[cp kongen jens]

Your Name: 
Cp Kongen Jens
Issued by: Please include the [L²]/[L²:M] tag.
[L²:M]Nightmare.
Blacklist ID: 
STEAM_0:1:10605839
Server:
CityRP Rockford
Why should you be unblacklisted?: 
The entire statement from the accuser is wrong. I requested that i be allowed to show Nightmare in person several times even during the discussion before he made a verdict. It was ignored, then i got pm blocked. I repeatedly stated that the situation was inaccurately represented in chat version and that the accusers statements made no sense when shown in the physical context of direction, distance, location and situation. I was denied the opportunity. Nightmare claimed that i should have spent more time identifying the cops intentions before shooting. Yet if shown in context of where he was/came from in relation to where the situation started and was evolving towards direction wise. There is no way that the Cop "Memebois" a guy who has yet to be confirmed as not being part of the original chase i might add. There is no way he could not have known about it. Since he literally would have driven past bloody cops aiming in our direction. It would have shown this in a much more conclusive matter, but my requests were repeatedly ignored. In short, poor police work is the only explanation for the cop to not be aware of the massive shootout taking place 30 meters from where he was driving. And poor eyesight is the only thing that could defend his poor claim that he did not see us with weapons. 
Evidence:
I have none since i was not allowed to show them... As i stated in OOC before i got blocked for making a point. Rather than accepting that i had to show them in person. They told me to come here, instead of OOC. And considering that i cannot show it in the resolve chat box, how would i show it here. I did not lack the evidence, i lack the opportunity to present it. 

[Limelight Gaming]

The staff-members have received your unblacklist-request, cp kongen jens.

It will take a while for it to be reviewed.

[Night]

Hey there @cp kongen jens.

I issued your blacklist because you failed to confirm the intentions of the officers driving by. I had spoken to @Bambo regarding this situation after I had issued the punishment, who agreed that it's considered excessive use of lethal force to shoot down an officer who's only driving past the situation with Code 3 lights. My point is that you should of waited to find out what the officer was going to do (for example, seeing whether he was going to pull up, stop the car and hop out or continue driving along) rather than straight up gunning down the vehicle.

Prior to opening the chat with you, I had looked through enough evidence, forced you to respond to the report which allowed you to provide your own input (which was quite vague) and proceeded to do a little bit of digging into supporting evidence regarding the situation. I shouldn't need to allow you to demonstrate the situation over again, when I have enough evidence to support wrongdoing on your part.

[cp kongen jens]

Hey there @cp kongen jens.

I issued your blacklist because you failed to confirm the intentions of the officers driving by. I had spoken to @Bambo regarding this situation after I had issued the punishment, who agreed that it's considered excessive use of lethal force to shoot down an officer who's only driving past the situation with Code 3 lights. My point is that you should of waited to find out what the officer was going to do (for example, seeing whether he was going to pull up, stop the car and hop out or continue driving along) rather than straight up gunning down the vehicle.

Prior to opening the chat with you, I had looked through enough evidence, forced you to respond to the report which allowed you to provide your own input (which was quite vague) and proceeded to do a little bit of digging into supporting evidence regarding the situation. I shouldn't need to allow you to demonstrate the situation over again, when I have enough evidence to support wrongdoing on your part.

As ive said many times. My input was based around wanting to show you in person how no more identifying of the cops intentions could reasonably been required of us. We were 4 guys after all. We all agreed that he was coming for us. It was the "same" car. Definitely the same direction as in he missed the tons of blood splatter from his fellow cops that we were in a shootout with. He somehow did not hear their shots as he drove past. And he did not stop to ask who shot at them and where they are. As i keep saying, this is an in character matter. He did his job poorly and so did they if they did not radio it in. He came from the exact same direction. He drove the same car. And was he an honest player (which we know from experience that the elmwood gang guys are not) he would have admitted seing us in the elevator with assault rifles out and trying to get into the escape car. Now he claims to be "driving past". Well if anything that is failrp from him. Same as it would be if i saw a shootout and drove past it with no regard for my own life. All the mistakes were made in character from the cops. It should've ended in character.

Also a point to why i told you i dont buy his story. He immediately said, even in the original report text i believe. "Shot at me" and then skipping the boring part "I suspect he just got away from a chase". And i suspect that he could've not had a single doubt about it, i even suspect him being part of the initial shootout.

[Bambo]

Nightmare did indeed ask me about the situation.

My view on this is that, the police might've going to another call, that street is not one that only you use, that road goes to other areas, so if he was passing with lights on, it does not indicate he's coming for you.

I believe the punishment was fully valid, and you should be totally sure that the police are coming for you and not just passing by responding to another call.

[cp kongen jens]

I disagree. I was totally sure that my assumption was valid if you assume that cops are not completely incompetent. He drove past 2 injured officers. Which would have been aiming our direction. He did not ask them what they were doing . They did not radio in. He did not assume something was wrong. That is on them. In our end, we know that the cops know exactly where we are going since the monorail i made only goes in a straight line. Then when a cop shows up, from their direction, literally would have driven 5 meters next to them unless he was failrp offroading. There is no justification for assuming that he would not know of the situation yet, somehow i needed to take further steps? As i said at the time. Should i wait for him to shoot at us, or can i take the advantage that i have of spotting him first...

[Night]

As ive said many times. My input was based around wanting to show you in person how no more identifying of the cops intentions could reasonably been required of us.

There was no need for me to do this when I already had enough evidence to support wrongdoing on your part. I'm not obligated to allow you to demonstrate back how a situation went down when I've already went through all the evidence I need to close the case at hand.

We were 4 guys after all. We all agreed that he was coming for us. It was the "same" car. Definitely the same direction as in he missed the tons of blood splatter from his fellow cops that we were in a shootout with. He somehow did not hear their shots as he drove past. And he did not stop to ask who shot at them and where they are. As i keep saying, this is an in character matter.

It's not an in-character matter, as you've decided to spray down a police car who was simply driving PAST you with code 3 lights on. Whether you agreed or not it was the same car, you can't guarantee that another officer might not be using that vehicle who is unaware of the situation. This doesn't excuse you failing to clarify the officer's intentions.

He did his job poorly and so did they if they did not radio it in.

Correct, it wasn't radio'd in. I went through logs again today to ensure that this was the case.

He came from the exact same direction. He drove the same car. And was he an honest player (which we know from experience that the elmwood gang guys are not) he would have admitted seing us in the elevator with assault rifles out and trying to get into the escape car.

That's not the problem there, Kongen. The problem is that you sprayed down the police car without having proper knowledge on what the officer was going to do. Like I said in my original post here, it's considered excessive usage of lethal force to engage on a cop car like you did, especially when you didn't know what was going to happen.

Now he claims to be "driving past". Well if anything that is failrp from him. Same as it would be if i saw a shootout and drove past it with no regard for my own life. All the mistakes were made in character from the cops. It should've ended in character.

A radio call over text chat wasn't made (we don't log voice radios for what I hope should be obvious reasons) thus he couldn't of had any intelligence to what you were doing and as a result, it wouldn't be deemed FailRP on his part. It's very possible he didn't see the shootout, or perhaps might not of even heard it considering there is a bug where sound from bullets don't play correctly.

Also a point to why i told you i dont buy his story. He immediately said, even in the original report text i believe. "Shot at me" and then skipping the boring part "I suspect he just got away from a chase". And i suspect that he could've not had a single doubt about it, i even suspect him being part of the initial shootout.

Due to the way our RDM reporting system works, I can't view the report again once the server's restarted (there was a restart which took place earlier today) meaning I'm unable to view the details of that specific report, so I'm unable to confirm or deny that was said. Additionally, I'm unable to pull up damage logs from yesterday to confirm whether the reporter was involved in the initial shootout.

Either way Kongen, you've failed to provide evidence to this UBLR and I'd like to ask you to give me some solid evidence to work with here to show why you weren't in the wrong here without requesting the situation to be played back. I'll give you 24hrs from the time of this post to update your original post with this evidence, which should support the fact that you weren't in the wrong here. As Bambo has indicated, the punishment was fully valid in both of our opinions here.

At no point did I ask you to wait until they shoot first in the future, in fact, I even made this very clear that this wasn't what I meant over PM. You were asked to wait until the point where you could identify their intentions. For example, the officer could of stopped his car and jumped out, which would of shown that he was aware of what had happened. This wasn't the case though, and instead he kept driving along and in response, you sprayed down his vehicle.

[cp kongen jens]

"It's not an in-character matter, as you've decided to spray down a police car who was simply driving PAST you with code 3 lights on. Whether you agreed or not it was the same car, you can't guarantee that another officer might not be using that vehicle who is unaware of the situation. This doesn't excuse you failing to clarify the officer's intentions."

I had no reason to believe he was doing that. I had every reason to believe he was following us. He came from the same direction which would have forced him to drive just past the cops we were in a shootout with. That makes it in character matter as they failed to inform their officer of the situation. Its not my responsibility to ensure that a cop, whilst im in a shootout with cops, is one of those 2 cops. Thats excessive expectations if anything.

Can i just add that you did not review any evidence. You took his word for everything. "drove past" makes no sense when he was driving "through" a scenario. As much as one may drive past the bank robbery as a cop, he could not have missed what was going on right next to him. Does a bank robber have to go "wait, we dont know if he knows yet" while they are literally shooting. I cant count on a sound bug.

Also the blacklist is gone now, since i played for 2 hours already. I just dont want it on my record since it doesn't make sense.

[Night]

Due to security reasons, I'm unable to disclose the evidence which I reviewed to determine wrongdoing, though as Bambo has indicated that he thinks this punishment was valid and he's independent from this case, since he wasn't online nor watching over the situation as it happened. I can confirm that Bambo knows the full extent of this situation, and had been briefed prior to making his posts here. I can also say with 100% certainty that I didn't just purely take his word for what he said. What he said was backed up with the appropriate amount of evidence.

At this point in time, I don't see a reason to be removing this blacklist from your record. Is there an ETA on you being able to find sufficient evidence?

[Night]

UBLR denied.

Player has failed to provide reasonable evidence within the 24 hour window given to him.

Closing notes:

The responsibility lies on you here Kongen to ensure that you don't go over the top with your actions. By shooting down a police car without confirming whether he was responding to you or another call, you went way too far and crossed the line into excessive weapons usage. As another staff member who was independent from the original report has agreed this is valid, I don't plan to be removing this blacklist from your record.

Thank you.

[Overlewd]

Denied.