Limelight Forums

Full Version: UBR | sgt donut
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Your Name: 
ybn greg
Ban ID:
4415
Banned by: Please include the [L²]/[L²:M] tag. And tag their forum account. ()
Soviethooves  
Server: 
v33x
Ban Reason:

PRA (13146) - Excessive Use of Lethal Force | Fearp | Multiple Weapons Blacklists
Why should you be unbanned?: 
I think this ban should be removed because I do not see any breakage of rules. 

I am going to go through the video and point out some timestamps of the video and walk the lad/lass reading this how it went down.
plus i think the title of this video is disrespectful because i am not a minge! vid link:
https://youtu.be/uiNet4t4EjM
0:00-0:15 - The video shows Taco and I posted up in front of the Nexus talking to the officers. 

0:17 - The officer hops into his car and immediately turns on his sirens and begins to pursue the skyline that we were hired to protect. Now this is where it gets a lil sus because if the officer can Id the person in the skyline, then we should be able to Id the person inside the skyline right? The person inside the Skyline hired us to protect him from the police because he was wanted.

0:26 - As you can see the white car also rolls up to the scene as we also had successfully IDed the driver of the skyline to be our employer. And our job was to protect our employer (As he had said in the PR). The PR says that one of us was on foot and the other was in the car. I fail to see the rule breakage here and I do not know why it was brought up but might as well bring it up here.

0:29 - Our employer turns around and we can see his face. The PR says that playermodels are hard to ID but he had a skin/playermodel that was something you don't spawn in with in the server by default (If that kinda made sense). So with that in mind, the pink skyline, and the knowledge of us knowing that he was wanted by the police. SOoo we put one and one together and saw the police take off towards the skyline sirens blaring and lights flashing we knew that the officer was going to try to make an arrest and we interfered. So yes we did positively IDed the man as out employer at that time.

0:29.500 - Very hard to see but slow down the video and you can see Taco pull out his weapon BEFORE being in mic range of the officer. I did not have my weapon out at this time.

0:31 - Taco and I ordering the officers to put down their weapons. Like stated before we had ours weapons out BEFORE we were in mic range of the officer. 

0:34 - Taco fires the first shot into the officer with the white shirt and he goes off screen. You can say that HE fired an unsafe shot but that was him and I have no control over him. This UBR is for me and me only. And I started shooting later on in the video. But in his defense, the officer was in close range and this vid will show the accuracy of a REAL super 90.
Vid link: https://youtu.be/xKn2Pd93msw

0:35 - The officer fires back at Taco. Still I have not fired a single shot. 

0:36 - At this point you can see our employer DUCK and hide behind the police SUV, out of the line of fire and in safety where the white shirted officer and the black shirted officer and both visible for us AND THEN I begin to fire as well at the black shirted officer. 

Also the magnum is a very accurate gun and as a trained gunman I would know when to shoot and how to shoot. The magnum is not a shotgun and does not have a large bullet spread so I think that my shots on the officer were safe.

0:38 - The black shirted officer goes down and the employer emerges from the SUV unschated. 

Final points:
Like I said this UBR is for myself only because I feel that I did not anything to breach the rules

Once the first shot was fired I knew that fearRP was off and it was going to be a gun fight and I pulled out my gun. I had successfully IDed the car as our employer because (read "0:29")

I personally did not risk fire on our employer I only opened fire when our employer was behind the suv

And I think that it is acceptable to shoot the police because if the police are going to drop anything they were doing to go catch the guy the second they see him, I think that a wanted felon that had police on their ass the minute they were in the city would have done something REALLY bad for that to happen, had to hire guards for a reason and would not hesitate to kill police for his own freedom.
Evidence: https://youtu.be/uiNet4t4EjM

FearRP being off when a shot is fired:
[Image: 7353dcf244e8839c8f99a75d3ea18671.png]
The staff-members have received your unban-request, lad.

It will take a while for it to be reviewed.
this is just to get it off my record xd
Not involved, warned.
(May 23, 2018, 03:11 PM)Rogga Wrote: [ -> ]Snip due to removal.

Thanks man!
Aww the +rep unban :C
(May 23, 2018, 06:19 AM)lad Wrote: [ -> ]this is just to get it off my record xd

You broke the rules and got punished for it.

If you just want it off your record, I’m sorry to say that would require the punishment to be under an invalid reason.



At the time of our rules fearp applied if you were ever at a disadvantage in a possible fight (for instamce outgunned and the opposing party already has their weapon out. Or even has a friendly under gunpoint for a hostage situation. This can be argued here as the officers had your employer under gunpoint before your weapons were drawn.


In this situation, not only did the officers (1 at all times) have you and Taco in their sights with their weapkns drawn, but they also had your employer under gunpoint. In this situation, Taco should’ve recognized he was under fearp, along with yourself (and actually you do pull your weapon out before shots are exchanged, so you had no intention to follow fearp yourself).

Can you link the PR?
(May 25, 2018, 12:09 AM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]
(May 23, 2018, 06:19 AM)lad Wrote: [ -> ]this is just to get it off my record xd

You broke the rules and got punished for it.

If you just want it off your record, I’m sorry to say that would require the punishment to be under an invalid reason.
That's why I'm making a request


At the time of our rules fearp applied if you were ever at a disadvantage in a possible fight (for instamce outgunned and the opposing party already has their weapon out. Or even has a friendly under gunpoint for a hostage situation. This can be argued here as the officers had your employer under gunpoint before your weapons were drawn. I never was aware of this rule in the fearRP rules that "disadvantages" are also a variable in fearRP.

Quote:
  • 2.1 - You are considered to be under FearRP when you are in line of sight of a visibly armed person, who is within microphone range of you and is able to harm your character at that moment.
Taco pulled out his shotgun before he was in mic range of the officers


In this situation, not only did the officers (1 at all times) have you and Taco in their sights with their weapkns drawn, but they also had your employer under gunpoint. In this situation, Taco should’ve recognized he was under fearp, along with yourself (and actually you do pull your weapon out before shots are exchanged, so you had no intention to follow fearp yourself).

Can you link the PR?
PRA (13146) 
(May 25, 2018, 02:43 AM)lad Wrote: [ -> ]
(May 25, 2018, 12:09 AM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]
(May 23, 2018, 06:19 AM)lad Wrote: [ -> ]this is just to get it off my record xd

You broke the rules and got punished for it.

If you just want it off your record, I’m sorry to say that would require the punishment to be under an invalid reason.
That's why I'm making a request


At the time of our rules fearp applied if you were ever at a disadvantage in a possible fight (for instamce outgunned and the opposing party already has their weapon out. Or even has a friendly under gunpoint for a hostage situation. This can be argued here as the officers had your employer under gunpoint before your weapons were drawn. I never was aware of this rule in the fearRP rules that "disadvantages" are also a variable in fearRP.

Quote:
  • 2.1 - You are considered to be under FearRP when you are in line of sight of a visibly armed person, who is within microphone range of you and is able to harm your character at that moment.
Taco pulled out his shotgun before he was in mic range of the officers

And do you have a copy of the Fearp rule that was current to this PR? As the rule did change not that long ago. Prior to the rule change, if someone important is in the crossfire and under control of the opposing party, it was considered a situation of Fearp.


In this situation, not only did the officers (1 at all times) have you and Taco in their sights with their weapkns drawn, but they also had your employer under gunpoint. In this situation, Taco should’ve recognized he was under fearp, along with yourself (and actually you do pull your weapon out before shots are exchanged, so you had no intention to follow fearp yourself).

Can you link the PR?
PRA (13146) 

Please read my closing notes in the PR - the ID’ing issue as you were right in the ID’ing. Other than that, the closing notes is my final response to this.

If I also may ask, why now make this report? Unless there was another UBR.
(May 25, 2018, 05:22 AM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]
(May 25, 2018, 02:43 AM)lad Wrote: [ -> ]
(May 25, 2018, 12:09 AM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]You broke the rules and got punished for it.

If you just want it off your record, I’m sorry to say that would require the punishment to be under an invalid reason.
That's why I'm making a request


At the time of our rules fearp applied if you were ever at a disadvantage in a possible fight (for instamce outgunned and the opposing party already has their weapon out. Or even has a friendly under gunpoint for a hostage situation. This can be argued here as the officers had your employer under gunpoint before your weapons were drawn. I never was aware of this rule in the fearRP rules that "disadvantages" are also a variable in fearRP.

Taco pulled out his shotgun before he was in mic range of the officers

And do you have a copy of the Fearp rule that was current to this PR? As the rule did change not that long ago. Prior to the rule change, if someone important is in the crossfire and under control of the opposing party, it was considered a situation of Fearp.


In this situation, not only did the officers (1 at all times) have you and Taco in their sights with their weapkns drawn, but they also had your employer under gunpoint. In this situation, Taco should’ve recognized he was under fearp, along with yourself (and actually you do pull your weapon out before shots are exchanged, so you had no intention to follow fearp yourself).

Can you link the PR?
PRA (13146) 

Please read my closing notes in the PR - the ID’ing issue as you were right in the ID’ing. Other than that, the closing notes is my final response to this.

If I also may ask, why now make this report? Unless there was another UBR.

Well blackdog's key points were:

How did you confirm his ID before takeing agressive action:

Why did you risk opening fire on the target right next to your employer, potentialy killing him?

How did you see his car long enough to confirm its ID when its licence plate was never in view long enough to see?


Why did you think it was acceptable to run up and gun down cops to save your friend/employer from being arrested when this is an action many have been punished before prior?

I think I answered those questions quite well

Also in the pr you said that "[font=open_sansregular, Arial, sans-serif]This can be seen as an also break of Fearp as you wouldn't risk hitting your associate while two officers had their weapons on him and in the direction of you two. Not to mention the questionable ID'ing of your associate." [/font]
[font=open_sansregular, Arial, sans-serif]1. You can see in the video you employer hide behind the SUV[/font]
[font=open_sansregular, Arial, sans-serif]2. We ided the man as our employer as seen above in the ubr[/font]
In the video, you both take out weapons before the employer moves behind the car... And I have no issue with the IDing. You were right on that. But you still decided to take up arms ehile the employer was in the line of fire. I really have nothing else to comment. The proof is there.
Denied.

After reviewing the suspension, I'm happy the suspension was valid under the circumstance and as a result will not be removed from your record at this point in time.

Thanks.