Limelight Forums

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:07 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:07 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:05 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah but I enjoy it when the Admins do it; even undercover because they always seem to do it correctly. This, in my opinion was not correct and I don't even think they were trying to do corrupt rp

You'd be correct! We were arresting you for reckless driving and driving an illegal vehicle. Both which are crimes you committed, no corruption here.

I really wouldn't hold me to the point of me "Wrecklessly driving"

You said yourself in your previous post that you were stopping in the middle of the road. Plus the actions prior to the recording starting which I'm happy to comment on when your video is uploaded.

Edit: Was typing prior to Rockets posting.

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:09 AM)Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]Alright bois,

If anyone think this is a violation of the rules or FailRP make it into a player report.

If not, keep on topic of the page's discussion and let's not make it into an arguement.

This is on topic; ForceGhost wanted more context to be give. Behold - More context!

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:13 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:09 AM)Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]Alright bois,

If anyone think this is a violation of the rules or FailRP make it into a player report.

If not, keep on topic of the page's discussion and let's not make it into an arguement.

This is on topic; ForceGhost wanted more context to be give. Behold - More context!

Yeah, I'm happy to carry on discussing it as it's what the threads about..

I also can't find exactly what's off-topic. We're discussing about the OP of the thread..

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:14 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:13 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:09 AM)Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]Alright bois,

If anyone think this is a violation of the rules or FailRP make it into a player report.

If not, keep on topic of the page's discussion and let's not make it into an arguement.

This is on topic; ForceGhost wanted more context to be give. Behold - More context!

Yeah, I'm happy to carry on discussing it as it's what the threads about..

I also can't find exactly what's off-topic. We're discussing about the OP of the thread..

Well I have uploaded the video...

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:17 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]Well I have uploaded the video...

Personally, to me that counts as reckless driving.

Quote:(a) Any person who drives any vehicle carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard for the rights or safety of persons or property, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of reckless driving.

The collision with the barrier would be damage to public property and the swerve at the last minute without and indication leading to the a vehicle rear ending you would be disregard to safety of persons. I was wrong about you ramming the SWAT Van, it must have been another trabant but on those counts as well as the vehicle law at the time I honestly felt the arrest was justified.

However! I agree that the vehicle law is "Corrupt RP" as there's no RP behind it or any reason for it, same with the arrest for 15 because the President decided to "Pick a random number"

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:19 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:17 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]Well I have uploaded the video...

Personally, to me that counts as reckless driving.

Quote:(a) Any person who drives any vehicle carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard for the rights or safety of persons or property, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of reckless driving.

The collision with the barrier would be damage to public property and the swerve at the last minute without and indication leading to the a vehicle rear ending you would be disregard to safety of persons.

Yeah and something for the POLICE to deal with not swats with scars

You can also see that my FOV is glitched because I can't go into third person so I can't really see the road properly

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:20 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:19 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:17 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]Well I have uploaded the video...

Personally, to me that counts as reckless driving.

Quote:(a) Any person who drives any vehicle carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard for the rights or safety of persons or property, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of reckless driving.

The collision with the barrier would be damage to public property and the swerve at the last minute without and indication leading to the a vehicle rear ending you would be disregard to safety of persons.

Yeah and something for the POLICE to deal with not swats with scars

You can also see that my FOV is glitched because I can't go into third person so I can't really see the road properly

As SWAT we're still sworn LEOs. We stopped you as soon as could as we were already at the scene and immediately called for an officer to deal with you. It was purely because you has crossed our path at the previous crime scene and we were free to deal with you. If there had been an officer near-by we would have let them deal with it but them being tied up we simply took control of the situation until an officer was available.

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:22 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:20 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:19 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:17 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]Well I have uploaded the video...

Personally, to me that counts as reckless driving.

Quote:(a) Any person who drives any vehicle carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard for the rights or safety of persons or property, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of reckless driving.

The collision with the barrier would be damage to public property and the swerve at the last minute without and indication leading to the a vehicle rear ending you would be disregard to safety of persons.

Yeah and something for the POLICE to deal with not swats with scars

You can also see that my FOV is glitched because I can't go into third person so I can't really see the road properly

As SWAT we're still sworn LEOs. We stopped you as soon as could as we were already at the scene and immediately called for an officer to deal with you.

An officer didn't deal with me:
You dealt with the whole situation
You even decided my punishment of 15 minutes for stopping once in the road
A trabant wouldn't even cause that much damage to a barrier; did it cause damage to the car? - No, then it didn't cause damage to the barrier

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:23 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:22 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:20 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:19 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:17 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]Well I have uploaded the video...

Personally, to me that counts as reckless driving.

Quote:(a) Any person who drives any vehicle carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard for the rights or safety of persons or property, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of reckless driving.

The collision with the barrier would be damage to public property and the swerve at the last minute without and indication leading to the a vehicle rear ending you would be disregard to safety of persons.

Yeah and something for the POLICE to deal with not swats with scars

You can also see that my FOV is glitched because I can't go into third person so I can't really see the road properly

As SWAT we're still sworn LEOs. We stopped you as soon as could as we were already at the scene and immediately called for an officer to deal with you.

An officer didn't deal with me:
You dealt with the whole situation
You even decided my punishment of 15 minutes for stopping once in the road
A trabant wouldn't even cause that much damage to a barrier; did it cause damage to the car? - No, then it didn't cause damage to the barrier

Hmmm..




That's two officers dealing with you. Don't forget a lockdown was active at the time hence our presence on the streets assisting local law enforcement.



In regards to the trabant causing damage, it doesn't matter. Your driving caused you to mount the curb which in my view, counts as reckless driving.

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:27 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:23 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:22 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:20 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:19 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, to me that counts as reckless driving.


The collision with the barrier would be damage to public property and the swerve at the last minute without and indication leading to the a vehicle rear ending you would be disregard to safety of persons.

Yeah and something for the POLICE to deal with not swats with scars

You can also see that my FOV is glitched because I can't go into third person so I can't really see the road properly

As SWAT we're still sworn LEOs. We stopped you as soon as could as we were already at the scene and immediately called for an officer to deal with you.

An officer didn't deal with me:
You dealt with the whole situation
You even decided my punishment of 15 minutes for stopping once in the road
A trabant wouldn't even cause that much damage to a barrier; did it cause damage to the car? - No, then it didn't cause damage to the barrier

Hmmm..




That's two officers dealing with you. Don't forget a lockdown was active at the time hence our presence on the streets assisting local law enforcement.

Wow you are pretty good at taking things out of context:
UNO: Respond to all the points I make 
DOS: Please watch the whole video as it clearly shows you mainly dealing with the situation; you called for back up after you detained us 
TRES: You literally decided the punishment....

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:29 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]Wow you are pretty good at taking things out of context:
UNO: Respond to all the points I make 
DOS: Please watch the whole video as it clearly shows you mainly dealing with the situation; you called for back up after you detained us 
TRES: You literally decided the punishment....

UNO: Check the previous post. Added the last one.
DOS: I did mainly deal with the situation as a lot of officers were tied up and unaware of the situation.
TRES: I was ordered to pick a number by the President.

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:31 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:29 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]Wow you are pretty good at taking things out of context:
UNO: Respond to all the points I make 
DOS: Please watch the whole video as it clearly shows you mainly dealing with the situation; you called for back up after you detained us 
TRES: You literally decided the punishment....

UNO: Check the previous post. Added the last one.
DOS: I did mainly deal with the situation as a lot of officers were tied up and unaware of the situation.
TRES: I was ordered to pick a number by the President.

Ooooh you're catching on to me there:
You're not an officer; you deal with people that are heavily armed:
Were we armed? - No
Did we bump a railing? - Yes
Was the aggressive force needed - No
Did you lie about us "Hitting your SWAT Van" - Yes
Were you needed to deal with us? - NO

Alright end of discussion:
Lets see what other people think of this now

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:33 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:31 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:29 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]Wow you are pretty good at taking things out of context:
UNO: Respond to all the points I make 
DOS: Please watch the whole video as it clearly shows you mainly dealing with the situation; you called for back up after you detained us 
TRES: You literally decided the punishment....

UNO: Check the previous post. Added the last one.
DOS: I did mainly deal with the situation as a lot of officers were tied up and unaware of the situation.
TRES: I was ordered to pick a number by the President.

Ooooh you're catching on to me there:
You're not an officer; you deal with people that are heavily armed:
Were we armed? - No
Did we bump a railing? - Yes
Was the aggressive force needed - No
Did you lie about us "Hitting your SWAT Van" - Yes
Were you needed to deal with us? - NO

Alright end of discussion:
Lets see what other people think of this now

In the event of a lockdown we can deal with whatever necessary to ensure that the public is safe and the city keeps order. Because of a situation ongoing at the initial time of the stop, our location in relation to where you were and the large group of you we conducted the stop.

Yes, you bumped the railing, mounted the curb and caused a vehicle to rear end you by slamming on your brakes. 

As soon as we established you weren't armed we treated you in a calm and reasonable manner.

I was mistaken, I thought you did hit the SWAT van but it turns out you didn't. My arrest reason was "Reckless driving".

Due to the lockdown and available resources at the time we were needed to deal with you. See answer 1.

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:38 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:33 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:31 AM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 7, 2017, 12:29 AM)Quest Wrote: [ -> ]Wow you are pretty good at taking things out of context:
UNO: Respond to all the points I make 
DOS: Please watch the whole video as it clearly shows you mainly dealing with the situation; you called for back up after you detained us 
TRES: You literally decided the punishment....

UNO: Check the previous post. Added the last one.
DOS: I did mainly deal with the situation as a lot of officers were tied up and unaware of the situation.
TRES: I was ordered to pick a number by the President.

Ooooh you're catching on to me there:
You're not an officer; you deal with people that are heavily armed:
Were we armed? - No
Did we bump a railing? - Yes
Was the aggressive force needed - No
Did you lie about us "Hitting your SWAT Van" - Yes
Were you needed to deal with us? - NO

Alright end of discussion:
Lets see what other people think of this now

In the event of a lockdown we can deal with whatever necessary to ensure that the public is safe and the city keeps order. Because of a situation ongoing at the initial time of the stop, our location in relation to where you were and the large group of you we conducted the stop.

Yes, you bumped the railing, mounted the curb and caused a vehicle to rear end you by slamming on your brakes. 

As soon as we established you weren't armed we treated you in a calm and reasonable manner.

I was mistaken, I thought you did hit the SWAT van but it turns out you didn't. My arrest reason was "Reckless driving".

Due to the lockdown and available resources at the time we were needed to deal with you. See answer 1.

How would people in trabants afford weapons? I feel like you're just saying a bunch of what essentially is made up on the spot in order to cover up what you actually did and your purpose for doing it.

Like I said end of discussion, lets see what other people want to say.

(Oct 6, 2017, 11:59 PM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

The issue lies with the President (Leon) who made the laws, it's not up to us to check if he's got dictator RP permission. If you wasn't sure he had dictator RP permission then you could have made an .

Personally I don’t find it dictatory (I know that’s not a word). The trabant is a broken down vehicle that can only just work, the tires are lopsided, the lights barely work. It’s a danger to the public, why not ban them?