+- Limelight Forums (https://limelightgaming.net/forums)
+-- Forum: Feedback (https://limelightgaming.net/forums/forum-612.html)
+--- Forum: Suggestions (https://limelightgaming.net/forums/forum-239.html)
+---- Forum: Finished (https://limelightgaming.net/forums/forum-242.html)
+---- Thread: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' (/thread-8354.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - Cunix - Feb 11, 2016
(Feb 11, 2016, 05:27 AM)BlackDog Wrote: +Support
Though the patroling thing as far as i know only refers to the general patroling action.
IE: The way in which police just patrol the streets on the lookout for crime and other such things.
It does not refer to the searching of active criminals that they have been called out to assist with. Refer to Venoms above video.
^
+Support
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - Markus - Feb 11, 2016
If the criminal is reported to be in an area, the SWAT can go and investigate with the help of the police.
+Support
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - Judge Rage - Feb 12, 2016
+support
idk about America, but in the UK if the armed police are called in, for say an area search, the local officers step back and let the armed officers do their job, and search for the suspect.
During stuff like this, where it's a highly dangerous suspect, the police's job is to man that cordon, and let the tactical officers do what they do best.
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - Katyusha - Feb 13, 2016
(Feb 11, 2016, 07:35 AM)BlackDog Wrote: I think he means enzyme after theyve been called out to an area, in the example he gave they arrived, everyones dead, but suspects we're in the area, they investigated, found them and ended up having to pursue.
In such a situation it makes logical sense for SWAT to sweep the area and look for the suspects since the officer who called them in is Nowhere to be seen, and or dead, and if the suspects attempt to flee from them, it makes sense to pursue while calling in other officers to assist.
If they're still in the area that's fine, its not patrolling. Investigating an area ex suburbs on Rockford is a general area, but if the criminal flee's the scene its not SWAT's job to go rolling around the map looking for them. At that point it would be deemed a be on the lookout for blah, and police would patrol for the suspects.
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - Stomm - Feb 14, 2016
(Feb 13, 2016, 08:24 AM)Katyusha Wrote:(Feb 11, 2016, 07:35 AM)BlackDog Wrote: I think he means enzyme after theyve been called out to an area, in the example he gave they arrived, everyones dead, but suspects we're in the area, they investigated, found them and ended up having to pursue.
In such a situation it makes logical sense for SWAT to sweep the area and look for the suspects since the officer who called them in is Nowhere to be seen, and or dead, and if the suspects attempt to flee from them, it makes sense to pursue while calling in other officers to assist.
If they're still in the area that's fine, its not patrolling. Investigating an area ex suburbs on Rockford is a general area, but if the criminal flee's the scene its not SWAT's job to go rolling around the map looking for them. At that point it would be deemed a be on the lookout for blah, and police would patrol for the suspects.
If a suspect is known to be armed and dangerous, it is VERY common for SWAT to be out searching them. As long as they stick to finding the suspect, and don't break off and start tasing the local pot dealer because they found a gram, it is perfectly reasonable and realistic.
For a very high profile example, see the search for the Boston Bomber. That featured SWAT going DOOR TO DOOR in an effort to find the suspect.
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - Soviethooves - Jul 14, 2016
Poll Added.
Please add your Support as soon as possible.
Thank you for your cooperation.
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - Nudel - Jul 18, 2016
+Support
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - MrMarsh - Jul 19, 2016
- support. No Swat member will get into trobule for staying on a high risk scene for a while if previously requested. Swat can very participate in a pursuit under the given circumstances. And it is logical that Swat can be mobilised during riots etc to secure a certain hotspot. All those would be simple callouts/scenatios.
The Suggestion you described is a code 3 response to an officer down (Swat required)
An investigation/the notion of witness reports (no job for Swat)
And a pursuit (Swat can very well join these)
I dont see any conflicts with the rules that would prohibit Swat from staying at an active crime scene. And once regular officers have done their job in investigating questioning etc. it would be more then justified to use swat for the takedown of a known, armed suspect. And if that suspect is hiding a brief adequate search is appropriate. But its not their job to do own investigation. Besides it could increase the risk of Swat officers minging/looting other peoples buildings in the hunt for pot and contra.
What they did do in the boston bombings or futher examples were high risk takedwons. They were looking for an armed suspect. Same with the video of the Barecat Pursuit Takedown.
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - Taylor - Jul 24, 2016
(Feb 13, 2016, 08:24 AM)Katyusha Wrote:(Feb 11, 2016, 07:35 AM)BlackDog Wrote: I think he means enzyme after theyve been called out to an area, in the example he gave they arrived, everyones dead, but suspects we're in the area, they investigated, found them and ended up having to pursue.
In such a situation it makes logical sense for SWAT to sweep the area and look for the suspects since the officer who called them in is Nowhere to be seen, and or dead, and if the suspects attempt to flee from them, it makes sense to pursue while calling in other officers to assist.
If they're still in the area that's fine, its not patrolling. Investigating an area ex suburbs on Rockford is a general area, but if the criminal flee's the scene its not SWAT's job to go rolling around the map looking for them. At that point it would be deemed a be on the lookout for blah, and police would patrol for the suspects.
Actually, SWAT do go "rolling around the map looking for them". It's called a manhunt, and a manhunt ≠ Patrolling
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - Soviethooves - Aug 8, 2016
Move to Popular
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - Doctor Internet - Jul 31, 2017
Due to a lack of input into this suggestion for nearly a year, it has been moved to Old Suggestions / Voting.
Voting on this suggestion will last a week, before this suggestion is returned to an appropriate subforum.
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - Dick - Aug 5, 2017
(Feb 11, 2016, 02:49 AM)Venom Wrote: +Support if there is a manhunt ongoing and situations like that. Pursuits could also be thrown in there as seen by this video. (Skip to 14 minutes)
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - Doctor Internet - Aug 6, 2017
Pushing for Staff Review.
RE: Redefine the 'SWAT Patrolling Rule' - Doctor Internet - Nov 8, 2017
Added in the rules update. In summary:
(Nov 6, 2017, 01:22 PM)Overlewd Wrote: There is no "SWAT Patrolling Rule", it is just us saying that "SWAT Patrolling (looking for crime) in full combat gear like regular police is FailRP".
I think it is perfectly reasonable for SWAT to, for example, respond to a call and then conduct a search/look-over of the immediate area if they don't find what is described in a call for example. But we wouldn't need to make a separate rule for that.
Marking as Finished.