine revved up, even though the bus did not pose a direct threat towards you nor anyone else on the scene.

Again, for those that were not on-scene, I cannot understand how they are able to make statements regarding whether or not the bus was a threat. It had ForceGhost attempting to stop it, which failed, at least myself and I bet a bunch of other officer behind me being in front of the bus, and ForceGhost now attempting the detaining of a suspect next to the vehicle. It is not my fault the driver of the bus decided to rev the engine, or more precisely, press the gas pedal and show intent to leave. Whether it nudged, drove, flew away or teleported, it tried to get away with a bunch of officers around it giving him multiple commands NOT to do so.

The issue in this situation is that you decided to shoot the driver of the bus even though it was stuck, even though it was unable to move and even though it didn't move on the ground. it made a slight nudge-movement against the van it was stuck on top of but it did not move.

And it still decided to move. I had not encountered such a situation before and had I waited for the bus to actually move and gain it's momentum, I and an X amount of officers would have probably been severely injured or dead by now. There was no way to move towards it and we weren't going to let it drive off and crash into god know what either.

If we are to continue drawing IRL comparisons with a bean bag shell:

Quote:Dangers[edit]
A bean bag round can severely injure or kill in a wide variety of ways. They have caused around one death a year since their introduction in the U.S.[2] A round can hit the chest, break the ribs and send the broken ribs into the heart. A shot to the head can break the nose, crush the larynx or even break the neck or skull of the subject. This is why many officers are taught to aim for the extremities when using a bean bag round. A strike in the abdominal area can cause internal bleeding or strike the solar plexus which can disrupt breathing or heartbeat, but such a hit is generally safer than most other areas as well as presenting a larger target than an extremity. Fatalities are occasionally the result of mistaking other shotgun rounds for bean bags.[2]

In 2013, in Park Forest, Illinois, an autopsy showed that a 95-year-old man had died from hemoperitoneum as a result of being shot by police with a bean bag gun.

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_bag_round Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_bag_round

Quote:David Klinger, senior research scientist for The Police Foundation in Washington, D.C. who is an expert on police decision-making and the use of deadly force, said that officers are trained to fire the beanbag rounds at some distance, rather than being up close, and to aim at the extremities.
Typically, we don't want officers to fire the beanbag shotgun rounds in close proximity, but there's always, like anything else, extenuating circumstances," Klinger said.

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/03/local/me-nonlethal3 Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/03...nonlethal3

Another case where the dangers of bean bags are brought up:

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/11/experts_say_tactical_choice_of.html Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde...ce_of.html

We can bicker back and forth about the real life dangers of a bean bag rounds, and they are dangerous. It's a projectile shot out a firearm meant to hurt and incapacitate, not by penetrating a body and causing internal wounds but rather to spread all the kinetic energy on the surface of the target. Anyone with any slight understanding of firearms can understand the risks that come from using a less-than-lethal firearm such as a beanbag round. 

And, as being someone that understands the risks, I decided to move over to a less-lethal weapon instead of grabbing my Glock and spraying my magazine empty at the bus driver. I felt like the force of one or two bean bag rounds would have been plenty to deal with someone not complying to get out of his bus. But, like I said, after seeing the effect of one bean bag round, I did not shoot again. I moved in, with caution, and handcuffed the suspect that sadly enough died. We keep drifting off from the fact that it wasn't initially the bean bag that had killed him rather than the world's physics and that I am being blamed of that as well though.

The issue in this situation is that you discharged your firearm at someone who didn't pose as a direct threat towards you nor anyone else on the scene. The bus was immobilized, and it was not positioned in such a way that it could hurt people unless people actively chose to position themselves in front of the bus. Spike-strips were deployed and the situation was under control. The bus was stuck and was unable to move as the driver attempted to accelerate. The bus-driver was unable to move the bus, and you decided to shoot after only being on scene and talking to the driver for a few seconds.

As said before and shown in the video the bus had ran into several of our vehicles. This makes him a threat. He had been immobilized because the driver of the van stepped out. I did not know at that split-second decision that this would mean it would not move anymore entirely. A spike strip was deployed, but no sound was emitted in regards to tires deflating, thus, I was unaware of this being deployed until later and so I was unaware the bus was not going to move any further. I heard the person accelerate after multiple commands that had been clearly given to the bus driver (for a few seconds or not, it's a split-second decision as it regards a dangerous vehicle and the driver of the vehicle being in an unknown mental state) and decided that was threatening towards myself, other officers, civilians and our vehicles.

Again, as I said on TS:

We were able to observe the scene from all angles due to one of our tools that allow us to see incidents that have already occurred on our servers. The decision was not made solely from the video from the PR.

If that is the case, you would have seen my POV and the fast decision I had to make. It was one projectile fired and after seeing the effect, I wouldn't have to think twice to not fire another round. You'd see how I approach the suspect, succesfully handcuff him and how he dies before the paramedic, that is basically right by my side, is unable to revive him before he passes away. This is an obvious effect because of the physics by him flying out of the bus and smacking onto the concrete and not the effect that my round caused him to have. But instead, I don't think you have the proper tools to see what I saw and what other officers saw during that incident, I do not think you have the proper tools to make good judgement on what we had to do to stop the situation and I do not think I should have been given a blacklist for something that could have been prevented with the fix Internet pushed through the same day.

(Aug 29, 2017, 02:35 AM)Wesley Lawrence Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 29, 2017, 01:12 AM)Bambo Wrote: [ -> ][/b][/color]But it isn't though. If you want to do research, we can discuss this properly together. But as aforementioned videos show, bean bag rounds are often effective in taking down (dangerous) suspects and only cause immense pain when applying them to said suspects. Yes, things go wrong but things could've gone a lot more wrong had I used a lethal option.

[color=#ff3333][b]The fix I do not agree with, and I still do not support. If you are saying that the impact is caused by the game engine's or ragdoll physics then I do believe the person being ejected from the bus in the first place is an oversight.
If the beanbag poses no danger to a person in a bus and resulted in you using it, why should it eject the person? If the person is ejected doesn't that mean it works similar to how it works when the person is not in a vehicle? Wouldn't that mean if still shot up close, the bean bag would pose lethal threat?

that the beanbag shotgun was creating ragdolls for people in vehicles, but still allowing people to drive vehicles around.


This was not an intended feature of the beanbag. As can attest to, the beanbag was only meant to work on people outside of vehicles, due to its status as a "ranged taser". At the time, I implemented a stop-gap measure, to eject people from vehicles when they have a ragdoll created. This was only intended to be a temporary fix.

I'll say again. This was not intentional behaviour for the beanbag. Unintentional behaviour, sprouting for the cackhanded way the gamemode deals with damage caused this, with various internal factors delaying an upload of the fix.

The fix was already ready to go, prior to this occurring. This case just reminded me to upload said fix.

(Aug 29, 2017, 10:51 AM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ]Since I've been tagged.

(Aug 29, 2017, 02:35 AM)Wesley Lawrence Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 29, 2017, 01:12 AM)Bambo Wrote: [ -> ][/b][/color]But it isn't though. If you want to do research, we can discuss this properly together. But as aforementioned videos show, bean bag rounds are often effective in taking down (dangerous) suspects and only cause immense pain when applying them to said suspects. Yes, things go wrong but things could've gone a lot more wrong had I used a lethal option.

[b]The fix I do not agree with, and I still do not support. If you are saying that the impact is caused by the game engine's or ragdoll physics then I do believe the person being ejected from the bus in the first place is an oversight.
If the beanbag poses no danger to a person in a bus and resulted in you using it, why should it eject the person? If the person is ejected doesn't that mean it works similar to how it works when the person is not in a vehicle? Wouldn't that mean if still shot up close, the bean bag would pose lethal threat?

The fix was meant to be uploaded about a week prior. I was informed by that the beanbag shotgun was creating ragdolls for people in vehicles, but still allowing people to drive vehicles around.


This was not an intended feature of the beanbag. As can attest to, the beanbag was only meant to work on people outside of vehicles, due to its status as a "ranged taser". At the time, I implemented a stop-gap measure, to eject people from vehicles when they have a ragdoll created. This was only intended to be a temporary fix.

I'll say again. This was not intentional behaviour for the beanbag. Unintentional behaviour, sprouting for the cackhanded way the gamemode deals with damage caused this, with various internal factors delaying an upload of the fix.

The fix was already ready to go, prior to this occurring. This case just reminded me to upload said fix.

Quote:You don't have enough time for more patience and observation during a split second situation though, Bambo.

(Aug 29, 2017, 11:29 AM)Bambo Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 29, 2017, 10:51 AM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ]Since I've been tagged.

(Aug 29, 2017, 02:35 AM)Wesley Lawrence Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 29, 2017, 01:12 AM)Bambo Wrote: [ -> ][/b][/color]But it isn't though. If you want to do research, we can discuss this properly together. But as aforementioned videos show, bean bag rounds are often effective in taking down (dangerous) suspects and only cause immense pain when applying them to said suspects. Yes, things go wrong but things could've gone a lot more wrong had I used a lethal option.

The fix I do not agree with, and I still do not support. If you are saying that the impact is caused by the game engine's or ragdoll physics then I do believe the person being ejected from the bus in the first place is an oversight.
If the beanbag poses no danger to a person in a bus and resulted in you using it, why should it eject the person? If the person is ejected doesn't that mean it works similar to how it works when the person is not in a vehicle? Wouldn't that mean if still shot up close, the bean bag would pose lethal threat?

The fix was meant to be uploaded about a week prior. I was informed by that the beanbag shotgun was creating ragdolls for people in vehicles, but still allowing people to drive vehicles around.


This was not an intended feature of the beanbag. As can attest to, the beanbag was only meant to work on people outside of vehicles, due to its status as a "ranged taser". At the time, I implemented a stop-gap measure, to eject people from vehicles when they have a ragdoll created. This was only intended to be a temporary fix.

I'll say again. This was not intentional behaviour for the beanbag. Unintentional behaviour, sprouting for the cackhanded way the gamemode deals with damage caused this, with various internal factors delaying an upload of the fix.

The fix was already ready to go, prior to this occurring. This case just reminded me to upload said fix.

Doctor Internet, from what I've understood, the ejecting and the damaging was not intended correct? Affirm. Damage and Ejection should have been removed by a patch the week prior. I'd ended up having a driving lesson which went rather poorly, so I ended up forgetting about it, until this event reminded me. So if Wesley decided to use the Beanbag as a means to eject that should be fixed and if the player was damaged in the vehicle, that is already fixed. So the fix been rolled out would not factor in the removal of this blacklist as both what was intended and what happened was not planned to be a feature? Meaning the usage of the beanbag was in that way at that time and changes that happen after should not be a factor at all in this UBL. If the fix had been rolled out already, this would not be an issue. However, at the time, despite being unintentional behaviour, that was the behaviour of the beanbag shotgun at the time, therefore it should not factor into the UBL, in my opinion.

As well as it being used to eject people, players were also getting damaged by it when in vehicles and they've written it in OOC. Something that rarely occurred incident but known by most. I do not know if this was fixed prior or after but I am aware it was a problem at one point.
[/b]

(Aug 29, 2017, 11:29 AM)Bambo Wrote: [ -> ]Doctor Internet, from what I've understood, the ejecting and the damaging was not intended correct? So if Wesley decided to use the Beanbag as a means to eject that should be fixed and if the player was damaged in the vehicle, that is already fixed. So the fix been rolled out would not factor in the removal of this blacklist as both what was intended and what happened was not planned to be a feature? Meaning the usage of the beanbag was in that way at that time and changes that happen after should not be a factor at all in this UBL.
 
I didn't decide to use the bean bag round as means to eject the person. I was using the less-lethal options to somehow scare him off enough to stop and get out of his bus on his own. I did not have an idea that the bus driver was going to explode backwards and hit the concrete like that. And even then, a fix was supposed to be pushed through a week prior to that. It wasn't however and thus created this situation. I do think it accounts for in the possible removal of my recent blacklist item.
 
As well as it being used to eject people, players were also getting damaged by it when in vehicles and they've written it in OOC. Something that rarely occurred incident but known by most. I do not know if this was fixed prior or after but I am aware it was a problem at one point.
 
Which would have been tolerable. If they were getting small hits being inside a vehicle but weren't ejected out, that would have been the perfect application of it as it might manually get a driver to exit his vehicle. I know they can mostly penetrate thin panels of glass but the way he ejected and slammed onto the concrete is not something I could have prevented. Plus, the whole excessive part shouldn't apply to me as I immediately stopped firing after seeing the damage it does. That's what you usually do, if it incapacitates them and halts them in any actions they are doing, stop firing. (obviously).

Last note, as you said you had enough time to warn the driver countless of times and had the same amount of time to move away from the front of the vehicle, take other precautions, spike-strip, vehicle block and so on. You've said that you study to become a law enforcement officer, but even I know that shooting any kind of weaponry be it non-lethal, less-than-lethal or lethal IS a last resort.
 
And as the bus driver was given multiple commands, just as in real life during a BTGV (or felony stop, or dangerous situation however you want to call it), it was a last resort because he evidently did not want to listen. Or as later was proven: wasn't able to listen due to his lag.
 
You said, and I quote;
 

Quote:You don't have enough time for more patience and observation during a split second situation though, Bambo.

 
However given that you've stated that you've given commands to the driver multiple times which would be beyond a split second situation and allow you to observe and find ways to immobilize the vehicle even more with the tools you had access to.
 
If that split second situation is referred to the nudge the vehicle had while in a position that it was highly possible that it couldn't move due to it's state, can you decide if a person is a threat in that split second and possibly do something that could potentially end in a bad way?
 
Potentially end in a bad way, Bambo. If I had let the bus driver go on with accelerating and it would have gained momentum or move more than it was going to, it could have potentially ended in a bad way too. Again, we come back to the split-second decision where you either have to figure out if you, your officers and civilians are at risk or if you, your officers and civilians aren't at risk. And I decided they were. I am sure many other players would have taken the same choice taken the circumstances.
 

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Shoot-or-Not-To-Shoot-How-Police-Make-The-Split-Second-Decision-400635271.html Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Shoo...35271.html Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Shoot-or-Not-To-Shoot-How-Police-Make-The-Split-Second-Decision-400635271.html
 
[url=https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Shoot-or-Not-To-Shoot-How-Police-Make-The-Split-Second-Decision-400635271.html][/url]
 
That is an article that gives some insight on what split-second decisions can be as I don't think you completely understand the concept behind them. They're usually based on a totality of circumstances and seeing the circumstances that have risen during this incident, I had all the right to discharge my firearm the second he continue to disobey the orders given to him and started to try and make his way out of that scene.
 
You are probably going to say that it wasn't meant to kill and that it was meant to be used as a ram in a way but from Doctor Internet's post, the damage the beanbag had as well as the ejection was not an intended feature thus both of them are not factoring in this. The main case here is you discharging your weapon through assumptions. Assumptions that the vehicle revving up the engine without the driver of the van was still a threat without observing. Observing might not happen in a split second but if you had multiple chances to give commands to the driver, you had multiple chances to observe.
 
I had multiple chances to observe when I first got onto the scene. I observed how a bus/van was ramming into our vehicles. I observed how it hit ForceGhost after he stepped out of his vehicle to try to verbally make it to stop. I observed how it got to a stop and under gunpoint of me (and probably a few others), I observed how the driver pressed down the pedal. Nothing was done out of 'plain assumptions' as you two are trying to put it, everything was done as what happened prior and what was about to happen if I hadn't pulled the trigger once. You do not have time to observe during split-second decisions and that split-second went live as soon as he started pressing down the gas pedal. Not when I was still trying to talk him out of the bus. Most officers would have made the same choice.
 
The bean bag round was also not supposed to work as a... ''ram in a way'', it was supposed to work as a deterrent for the bus driver and his idea to start driving again.
 
"Any suspicious action and you will be shot.'' is what I kept in mind. It is a line (out of many) we practised during BTGV. He made a suspicious action and was shot. Not fatally, but in an unconscious and injured state. It is not my fault the game's engine decided to throw him out of that bus and smack him onto the concrete.

I obviously know the effects of that on lethal weaponary (being the normal M3 or my Glock I usually carry) but I expected differently from a less-lethal shotgun.
 
Not only that, but if the staff team will start handing out blacklists everytime THEY think we discharged based on an assumption, there will be a long list of weapon's blacklists after mine and I certainly don't want to see that happening.
 
What I want in this UBLR is for the staff team (not just you and Enzyme) to take a look at the situation and to deter whether or not one bean bag round was suffient and whether or not it's fair to keep this on my history even though I had no idea the bean bag round was going to act the way it acted. It's only because of the damage the suspect gained through the game's engine that this got out of hand so much. It's not because I figured one less-lethal round at someone that was still a threat and was actively continuing to be a threat was justified, which, in my opinion it was.

(Aug 29, 2017, 05:19 PM)Wesley Lawrence Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 29, 2017, 11:29 AM)Bambo Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't decide to use the bean bag round as means to eject the person. I was using the less-lethal options to somehow scare him off enough to stop and get out of his bus on his own. I did not have an idea that the bus driver was going to explode backwards and hit the concrete like that. And even then, a fix was supposed to be pushed through a week prior to that. It wasn't however and thus created this situation. I do think it accounts for in the possible removal of my recent blacklist item.

The fix does not account for the removal as the system was existent during the blacklist. If we follow that mindset every player that was blacklisted for a rule that has changed or removed should have that blacklist removed. You used the force when the system 'bug' was in place and hence the results. Was the bug totally not known? Was players not aware that it damages and also ejects players? I highly doubt that as there are suggestions to stop it as well as multiple OOC comments.
 
Which would have been tolerable. If they were getting small hits being inside a vehicle but weren't ejected out, that would have been the perfect application of it as it might manually get a driver to exit his vehicle. I know they can mostly penetrate thin panels of glass but the way he ejected and slammed onto the concrete is not something I could have prevented. Plus, the whole excessive part shouldn't apply to me as I immediately stopped firing after seeing the damage it does. That's what you usually do, if it incapacitates them and halts them in any actions they are doing, stop firing. (obviously).

If you know they can penetrate it why use it that up close?

And as the bus driver was given multiple commands, just as in real life during a BTGV (or felony stop, or dangerous situation however you want to call it), it was a last resort because he evidently did not want to listen. Or as later was proven: wasn't able to listen due to his lag.

He might be lagging, he might not be listening but if the person was not a threat, it didn't require such force. You had many choices to further make sure the vehicle was immobilized but those were not done.
 
You said, and I quote;
 

Quote:You don't have enough time for more patience and observation during a split second situation though, Bambo.

 
However given that you've stated that you've given commands to the driver multiple times which would be beyond a split second situation and allow you to observe and find ways to immobilize the vehicle even more with the tools you had access to.
 
Potentially end in a bad way, Bambo. If I had let the bus driver go on with accelerating and it would have gained momentum or move more than it was going to, it could have potentially ended in a bad way too. Again, we come back to the split-second decision where you either have to figure out if you, your officers and civilians are at risk or if you, your officers and civilians aren't at risk. And I decided they were. I am sure many other players would have taken the same choice taken the circumstances.

That is not certain at all though due you acting from a nudge we weren't able to see the threat the vehicle would have posed.
It's not would've but of a could've 

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Shoot-or-Not-To-Shoot-How-Police-Make-The-Split-Second-Decision-400635271.html Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Shoo...35271.html Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Shoot-or-Not-To-Shoot-How-Police-Make-The-Split-Second-Decision-400635271.html
 
 
That is an article that gives some insight on what split-second decisions can be as I don't think you completely understand the concept behind them. They're usually based on a totality of circumstances and seeing the circumstances that have risen during this incident, I had all the right to discharge my firearm the second he continue to disobey the orders given to him and started to try and make his way out of that scene.

One question, if the vehicle did ram through vehicles why did you stand in front of it that up close without taking other precautions?
 
I had multiple chances to observe when I first got onto the scene. I observed how a bus/van was ramming into our vehicles. I observed how it hit ForceGhost after he stepped out of his vehicle to try to verbally make it to stop. I observed how it got to a stop and under gunpoint of me (and probably a few others), I observed how the driver pressed down the pedal. Nothing was done out of 'plain assumptions' as you two are trying to put it, everything was done as what happened prior and what was about to happen if I hadn't pulled the trigger once. You do not have time to observe during split-second decisions and that split-second went live as soon as he started pressing down the gas pedal. Not when I was still trying to talk him out of the bus. Most officers would have made the same choice.
 
The bean bag round was also not supposed to work as a... ''ram in a way'', it was supposed to work as a deterrent for the bus driver and his idea to start driving again.
 
"Any suspicious action and you will be shot.'' is what I kept in mind. It is a line (out of many) we practised during BTGV. He made a suspicious action and was shot. Not fatally, but in an unconscious and injured state. It is not my fault the game's engine decided to throw him out of that bus and smack him onto the concrete.

You have experience with Garry's Mod and the server for quite a while, the vehicle was in such a bugged state that it wasn't certain if it was going to move, it wasn't certain if the driver left the car he'd die, it wasn't certain what would happen. But you used a weapon that is known to eject players at an immense force as a 'deterrent' for him to not move. There were actions that you could have taken that would have ended in a much more secure way but you chose to shoot at a glitched vehicle's driver and the result is not the game's fault but yours.

I obviously know the effects of that on lethal weaponary (being the normal M3 or my Glock I usually carry) but I expected differently from a less-lethal shotgun.

As I said countless of times, less-than-lethal shotgun is still lethal.

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/03/local/me-nonlethal3 Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/03...nonlethal3
 
Not only that, but if the staff team will start handing out blacklists everytime THEY think we discharged based on an assumption, there will be a long list of weapon's blacklists after mine and I certainly don't want to see that happening.

It's not everytime, it was this time because you shot at a vehicle that did NOT pose visual threat to warrant a shot from any kind of weaponary. You assumed that the bus would move and that assumption was one of the causes of the blacklist.
 
What I want in this UBLR is for the staff team (not just you and Enzyme) to take a look at the situation and to deter whether or not one bean bag round was suffient and whether or not it's fair to keep this on my history even though I had no idea the bean bag round was going to act the way it acted. It's only because of the damage the suspect gained through the game's engine that this got out of hand so much. It's not because I figured one less-lethal round at someone that was still a threat and was actively continuing to be a threat was justified, which, in my opinion it was.

Quote:Non-lethal in this case would have been my ram, but no way was I going to get closer to the bus than I already was to try and strike this guy out of his vehicle. I can already imagine what would have happened when I would move in and the guy would start accelerating. 

Quote:The fix does not account for the removal as the system was existent during the blacklist. If we follow that mindset every player that was blacklisted for a rule that has changed or removed should have that blacklist removed. You used the force when the system 'bug' was in place and hence the results. Was the bug totally not known? Was players not aware that it damages and also ejects players? I highly doubt that as there are suggestions to stop it as well as multiple OOC comments.

Quote:If you know they can penetrate it why use it that up close?

Quote:He might be lagging, he might not be listening but if the person was not a threat, it didn't require such force. You had many choices to further make sure the vehicle was immobilized but those were not done.

Quote:However given that you've stated that you've given commands to the driver multiple times which would be beyond a split second situation and allow you to observe and find ways to immobilize the vehicle even more with the tools you had access to.

Quote:That is not certain at all though due you acting from a nudge we weren't able to see the threat the vehicle would have posed.
It's not would've but of a could've.

Quote:One question, if the vehicle did ram through vehicles why did you stand in front of it that up close without taking other precautions?

Quote:You have experience with Garry's Mod and the server for quite a while, the vehicle was in such a bugged state that it wasn't certain if it was going to move, it wasn't certain if the driver left the car he'd die, it wasn't certain what would happen. But you used a weapon that is known to eject players at an immense force as a 'deterrent' for him to not move. There were actions that you could have taken that would have ended in a much more secure way but you chose to shoot at a glitched vehicle's driver and the result is not the game's fault but yours.

Quote:It's not everytime, it was this time because you shot at a vehicle that did NOT pose visual threat to warrant a shot from any kind of weaponary. You assumed that the bus would move and that assumption was one of the causes of the blacklist.

Quote:But you felt threatened by a nudge, wouldn't that mean you were already close enough?

Quote:I have requested everyone in the staff team to voice their opinions and have considered them and am close to reach a conclusion.
Please add anything you'd want to add before this is concluded.