[106] Samuel Martin - Deathmatching

[frezeli]

Player(s) being reported: ID 106 - Samuel Martin
Date of interaction reported: 23.05.2026
Unix time stamp from HUD: 1779508099

Your character name: Charles Covelli
Other player(s) involved: Johnny Dang, Marcus Reeves, Sienna Valentine, Alexander Covelli, Winston Yin

Specific rule(s) broken:
3. Deathmatch -  Deathmatching is attacking a player without a proper in-character motive and/or without sufficient prior escalation. The rule also requires any retaliation to be measured and proportionate to the escalation that actually occurred.

How did the player break the rule(s)?  (300 words maximum)

During the incident, me and ID 73 were DMd by this person, while attempting to escape from the police. ID 106 escalated directly to lethal force and shot multiple people without sufficient IC escalation or a proportionate basis to do so.

At no point before ID 106 opened fire did anyone on our side use lethal force or even aim their weapons against the police. For the record, only two people on our side had weapons (me and Alexander Covelli, and not ID 73 who was DMd regardless), but those weapons were empty and were not pointed at any officer. We were not actively shooting at police, nor were we presenting an immediate lethal threat. The situation was an attempted escape, and ID 106 had alternative and more proportionate options available, including continuing the pursuit or attempting to disable the vehicle/tyres by shooting them. What he chose to do was extremely disproportionate and cannot be seen as anything but DM. As seen in the video evidence, as opposed to ID 106, other Police present actually tried to tackle, verbal threats etc. and not a single other person proceeded to use their weapons, knowing that there was no need to do so.

Instead, ID 106 mowed down three people despite the lack of prior lethal force from our side. As a police officer, ID 106 was expected to respond in a measured manner and only use lethal force where it was justified by the escalation. The use of immediate lethal force in these circumstances was excessive, disproportionate and not supported by proper IC escalation. When taking up the issue in /b, all he said was "You don't listen, you get smoked." Also in the clip, he can be seen as saying, "I have hella bullets, you wanna join him?" This clearly indicates that all he wanted to do was shoot people, whether or not he had reason to do so.

I was told that if I did make a forum report, I would be reported for FearRP, which seems like a bald accusation to me especially since I knew very well I was not supposed to be shot at since no one, and especially not me and ID 73, did anything at all to escalate the situation to the point where 106 would have had no other option but to take us down.

Evidence of rule breach
https://streamable.com/j74ugd

Edited 15 hours ago by frezeli

[Carl Vespucci]

Pending review

[Carl Vespucci]

PENDING RESPONSE
――――――――――――――――

After reviewing this report and the evidence attached to it, we have decided that this report cannot be concluded at this time. We would like to receive a response from the following player(s) to explain their side of the story:

For the below party, we’d like for you to answer the following

 

Samuel_Martin @HobGoblin  [ID 106] -

• Please provide any POV/side of the story.
• Please explain your reason for shooting the reporting party. 

 

If the requested player(s) do not respond within (48) hours, this report will be concluded based on the evidence that has already been provided, to the best of our ability.

Please refrain from any back and forth and respond to your inquiry only.

Regards,

Senior Moderator Carlvespucci
 

[HobGoblin]

Everyone inside decided to ignore every gun possible. Everyone was told if they ran they would be shot. 
 

People didn’t listen. People were shot.  This wasn't one cop with multiple suspects this was a whole operation that surrounded the bank and they still all decided that running past guns were a good idea. 
 

“If you do choose not to comply, you must be prepared to RP the full consequences of your actions.”

Edited 13 hours ago by HobGoblin

[frezeli]

@HobGoblin

I don’t think this reply really answers the main issue in the report.

Nobody is denying that we tried to run. The issue is that running away does not automatically justify immediately killing multiple suspects, especially when no one on our side fired at PD or even aimed a weapon at PD. Saying “if you run you will be shot” does not by itself make lethal force proportionate under the DM rule.

You still have not explained why ID 73, who was unarmed, was shot. You also have not explained why less lethal options were not allowed to play out, especially when other officers were clearly trying to tase, tackle etc. instead of instantly shooting. You also have not explained why the tyres/vehicle were not targeted first if the goal was genuinely to stop the escape.

The rule does say players must RP the consequences of their actions, but those consequences still have to be reasonable and proportionate. “You ran, so you get killed” is exactly the issue here. That is not measured escalation. We were escaping, not shooting. There was a whole operation with multiple officers present, which makes it even harder to justify why lethal force was the first real option used by ID 106.

Also, bringing up FearRP does not answer the DM issue. Even if you believe a FearRP report exists, that is a separate issue. It does not give permission to shoot unarmed or non-threatening players when there were obvious non-lethal alternatives available.

My point is simple: fleeing from police may justify being chased, tackled, tased, boxed in, rammed if appropriate, or having the vehicle disabled. It does not automatically justify mowing down three people when no one had used lethal force against PD.

Edited 12 hours ago by frezeli