San Andreas Police Department | Q&A

[Chief J. Schappell]

Hallo i will state you a situation and please try to help me understand what to do.

Situation: Finding Civilian Ordering Heroin . I su him . He /gu .He says i minute AFK or such silly things or dont complies and stay near the heroin spot . He takes the Heroin . [What next?]

If he doesn't comply after /gu, you may report him. Taking the heroin after such excuses when /gu is just script abuse since he is surrendered. Unless he roleplays out sneaking out the heroin and taking it when you're not looking, there's not really any RP there...it's just him being an ***hole to taunt you in a non-RP way. You can report him for that.

[Sushi]

Hallo i will state you a situation and please try to help me understand what to do.

Situation: Finding Civilian Ordering Heroin . I su him . He /gu .He says i minute AFK or such silly things or dont complies and stay near the heroin spot . He takes the Heroin . [What next?]

If he doesn't comply after /gu, you may report him. Taking the heroin after such excuses when /gu is just script abuse since he is surrendered. Unless he roleplays out sneaking out the heroin and taking it when you're not looking, there's not really any RP there...it's just him being an ***hole to taunt you in a non-RP way. You can report him for that.

Yes, basically report. All he wants is money, and voiding RP in the process.

[Kostas]

you meen /report ? And if yes as I asked admin , they cant really prove if he took it and you know the pack does about 1-2 secs to spawn in my screen since of the lag ... So i cant prove anything .

[Jcstodds]

Not quite sure on the current system however:

Idea is - Accept all SAPD applicants immediately into Cadet stage (unless there is solid reason not to accept them).

- No delay motivates cadets
- Cadet status ingame is easier to monitor

  Also, if players have demonstrated that they can roleplay -
-  Such as the ability to think for themselves
- To show some initiative/ imagination - not just chasing orange dots
- Have a good attitude to policing - willing to find who is innocent in RP terms not just assume orange= criminal
  Current SAPD officers should be able to recommend these cadets IMMEDIATELY to officer rank. So those who have good RP skills are rewarded and can learn the necessary tactics  and protocols on the job.

  This approach will drastically improve the ridiculous long wait applicants are experiencing. This is one thing I do kind of see CMD messing about with - taking so long to accept officers. SAPD needs more active officers. Ideally you want quality over quantity but there needs to be more officers all round to motivate players, and they can learn on the job.

[[Rstar]Paul]

Not quite sure on the current system however:

Idea is - Accept all SAPD applicants immediately into Cadet stage (unless there is solid reason not to accept them).

- No delay motivates cadets
- Cadet status ingame is easier to monitor

  Also, if players have demonstrated that they can roleplay -
-  Such as the ability to think for themselves
- To show some initiative/ imagination - not just chasing orange dots
- Have a good attitude to policing - willing to find who is innocent in RP terms not just assume orange= criminal
  Current SAPD officers should be able to recommend these cadets IMMEDIATELY to officer rank. So those who have good RP skills are rewarded and can learn the necessary tactics  and protocols on the job.

  This approach will drastically improve the ridiculous long wait applicants are experiencing. This is one thing I do kind of see CMD messing about with - taking so long to accept officers. SAPD needs more active officers. Ideally you want quality over quantity but there needs to be more officers all round to motivate players, and they can learn on the job.

Will look into it.

[Huntsman]

Actually i agree with Jcstodds somehow. And only the best ones will pass to the officer.

[Chief J. Schappell]

Actually i agree with JDC somehow. And only the best ones will pass to the officer.

JDC or Jcstodds?

And why the "somehow"? You make it sound like his opinion is always wrong... D:

[Ben]

Actually i agree with JDC somehow. And only the best ones will pass to the officer.

JDC or Jcstodds?

JDCstodds of course... 

[Huntsman]

Actually i agree with JDC somehow. And only the best ones will pass to the officer.

JDC or Jcstodds?

And why the "somehow"? You make it sound like his opinion is always wrong... D:

OMG WTF What a dumb mistake.

EDITED!

And lol , well , i dont know, i half agree and half disagree.

[Jason Bridges]

Is this deathmatching or does this man have just cause for his actions? (in terms of server rules, not the law)

2 Suspects on the run from 3 different police officers, they then drive into a tunnel and their car is wrecked by an oncoming train (I know, very unlucky). They are now on foot and one of the suspects surrenders. My partner and I are at one end of the tunnel whilst a third police officer is at the other. The second suspect has no intention of escaping because he knows he is surrounded, yet he runs away from my partner and I as if he is trying to escape. As we're opening fire on him, instead of shooting back at us, he decides to continue running towards the third cop so he can shoot and kill him. After that, the suspect says something in the mainchat like "awww yeaaa" implying that he was a pro because he killed the cop, and he then surrenders surrenders.

The reason I believe this is deathmatching is because the suspect knew he could not escape as there were no vehicles around that he could take and he was surrounded; he even told us after about how he'd killed 6 cops before, which also angered me because many gang members think it's an achievement to cophunt. I have come across a string of situations similar to this before where a suspect specifically delays his surrendering so they can kill a cop and brag about it and I think some specific rules should be put in place to prevent this as well; but obviously I'd first like to know whether this counts as deathmatching or not.

[Chief J. Schappell]

Is this deathmatching or does this man have just cause for his actions? (in terms of server rules, not the law)

2 Suspects on the run from 3 different police officers, they then drive into a tunnel and their car is wrecked by an oncoming train (I know, very unlucky). They are now on foot and one of the suspects surrenders. My partner and I are at one end of the tunnel whilst a third police officer is at the other. The second suspect has no intention of escaping because he knows he is surrounded, yet he runs away from my partner and I as if he is trying to escape. As we're opening fire on him, instead of shooting back at us, he decides to continue running towards the third cop so he can shoot and kill him. After that, the suspect says something in the mainchat like "awww yeaaa" implying that he was a pro because he killed the cop, and he then surrenders surrenders.

The reason I believe this is deathmatching is because the suspect knew he could not escape as there were no vehicles around that he could take and he was surrounded; he even told us after about how he'd killed 6 cops before, which also angered me because many gang members think it's an achievement to cophunt. I have come across a string of situations similar to this before where a suspect specifically delays his surrendering so they can kill a cop and brag about it and I think some specific rules should be put in place to prevent this as well; but obviously I'd first like to know whether this counts as deathmatching or not.

If he is purposely cophunting or provoking in the main chat about the situation, both of those are rule-breaks.

[Gabriel_VogelBR]

Not quite sure on the current system however:

Idea is - Accept all SAPD applicants immediately into Cadet stage (unless there is solid reason not to accept them).

- No delay motivates cadets
- Cadet status ingame is easier to monitor

  Also, if players have demonstrated that they can roleplay -
-  Such as the ability to think for themselves
- To show some initiative/ imagination - not just chasing orange dots
- Have a good attitude to policing - willing to find who is innocent in RP terms not just assume orange= criminal
  Current SAPD officers should be able to recommend these cadets IMMEDIATELY to officer rank. So those who have good RP skills are rewarded and can learn the necessary tactics  and protocols on the job.

  This approach will drastically improve the ridiculous long wait applicants are experiencing. This is one thing I do kind of see CMD messing about with - taking so long to accept officers. SAPD needs more active officers. Ideally you want quality over quantity but there needs to be more officers all round to motivate players, and they can learn on the job.

Supported. Im tired of seeing applicants quit the idea of joining SAPD because "it takes a lot of time" or "its already 4 months and im not even cadet!".

[Sushi]

If a suspect ever says anything like 'I give up, I surrender' or puts their hands up, they have surrendered. If they fail to comply after that, it becomes a server problem. If their intention is to kill cops, that is DM, if they kill cops in the process of committing an RP crime, they are allowed. That is why the rules are both good and bad, because they can use this kind of loophole to kill cops, under the precedence of RPing in the process.

[Joseph_Allen]

If a suspect ever says anything like 'I give up, I surrender' or puts their hands up, they have surrendered. If they fail to comply after that, it becomes a server problem. If their intention is to kill cops, that is DM, if they kill cops in the process of committing an RP crime, they are allowed. That is why the rules are both good and bad, because they can use this kind of loophole to kill cops, under the precedence of RPing in the process.

Just in case they DO surrender, have a few fellow Officers keep their guns trained on him while someone tries to place handcuffs on said suspect. I've had times in the past (a long time ago) where a suspect would fake surrendering only to pull out a Combat at close range.

[Ben]

If a suspect ever says anything like 'I give up, I surrender' or puts their hands up, they have surrendered. If they fail to comply after that, it becomes a server problem. If their intention is to kill cops, that is DM, if they kill cops in the process of committing an RP crime, they are allowed. That is why the rules are both good and bad, because they can use this kind of loophole to kill cops, under the precedence of RPing in the process.

Just in case they DO surrender, have a few fellow Officers keep their guns trained on him while someone tries to place handcuffs on said suspect. I've had times in the past (a long time ago) where a suspect would fake surrendering only to pull out a Combat at close range.

We were taught not to point our weapon at someone unless we fully intended to fire it.
However, I fully agree with you. I only pointed out the above so the Command Staff could consider it!

[Sushi]

If a suspect ever says anything like 'I give up, I surrender' or puts their hands up, they have surrendered. If they fail to comply after that, it becomes a server problem. If their intention is to kill cops, that is DM, if they kill cops in the process of committing an RP crime, they are allowed. That is why the rules are both good and bad, because they can use this kind of loophole to kill cops, under the precedence of RPing in the process.

Just in case they DO surrender, have a few fellow Officers keep their guns trained on him while someone tries to place handcuffs on said suspect. I've had times in the past (a long time ago) where a suspect would fake surrendering only to pull out a Combat at close range.

We were taught not to point our weapon at someone unless we fully intended to fire it.
However, I fully agree with you. I only pointed out the above so the Command Staff could consider it!

Every single fibre in my body is prepared to fire my weapon on a 'surrendered' suspect if they attempt to harm or take the life of my co-worker. Regardless of scripts or so on, until they have been completely secured, I won't risk the life of my officers or the civilians in my city. It's a precaution I should not have to take, and am learning bit by bit, who I can and cannot trust to remain honest whilst playing.

[Jason Bridges]

In that instance, it's the fact that the suspect knew he would not escape so he decided to take an officer down with him.

-He knew killing the cop wouldn't help him escape
-He was bragging about killing loads of cops as well

Those are the two main reasons I asked my question.

[Chief J. Schappell]

If a suspect ever says anything like 'I give up, I surrender' or puts their hands up, they have surrendered. If they fail to comply after that, it becomes a server problem. If their intention is to kill cops, that is DM, if they kill cops in the process of committing an RP crime, they are allowed. That is why the rules are both good and bad, because they can use this kind of loophole to kill cops, under the precedence of RPing in the process.

Just in case they DO surrender, have a few fellow Officers keep their guns trained on him while someone tries to place handcuffs on said suspect. I've had times in the past (a long time ago) where a suspect would fake surrendering only to pull out a Combat at close range.

We were taught not to point our weapon at someone unless we fully intended to fire it.
However, I fully agree with you. I only pointed out the above so the Command Staff could consider it!

Every single fibre in my body is prepared to fire my weapon on a 'surrendered' suspect if they attempt to harm or take the life of my co-worker. Regardless of scripts or so on, until they have been completely secured, I won't risk the life of my officers or the civilians in my city. It's a precaution I should not have to take, and am learning bit by bit, who I can and cannot trust to remain honest whilst playing.

Technically speaking, as long as they are presenting a risk to life, you are in the clear to open fire or use deadly force as needed to preserve life and the well-being of the innocent and/or other officers.

[Joseph_Allen]

Technically speaking, as long as they are presenting a risk to life, you are in the clear to open fire or use deadly force as needed to preserve life and the well-being of the innocent and/or other officers.

Which is why suspects shouldn't expect us to be so merciful when they pull out Combats and start firing at us. >.>'

[Chief J. Schappell]

Technically speaking, as long as they are presenting a risk to life, you are in the clear to open fire or use deadly force as needed to preserve life and the well-being of the innocent and/or other officers.

Which is why suspects shouldn't expect us to be so merciful when they pull out Combats and start firing at us. >.>'

Officers should always be on guard. That doesn't mean be threatening either. It just means be prepared for anything.