[Non-RP] SO Anthrax - failure to follow the constitutiom

[Pingster]

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.






 b. A chatlog (Irrelevant things removed)
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.

[Deluca]

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

[Pingster]

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.

[Deluca]

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?

[Anthrax]

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

[Pingster]

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?

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.

[Deluca]

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?

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.

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?

[Anthrax]

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.

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.

[Sushi]

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.

[Pingster]

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.

[Anthrax]

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!

[Ben]

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 

[Anthrax]

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.

[Pingster]

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."

[Anthrax]

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.

[Pingster]

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.

[Deluca]

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.

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.

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.

[Pingster]

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.

[Deluca]

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.

[Anthrax]

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.