[akne]

+Support

[MrMarsh]

i imagine it to be a little diffcult to enforce and control but over all it would be nice to stop turning traffic offenses into rampages.. There should (and as far as i understand the suggestion) is still some definatly needed fredom though. Felony convicts for example or people that are aware theyll be facing longer sentences as a result of a traffic stop (eg. carrying a forbidden gun with them) still have a chance to run.
But id love to see a slight regulation on some of the pretty nonsense rampages we have encountered every now and then

[Tom*]

Suggestion for in-game

In detail, explain your suggestion: Add this rule for Government:

Don't use Excessive force, lethal weapons are for stopping people who pose threat to others, Think before use does there action warrant killing them


Why should this be implemented?

This rule is more about preventing a common issue with police, were a simple traffic stop turns into cop killing the driver, we can still punish at the moment under rules like failrp but a more specific rule will help.

I was told this was already a rule so i got a bl for it??????????

[Project]

Suggestion for in-game

In detail, explain your suggestion: Add this rule for Government:

Don't use Excessive force, lethal weapons are for stopping people who pose threat to others, Think before use does there action warrant killing them


Why should this be implemented?

This rule is more about preventing a common issue with police, were a simple traffic stop turns into cop killing the driver, we can still punish at the moment under rules like failrp but a more specific rule will help.

I was told this was already a rule so i got a bl for it??????????

It is, it falls under FailRP as far as I know, he is suggesting making it a specific rule so people avoid doing the same mistake.

[Monkey]

+support

[Nudel]

-snip-

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).

[ForceGhost]

EDIT:

@"ForceGhost"

A knife or bat, use a taser.

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

And if you miss with your Taser? If there's two guys and I don't think I'll have a chance to deploy a taser, reload and then taser again? Should I then go for a firearm right away or should I taze one, attempt to draw, knowing if I fail I may be stabbed?

It's far too open to interpretation.

[Doctor Internet]

EDIT:

@"ForceGhost"

A knife or bat, use a taser.

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

And if you miss with your Taser? If there's two guys and I don't think I'll have a chance to deploy a taser, reload and then taser again? Should I then go for a firearm right away or should I taze one, attempt to draw, knowing if I fail I may be stabbed?

It's far too open to interpretation.

And if I may add to this. What will calling SWAT do? Give you 60 seconds, before more SWAT turn up.
What can the SWAT do, since they are bound by this rule as-well?

[Soviethooves]

I mean...the rule is about stopping a threat with lethal force...players respond differently. This just saves the argument of people tryingnto justify lethal force. You don't have to use lethal on a charging suspect, but you can as long as you don't go overboard and do more than shoot to neutralize.

[mywarthog]

I like the idea of adding a specific rule for this, but I would propose phrasing it like this.

12.10 - You cannot kill unarmed people or those who no longer pose a threat. No longer posing a threat is defined as an individual that has been subdued, detained, or meets both the criteria described in 12.10a (is unarmed) and 12.10b (is unprovoking).
12.10a - Unarmed is defiend as no visible weapons on person (all weapons must be holstered).
12.10b - Unprovoking is defined as:
 (a) Not charging towards at a sprinting pace after multiple orders to stop
 (b) Not driving directly towards at a fast pace
 © Not advancing after multiple orders to stop, when there are no officers in a position to subdue the suspect in a non-lethal manner
 (d) Not making verbal threats while advancing towards an officer
 (e) Not posing a lethal threat to any civillians

This should be made as specific as possible as to what constitutes a non-threat. The whole point of even adding this rule in the first place would be clarity.

12.10c - An example exception is an execution ordered by a dictator.

Saying "only exception" immediately eliminates the possibillity of any other rare case-by-case exceptions for various different role-play scenarios (ie, corrupt cop working for the corelone).

12.10d - You can shoot at fleeing vehicles only if the drivers are armed and dangerous, if they are clearly a threat to citizen/officers with the way they are driving, or if there is irrefutable evidence (they have a warrant or an APB describing their vehicle/person was been called out) that they can be considered as a life-threat to civillians otherwise (for example, attempted murder and murder).

More exception examples for this rule would be good.

[Jono]

Moving to popular

[Doctor Internet]

So long as it applies to criminals too. It's tiring pulling someone over for running a stop sign and getting shotgunned up the ass.

[Woody Mac]

12.12b - 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.

It's been added

[Doctor Internet]

Already added. Closing.