[Stomm]

+Support

I'd like to see the Limelight Government follow a "

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/Use_of_force_continuum Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

Use of Force Continuum". This is a guideline that lays out the appropriate use of force based on the suspect's actions. I recommend giving the wikipedia article I linked a read. While their example differs slightly from the one I'm used to, it is still great to keep in mind when RPing as a normal Government member.

Below I've linked an example of how a situation should be handled. The officer maintains composure throughout. Even after being injured by the suspect as he flees, the Officer stays calm and collected as he radios in the situation and begins pursuing the fleeing suspect.

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://www.wftv.com/news/local/officers-body-cam-captures-suspect-fleeing-during-/32010570 Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://www.wftv.com/news/local/officers...-/32010570 Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/officers...-/32010570
In the video, a suspect tries to drive off when questioned by the Officer. The Officer first issues commands to "Stop" when the suspect starts his car, then quickly moves on to physically attempting to control the suspect. Ingame, this would be equivalent to using the ram to force someone from the car. The officer fails to stop him from driving off, and is injured in the process. Instead of drawing his service weapon and opening fire, as most people would do ingame, he radios in the situation ("He's running, Battery LEO") and takes off in pursuit. Thanks to coordinated police work, the suspect is captured with no one dead or seriously wounded.




I regards to Project: If running is considered hostile, you need to move to a place where you're less likely to get shot, such as the US. Ingame. if someone runs, you get them under FearRP and issue commands. If they break FearRP, they will get punished. Shooting them straight up is FailRP.

In regards to ForceGhost: If they don't pass certification with their equipment, they don't get to be cops. That is how it works in the real world. This rule has nothing to do with an RP like that.

[Project]

you lot do realize that putting - support your saying its ok to KILL someone for not stopping on a simple traffic offence

and as stated we already enforce this, this is to help prevent it, you will get punished for it regardless

Not supporting this means we want this to stay under common sense/failrp/rdm rules instead of becoming a rule itself, if you add this rule it means ALL situations have to be handled the same no matter what has happened beforehand.

Also, when you decide to run from the police, it is also you (the offender) that has to consider your actions.

Take a minute and read my post above.

[Project]

I regards to Project: If running is considered hostile, you need to move to a place where you're less likely to get shot, such as the US. Ingame. if someone runs, you get them under FearRP and issue commands. If they break FearRP, they will get punished. Shooting them straight up is FailRP.

Shooting them straight up is FailRP.
Why make it a rule if it already against the rules? If you read how the rule has been written it would not allow for context from previous encounters to be used.

you get them under FearRP and issue commands.
If they go behind a car/building they can pull a weapon, I will go shotgun first and if they make any moves I find hostile, I will shoot. It is not easy to get someone under FearRP when they are 2-4 cars away from you by the point you start going after them.

[Stomm]

Shooting them straight up is FailRP.
Why make it a rule if it already against the rules? If you read how the rule has been written it would not allow for context from previous encounters to be used.

you get them under FearRP and issue commands.
If they go behind a car/building they can pull a weapon, I will go shotgun first and if they make any moves I find hostile, I will shoot. It is not easy to get someone under FearRP when they are 2-4 cars away from you by the point you start going after them.

1) Rules need to be clarified so new players can know what is expected better. This is an issue more common with new players than experienced players, so we need it in easily accessible text for them to read. I'm not sure what you mean by not allowing context, the rule is just about not shooting people who aren't a risk for harming others.

2) I'm not saying you don't take steps to prepare yourself, I'm saying you don't shoot first and ask questions later, which is what is currently happening. If you see a gun, or know the suspect is armed, and they are taking steps to take cover, you LIGHT THEM THE FUCK UP! If it's a random van getting pulled over, the passenger bails and he takes off sprinting down Downtown Road, you don't shotgun him, and the driver and go about your day.

Long story short, we have a problem, and we need to take steps to fix it. I feel this proposed method will get it in writing so more people are aware of it, and that it won't impact any decent RPs. However, if your RP is to just open fire the second someone doesn't do the exact thing you want to happen, you might have a slightly harder time not getting banned.

[Project]

Shooting them straight up is FailRP.
Why make it a rule if it already against the rules? If you read how the rule has been written it would not allow for context from previous encounters to be used.

you get them under FearRP and issue commands.
If they go behind a car/building they can pull a weapon, I will go shotgun first and if they make any moves I find hostile, I will shoot. It is not easy to get someone under FearRP when they are 2-4 cars away from you by the point you start going after them.

1) Rules need to be clarified so new players can know what is expected better. This is an issue more common with new players than experienced players, so we need it in easily accessible text for them to read. I'm not sure what you mean by not allowing context, the rule is just about not shooting people who aren't a risk for harming others.

2) I'm not saying you don't take steps to prepare yourself, I'm saying you don't shoot first and ask questions later, which is what is currently happening. If you see a gun, or know the suspect is armed, and they are taking steps to take cover, you LIGHT THEM THE FUCK UP! If it's a random van getting pulled over, the passenger bails and he takes off sprinting down Downtown Road, you don't shotgun him, and the driver and go about your day.

Long story short, we have a problem, and we need to take steps to fix it. I feel this proposed method will get it in writing so more people are aware of it, and that it won't impact any decent RPs. However, if your RP is to just open fire the second someone doesn't do the exact thing you want to happen, you might have a slightly harder time not getting banned.

I don't want to go back and forth with this too much.

1) Shooting someone for just running off is a big no no for me. Rules are already in place for that.
2) The way the rule is written right now will keep my -Support (imo it not flexible per situation)

Changes to help players who tend to act like this.
a) When you join any job that has common sense(/hidden) rules, a small window should pop up advising you not to do said thing and when (if) it is allowed to do said thing.
b) Add a questionnaire before an officer is allowed to join the job, if they fail it they have to wait x amount of hours before being able to answer it again.
c) Add this rule but add another rule for offenders too (the amount of people running off for the smallest things is huge, ex. Having a firearm on yourself. In a traffic stop there is at best a 15% chance to be frisked thus not a real reason to run, unless you know for a fact you are going to be frisked).

[Temar]

Current planned rules to be added to government section

New rules 12.10 and 12.10a-b (Government Section)
12.10 - You cannot kill unarmed people or those who no longer pose a threat (injured, unconscious, handcuffed, etc).
12.10a - The only exception is if there is a dictator who orders an execution.
12.10b - 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.

[Nudel]

-Support

Every situation is different. I dont want to have admins running around me and ban me if I will shot a suspect into his leg.

[Nudel]

Current planned rules to be added to government section

New rules 12.10 and 12.10a-b (Government Section)
12.10 - You cannot kill unarmed people or those who no longer pose a threat (injured, unconscious, handcuffed, etc).
12.10a - The only exception is if there is a dictator who orders an execution.
12.10b - 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.

Thats my problem here. Every admin/mod sees a situation different. If I shot a suspect because I thaught he was a threat for me but if admin1 says it wasnt I receive a ban. And maybe admin 2 wouldnt do anything.

Not clear enough for me.

[Temar]

and thats different from how it is now how?
admin will still do something if you seam to shoot unarmed people etc and think you was in the wrong
the purpose of this new rule is to try and advise people on doing it correctly.

ive seen many times, there is even a pending ban request on someone for this
were cops are shooting unarmed people because he ran, even so it was just a traffic stop or something simple to start with
so no 1 was in danger, yet cop shot at him, which basicly means to kill

[ForceGhost]

Current planned rules to be added to government section

New rules 12.10 and 12.10a-b (Government Section)
12.10 - You cannot kill unarmed people or those who no longer pose a threat (injured, unconscious, handcuffed, etc).
12.10a - The only exception is if there is a dictator who orders an execution.
12.10b - 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.

What determines posing a threat? If someones running at me with a knife? What about a baseball bat? A large group of unarmed people running towards me?

It's far too open to interpretation with this rule.

[Ollie630]

+Support.

[D3ST]

+Support

[Project]

and thats different from how it is now how?
There is a difference between what you suggest and what is being enforced right now. Mainly the fact this rule doesn't account for stuff beforehand and the amount of time people have to act.

admin will still do something if you seam to shoot unarmed people etc and think you was in the wrong
If you shoot someone dead, probably an admin should question that, but the rule limits the situations that deadly force may be used, even in situations that it would be logical to be used.

the purpose of this new rule is to try and advise people on doing it correctly.
Nope, a rule is there to be enforced. If you want to advise people give them a pop up to read every time they join the job or a quiz before they can join the job.

ive seen many times, there is even a pending ban request on someone for this
Depends per situation.
were cops are shooting unarmed people because he ran, even so it was just a traffic stop or something simple to start with
Depends per situation, they guy I may be shooting may have disarmed, but my last encounter he had a firearm, will I let him go around the corner? Hell no. He either complies or gets shot.

so no 1 was in danger, yet cop shot at him, which basically means to kill
why run in the first place?

If we are to implement a rule, I would rather it is for both sides.

2.7 - By default all citizens are law-abiding members of the society.
2.8 - Do not commit criminal acts as a citizen.
2.8a - Do not evade police as a citizen or without good reasoning.

12.11 - Do not shoot unarmed people if you have no prior reasoning. (Running away solely isn't a reason to shoot someone)
12.11a - Do not shoot fleeing suspects unless they pose a threat to you, other officers or the general public.
12.11b - Do not shoot suspects that can no longer be a threat (handcuffed, unconscious, injured, handsup or similar).

[Taylor]

+Support

"Hey, uh, that's gunna be a $1 fine for stealing my donut"

*puts foot down*

...

*dead*

EDIT:

@"ForceGhost"

A knife or bat, use a taser.

A large group of people? Run and call for SWAT.

[Soviethooves]

+Support, but if we add this we need a Passive before Aggressive rule, as this will just lead to criminals KNOWING the cop won't shoot them on sight and will give them a chance to arm up and shoot the cop.

Plus it's annoying to get killed because I pulled over someone for running a red. Not every criminal has to have the policy "Shoot first, ask questions later".