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

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[Def Perry]

I will start reading both parties their statements tomorrow and possibly be asking questions, please check it by then.

[Pingster]

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.

[Anthrax]

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.

[Def Perry]

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..

[Deluca]

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.

[Def Perry]

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?

[Pingster]

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.

[Deluca]

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.

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.

[Pingster]

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.

[Deluca]

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.

[Pingster]

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.

[Deluca]

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.

[Pingster]

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.

[Deluca]

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.

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.

[Pingster]

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.

[Anthrax]

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.

[Def Perry]

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.

[Pingster]

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.