Argonath RPG Police Department

Information => News & Announcements => Topic started by: SafetyMoose on June 06, 2012, 20:57:03 pm

Title: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 06, 2012, 20:57:03 pm
Hello SAPD Members / ARPD Command

I come to you today with a proposition for a new system in regards to the way the SAPD is handled. I wish to bring forth the idea of a Police Services Board alongside new regulations and rights for all members of the SAPD. Please find below my document which I have been developing for many weeks now. Many of these new ideas / regulations are intended to enforce pre-existing regulations. The idea for this was drawn from the Police Standards that my own department uses and I looked through the handbook for regulation that would work in our virtual setting. Please provide opinion as to how this can be edited.

A copy has been privately forwarded to SAPD and ARPD command. This took a while to put together so I hope you find it interesting.






(http://i56.tinypic.com/o7u9ap.png)
Argonath Police Standards Act
June 1st, 2012

Purpose

To clearly outline the conduct in which police services and their staff operate in the State of San Andreas, and to clearly mark the inter department duties, rights and freedoms of Law Enforcement Staff, The Police Services Review Board, and all other related organisations and persons within the San Andreas Police Department.


Contents

Part I - Responsibilities of Police Services

Part II - Police Officer and Other Police Staff

Part III - Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings

Part IV - The Police Service Board





Part I - Responsibilities of Police Services



Police Services
(1) Every department to which this subsection applies shall provide adequate and effective police services in accordance with its needs.

Core Police Services
(2)  Adequate and effective police services must include, at a minimum, all of the following police services:
1. Crime prevention.
2. Law enforcement.
3. Assistance to victims of crime.
4. Public order maintenance.
5. Emergency response.


Infrastructure for Police Services
(3)  In providing adequate and effective police services, a department shall be responsible for providing all the infrastructure and administration necessary for providing such services, including vehicles, boats, equipment, communication devices, buildings and supplies.







Part II - Police Officer and Other Police Staff



Duties of Chief of Police
(1)  The duties of a chief of police include,
(a) Administering the police force and overseeing its operation in accordance with the objectives, priorities and policies established by the police service board
(b) ensuring that members of the police force carry out their duties in accordance with this Act and the regulations and in a manner that reflects the needs of the community, and that discipline is maintained in the police force
(c) ensuring that the police force provides community-oriented police services
(d) administering the complaints system


Power to disclose personal information
(1.1)  Despite any other Act, a chief of police, or a person designated by him or her for the purpose of this subsection, may disclose personal information about an individual in accordance with the regulations below
Purpose of disclosure
(1.2)  Any disclosure made under subsection (1.1) shall be for one or more of the following purposes:
1. Protection of the public.
2. Protection of victims of crime.
3. Keeping victims of crime informed of the law enforcement, judicial or correctional processes relevant to the crime that affected them.
4. Law enforcement.
5. Correctional purposes.
6. Administration of justice.
7. Enforcement of and compliance with any federal or state Act, regulation or government program.



Duties of Police Officer
(1)  The duties of a police officer include,
(a) preserving the peace
(b) preventing crimes and other offences and providing assistance and encouragement to other persons in their prevention
(c) assisting victims of crime
(d) apprehending criminals and other offenders and others who may lawfully be taken into custody
(e) laying charges and participating in prosecutions
(f) executing warrants that are to be executed by police officers and performing related duties
(g) performing the lawful duties that the chief of police assigns
(h) completing the assigned training


Time for Completing Initial Training
(1) A Police Officer shall not be subject to initial cadet training lasting longer then 5 Months. All academy trainings must be completed in an efficient time frame that does not impose time restrictions on active officers.

Restrictions on secondary activities
(1)  A member of a police force shall not engage in any activity,
(a) that interferes with or influences adversely the performance of his or her duties as a member of a police force, or is likely to do so
(b) that places him or her in a position of conflict of interest, or is likely to do so
(c) that would otherwise constitute full-time employment for another person or
(d) in which he or she has an advantage derived from being a member of a police force.
[/size]





Part III - Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings


Publicly available
(1)  Procedural rules established by the Police Services Board shall be in writing and shall be made available to the public in a readily accessible manner.

Limitation, 2 Months
(1)  The Police Service Board may decide not to deal with a complaint made by a member of the public if the complaint is made more than 2 months after the facts on which it is based occurred.

Complaints by Captain +
A Captain + of police may make a complaint under this section about the conduct of a police officer employed by his or her police force, and shall cause the complaint to be investigated and the investigation to be reported on in a written report by the Police Service Board

Complaint Offences
(1)  No person shall harass, coerce or intimidate, or attempt to harass, coerce or intimidate, any other person in relation to a complaint that is made under this Part.
(2)  No person shall intentionally hinder or obstruct or attempt to hinder or obstruct the Police Services Board or an investigator appointed by the Police Services Board in the performance of his or her duties under this Act, or furnish him or her with false information.


Off-duty conduct
(2)  A police officer shall not be found guilty of misconduct  if there is no connection between the conduct and either the occupational requirements for a police officer or the reputation of the police force





Disciplinary Action



Notice needed
(1) The chief of police or board, as the case may be, shall not impose the penalties of dismissal or demotion
(2) unless the notice of hearing or a subsequent notice served on the chief of police, deputy chief of police or other police officer indicated that they might be imposed if the complaint were proved on clear and convincing evidence.


Notice of decision
(1)  The chief of police or board, as the case may be, shall promptly give written notice of any penalty imposed or action taken
(a) to the chief of police, deputy chief of police or other police officer who is the subject of the complaint;
(b) in the case of a penalty imposed or action taken by a captain +, to the board; and
(c) in the case of a penalty imposed or action taken in respect of a complaint made by a member of the public, to the complainant.


Restriction on employment
(1)  No person who is dismissed, or who resigns following a direction of punishment, may be employed as a member of a police force unless 2 months have passed since the dismissal or resignation.

Decisions to be publicly available
(1)  The chief of police shall ensure that every decision made after a hearing regarding misconduct is made available to the public in the manner that he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances, and shall give a copy of every such decision to the Police Service Board

Powers at conclusion of hearing by chief of police, police services board
(1)  the chief of police, police services board may,
(a) dismiss the police officer from the police force;
(b) direct that the police officer be dismissed in seven days unless he or she resigns before that time;
(c) demote the police officer, specifying the manner and period of the demotion;
(d) suspend the police officer for a period not exceeding 30 days or 240 hours, as the case may be;


Suspension
(1)  If a police officer, other than a chief of police or deputy chief of police, is suspected of or charged with an offence under a law of Argonath or of a state or is suspected of misconduct, the chief of police may suspend him or her from duty
(2)  If a chief of police or deputy chief of police is suspected of or charged with an offence under a law of Argonath or of a state or is suspected of misconduct, the board may suspend him or her from duty.


Resignation of police officer
(1)  If at any time after a complaint about the conduct of a police officer is made under this Part and before the complaint is finally disposed of the police officer resigns, no further action shall be taken under this Part in respect of the complaint after the date of resignation.




Dispute Process

Appeal to Board
(1)  A police officer or complainant, if any, may, within 30 days of receiving notice of the decision , appeal the decision to the police Service Board by serving on the Board a written notice stating the grounds on which the appeal is based.

Board to hold hearing
(1)  The Board shall hold a hearing upon receiving a notice  from a police officer.

Board may hold a hearing
(1)  The board may hold a hearing, if it considers it appropriate, upon receiving the final decision of punishment, if said punishment is considered to be unjust.

Powers of Board
(1) After holding a hearing on an appeal, the Commission may,
(a) confirm, vary or revoke the decision being appealed;
(b) substitute its own decision for that of the chief of police or the board, as the case may be;
(c) order a new hearing before the board






Part IV - The Police Service Board


Responsibilities of the board
(1)  the board is responsible for the provision of adequate and effective police services in the state and shall,
(a) generally determine, after consultation with the chief of police, objectives and priorities with respect to police services in the municipality;
(b) establish policies for the effective management of the police force
(c) recruit and appoint the chief of police and any deputy chief of police, and annually determine their remuneration and working conditions, taking their submissions into account
(d) direct the chief of police and monitor his or her performance
(e) establish policies respecting the disclosure by chiefs of police of personal information about individuals
(f) receive regular reports from the chief of police on disclosures and decisions made
(g) establish guidelines for dealing with complaints
(h) review the chief of police’s administration of the complaints system
(i) respond to complaints and punishments on members of the police force
(j) review disputes submitted in regards to penalties and punishments on officers within the force


Members of the Board
(1)The Police Services Board is to be organized of six permanent members including
(a) The current ARPD commisioner
(b) five selected members of the police service whos ranks are no lower then Officer and no higher than Senior Officer

(2) Selected members of the board must
(a) remove any association with a specific police department
(b) maintain activity both in normal duty work and board work
(c) understand that their service within the board prevents them from promotion of higher then senior officer during theur service with the board.







Last Updated, June 6th, 2012

Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Daniel_Bradford on June 06, 2012, 21:27:05 pm
This is your vision on how you wish to see how roll the SAPD, not the owners one. Also, there are some points you made as to get an advantage over them IMO, let me take an example:

Limitation, 2 Months
(1)  The Police Service Board may decide not to deal with a complaint made by a member of the public if the complaint is made more than 2 months after the facts on which it is based occurred.

You are refering to a complaint that has been re-opened against you and the facts presents occured something like 3 months ago or so.  I could have quoted more but this one shows well how you want to get the things at your advantage.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Cyril on June 06, 2012, 21:35:19 pm
Quote
Members of the Board
(1)The Police Services Board is to be organized of six permanent members including
(a) The current ARPD commisioner
(b) five selected members of the police service whos ranks are no lower then Officer and no higher than Senior Officer

Permanent ? Who gonna select them ? What will be the requierement excepted ranks ? Why no lower than Officer and not higher than Snr Officer ?
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 06, 2012, 21:38:00 pm
This is your vision on how you wish to see how roll the SAPD, not the owners one. Also, there are some points you made as to get an advantage over them IMO, let me take an example:

Limitation, 2 Months
(1)  The Police Service Board may decide not to deal with a complaint made by a member of the public if the complaint is made more than 2 months after the facts on which it is based occurred.

You are reffering on a complaint that has been re-opened against you and the facts presents occured something like 3 months ago or so.  I could have quoted more but this one shows well how you want to get the things at your advantage.

No, that section refers to people creating NEW reports on a member of SAPD and has no relation to re-opening closed reports. The entire purpose of the Police Services Board is to prevent re-opening reports on people. You are taking that specific statement incredibly out of context and I suggest you re-read it.

You also seem to have the mentality that people cannot suggest new ideas. This is a suggestion not some sort of "do it this way" thread. You are not the owners so do not speak for them


These regulations are drawn directly from real life police procedures that I follow everyday and have the handbook to reference from. Unless of course you are accusing me of going ahead and specifically putting thing in a real life police handbook for Argonath  :lol:
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 06, 2012, 21:41:52 pm
Quote
Members of the Board
(1)The Police Services Board is to be organized of six permanent members including
(a) The current ARPD commisioner
(b) five selected members of the police service whos ranks are no lower then Officer and no higher than Senior Officer

Permanent ? Who gonna select them ? What will be the requierement excepted ranks ? Why no lower than Officer and not higher than Snr Officer ?

ARPD Commisioner Jaaskaa would be in charge of selecting the members of thr services board. The reason only Officer to Senior officer would be selected is because we need to have board members who are absent from SAPD command to make them impartial to as little bias as possible in regard to command decision. SAPD command already has their job to do, the board needs to be members of the GENERAL SAPD staff to give them their own perspective on issues.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Daniel_Bradford on June 06, 2012, 21:44:07 pm
This is your vision on how you wish to see how roll the SAPD, not the owners one. Also, there are some points you made as to get an advantage over them IMO, let me take an example:

Limitation, 2 Months
(1)  The Police Service Board may decide not to deal with a complaint made by a member of the public if the complaint is made more than 2 months after the facts on which it is based occurred.

You are reffering on a complaint that has been re-opened against you and the facts presents occured something like 3 months ago or so.  I could have quoted more but this one shows well how you want to get the things at your advantage.

No, that section refers to people creating NEW reports on a member of SAPD and has no relation to re-opening closed reports. The entire purpose of the Police Services Board is to prevent re-opening reports on people. You are taking that specific statement incredibly out of context and I suggest you re-read it.

You also seem to have the mentality that people cannot suggest new ideas. This is a suggestion not some sort of "do it this way" thread. You are not the owners so do not speak for them




I come to you today with a proposition for a new system in regards to the way the SAPD is handled.
Coming with changes is fine and very nice to see people want to make the SAPD better, thus what do you know the way is the Upper Command handling the SAPD ? How can you come with some proposal without knowing how it rolls ..
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 06, 2012, 21:47:31 pm
This is your vision on how you wish to see how roll the SAPD, not the owners one. Also, there are some points you made as to get an advantage over them IMO, let me take an example:

Limitation, 2 Months
(1)  The Police Service Board may decide not to deal with a complaint made by a member of the public if the complaint is made more than 2 months after the facts on which it is based occurred.

You are reffering on a complaint that has been re-opened against you and the facts presents occured something like 3 months ago or so.  I could have quoted more but this one shows well how you want to get the things at your advantage.

No, that section refers to people creating NEW reports on a member of SAPD and has no relation to re-opening closed reports. The entire purpose of the Police Services Board is to prevent re-opening reports on people. You are taking that specific statement incredibly out of context and I suggest you re-read it.

You also seem to have the mentality that people cannot suggest new ideas. This is a suggestion not some sort of "do it this way" thread. You are not the owners so do not speak for them




I come to you today with a proposition for a new system in regards to the way the SAPD is handled.
Coming with changes is fine and very nice to see people want to make the SAPD better, thus what do you know the way is the Upper Command handling the SAPD ? How can you come with some proposal without knowing how it rolls ..

2 Reasons,

1) I have spent a lot of time as friends with command members in the last 3 years, I understand how they do things

2.) They have the ability to post their concerns regarding the proposal from their perspective just as you are doing. I could ask you the same questions frankly.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Mash on June 06, 2012, 21:51:28 pm
Instead of push his propsal in the dirt should you maybe highlight how SAPD roll today.

I haven't read it all, only few parts but most of the propsals I've read sounds reasonable. Well written but with the current activity of the required people I doubt this will be implented and overviewed in the nearest future.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 06, 2012, 21:54:08 pm
Instead of push his propsal in the dirt should you maybe highlight how SAPD roll today.

I haven't read it all, only few parts but most of the propsals I've read sounds reasonable. Well written but with the current activity of the required people I doubt this will be implented and overviewed in the nearest future.


Indeed, these things take time to implement and I never expected some sort of speedy response to any of it. hell, this has been in development by me for months, the idea came to me over a year ago, I just never knew how to formulate it properly. This is just the public development stage anyway, feedback of all kinds is needed to iron out issues.

In regards to activity it is indeed true that many high up command members do not have the activity required to support such a grand proposition in a quick time period. One of the many positives of the proposal is its eventual self management that requires very little effort from outside parties.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Cyril on June 06, 2012, 21:59:16 pm
Well, I read it again and it raised my attention when I read "municipality".. I searched on google and found :

On your first part you said :

Quote
Police Services
(1) Every department to which this subsection applies shall provide adequate and effective police services in accordance with its needs.

Core Police Services
(2)  Adequate and effective police services must include, at a minimum, all of the following police services:
1. Crime prevention.
2. Law enforcement.
3. Assistance to victims of crime.
4. Public order maintenance.
5. Emergency response.

Infrastructure for Police Services
(3)  In providing adequate and effective police services, a department shall be responsible for providing all the infrastructure and administration necessary for providing such services, including vehicles, boats, equipment, communication devices, buildings and supplies.

Little search on google and we obtain :

Quote
Municipalities

Police services in municipalities

4.  (1)  Every municipality to which this subsection applies shall provide adequate and effective police services in accordance with its needs. 1997, c. 8, s. 3.

Core police services

(2)  Adequate and effective police services must include, at a minimum, all of the following police services:
1. Crime prevention.
2. Law enforcement.
3. Assistance to victims of crime.
4. Public order maintenance.
5. Emergency response. 1997, c. 8, s. 3.

Infrastructure for police services

(3)  In providing adequate and effective police services, a municipality shall be responsible for providing all the infrastructure and administration necessary for providing such services, including vehicles, boats, equipment, communication devices, buildings and supplies. 1997, c. 8, s. 3.

Source : http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p15_e.htm#s4s1


Then I continue on.. (I didn't bother check all the part since I guess you did the same for everything) last part :

You said :

Quote
Part IV - The Police Service Board


Responsibilities of the board
(1)  the board is responsible for the provision of adequate and effective police services in the state and shall,
(a) generally determine, after consultation with the chief of police, objectives and priorities with respect to police services in the municipality;
(b) establish policies for the effective management of the police force
(c) recruit and appoint the chief of police and any deputy chief of police, and annually determine their remuneration and working conditions, taking their submissions into account
(d) direct the chief of police and monitor his or her performance
(e) establish policies respecting the disclosure by chiefs of police of personal information about individuals
(f) receive regular reports from the chief of police on disclosures and decisions made
(g) establish guidelines for dealing with complaints
(h) review the chief of police’s administration of the complaints system
(i) respond to complaints and punishments on members of the police force
(j) review disputes submitted in regards to penalties and punishments on officers within the force

I found on google :

Quote
Mandated Responsibilities of the Police Services Board:

Police Services Act

Section 31

Responsibilities of boards

31.(1) A board is responsible for the provision of adequate and effective police services in the
municipality and shall:
(a) appoint the members of the municipal police force;
(b) generally determine, after consultation with the chief of police, objectives and
priorities with respect to police services in the municipality;
(c) establish policies for the effective management of the police force;
(d) recruit and appoint the chief of police and any deputy chief of police, and
annually determine their remuneration and working conditions, taking their
submissions into account;
(e) direct the chief of police and monitor his or her performance;
(f) establish policies respecting the disclosure by chiefs of police of personal
information about individuals;
(g) receive regular reports from the chief of police on disclosures and decisions made
under section 49 (secondary activities); INTRODUCTION
Ottawa Police Services Board    7
Policy Manual
(h) establish guidelines with respect to the indemnification of members of the police
force for legal costs under section 50;
(i) establish guidelines for dealing with complaints made under Part V;
(j) review the chief of police’s administration of the complaints system under Part V
and receive regular reports from the chief of police on his or her administration of
the complaints system.

Source : http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/serving_ottawa/services_board/pdf/board_policy_manual.pdf ; page 6.



Come back when you did something YOURSELF and not a copy/paste. Topic to be locked.
SA:MP and SAPD is not to be based on real-life things.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 06, 2012, 22:02:52 pm
You do know I specifically stated I sourced this from my REAL police Handbook I use for work right? I did so because if they work in real life they obviously have been tried and tested enough to be proven as reliable procedures.

Correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure you dont have any real police experience to be critisising what I use from my real life as source material

I can timestamp my equipment with this book if you really dont trust me  ;)
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Cyril on June 06, 2012, 22:05:03 pm
You just made a disgusting copy/paste and come here saying you have "ideas"..
I mean, I can copy/paste French police structures and procedures and say "I've ideas how to improve SAPD!!"..
Come back when you REALLY think and work on new ideas.
Next time just give the link, it'll be faster.

And SAMP/SAPD is not to be a copy of Real Life.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 06, 2012, 22:05:54 pm
You just made a disgusting copy/paste and come here saying you have "ideas"..
I mean, I can copy/paste French police structures and procedures and say "I've ideas how to improve SAPD!!"..
Come back when you REALLY think and work on new ideas.

You should remove all the SAPD codes and current procedures because they are identical to real life

use real logic please


Saying " herp depr this is used from real life" solves nothing. If you really say we should use nothing from real life then we should scrap SAPD all together, because 95 percent of it is ripped off from the LAPD or the NYPD. Just because I use real experiences and regulations does not make it wrong.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 06, 2012, 22:09:24 pm
The idea for this was drawn from the Police Standards that my own department uses and I looked through the handbook for regulation that would work in our virtual setting.

As I said, I already stated this, learn to read
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Daniel_Bradford on June 06, 2012, 22:12:02 pm
You do know I specifically stated I sourced this from my REAL police Handbook I use for work right? I did so because if they work in real life they obviously have been tried and tested enough to be proven as reliable procedures.

Correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure you dont have any real police experience to be critisising what I use from my real life as source material

I can timestamp my equipment with this book if you really dont trust me  ;)
Has it something to do with your proposal ? I don't think so..


The idea for this was drawn from the Police Standards that my own department uses and I looked through the handbook for regulation that would work in our virtual setting.

As I said, I already stated this, learn to read
Drop this provokation.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 06, 2012, 22:13:16 pm
You do know I specifically stated I sourced this from my REAL police Handbook I use for work right? I did so because if they work in real life they obviously have been tried and tested enough to be proven as reliable procedures.

Correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure you dont have any real police experience to be critisising what I use from my real life as source material

I can timestamp my equipment with this book if you really dont trust me  ;)
Has it something to do with your proposal ? I don't think so..


The idea for this was drawn from the Police Standards that my own department uses and I looked through the handbook for regulation that would work in our virtual setting.

As I said, I already stated this, learn to read
Drop this provokation.

it has something to do with it because Cyril finds it amusing to point out the obvious and stated fact that im using my real life knowledge in this.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Julio. on June 07, 2012, 00:39:23 am
Moose, you do not need to keep mentioning how these are 'real' regulations and how you work for a 'real' police force, as I am pretty sure the majority do not give a damn.

Someone had to say it straight, sad it had to be me.

You want to basically introduce more red tape for us to see, and thats not what we want in a game.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 07, 2012, 01:11:52 am
Moose, you do not need to keep mentioning how these are 'real' regulations and how you work for a 'real' police force, as I am pretty sure the majority do not give a damn.

Someone had to say it straight, sad it had to be me.

You want to basically introduce more red tape for us to see, and thats not what we want in a game.

And yet SAPD members are punished for simple things with no possible system of dispute. If this was trully treated like a game then I would agree with you, a system like this is not needed, however I have witnessed a lot of things that make me wonder if this really is treated as just a "game". if that was true then SAPD would have a sense of brotherhood and would not punish its members for things that even in the real world you would not be punished for.

This system makes it fair for everyone, no matter what your rank is. I only see this system as a necessary feature to make the game more fun in general without the fear of being fired simply because you treat it like a game.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Cyril on June 07, 2012, 09:53:19 am
We have rules (Server rules and SAPD rules), if you don't follow them, you get punished. It's pretty simple.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Huntsman on June 07, 2012, 14:14:27 pm
Stop being hard on him serioulsy. He wants to give us his idea. If you have a problem with that then what are you even doing here? I never recall ideas being forbidden. If they are, we would be back to stalinism.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 07, 2012, 15:46:17 pm
We have rules (Server rules and SAPD rules), if you don't follow them, you get punished. It's pretty simple.

There is no system in place to dispute punishment for rules that are either used out of context or don't exist at all. i dont see why people are complaining about a system that gives them more rights and protects them.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Huntsman on June 07, 2012, 19:04:46 pm
Administrators warn me/ban me for my harsh attitude on people in forums, yet, i am disgusted by what i see in this topic.. So... I see some people posting in disgusting attitude can get away without a punishment..?
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Mash on June 07, 2012, 19:56:06 pm
We have rules (Server rules and SAPD rules), if you don't follow them, you get punished. It's pretty simple.
And this isn't fairly done. I've experienced it my self, we get treated differently for the same offence.

That officers and senior officers will be involved as an internal affair commitee is a great idea. Especielly that they have two different enviornments to work in and not just doing regular patrol and duty reports. Aswell it does to the higher ranks can focus to develop their department.

Oh, and Cyril! Look what I found on google!


Quote
10-0 Caution
10-1 Reception poor
10-2 Reception good
10-3 Stop transmitting
10-4 Message received, understood

10-5 Repay message
10-6 Change channel
10-7 Out of service
10-7A Out of service, home
10-7B Out of service, personal
10-8 In service
10-9 Repeat message

10-10 Off duty
10-10A Off duty, home
10-11 Identify frequency
10-12 Visitor(s) present
10-13 Weather and road advice
10-14 Citizen w/suspect
10-15 Prisoner in custody

10-16 Pick up prisoner
10-17 Request for gasoline
10-18 Equipment exchange
10-19 Return(ing) to station
10-20 Location

10-21 Telephone
10-21A Advise home I will return at:
10-22 Disregard last assignment
10-23 Stand by
10-24 Request car-to-car transmit
10-25 Do you have contact with:
10-26 Clear
10-27 D.D.L. report
10-28 Registration request
10-29 Check for wants
10-29F Subject wanted, felony
10-29H Hazard potential from subject
10-29M Subject wanted, Misdemeanor
10-29V Vehicle wanted
10-30 Doesn't conform to regulations
10-32 Drowning
10-33 Alarm sounding, audible
10-34 Assist at office
10-35 Time check
10-36 Confidential information
10-37 Identify operator
10-39 Can () come to the radio?
10-40 Is () available for phone call?
10-42 Check the welfare of/at:
10-43 Call a doctor
10-45 Condition of patient?
10-45A Good
10-45B Serious
10-45C Critical
10-45D Dead
10-49 Proceed to:
10-50 Under influence of drugs
10-51 Drunk
10-52 Resuscitator
10-53 Man down
10-54 Possible dead body
10-55 Coroner case
10-56 Suicide
10-56A Suicide attempt
10-57 Missing person
10-59 Security check
10-60 Lock-out
10-61 Miscellaneous public service
10-62 Meet a citizen
10-62A Take a report from a citizen
10-62B Civilian standby
10-63 Prepare to copy
10-64 Found property
10-66 Suspicious person
10-67 Person calling for help
10-68 Telephone for police
10-70 Prowler
10-71 Shooting
10-72 Gun involved
10-73 How do you receive?
10-76 On route
10-79 Bomb threat
10-80 Explosion
10-86 Any radio traffic?
10-88 Assume post
10-91 Animal
10-91A Animal, stray
10-91B Animal, noisy
10-91C Animal, injured
10-91D Animal, dead
10-91E Animal, bite
10-91G Animal, pickup
10-91J Animal, pickup collect
10-91L Animal, leash law violation
10-91V Animal, vicious
10-95 Need ID tech unit
10-97 Arrived at scene
10-98 Available to assign

SAPD is based on real life codes and procedures aswell. To claim that Safetymoose have copied a police handbook is the same to claim SAPD have claimed a handbook.

Point out what he can improve instead of give him the finger.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Cyril on June 07, 2012, 20:00:26 pm
We have rules (Server rules and SAPD rules), if you don't follow them, you get punished. It's pretty simple.
And this isn't fairly done. I've experienced it my self, we get treated differently for the same offence.

That officers and senior officers will be involved as an internal affair commitee is a great idea. Especielly that they have two different enviornments to work in and not just doing regular patrol and duty reports. Aswell it does to the higher ranks can focus to develop their department.

Of course people are not threated equally. As an old admin, you know that severals factors influence your decision.
If a Sergeant break a rule, he'll be punished harder than if a new registered user do it..
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Steven J on June 08, 2012, 03:52:58 am
Stop provoking / annoying each other, else I will lock this.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Chief J. Schappell on June 08, 2012, 04:17:27 am
Stop provoking / annoying each other, else I will lock this.
I'll back you up on that promise too.



There is nothing wrong with proposing ideas with a positive intent so long as they aren't breaking any rules by doing so, or attacking any players in the process. If you wish to continue discussing the idea, I suggest you guys learn to play nice. ;)

@SafetyMoose: Although there are probably some issues here or there that conflict with the Argonath Vision as others said, it's nice to see someone come up with a unique approach as an attempt to deal with common issues and prevent future ones. :cop:
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 08, 2012, 06:01:30 am
Stop provoking / annoying each other, else I will lock this.
I'll back you up on that promise too.



There is nothing wrong with proposing ideas with a positive intent so long as they aren't breaking any rules by doing so, or attacking any players in the process. If you wish to continue discussing the idea, I suggest you guys learn to play nice. ;)

@SafetyMoose: Although there are probably some issues here or there that conflict with the Argonath Vision as others said, it's nice to see someone come up with a unique approach as an attempt to deal with common issues and prevent future ones. :cop:

Well of course, version 1 is going to have a few issues, but thats why its here for people to give ideas on how to work around the argo vision aspect.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: Chief J. Schappell on June 08, 2012, 17:25:14 pm
Stop provoking / annoying each other, else I will lock this.
I'll back you up on that promise too.



There is nothing wrong with proposing ideas with a positive intent so long as they aren't breaking any rules by doing so, or attacking any players in the process. If you wish to continue discussing the idea, I suggest you guys learn to play nice. ;)

@SafetyMoose: Although there are probably some issues here or there that conflict with the Argonath Vision as others said, it's nice to see someone come up with a unique approach as an attempt to deal with common issues and prevent future ones. :cop:

Well of course, version 1 is going to have a few issues, but thats why its here for people to give ideas on how to work around the argo vision aspect.
I agree, and I'm glad you took the opportunity to do it. It's nice to see that people care and want to improve things, whether they need improving or not. That is why Argo is so successful these days. We never stop improving! :cop:
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: JDC on June 09, 2012, 04:43:00 am
Personally, I prefer a more direct approach free of red tape. As such, I currently support the structure where higher ranks have complete authority and where command staff members in violation can be reported to an even higher command staff member.

Some questions:

How do we know that the Senior Officers / Officers on the panel will not be controlled by higher officers outside the panel?

Why do we even need a panel with Jaaskaa as the head when Jaaskaa himself can perform any and all functions necessary?

How does this help speed up the process instead of adding more red tape?

Would the officers on the panel be free of the authority of command staff other than Jaaskaa? They must be in order to exercise their power effectively, or else they can be manipulated by local higher-ranked members.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 09, 2012, 06:11:30 am
Personally, I prefer a more direct approach free of red tape. As such, I currently support the structure where higher ranks have complete authority and where command staff members in violation can be reported to an even higher command staff member.

Some questions:

How do we know that the Senior Officers / Officers on the panel will not be controlled by higher officers outside the panel?

Why do we even need a panel with Jaaskaa as the head when Jaaskaa himself can perform any and all functions necessary?

How does this help speed up the process instead of adding more red tape?

Would the officers on the panel be free of the authority of command staff other than Jaaskaa? They must be in order to exercise their power effectively, or else they can be manipulated by local higher-ranked members.


Well, to address the start, there is no system to report a command staff member, the current system allows for command staff to punish a member if they try and go above their rank, so reporting a superior becomes a useless gesture that is taken as betrayal rather then you doing your duty as an officer.

The Services Board acts by unanimously agreeing to decisions and operate much like a jurry. They have no alligence to a department thus are not controlled by any command staff members other then Jaaskaa, they are Officer or Senior Officer simply because that is the lowest operational rank within SAPD. There job is to represent popular morality and the the views and opinions of SAPD as a whole and provide that secondary review panel.  Who better to be a judge of problems then your own peers and equals? Without what you call "Red Tape" the average player has no defence against false accusation and unequal treatment.

Anyone who is against setting a standard of rights and freedoms does so because these changes threaten the unbalanced power and equality. Change is inevitable and setting rights and freedoms of SAPD staff not only sets a president for positive change, it allows for the SAPD to be seen as an organization that supports fair play and justice, instead of punishment and fear.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: [Rstar]Paul on June 09, 2012, 12:34:09 pm
Hi SafetyMoose!

Thanks for your time in processing your suggestions to the whole ARPD (?). This will be forwarded to the SAPD Command staff members and they will be reviewing the proposal suggested by your kindness. In the meantime, do not expect feedback from the Chiefs of the SAPD. As per suggested submitted by our friendly Argonathian members, they will be kindly reviewed. This means we will look towards the Argonath Vision requirements.

Please note that this will be forwarded to the SA:MP division only, other police department may do so as-well if you convince them to do so. A copy will be made from the suggestion towards the Chief Headquarters desk.

I'll be reviewing it once I'm fully back from my absence.


Have a nice weekend,
SAPD Headquarters.
Title: Re: [Proposal] Police Services Act / Police Services Board
Post by: SafetyMoose on June 09, 2012, 22:29:17 pm
Hi SafetyMoose!

Thanks for your time in processing your suggestions to the whole ARPD (?). This will be forwarded to the SAPD Command staff members and they will be reviewing the proposal suggested by your kindness. In the meantime, do not expect feedback from the Chiefs of the SAPD. As per suggested submitted by our friendly Argonathian members, they will be kindly reviewed. This means we will look towards the Argonath Vision requirements.

Please note that this will be forwarded to the SA:MP division only, other police department may do so as-well if you convince them to do so. A copy will be made from the suggestion towards the Chief Headquarters desk.

I'll be reviewing it once I'm fully back from my absence.


Have a nice weekend,
SAPD Headquarters.

Have a nice break Paul. Glad to see it is at least being looked at which is all I really ask for :)
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal