LSPD Senior Officer Def.Perry - Abuse of /cancelsuspect powers

[Cyril]

I do my job properly, thank you.
If you have any problem, [email protected]

[Steven J]

I would request Boromir to re-confirm once again that this is the case

I've dropped a message for Boromir to post and confirm.

[Boromir]

The rule, "suspecting for 'speeding' is not allowed" has been exercised since the beginning.
You are required to pull over the speeders first to investigate. If the players fail to pull over, then you can suspect for evading. This applies to SPEEDING. The reason why we do not allow suspecting for speeding is because the speed of vehicles is very easy to get desynced and can be misleading.

In addition, you are not allowed to suspect players for breaking the server rules (e.g. ramming).

Remember, this is an RPG server, and you must roleplay when you want to exploit our server commands to have fun..

[Darxez]

And we don't need useless posts as explained in the rules, If you have nothing to do with something stay out of it, good lesson you need to learn before you even start your journey in SAPD. - Deputy Chief Knight

[GiacJr]

Good thing I did not suspect him for SPEEDING then, rather I suspected him for RECKLESS DRIVING - therefore the /su was VALID and should NOT have been cancelled.

[[Rstar]Paul]

Good thing I did not suspect him for SPEEDING then, rather I suspected him for RECKLESS DRIVING - therefore the /su was VALID and should NOT have been cancelled.

It's quite equivalent to speeding procedures, you must also ask the driver to pull over even when they are on reckless driving mode.

[Plam Knight]

And we don't need useless posts as explained in the rules, If you have nothing to do with something stay out of it, good lesson you need to learn before you even start your journey in SAPD. - Deputy Chief Knight

This is not a chit-chat(post count) room as some people in this topic think it is. Every side gave its input and evidences. Now its time to let SAPD Command finish their investigation.

[GiacJr]

Good thing I did not suspect him for SPEEDING then, rather I suspected him for RECKLESS DRIVING - therefore the /su was VALID and should NOT have been cancelled.

It's quite equivalent to speeding procedures, you must also ask the driver to pull over even when they are on reckless driving mode.

I would like boromir to clarify on this point because now I think you guys are looking for any excuse for me to be wrong.

[[Rstar]Paul]

Good thing I did not suspect him for SPEEDING then, rather I suspected him for RECKLESS DRIVING - therefore the /su was VALID and should NOT have been cancelled.

It's quite equivalent to speeding procedures, you must also ask the driver to pull over even when they are on reckless driving mode.

I would like boromir to clarify on this point because now I think you guys are looking for any excuse for me to be wrong.

If you cannot trust the SAPD Command, your reporting in the wrong section.

[GiacJr]

Good thing I did not suspect him for SPEEDING then, rather I suspected him for RECKLESS DRIVING - therefore the /su was VALID and should NOT have been cancelled.

It's quite equivalent to speeding procedures, you must also ask the driver to pull over even when they are on reckless driving mode.

I would like boromir to clarify on this point because now I think you guys are looking for any excuse for me to be wrong.

If you cannot trust the SAPD Command, your reporting in the wrong section.

Show me anywhere in Argonath where it says, in rules, regulations, constitutions, or HQ comments that it is required to pullover before /su'ing somebody for recklessly driving.

[[Rstar]Paul]

Good thing I did not suspect him for SPEEDING then, rather I suspected him for RECKLESS DRIVING - therefore the /su was VALID and should NOT have been cancelled.

It's quite equivalent to speeding procedures, you must also ask the driver to pull over even when they are on reckless driving mode.

I would like boromir to clarify on this point because now I think you guys are looking for any excuse for me to be wrong.

If you cannot trust the SAPD Command, your reporting in the wrong section.

Show me anywhere in Argonath where it says, in rules, regulations, constitutions, or HQ comments that it is required to pullover before /su'ing somebody for recklessly driving.

It's a server rule to pull over vehicles on whatever they are doing wrong at first before suspecting. I'm surprised you didn't even know this as the rule has been there since Argonath SA:MP establishment.
It's not mentioned in /rules in-game either, but been there since ever with a warrant of punishment issued by Administration if its not conducted.

If you cannot trust my words in a administrative perspective, I cannot trust this report or help you further either.

[[R*]DellStorm]

Hi Fellas,

To confirm - people need to be given a heads up or some kind of verbal prompt before any kind of /su is used. This is to ensure people are aware of what they are doing and that creates a basis for roleplay. Use of /su out of the blue, can cause confusion and can lead to all kinds of problems.

<3 Dell.

[GiacJr]

It is clear that you're all determined to ensure that Mr. Perry gets away with recklessly abusing his powers by making up as many rules as you can, so f**k this report.
Lock it, put it in finished reports, and I'll remember that no matter how badly someone f**ks up in the SAPD, it's always better to take it into my own hands because the determination to clear this guy of his wrong behaviour is absolutely shocking and frightening.

GiacJr

[[Rstar]Paul]

It is clear that you're all determined to ensure that Mr. Perry gets away with recklessly abusing his powers by making up as many rules as you can, so f**k this report.
Lock it, put it in finished reports, and I'll remember that no matter how badly someone f**ks up in the SAPD, it's always better to take it into my own hands because the determination to clear this guy of his wrong behaviour is absolutely shocking and frightening.

GiacJr

It is clear that you're all determined to ensure that Mr. Perry gets away with recklessly abusing his powers by making up as many rules as you can, so f**k this report.

You got an SAPD Chief, an Community Leader and a SA:MP Manager answering your report and informing you that such rules exists.

it's always better to take it into my own hands because the determination to clear this guy of his wrong behaviour is absolutely shocking and frightening.

Guess who's making up rules now.

Closed.

[Ronnel]

From the position of server rules, the important one here is to stay within the realm of roleplay.

When you go on duty, your role is that of a police officer. Which means that your behaviour should also match that of a police officer.
As there are many different kinf od police officers, this can become a very gray area.

The first thing when you see a crime of felony is to determine the correct course of action within your character.
In this case the felony was reckless driving. The /su command is a command that sets up the jailing of the suspect. There for when using it, one has to wonder if the felony warrants jailing. In case of reckless driving that would be so if the citizen was directly endangering other citizens or police officers. Should a citizen drive on a footpath where no others are present, it would be preferred that he would first be approached and notified of his error.
Further more, after suspecting a citizen, a police officer should always attempt to catch the now suspect, and not leave or chase other targets unless in a situation where multiple offenders are present at the same time.

In this case officer GiacJr would have served better by attemtping to pull over the citizen, before or after suspecting.

The relevancy is with relation to the investiagtion and subsequent unsuspection.
From what is posted here the suspect admitted to the felony, as well as evaded. The argument he was not aware is incorrect, as a citizen always gets notified on being suspected. The core objection of the suspect was being unable to sort it out by direct negotiations with the suspecting officer.

Investigations can lead to unsuspecting due to various reasons. One is that is found the crime was invalid. In this case, there can be no doubt that the crime itself was valid.
Another reason is that during the investigation it is found that procedures were violated in such way that the suspect has been punished by that enough, causing unsuspection. In this case it seems that Def_Perry decided on that ground.
However as the suspecting officer was present and patrolling, in such case he should become part of the investigation, especially if he decides to object a first message. The investigation was there for closed too quickly.

From the above it is clear that in this case all involved have committed errors.
I hope that everyone will be able to find their errors from what is written, and will try to iimprove for future cases.