Argonath RPG Police Department

GTA: San Andreas => SA:MP Complaints Desk => SAPD Information Center => [SA:MP] Closed Complaints => Topic started by: Pingster on February 02, 2013, 02:37:52 am

Title: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 02, 2013, 02:37:52 am
Directed to: SAPD authority.
SAPD Officer Policy violators: AnthraX

1. AnthraX - Failure to follow the Constitution, more specifically, to prove I'm guilty, yet issuing a fine anyway. The guy followed me around in an Infernus, after I stopped to ask him why he's doing that, he proceeded with a traffic stop procedure. If we ignore the fact that he was patrolling in an HSP Infernus (Aren't those supposed to be chasing criminals in Infernus? Paul was rather unclear on that.), he failed to provide evidence of his original reason of following me - I allegedly were speeding (Fun fact, I was actually very careful on the accelerator.), he threw a new one at me. Again, he could not produce any evidence except him being a witness, and let's be real, I can claim I'm a witness of Sauron murdering Gandalf, but what good is that? After several times of explaining him that it's not how law works, him arguing he's not required to get real evidence when he accuses people of things, I eventually gave up, as there was a massive scene already.
2. SFPD

 a.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/60464040/Anthrax/sa-mp-342.png)
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/60464040/Anthrax/sa-mp-343.png)
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/60464040/Anthrax/sa-mp-344.png)
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/60464040/Anthrax/sa-mp-346.png)
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/60464040/Anthrax/sa-mp-347.png)
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/60464040/Anthrax/sa-mp-348.png)
 b. A chatlog (Irrelevant things removed) (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/60464040/Anthrax/Anthrax.txt)
Alternatively, if you don't trust my .txt,
Spoiler (Click to expand)
Code: [Select]
[02:30:46] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Any reason you're following me?

[02:31:16] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Yesnonoyes?

[02:31:17] AnthraX(13) says: Engine off please.

[02:31:24] Chief_Hardy(19) turns off the engine of their vehicle.

[02:31:34] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Well here we go.

[02:31:37] AnthraX(13): Police Radio: Traffic stop of red sports car at FBI HQ, Over.

[02:31:51] AnthraX(13) says: Senior Officer Anth, show ID please thank you.

[02:31:58] Chief_Hardy(19) shows his ID.

[02:32:06] Chief_Hardy(19) says: HSP patrols streets? New one.

[02:32:07] AnthraX(13) looks at it.

[02:32:20] AnthraX(13) says: Are you really going to discuss my division?

[02:32:31] Chief_Hardy(19) says: I'm going to discuss your patrolling methods.

[02:32:42] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Is my understanding HSP is HSP and patrolling is done in cruisers.

[02:33:06] AnthraX(13) says: You have no right to critize me like that, talk to my supervisor Chief hes online.

[02:33:17] Chief_Hardy(19) says: I will, have no doubts about that.

[02:33:17] AnthraX(13) says: Take that talk with him, if you got any problems okay?

[02:33:23] AnthraX(13) says: Thank you.

[02:33:41] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Good evening officer

[02:33:59] AnthraX(13) says: Okay reason for stopping you is speeding at market strip.

[02:34:09] AnthraX(13) says: Explain why?

[02:34:11] Chief_Hardy(19) says: And I'm sure you have /speed to back it up.

[02:34:15] AnthraX(13) says: Screenshoted.

[02:34:23] AnthraX(13) says: I mean patrol recorded.

[02:34:26] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Screenshotted /speed?

[02:34:35] AnthraX(13) says: Screenshotted your speed yes.

[02:34:42] AnthraX(13) says: No thank you.

[02:34:49] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Okay, so tell me how you can /speed in a HSP infernus.

[02:35:14] AnthraX(13) says: You also overcrossed illegaly.

[02:35:26] AnthraX(13) says: That is seen as reckless driving, down at Conference Centre.

[02:35:43] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Yeah okay, and you have evidence of that too?

[02:35:57] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Or do you always stop people without any evidence.

[02:36:19] AnthraX(13) says: I dont need evidance.

[02:36:23] AnthraX(13) says: At all.

[02:36:37] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Well, I'm going to want evidence if I want you to prove I'm guilty.

[02:36:41] AnthraX(13) says: You were overcrossing illegal.

[02:36:52] AnthraX(13) says: I got evidance enough being a witness of it.

[02:37:03] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Very biased witness, don't you think?

[02:37:29] AnthraX(13) says: Well in SAPD regulations, I do not require to show basic evidance to give a ticket.

[02:37:44] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Well, in the Constitution, I'm innocent until proven guilty.

[02:37:55] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Last I checked the constitution overrules your regulations.

[02:38:43] Steve_McGarrett(35) says: The dashcam footage is enough evidence to charge you with an infraction.

[02:38:47] Chief_Hardy(19) says: I'm talking about me being innocent until proven and declared guilty.

[02:38:56] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Feel free to provide me with such footage.

[02:39:11] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Do so, provide evidence.

[02:39:14] AnthraX(13) says: Let me get the tape then.

[02:39:18] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Go ahead.

[02:39:27] AnthraX(13) takes the gopro camera from the infernus.

[02:39:49] AnthraX(13) turns back to the time where Chief Hardy breached traffic law.

[02:39:52] AnthraX(13) shows it to him.

[02:39:57] AnthraX(13) says: There you go

[02:40:15] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Yeah I can't distinguish anything there. Think your superiors will accept that as evidence?

[02:40:20] AnthraX(13) says: Yes, sir.

[02:43:28] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Now, Snr Officer AnthraX.

[02:43:39] AnthraX(13) says: Yes?

[02:43:45] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Do you have any evidence proving I'm guilty, or am I free to go?

[02:44:36] AnthraX(13) says: Listen FBI cadet..

[02:44:55] AnthraX(13) says: I am not required to have any actual evidance (like a screenshot) to proove your traffic lawness.

[02:45:12] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Oh wow wow now where is that coming from

[02:45:32] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Are you telling me SAPD Snr Officers are allowed to go around telling people they broke laws?

[02:45:43] AnthraX(13) says: Witnessed it, sir.

[02:45:58] AnthraX(13) says: Do you think I am required to screenshot every crime a citizen of argonath does?

[02:46:12] AnthraX(13) says: To provemyself? I can do an investigation if you refuse to pay the ticket.

[02:46:14] AnthraX(13) says: Go ahead.

[02:46:16] Chief_Hardy(19) says: I actually do think so, there's a reason my screenshot folder is humongous

[02:46:20] AnthraX(13) writes a ticket of 100$

[02:46:24] AnthraX(13) says: Recklessy driving.

[02:46:30] AnthraX(13) gave a ticket to Chief_Hardy(19).

[02:46:38] Chief_Hardy(19) says: You write that out in my name and there WILL be a report.

[02:47:41] Chief_Hardy(19) says: I'm dead serious here AnthraX

[02:47:54] Chief_Hardy(19) says: If you fail to follow the constitution in your police duties, there are issues

[02:48:51] AnthraX(13) says: That is up to you.

[02:49:16] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Sure then. For your good, I do hope you took screenshots.

[02:49:21] You sent $100 to AnthraX(13).

[02:49:35] AnthraX(13) says: I took screenshots of your car when I had to drive 120km/h to keep up.

[02:49:35] Chief_Hardy(19) turns on the engine of their vehicle.

[02:49:46] AnthraX(13) says: Well I am required to do /speed for that, but I am also charghing you for reckless driving.

[02:49:56] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Which you have no evidence of

[02:49:56] AnthraX(13) says: Due to driving overcrossing a line.

[02:50:07] AnthraX(13) says: Reckless driving does not require screenshot.

[02:50:15] AnthraX(13) says: Now go ahead and report me on ARPD forums please, good luck.

[02:50:21] Chief_Hardy(19) says: Without evidence you can't prove I'm guilty

[02:50:27] Chief_Hardy(19) says: If you can't do that, I'm innocent

[02:50:35] AnthraX(13) shouts: No further discussion, take it to ARPD report!!

Date: 02/02/2013
Time: 1:40ish CET

Civillian(s) involved: None

Signed
James Hardy

Also, he's well aware of this report.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Deluca on February 02, 2013, 03:12:01 am
Hello. Steve McGarrett here, I am here to witness from AnthraX party.

AnthraX does not need any reason to pull you over generally. He can pull you over for routine check for all you know, but AnthraX has been a member of the SAPD for a long time of period, and I got huge doubts that he'd start to deliberately push himself down for a single traffic stop. Out of realism, why would he do that? You continuously said that he'd need a F8 screenshot to provide evidence against you, meanwhile the situation was fully RPly which makes the F8 screenshot useless as well invalid. The only evidences that can be provided from the RP constitution is tapes(done RPly and uses chatlog as a resource), or a camera.

So if I need to follow your logic, I'd have to walk around with a camera IRL instantly to provide evidences? As well, in SA-MP, I'd have to record FRAPS instantly and take F8 Screenshots? People got better things to do than actually going around pressing F8 button every 5th second. We're playing here to have a fun gameplay and not witch hunting people for a reason to report them like your logic stand for. As well, for the homicide example of Gandalf and Sauron, a witness would be enough to charge that man for murder. Nobody IRL has the heart to lie to a law employee regarding something that serious unless they got a huge grudge against the person, as well. Questions are asked if he can provide evidences of the opposite.

As well, for the HSP, yes. HSP is meant to be for High Speed Pursuits, but there were 2 HSP units there and there was 50 players online. There aren't high speed pursuits instantly, we got time to patrol as well. We do not have any immunity from performing traffic stops, that would be just idiotic and nonsense.

Now, for the roleplay part of the situation. The dashcam footage is enough evidence, I believe that AnthraX was not so bored that he randomly went to pull over to fine the first person he saw. You continuously kept saying "I'm innocent until proven guilty", that consider as miranda which goes under misdemeanor and felonies, not for citations and infractions. Reckless driving equal an infraction. Why would a cop read miranda rights if he's fining someone? It is absolutely no sense and no stable logic.

Not only I got sick of your obstruction during this traffic stop. You addressed yourself as a civilian and not as an agent on duty, which makes you a civilian and will have to act like one. You don't have any immunity to outrun the laws as you're out of service, that means you have to act polite and respectfully to the officers, as well. You should see the errors in your actions instead of disregarding the traffic stipulation instantly. I am not the only officer who has trust in AnthraX. He is a good officer and does his work perfectly. I was unaware of you actually paying the ticket, and I asked in TS if you did, and I got the reply "no" which was a reply to someone else's question. Since that situation, I thought AnthraX was going to be soft on you and let you off with a warning due to you provoking him by threatening to report him. As AnthraX left you, that does not mean you can continuously outrun the laws.

As well, during the traffic stop - something that did not change is that you continuously disregarded the traffic stipulation, obstructed the peace and committed unlawful assemblies. Which I suspected you for, and later dropped the charges as I was told that you paid the ticket. You still do not see the errors in what you did out on the field, and I personally do not see you as a role model to future members of FBI, but furthermore an asset for them which does provide them positive benefits. I want you to show me the FBI rule which says that you can outrun and that you have immunity to outrun the laws of San Andreas whilst you are off duty. If these are not provided I will file a report to internal affairs of FBI.



Regards
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 02, 2013, 03:26:49 am
Steve, as you were not a witness of the situation leading up to the argument (And you got there pretty late as well), I don't see why you're here. You've got nothing you can add to the case apart from your opinions.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Deluca on February 02, 2013, 03:29:06 am
Quote from: Hardy on February 02, 2013, 03:26:49 am
Steve, as you were not a witness of the situation leading up to the argument (And you got there pretty late as well), I don't see why you're here. You've got nothing you can add to the case apart from your opinions.

Wrong again. I was witness of the situation, and I am not going to hold back what is relevant to the situation out of what I observed, and my options are common sense. Now, to the question I asked you. Does off duty agents have the immunity to outrun the San Andreas laws?
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Anthrax on February 02, 2013, 03:29:15 am
Hi Chief Hardy,

I am verifying that Steve McGarrett was my patrol partner and a witness on this situation, after I pulled you over. I also want to thank you for reporting me so we can clear this case and any possible further doubts about this.
I myself pulled you over for two specific reasons. That was speeding and reckless driving. You did not seem to agree with this infraction at all and indeed asked for evidance. I roleplayed having a dashcam and showing you the evidance, that was obviously not enough. For practical reasons that is not really needed either, reckless driving is only needed to be witnessed. Do you think that for every crime or infraction a citizen of Argonath does there must be evidance done with either fraps or screenshots? It does not work that way at all. I do not agree with the accusments that Chief_Hardy is writing as failing to follow the consecution at all and hopes to see a justified conclution in this case. Thats all needed for me and I am open for any questions, thank you.

Signed,
SFPD Senior Officer,
Anth SinatraX
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 02, 2013, 03:42:29 am
Your patrol partner was not with you, as is shown in the very first screenshot. How could he have witnessed anything? In fact, the first instance of him saying anything in /l is
Quote
[02:37:08] Steve_McGarrett(35) says: So what's the problem?
Which is 6 minutes after you pulled me over, and clearly was clueless as to what happened. If that's a witness to the situation, who can confirm or deny anything that may have happened resulting in you pulling me over, then I've come to the wrong place.

As your only reason for pulling me over for speeding was that you had to go 120km/h to catch up with me (If I'm ahead and you want to catch up with me, of course you'll need to go faster than I'm going to catch up with me), that was dismissed pretty early. However, you seemed to have something against me, so you proceeded to accuse me of reckless driving.

I want you to show me a law that states that you do not need real evidence for practical reasons. On an average day, I get 1-2 people /m1ing me while I'm parked on the side of the street, if you "do not need real evidence", then the police duty would be abused constantly, as is shown in this case. And yes, it does work that way, that's the law. If you disagree with it, take it to Supreme Courts, but as it is, you must prove someone is guilty, or they're innocent.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Deluca on February 02, 2013, 03:48:36 am
Quote from: Hardy on February 02, 2013, 03:42:29 am
Your patrol partner was not with you, as is shown in the very first screenshot. How could he have witnessed anything? In fact, the first instance of him saying anything in /l is
Quote
[02:37:08] Steve_McGarrett(35) says: So what's the problem?
Which is 6 minutes after you pulled me over, and clearly was clueless as to what happened. If that's a witness to the situation, who can confirm or deny anything that may have happened resulting in you pulling me over, then I've come to the wrong place.

I've been communicating with Anthrax all day via TeamSpeak, we were several people in the channel which can confirm that he was talking about you and what you said before I decided to move to the situation. That I say "So what's the problem?" is not standing there clueless. For me, It'd seem more shocking if I'd come and start talking without an introduction. "So what's the problem?" is a introduction to most of situations.

Quote from: Hardy on February 02, 2013, 03:42:29 am
As your only reason for pulling me over for speeding was that you had to go 120km/h to catch up with me (If I'm ahead and you want to catch up with me, of course you'll need to go faster than I'm going to catch up with me), that was dismissed pretty early. However, you seemed to have something against me, so you proceeded to accuse me of reckless driving.

How do you know Anthrax was driving 120 km/h? I don't even think he's aware of that himself, or is it just an assumption?
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Anthrax on February 02, 2013, 04:01:57 am
Quote from: Hardy on February 02, 2013, 03:42:29 am
Your patrol partner was not with you, as is shown in the very first screenshot. How could he have witnessed anything? In fact, the first instance of him saying anything in /l is
[02:37:08] Steve_McGarrett(35) says: So what's the problem?

Okay, wont change anything?  As long as I am witnessing you doing an infraction of the traffic laws, that is enough evidance to give you a ticket. And no I do not need proof for that. Use your comon sence and ask yourselves, if you had to prove everthing with actuall evidance there would been neccesary that all officers had to record fraps 24/7 or take screenshots every second, doesent work that way at all in Argonath.


Quote from: Hardy on February 02, 2013, 03:42:29 am
Which is 6 minutes after you pulled me over, and clearly was clueless as to what happened. If that's a witness to the situation, who can confirm or deny anything that may have happened resulting in you pulling me over, then I've come to the wrong place.

As your only reason for pulling me over for speeding was that you had to go 120km/h to catch up with me (If I'm ahead and you want to catch up with me, of course you'll need to go faster than I'm going to catch up with me), that was dismissed pretty early. However, you seemed to have something against me, so you proceeded to accuse me of reckless driving.

I want you to show me a law that states that you do not need real evidence for practical reasons. On an average day, I get 1-2 people /m1ing me while I'm parked on the side of the street, if you "do not need real evidence", then the police duty would be abused constantly, as is shown in this case. And yes, it does work that way, that's the law. If you disagree with it, take it to Supreme Courts, but as it is, you must prove someone is guilty, or they're innocent.

Yes in my eyes I saw you speeding too, but as I know that has to be verified with /speed I no longed used that against you, so dont bring that up. I ticket you for reckless driving, you have that proven in your own SA:MP log. And that I am using reckless driving against you too get you ticketed because I couldnt prove the speedingis speculation and false, it makes no sence of you to bring that up and is all about your opinions that is irrelevant. You can even see at the start of the log check I am telling you both of the infractions of the traffic law. As said three times already, a police officer does not need to prove(with SS or fraps) reckless driving, nor voilations of crimes that is jaileble.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Sushi on February 02, 2013, 05:08:39 am
Lieutenant Def Perry will be the primary investigator for this report on Senior Officer Anthrax. I, Deputy Chief Kelvin S. Gould will assist with the investigations as Lt. Perry needs.

Summation: Lt. Perry and Dpt Chief. Gould will be the Internal Affairs officers handling this report.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 02, 2013, 19:34:47 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 02, 2013, 03:48:36 am
How do you know Anthrax was driving 120 km/h? I don't even think he's aware of that himself, or is it just an assumption?
Additional proof that this guy has not even fully read the report or paid any attention in-game.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Anthrax on February 02, 2013, 20:35:34 pm
Quote from: Hardy on February 02, 2013, 19:34:47 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 02, 2013, 03:48:36 am
How do you know Anthrax was driving 120 km/h? I don't even think he's aware of that himself, or is it just an assumption?
Additional proof that this guy has not even fully read the report or paid any attention in-game.

Didnt I already say not to discuss the speeding part? I ticketed you for reckless driving, and thats your complaint okay?
You CAN NOT use the fact that I saw you speeding and use that on the report at all, you reported me for ticketing you for reckless driving without having proof, stick to it!
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Ben on February 02, 2013, 22:07:22 pm
Sorry to point this out...*whispers so noone notices* but it says "Non-RP" in the title, though you refer to the constitution (multiple times). I would have to mention that the constitution is RP...breaking server rules or being offensive (in a non-RP way) would be considered Non-RP offences unless the definition of roleplay has been changed?

As long as Anthrax witnessed you speeding (and his partner) and carried out the necessary checks, isn't that enough evidence? You can hardly want him to provide screenshots, as that WOULD be non-RP evidence and non-submissible anyway?

Sorry SAPD board moderators  :gandalf:
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Anthrax on February 02, 2013, 22:10:29 pm
Ben, you should not post here and I am sure the staff knows what is right from wrong.

But for the third time, Chief Hardy is reporting me for ticketing him for reckless driving that is an infraction without having evidance - NOT FOR SPEEDING.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 02, 2013, 22:18:51 pm
I actually reported you for not following the constitution. Unless Lt Perry tells me not to mention you pulling me over for speeding, I've no reason not to. Up until someone told you on TS/CB/PM that you must /speed, you thought I was wrong on that too. It seems you take me for a complete fool and unless someone else confirms it, you don't believe a word I say, which is, frankly, insulting.

Ben, just to clarify, Non-RP reports may be used for officers abusing their badge. If you go around telling people they break the law without evidence, that's abusing your badge.

If we look at the chatlog I provided, he never mentioned reckless driving until I dismissed his means of confirming I'm speeding. Clearly indicates he has something against me (What he has against me is completely beyond me, though.) and didn't want to let me go scott-free. If I had "crossed illegally", how would I have known he has no evidence of it? He already confirmed he was screenshotting me "speeding", there wouldn't have been any reason not to screenshot that as well.

His "partner" was never with him, so he didn't witness anything, apart from the argument halfway through it. If I ask him for evidence, F8s from his dash-cam are considered RP evidence, what do you expect the courts would look like, everyone presenting evidence like he did? "Hi, I saw this guy killing everyone in LSPD and one admin, here's evidence: /me shows pictures."
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Anthrax on February 02, 2013, 22:27:41 pm
Hardy, answer this question - Do you say that law enforcment has to prove every crime a criminal does with either fraps or screenshot, else they are not guilty?

Okay so for the fourth time your bringing the speeding part up, if you are reporting me for accusing you for speeding, and not ticketing you for it you may close this report right away.
Get the facts straight and stop pulling Steve in this constantly, we all know he came after you got pulled over. No further disscussion about Steve or the speeding part.

YOU are reporting me for TICKETING you for RECKLESS DRIVING, and YOU belive law enforcments need actual fraps/screenshot proofs and that roleplay dashcam is not enough, thats it stop making this confusing.

Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 02, 2013, 22:42:09 pm
Can't you not read the topic's title? I'm reporting you for not following the constitution. Every single part of what happened is relevant, including the speeding part. Specially because it shows you had no other reason to stop me before, else you'd have told me so. Unless I'm told otherwise by Def Perry, anyway.

To answer your question, yes, I do say that if you need to prove every crime with evidence. I'm not saying it has to be fraps or screenshot, there are other forms of evidence as well. Witnesses can be brought in. However, your only witness is yourself, and pardon me if I do not think you're an unbiased witness. Roleplay dashcam? I view it as forced roleplay. You can make up any scene you want in that roleplay dashcam, and I wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Seems fair and not abusive at all.

As for Steve, you pulled him in. I'm making sure it's understood he's not a valid witness, before someone assumes he was with you and is in any position to make a statement of whether or not I broke any laws, kind of like Ben did.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Deluca on February 03, 2013, 01:23:26 am
Quote from: Hardy on February 02, 2013, 22:42:09 pm
Can't you not read the topic's title? I'm reporting you for not following the constitution. Every single part of what happened is relevant, including the speeding part. Specially because it shows you had no other reason to stop me before, else you'd have told me so. Unless I'm told otherwise by Def Perry, anyway.

The speeding part is not going anywhere. The speeding was a motive for pulling you over in the first place, then you commit another infraction; reckless driving.

Quote from: Hardy on February 02, 2013, 22:42:09 pm
To answer your question, yes, I do say that if you need to prove every crime with evidence. I'm not saying it has to be fraps or screenshot, there are other forms of evidence as well. Witnesses can be brought in. However, your only witness is yourself, and pardon me if I do not think you're an unbiased witness. Roleplay dashcam? I view it as forced roleplay. You can make up any scene you want in that roleplay dashcam, and I wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Seems fair and not abusive at all.

So if I have to follow your logic, that means every time I pull someone over, I have to look for witnesses to call them to come to me to confirm that you've committed a crime? Your logic makes no sense, I'd agree with your logic when it comes to felonies, yes you'd have to get a witness, but not for reckless driving, speeding or yield violation.

The dashcam footage is roleplay based evidence. That is as well considered as valid evidence, but with all due respect. We could have done it like "/em Would the dashcam footage show you reckless driving & speeding?" and you'd go like "/em no" which is lying. We can go as that as well, but you can lie in roleplay without taking actions to it by an admin in Argonath RPG, as Argonath does not support Powergaming rule. As well, you've got the "force roleplay" wrong. You're here to roleplay, if you're not here to RP, then you have absolutely nothing to do in Argonath.

Quote from: Hardy on February 02, 2013, 22:42:09 pm
As for Steve, you pulled him in. I'm making sure it's understood he's not a valid witness, before someone assumes he was with you and is in any position to make a statement of whether or not I broke any laws, kind of like Ben did.

Another assumption. Anthrax never pulled me into this, I personally asked Anthrax what was going on as we were talking around the situation in the TeamSpeak, and to be honest, you sounded like a non-cooperative civilian, which needed guideline, so I went to check it out to talk with you. And for the record, I told you to provide me evidences of the FBI rule which says that you have immunity to obstruct the peace, acting cooky to LEO's, reckless drive, speed and yield violate while being off duty.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 03, 2013, 08:05:38 am
As you have nothing more to do with this report than any of the other 4 or 5 officers who stopped by, don't mind if I ignore your irrelevant questions.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Deluca on February 03, 2013, 11:59:48 am
Quote from: Hardy on February 03, 2013, 08:05:38 am
As you have nothing more to do with this report than any of the other 4 or 5 officers who stopped by, don't mind if I ignore your irrelevant questions.

Ignoring facts and arguments from opposite party is not going to lead this report anywhere for your case.

Good luck.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Anthrax on February 03, 2013, 13:54:33 pm
Quote from: Hardy on February 03, 2013, 08:05:38 am
As you have nothing more to do with this report than any of the other 4 or 5 officers who stopped by, don't mind if I ignore your irrelevant questions.

Your the one with the irrelevant arguements that doesnt hold up to fact at all. You bring up speculations and its up to CMD to decide how much Steve is a strong witness not you Hardy.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 03, 2013, 15:14:57 pm
Quote from: Anthrax on February 03, 2013, 13:54:33 pm
Quote from: Hardy on February 03, 2013, 08:05:38 am
As you have nothing more to do with this report than any of the other 4 or 5 officers who stopped by, don't mind if I ignore your irrelevant questions.

Your the one with the irrelevant arguements that doesnt hold up to fact at all. You bring up speculations and its up to CMD to decide how much Steve is a strong witness not you Hardy.
Then make sure he acts like a witness, not as someone who's in any position to question anything.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Deluca on February 03, 2013, 16:30:32 pm
Quote from: Hardy on February 03, 2013, 15:14:57 pm
Quote from: Anthrax on February 03, 2013, 13:54:33 pm
Quote from: Hardy on February 03, 2013, 08:05:38 am
As you have nothing more to do with this report than any of the other 4 or 5 officers who stopped by, don't mind if I ignore your irrelevant questions.

Your the one with the irrelevant arguements that doesnt hold up to fact at all. You bring up speculations and its up to CMD to decide how much Steve is a strong witness not you Hardy.
Then make sure he acts like a witness, not as someone who's in any position to question anything.

I'm not a witness. I'm part of the opposite party(Anthrax's party). I asked you questions on the field,I attempted to guide you. That is not a wiitness' role, but a party.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Def Perry on February 03, 2013, 19:52:32 pm
I will start reading both parties their statements tomorrow and possibly be asking questions, please check it by then.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 04, 2013, 15:18:40 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 03, 2013, 16:30:32 pm
I'm not a witness. I'm part of the opposite party(Anthrax's party). I asked you questions on the field,I attempted to guide you. That is not a wiitness' role, but a party.
Well, this isn't a report on you, it's a report on Anthrax.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Anthrax on February 04, 2013, 15:22:13 pm
Quote from: Hardy on February 04, 2013, 15:18:40 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 03, 2013, 16:30:32 pm
I'm not a witness. I'm part of the opposite party(Anthrax's party). I asked you questions on the field,I attempted to guide you. That is not a wiitness' role, but a party.
Well, this isn't a report on you, it's a report on Anthrax.

Why do you continue this? It is NOT up to you who is a valid witness, its up to command.
Now I look foward to get this report done, because as far as I see there is nothing wrong at all with my actions that day I acted all on SAPD procedures.

By the way I cannot answer this report untill Sunday, I only play on sunday from now on due to RL priorities, Def you can take what I already have wrote and use that at the time being till I answer on Sunday.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Def Perry on February 04, 2013, 15:40:42 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 03, 2013, 16:30:32 pm
I'm not a witness.
If you are not a witness and just supporting Anthrax in this report, I suggest you to lay-low now, if you know what I mean..
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Deluca on February 04, 2013, 16:14:05 pm
Quote from: Def Perry on February 04, 2013, 15:40:42 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 03, 2013, 16:30:32 pm
I'm not a witness.
If you are not a witness and just supporting Anthrax in this report, I suggest you to lay-low now, if you know what I mean..

I'm not a supporter. I am directly involved in this report. Calling me a witness would be inappropriate.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Def Perry on February 04, 2013, 16:15:55 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 04, 2013, 16:14:05 pm
Quote from: Def Perry on February 04, 2013, 15:40:42 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 03, 2013, 16:30:32 pm
I'm not a witness.
If you are not a witness and just supporting Anthrax in this report, I suggest you to lay-low now, if you know what I mean..

I'm not a supporter. I am directly involved in this report. Calling me a witness would be inappropriate.
Could you please elaborate how you are involved in this report if you are not a witness?
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 04, 2013, 16:22:39 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 04, 2013, 16:14:05 pm
I am directly involved in this report.
The report is regarding one man's actions and decisions during a traffic stop. Unless you were directly influencing his actions, you can either be his witness to confirm/deny what is stated or a supporter of what he's done, one of these has nothing to do here, the other leaves a statement and answers any questions command has.

Of course, I could be totally wrong and have no idea what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Deluca on February 04, 2013, 17:53:23 pm
Quote from: Def Perry on February 04, 2013, 16:15:55 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 04, 2013, 16:14:05 pm
Quote from: Def Perry on February 04, 2013, 15:40:42 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 03, 2013, 16:30:32 pm
I'm not a witness.
If you are not a witness and just supporting Anthrax in this report, I suggest you to lay-low now, if you know what I mean..

I'm not a supporter. I am directly involved in this report. Calling me a witness would be inappropriate.
Could you please elaborate how you are involved in this report if you are not a witness?

Because a witness' role is to confirm whether or not something happened. A party is someone who's physically directed, like both me and Anthrax were. We were patrol partners in separated vehicles, and I told him that I was enroute to the scene where I discussed for about 10 minutes with Chief Hardy.


Quote from: Hardy on February 04, 2013, 16:22:39 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 04, 2013, 16:14:05 pm
I am directly involved in this report.
The report is regarding one man's actions and decisions during a traffic stop. Unless you were directly influencing his actions, you can either be his witness to confirm/deny what is stated or a supporter of what he's done, one of these has nothing to do here, the other leaves a statement and answers any questions command has.

Of course, I could be totally wrong and have no idea what I'm talking about.

Stop acting cooky, that will only lead you into trouble. If I'm right, FBI shall show themselves professional. At which point is the comment "Of course I coudl be totally wrong and have no idea what Im talking about" professional? It's sarcastic and in this case that is very inappropriate. Now refer to what you were requested and provide the evidence of the law which directly tells you that you can overrun the San Andreas Traffic Laws whilst being off duty.

Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 04, 2013, 20:18:05 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 04, 2013, 17:53:23 pm
provide the evidence of the law which directly tells you that you can overrun the San Andreas Traffic Laws whilst being off duty.
As no laws were broken, which is exactly why we're here, I don't see how existence of such laws is relevant. And as we both know, there are no such laws, so I don't understand what you're getting at.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Deluca on February 04, 2013, 21:00:07 pm
Quote from: Hardy on February 04, 2013, 20:18:05 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 04, 2013, 17:53:23 pm
provide the evidence of the law which directly tells you that you can overrun the San Andreas Traffic Laws whilst being off duty.
As no laws were broken, which is exactly why we're here, I don't see how existence of such laws is relevant. And as we both know, there are no such laws, so I don't understand what you're getting at.

You tried to convince both me and Officer Anthrax that you did not commit any breach of the laws, even though we provided you evidence which you completely ignored. You do not have immunity to break the traffic regulations whilst being off duty.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 04, 2013, 21:05:24 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 04, 2013, 21:00:07 pm
You tried to convince both me and Officer Anthrax that you did not commit any breach of the laws, even though we provided you evidence which you completely ignored. You do not have immunity to break the traffic regulations whilst being off duty.
See, the issue with such evidence is that's incredibly easily fabricated, to the point where it could be considered forced roleplay. Forcing me to accept that what you're showing me is a video feed of me breaking the law is a bit far fetched. In response to that, I can show you a video feed of me being in the other end of the town. And we can go at it all day.

As neither of you had or even could have evidence that would be accepted in a court of law, and as I was fully aware no law was broken, clearly I disagreed with your absurd confrontations.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Deluca on February 04, 2013, 21:41:50 pm
Quote from: Hardy on February 04, 2013, 21:05:24 pm
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 04, 2013, 21:00:07 pm
You tried to convince both me and Officer Anthrax that you did not commit any breach of the laws, even though we provided you evidence which you completely ignored. You do not have immunity to break the traffic regulations whilst being off duty.
See, the issue with such evidence is that's incredibly easily fabricated, to the point where it could be considered forced roleplay. Forcing me to accept that what you're showing me is a video feed of me breaking the law is a bit far fetched. In response to that, I can show you a video feed of me being in the other end of the town. And we can go at it all day.

As neither of you had or even could have evidence that would be accepted in a court of law, and as I was fully aware no law was broken, clearly I disagreed with your absurd confrontations.

Do you really think that people sue each other for failing to provide evidences of me reckless driving? What do you think. Your logic makes no sense. Listen, I will explain this very simple and easy for you to understand. IRL: What do you think a cop would do if the person he pulled over would act like a hypocrite and deny every thing, and go like you go "Can you provide evidences?" "Yes a Dashcam footage", "That's not enough, I want screenshots, or fraps movies", I could agree about fraps if we were talking about manslaughter, but you're just incredible. You are as hypocrite like my mother is when it comes to lawyers and court cases. You don't need a court case for speeding.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 04, 2013, 22:01:49 pm
They actually have real dashcam footage that they review IRL. As it is, if all you states "/me shows dashcam video", it can lead to abuse. If I pulled you over and showed you "dashcam video" of you got 300 km/h and hitting 5 poles in the process, would you accept that as true and fact? Pay me right away? What if I did that again, 5 minutes later? And so on.

And it's not about the offense that leads to reports or court cases, it's about failure to follow the Constitution, which is the law, you yelled at me about being above the law, so counter question, are you, on duty, above the law? Is there a law that states if the offense is reckless driving, you don't need to prove the offender is guilty? Because you didn't prove I was guilty, and if you want to, you can do it here and I'll accept all consequences, but since I never did anything wrong, that'll be tough.

And for the record, I have no interest in going to the courts with this. But if someone went to the courts when he was apprehended for something they didn't do and convicted of it, I'd take that case any day. You say I'm being silly because it's just a traffic offense, but that's silly talk - whether it's fine or jail time, it's still a conviction of crime committed. And yes, reckless driving IS a crime.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Deluca on February 04, 2013, 22:51:53 pm
Quote from: Hardy on February 04, 2013, 22:01:49 pm
They actually have real dashcam footage that they review IRL. As it is, if all you states "/me shows dashcam video", it can lead to abuse. If I pulled you over and showed you "dashcam video" of you got 300 km/h and hitting 5 poles in the process, would you accept that as true and fact? Pay me right away? What if I did that again, 5 minutes later? And so on.

Your logic is exaggerated. "/me shows dashcam footage" is enough evidence, as out of the context; showing a dashcam footage would not be necessary in any traffic stop at all, both Argonath and real life. Asking an officer IRL to see a confidential file would lead you to being fined or arrested. As well, for the officer doing so would have been discharged. Those files are confidential. However, doing "/me shows dashcam footage" and doing "/em Would the dashcam footage show that you were driving over the speed limits and hit a couple of poles?" would be more appropriate, but then we got another thing involved. In Argonath you can "lie" out of the roleplay, it doesn't require you to be fully honest about what actually happened. Just like when you frisk someone, the person you frisk are not compelled to tell exact what you're in possession.

Quote from: Hardy on February 04, 2013, 22:01:49 pm
And it's not about the offense that leads to reports or court cases, it's about failure to follow the Constitution, which is the law, you yelled at me about being above the law, so counter question, are you, on duty, above the law? Is there a law that states if the offense is reckless driving, you don't need to prove the offender is guilty? Because you didn't prove I was guilty, and if you want to, you can do it here and I'll accept all consequences, but since I never did anything wrong, that'll be tough.

In a traffic stop, you don't need to provide evidences of the person being guilty. Correction; nobody shall ever turn on FRAPS or screenshot someone for speeding. However, screenshotting is not a footage. It's a picture, which doesn't show any speed you are in. For all we know, that screenshot could've been hacking speed up to 6464346 km/h, or it could be driving 23 km/h, so your arguement is completely false. Following the constitusion is something Anthrax has been doing since the day I saw him in Argonath. I don't believe he intend to randomly screw up his career and decide to not follow the rules because of a single traffic stop. That is a desperate logic you present there to get Anthrax punished.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 04, 2013, 23:31:49 pm
There's /speed for speeding. A very accurate tool. And while pretty much nobody asks for evidence, doesn't mean it's not required. Nobody minds it when you don't /mir people upon arrest, although that's against the law as well. Doesn't mean that you don't have to /mir. To convict a person of a crime, you must prove and declare them guilty. That's the law. There's no discussion about conditions or situations or different crimes. Innocent until proven guilty.

As for lying about it on my end, you can lie all the same on your end. Which makes it inconclusive evidence. Now, that's final on my end until Def Perry reviews this report.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Anthrax on February 06, 2013, 16:50:52 pm
Hardy did I ever ticket you for speeding? No, reckless driving.
This report is simple, I dont need evidance to ticket you for reckless driving, so whats the problem?
Please answer that before you continue with this speed nonsence, thank you.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Def Perry on February 06, 2013, 19:01:25 pm
I need to read this report closely, as this is a lot of information it might take a while to scan through this report. So if I am right Hardy, this report is about, Anthrax pulling you over without evidence for reckless driving? If not, please sum up where you are reporting him for exactly to make it easier for me to scan through two pages of discussions. Thank you in advance.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 06, 2013, 22:07:34 pm
General failure to follow the constitution. Original pullover reason can be observed to be speeding, but that quickly got changed into reckless driving when someone told him he needs to /speed. In the end, acting without evidence, yeah.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Def Perry on February 07, 2013, 11:48:36 am
Quote from: Steve McGarrett on February 02, 2013, 03:12:01 am
Hello. Steve McGarrett here, I am here to witness from AnthraX party.
Hello Mr McGarrett,

I would like to know if you witnessed the traffic violation that Chief Hardy made, that day. As you were there and Anthrax saw him illegally crossing the road, you must have seen it too, right?

Thank you in advance for answering and your cooperation,

Signed,

Lieutenant Perry
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Deluca on February 07, 2013, 14:09:41 pm
As mentioned, Snr. Officer Anthrax and I were patrolling in separated vehicles. Which means I came in as I heard chatter about this in the TeamSpeak when Chief Hardy refused to comply.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Anthrax on February 07, 2013, 16:13:18 pm
Hardy do not make this report more confusing for Lt. Def then it already is with your irrelevant and speculating arguements.
This is very simple, you reported me for ticketing you for reckless driving, when you claim I do not have enough evidance to do it.
I DID NOT ticket you for speeding, so you may not use/say that at all here, unless you want this report closed for false accusements.

The answer is simple here, a witness is enough evidance to ticket a citizen for speeding, cause this is an infraction not a voilation that is jaileble, done.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Pingster on February 08, 2013, 03:36:33 am
How do you know why I did anything? The only reason I'm bringing the speeding part up is because that was the only reason you pulled me over, you quickly thought of other things to fine me for when I dismissed it. Anyway, not once have I said that you ticketed me for speeding, so you can lay off that.

As to your last statement, if that's what you think, you really do need to read the law a bit more. First of all, an infraction is a violation of the law, a crime. Google it. Second, the Constitution does not differ any laws between what can be taken to jail and what can not. Third, it doesn't differ what law breaks are infractions and what are felonies. Fourth, you must be able to prove someone is guilty even if they're pissing in the street. Witness is enough evidence, but in a situation where your only witness is yourself, the objectivity, validity and bias of the witness can be questioned.
Title: Re: [Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom
Post by: Anthrax on February 08, 2013, 19:26:25 pm
Quote from: Hardy on February 08, 2013, 03:36:33 am
How do you know why I did anything? The only reason I'm bringing the speeding part up is because that was the only reason you pulled me over, you quickly thought of other things to fine me for when I dismissed it. Anyway, not once have I said that you ticketed me for speeding, so you can lay off that.

As to your last statement, if that's what you think, you really do need to read the law a bit more. First of all, an infraction is a violation of the law, a crime. Google it. Second, the Constitution does not differ any laws between what can be taken to jail and what can not. Third, it doesn't differ what law breaks are infractions and what are felonies. Fourth, you must be able to prove someone is guilty even if they're pissing in the street. Witness is enough evidence, but in a situation where your only witness is yourself, the objectivity, validity and bias of the witness can be questioned.

Then you are talking against SAPD procedures. And you are also talking falsely because infractions is not jaileble. Do you jail suspects for speeding? No.
Voilations of law is jaileble, and reckless driving does not require more then witnessing officer to execute. I strongly belive you will hear the same from the SAPD Command, because that is what I have learnt in police academy.
Title: Outcome of the report (Anthrax)
Post by: Def Perry on February 08, 2013, 19:48:23 pm
(http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/7318/patchwithcuffs2300.png)
San Andreas Police Department
08/02/2013


STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO THE CLOSURE OF THIS REPORT

On the Febuary the 2th  2013, at 02:37 HOURS a report was submitted by Hardy as a lawful citizen of the United States of Argonath.
Since then, an investigation has been conducted by the SAPD command staff member:
- Deputy Chief Sushi
- Lieutenant Def Perry


The summary and conclusion of the report has now been decided and will be released to the public.

Senior officer AnthraX pulled Hardy primarily to warn him about his reckless driving, which has been proved from the logs. The speeding has been witnessed by Anthrax, but could not be proven. However, senior officer Anthrax saw Hardy crossing an illegal lane. Anthrax is known as a honest officer and we never faced any wrongdoings of him. Therefore he is countable as a valid witness, of course. This is enough to pull over a citizen and give a citation, if the officer feels that is necessary.

-- In conclusion, senior officer Anthrax from the SFPD is not guilty of this duty violation. As said in the synopsis, he had his reasons to pull Hardy over and hand out a citation to him. However, Anthrax should offer a formal apology to Hardy for accusing him of speeding, without the proper evidence to proof it.

If the verdict of this report seems unfair to anyone, you can report this to  a Deputy Chief via an ARPD Forum PM and we might reopen the case if your argument is valid enough.


Signed,
Lieutenant Def Perry
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal