Jump to content
Cyrus Raven

PD X Burden of Proof | What should be considered IC/OOC

Recommended Posts

 

@BallinByNature 

The report that spawned your reply was the basis for this discussion, but I am more interested in the effects it can have in future situations, I will try and elaborate bellow.

''This rule is not something new, all players are held to the non-RP standard of performing realistic actions. Having this rule actually does the exact opposite, it sets the guideline that basic investigations are actually required (not prevented?) instead of just guessing at charges which would not hold up in any real sense''

Let's move away from the report in question and into hypotheticals, which I think is the ideal way to test ideas/concepts. You stated that a ''requirement for placing irrefutable charges is confirming the identity beyond a shadow of a doubt which cannot be done with masks on and based on voices. ''

Person X is seen and heard, wearing the same clothes he always wears, and in his personal vehicle, shooting at police officers and eventually getting away. The officer that was leading the pursuit provides a brief hunch of who it might be, given the available evidence. IB is called in, bullet casings are collected, tire marks on the road are collected, body cam from the officer is collected. Although at no point do we see the man unmasked, after further investigation involving the collected evidence, we determine that the tire marks belong to the vehicle that matches Person X and the bullet casings from a weapon recently bought under Person X's name, all of this done via the initial hunch that the officer gave because he heard the man speak and saw that he wore his usual outfits. Person X is brought in for questioning, he comes in once again using his usual attire and his voice resembles the one the initial officer heard. We ask him the questions that need to be asked, he denies everything and provides a vague alibi for his whereabouts during the situation. He is let go. 

My question to you is, can we charge Person X based on the above investigative RP or are we not allowed to do so given that we never saw him without a mask ?

Depending on the reply I might bring up other points you made, but I believe going straight for the main question would be more productive than engaging in a huge back and forth. Thank you for the initial reply and any future ones.

 

 

 

I have not been pd but with the situation you just described it seems there is a simple rp solution rather than making assumptions as to who's gun it is and who's tire tracks it is with again not having any solid proof that that person and that car are exactly who you think they are.

In that situation it would make sense to me that you would note who you think it might be, gather those bullet casings, dust them for fingerprints as he would have had to touch those rounds to load them into his magazine afterwords loading the magazine into his gun. At this point with my body cam footage and the potential finger print proof I have with those casing I would detain the suspect and run his fingerprints for a match with him there in /me and /do providing him the body cam/ proof that you were there and collected the casings giving him a chance to respond with his own rp such as yeah you got me I didn't rp with gloves on or he purposefully used gloves to avoid detection through finger prints. At that point if the finger prints come back a match you've got your undeniable proof right there.

All this to say there is in my opinion a blatantly obvious rp scenario that removes the need for you to assume who it is and place charges, assume who he is and based on the casing assume you know who's gun it is, assume based on your hunch that the tire marks most definitely be his car.

Think of it less in an aspect of oh I "know" who this is, think of it from the aspect of what physical proof of a crime can I gather to confirm with undeniable evidence that he is exactly who I think he is. In my opinion it is really not that hard. May it be a lot different then the way you guys do it now and may it be an adjustment? Yes. An the contrary will it increase everyone's rp experience on the server both cops and crims included by going more in depth on the role play? Hell yeah and at the end of the day that is what this server is about, serious in depth role play not the quickest path, easiest path, or path of least resistance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this ruling is a integral part of protecting the RP value of criminals. Whereas the prison system is integral in applying a reasonable punishment to deter individuals from crime like it does in real life, there is no easily accessible system of justice designed to prevent wrongful convictions like real people have. We are in-trusting in officers to be the Judge & Jury.

In a court room if 'I heard his voice' was the only indication of guilt then even a crappy public defender could get the case tossed. An officer should give the benefit to the legal defense of the person being investigated in these situations.


Obviously you should be able to use these things such as tattoos and voice to conduct an investigation and then submit the information as part of an overall case, but in the case files you would say 'probable suspect' rather than 'guilty beyond doubt' based on them.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think this ruling is a integral part of protecting the RP value of criminals. Whereas the prison system is integral in applying a reasonable punishment to deter individuals from crime like it does in real life, there is no easily accessible system of justice designed to prevent wrongful convictions like real people have. We are in-trusting in officers to be the Judge & Jury.

In a court room if 'I heard his voice' was the only indication of guilt then even a crappy public defender could get the case tossed. An officer should give the benefit to the legal defense of the person being investigated in these situations.


Obviously you should be able to use these things such as tattoos and voice to conduct an investigation and then submit the information as part of an overall case, but in the case files you would say 'probable suspect' rather than 'guilty beyond doubt' based on them.

I agree with this. My main point is that the wording used in the reply to that report explicitly said ''what is required for them such as confirming the identity beyond a shadow of a doubt which cannot be done with masks on and based on voices.'' My interpretation of this is that no matter how much investigative RP and evidence we collect, if the crime was committed with a mask on we can not charge this person. If this is what is intended as far as law enforcement standards of convictions go, then so be it, but I would expect a much harsher response to the constant usage of masks as seen by civilians/criminals, more than what is currently enforced. 

As for charging people SOLELY based on masks and voice, I fully agree, this should never be a thing, further evidence and effort has to be put forth besides these two factors alone.

Edited by Kyle White Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 ''what is required for them such as confirming the identity beyond a shadow of a doubt which cannot be done with masks on and based on voices.'' My interpretation of this is that no matter how much investigative RP and evidence we collect, if the crime was committed with a mask on we can not charge this person.

Thankfully I think we still allow fingerprints and DNA to be used for conviction if evidence via /ldo exists right? 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thankfully I think we still allow fingerprints and DNA to be used for conviction if evidence via /ldo exists right? 

 


 

Alongside other evidence, yes. Pretty much the main complaint from me is, don't word stuff in a way that can be viewed as PD not being able to charge anyone that uses a mask. 

As far as I'm concerned, since that ruling was given things have been business as usual, nothing really has changed about how I go in terms of solving crimes that require more investigation and RP. I think the intent behind that report reply was to let PD/SD know, don't go charging people based on hunches, especially if you only heard someone's voice and they are wearing a mask.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Too bad the new rule Ballin put in place was ignored and caused me to get house raided by swat and over 1,500,000$ in guns taken away. Hoping the OOC IA report will go through. But hey, I’m just a crim so who gives a fuck. 

As long as you maintain a positive attitude Ricky!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.