Complaint - Conspire2Ignite

[Susan]

If I were detective I would not have tried this situation, that situation is for a security officer not a detective (though I could be wrong since the server doesn't seem to have a wiki entry for detective, correct me if I am wrong).

 

Unfortunately, the game tends not to care what job you are and places you in situations where you are forced to make decisions. In reality, detectives are sworn officers of the law and have complete and total justification to perform arrests, execute warrants, and whatnot; it should be no different in game. This definition is holdover from Baystation because detectives there liked to run into nuke squads to arrest them by murdering them with their insta-knockdown gun. This is no longer the case. While yes, this situation is better suited to a security officer, the point is that's irrelevant. The situation is not not going to happen because your job is different. I got sucked out into space with Brar not of my own volition, and the game certainly didn't give a shit whether or not my job was 'security officer'. Security's response would have been heavily delayed and there was no other alternative to prevent the suspect from escaping other than to shoot him. He was a fleeing felon suspected of a violent crime and had the capacity to return and effect more violent crimes.

I'd also like to mention we liked Brar for a second murder, and for the first, there was no doubt whether or not he committed it. We knew 100% it could only be him and no one else.

 

the other thing I'd like to bring up is that if someone less known or vocal than Sue did this then they'd be severely punished. I'd understand if Sue were a new player without experience of situations like this, however, Sue is an experienced Roleplayer yes? And an experienced server member yes? Then Sue should know better.

 

Then, evidently, this is a failure of administration, because this mindset is inherently wrong. It seems that the majority of people on this server are under the impression no one should ever shoot a guy (unless you're antag of course, then go ahead) unless the barrel of his revolver is aimed at your head. Unfortunately, this is not how it operates in reality. Law enforcement officers are given more leeway to apply lethal force than civilians, whose justification is self-defense. So I always take coments about 'a history of using unnecessary lethal force' with a grain of salt because, while I know of a small handful of situations where the escalation happened too fast, I can easily justify and explain my reasoning for doing it. Just because you feel that security has no grounds to shoot antagonists that actually pose a threat does not make it so, and should not.

Personally, I couldn't care about non-chair RP. I already explained previously how these things can actually lead to more roleplay; no one ever chastises antags for killing people to 'make things interesting', of course, so long as they get their exploding station RP. However, in the event security has to deal with let's say a wizard who has been teleporting around, attacking people, and is known to be able to escape custody at will so he can get out of his cuffs and resume attacking people, then shooting him to death is totally unjustified. Yes, I have been in this situation, and yes, people in deadsay were all up in arms. I can barely fathom why. Believability should take precedence.

 

Butting in once again for two points.

 

• 1. Sue was the detective, and as such only had the revolver at her disposition (as well as a flash that doesn't work against a hardsuit). Since the detective is not supposed to carry less-than-lethal equipment anyway, she did the best she could given the situation.
  
  
  
  2. The situation was one where Sue's character held a strong suspicion the suspect was a murderer, and after being warned force would be used against him, the suspect attempted to escape, which led to the only available force being used. This is hardly the same as security shooting anyone to death the moment they refuse to heed orders.

 

What would you suggest Sue should have done, and what would have been an acceptable IC reasoning for doing so? What made her reasoning unacceptable, ICly?

 

This is an effective explanation and shortening of what happened. I was not placed into the situation because I didn't want it to happen to begin with; the airlock was depressurized and we were both sucked out into the asteroid. I have yet to see even a single response to the question Frances has been asking for two pages now, short of Cassie, though her attacking of the role of detective is entirely pointless because it was a situation I did not have control over with to begin with. Everyone wants to sit here and say 'shooting people is bad mmkay' but no one has offered an alternative in preventing the suspect from escaping outside of using the only ranged weapon in my possession, likely because they know they can't come up with an alternative. Allowing his escape is not an acceptable alternative, either. It's easy to sit there and look back with 20/20 vision, but that's not how these things are treated in reality. IAB investigations don't ask 'why didn't you do this', they assess the officer's state of mind and the reasons he had for discharging his weapon, because shooting someone is not black and white. It's entirely grey. Extenuating circumstances matter. Arguably a cop's gun is for self defense but they use it for a hell of a lot more than just protection.

[Jamini]

It seems that the majority of people on this server are under the impression no one should ever shoot a guy (unless you're antag of course, then go ahead) unless the barrel of his revolver is aimed at your head.

 

I got the exact opposite impression, actually. Security and antags here are quite ready, in many cases far too ready, to go full lethal without any roleplay involved.

 

I have yet to see even a single response to the question Frances has been asking for two pages now, short of Cassie, though her attacking of the role of detective is entirely pointless because it was a situation I did not have control over with to begin with.

 

I did provide an answer. The response is to shoot them until they are downed, and then stop. Two hits to the head, unless someone is wearing combat armor (which mining hardsuits are not) will always deal enough damage to down someone. Three hits will certainly do so if you really want to be through. Six hits is excessive, and strongly implies that you kept shooting when your target was down to ensure they died.

Correction: The detective's revolver (the .45) deals 25 damage per hit. Mining hardsuits have bullet resistance of 5. So it would take 5 hits to knock a person into critical (and about three or four to knock them into paincrit, depending on what organs and bones are broken). So it is entirely possible that the fleeing captive simply got an unlucky roll on the RNG and had his head blown off while he was standing. If that's the case, Sue was in the right. She simply could not have done anything to prevent a[n] [un]lucky combat roll. However, if she shot him after he had dropped to the ground she would be in the wrong.

I reiterate: Your goal should not be to kill, even if you are shooting lethal rounds. Your primary goal should be to disable your target/opponent so they cannot run or fight. If they die afterwards (from injuries or by execution) then that is unfortunate.

Edit: To clarify, that is my own personal view on the matter, as a player who rarely plays as security OR an antagonist. Your own perceptions on how things should be will vary.

[Cassie]

Unfortunately, the game tends not to care what job you are and places you in situations where you are forced to make decisions.

No, you were not forced to make that decision. You lacked the tools for an apprehension due to your rank, and then you decided to kill someone. That's what you did.

 

In reality, detectives are sworn officers of the law and have complete and total justification to perform arrests, execute warrants, and whatnot; it should be no different in game.

I'd also like to mention we liked Brar for a second murder, and for the first, there was no doubt whether or not he committed it. We knew 100% it could only be him and no one else.

This is SS13. There's a reason these things are in place - it's to balance the game out so roleplay and user enjoyment is utilized during the game mechanics of Space station 13. He's also still a suspect in this situation.

There's a reason antags cannot simply parapen and then c4 people, or eat tons of monkeys in genetics to get death sting as a changeling, etc. These things work, and are very smart things to do IC'ly as an antag, but we don't do them because OOC'ly people will have a problem with that. A detective has legal limits in SS13 for the same reason so stop them from being a special buffed super-smart security officer in real life.

SS13 security are not bad guys, that's why should never be shoot to kill unless there's immediate danger (like a nuke op, a wizard, or a confirmed changling), you have to follow protocols and act reasonably - otherwise you're simply playing to win and there's no prospect of balancing the game realistically (because yes, the security force has numbers, the entire armory and the code level to their disposal and can use this against a single person), in that sense, do we need lethal detectives as well?

 

While yes, this situation is better suited to a security officer, the point is that's irrelevant. The situation is not not going to happen because your job is different. I got sucked out into space with Brar not of my own volition, and the game certainly didn't give a shit whether or not my job was 'security officer'. Security's response would have been heavily delayed and there was no other alternative to prevent the suspect from escaping other than to shoot him. He was a fleeing felon suspected of a violent crime and had the capacity to return and effect more violent crimes.

Again, you were not forced by the game to shoot Brar. You chose on your own will and decision to use lethal force to stop an antag.

Now, from an OOC non-roleplay perspective you didn't do anything wrong. But from an IC perspective what you did was voluntary manslaughter on a suspect who has not gone on trial, nor had gotten a warrant for - which is quite the issue here.

 

Personally, I couldn't care about non-chair RP. I already explained previously how these things can actually lead to more roleplay; no one ever chastises antags for killing people to 'make things interesting', of course, so long as they get their exploding station RP.

However, in the event security has to deal with let's say a wizard who has been teleporting around, attacking people, and is known to be able to escape custody at will so he can get out of his cuffs and resume attacking people, then shooting him to death is totally unjustified. Yes, I have been in this situation, and yes, people in deadsay were all up in arms. I can barely fathom why. Believability should take precedence.

This isn't about a known dangerous antagonist like a wizard that you'd have full evidence of having dangerous powers or assaulting people.

This is about a changeling, someone you suspected. You might say you knew, but I'm pretty sure you could have let him go and extended the roleplay a bit further if he managed to survive. You know? If you don't go badass mode PEW PEW PEW, and get crafty instead, changelings are surprisingly easy to catch if you don't fight them like a brute.

 

This is an effective explanation and shortening of what happened. I was not placed into the situation because I didn't want it to happen to begin with; the airlock was depressurized and we were both sucked out into the asteroid. I have yet to see even a single response to the question Frances has been asking for two pages now, short of Cassie, though her attacking of the role of detective is entirely pointless because it was a situation I did not have control over with to begin with.

You could have, I don't know? Returned. Shouted, "Goddamn it, the suspect fled! He's in handcuffs and has limited oxygen, he can't go far at this stage!" and continued the search. You know?

You do realize that unless this guy is attacking you, you didn't really need to pull out your revolver. Especially if he's already cuffed and running out of air.

[Frances]

How much does the IC perspective matter, as long as it doesn't break any rules OOCly? If a player repeatedly keeps causing the death of other players through shitty decisions, that warrants staff investigation, but if a split-second decision while under stress results in the death of someone, is it really inadmissible?

I actually think sec is being held to too high a standard, to some extent. People fuck up? Let them fuck up. If the mistake sounds like one a regular human being could reasonably commit, it should be dealt with ICly.

My argument in this isn't that Sue did the right thing or not, but that the situation was gray enough that no matter who was in the right, no players should go punished for what happened.

[Skull132]

Right. Let's acknowledge and crowbar two things off of eachother, as it is required for this complaint to actually function.

First is the general and regular conduct of Sue as a member of the security staff. General MO, preconceptions, formed and reinforced understandings and so on will fall under this, most of which have been raised here. However, this is not the place to discuss these, nor to ask for action to be taken based on these. The forum for that is the player complaints section, if you wish to actively elevate her general conduct into public review, anyone is welcome to do so there.

Second, and something that actually concerns this thread, is the specific, put-in-vacuum incident presented for review. Due to the nature of the complaint, it should be deducted to nameless roles, with no preconceptions existing against or for either side. So, let's review.

Regardless of how, Imraj found himself in a conflict with security. His internet was sputtering out, but that can happen. From what I understand, by the end of it he was able to maintain a steady run, though. Right, moving on, as far as I've been able to deduce, and both sides can correct me here, Imraj was issued several warnings and outright orders to stop. He chose not to heed them, and continue running. As far as I'm concerned, he was now aware that security will elevate actions taken against him, and as such, willingly opened himself up for that action to be taken. There is no mistake, simply a decision that ended in a lot of bullet wounds, and dead. A decision he was free to make, and that was not forced unto him through any OOC means (were it, it'd be gank).

As for the aiming for the head bit. Wrong target zone, happens. Centre mass shots are preferable, but in this situation, it's a mistake and not punishable. Also, anyone willing to actually say that they have the time required in a situation like that to actively swap target zones, please raise their hands. I won't raise mine, cause I would do the exact same thing she did.

[Guest]

Sorry if I'm peanut gallerying, but I think this might help a bit in terms of trying to resolve this issue.

The circumstances that I've seen unfold were questionable at best, but Sue was still within her right to use lethal force to subdue a suspect. She did warn them, as well, to, "Stop, or I shoot."

Maybe she should have shot Brar until she was down, maybe she was right for shooting him even while he was floored.

All I really see in this thread is people observing someone making a tough decision and not liking the outcome, and therefore attacking the person that provided for the outcome. This kind of stuff happens, people get pissed over small yet somewhat round-changing events like this. But it shouldn't.

Maybe, Sue would have gone back in time and changed her decision if she wanted to. Or, probably not. She made a judgement call. Either way, looks to be an IC issue.

So, unless this happens again and the intent and circumstances were very different from this case, then I don't see any reason to pursue punishment.

[Conspire2Ignite]

If it doesn't seem too tangential, can I ask why the detective was in space with the handcuffed suspect? I understand the airlocks were forced and they were both sucked out alone, but... why was the detective there? Not at the brig, preparing to question the suspect. Not with the CSI, making sure that evidence they already collected was up-to-snuff. Why was the detective in a hardsuit at the mining asteroid when there are capable security officers (perhaps moving slowly, but that happens sometimes) there to make the arrest? Was this not Sue's choice, to be there in that dangerous situation as a detective and not an officer? If the detective is given the leeway of an officer, why spawn them with a lethal weapon when they can just get equipment from the warden like everyone else?

And I would raise my hand, Skull. In fact, I'd go one further and say I would change intent to hostage taking. If that doesn't stop him, then you fire, he gets a brutal infection, and he dies in space unless he turns himself in.

[Susan]

I was there because at the time I believe the CSI was either SSD or busy with something else. We also didn't have confirmation that a crime had taken place at all and just that the HoP was 'missing', and was last seen on the asteroid. Thus, the captain allowed me and an accompanying officer (I took Tuvies the cadet) guest passes to mining to investigate, which was my title at the time. 'Investigator'. As there was no crime scene at all to begin with, an investigation as to whether or not a crime had even been committed needed to be conducted. Brar was on station and so it was concluded that a safe investigation of the asteroid could be performed what with the last person to have contact with the victim not at the scene. While searching with Tuvies, we discovered the bodies, and then Brar moved to the outpost wherein his internet kept cutting out ultimately leading to the situation described.

I was cut off by him returning inside with the bodies and he was placed between me and the back-up which had arrived in pursuit of him after we deduced he could be the only murderer.

[mrimatool]

I saw the CSI doing their job on the mining outpost. And another thing, Canon was not able to maintain a stable connection Skull, he was disconnecting even when the admins were trying to talk to him.

[Theplahunter]

Take my opinions with a complete grain of salt here, but:

"The New York Post has just reported that Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson [D.-Bedford Stuyvesant] and Darryl Towns [D.-East New York] have introduced a "minimum force" bill that would require officers to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg" and to use firearms "with the intent to stop, rather than kill."

(source: https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound)

There may be IRL dangers from "Shooting to wound." but so is shooting in the chest. Imraj was not a threat and was non-violently resisting arrest and attempting escape. Imraj was from what I have read: Cuffed and Un-armed. It is overuse of lethal force, and in my opinion not right. Like I said take this with the tiniest grain of salt you can find.

[Frances]

Bit of a bump, but since the thread is still open, I'll say that Plahunter's suggestion isn't half-bad. There would be reasons why you aim for the center of mass irl (better guarantee to hit), but since everyone goes for headshots in SS13 when they're trying to kill people, I don't see why we couldn't specifically try for limb shots when shooting less-than-lethals.

I believe the reason here was that Sue already had head targeted from a previous fight, and didn't have time to switch it due to a heat-of-the-moment thing, but generally it'd be preferable if you know you're going to use force in advance.

[Eliot Clef]

Take my opinions with a complete grain of salt here, but:

"The New York Post has just reported that Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson [D.-Bedford Stuyvesant] and Darryl Towns [D.-East New York] have introduced a "minimum force" bill that would require officers to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg" and to use firearms "with the intent to stop, rather than kill."

(source: https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound)

There may be IRL dangers from "Shooting to wound." but so is shooting in the chest. Imraj was not a threat and was non-violently resisting arrest and attempting escape. Imraj was from what I have read: Cuffed and Un-armed. It is overuse of lethal force, and in my opinion not right. Like I said take this with the tiniest grain of salt you can find.

 

This bill is misguided, and so is this concept. Being shot in the legs is massively more lethal than most people think it is (it's easy to hit arteries there that will bleed you out in no time at all), on top of being much more difficult for the person doing the shooting.

While you can debate this specific in-game instance to the ends of the earth, the idea of "shooting limbs to disable" with ballistic weapons is a tremendously stupid and irresponsible one.

[Dea Tacita]

This bill is misguided, and so is this concept. Being shot in the legs is massively more lethal than most people think it is (it's easy to hit arteries there that will bleed you out in no time at all), on top of being much more difficult for the person doing the shooting. While you can debate this specific in-game instance to the ends of the earth, the idea of "shooting limbs to disable" with ballistic weapons is a tremendously stupid and irresponsible one.

 

Indeed.

In addition,firing a weapon in a stressful situation decreasing accuracy up-to 50%. Being someone who's not a bad markswoman I can tell you that I doubt I'd be able to hit someone in the arm or leg in a stressful situation. This is also why most policing forces have switched from "Fire, assess, fire" to "Fire while assessing." due to the inherent difficulty of stopping in the middle of a dangerous situation and trying to decide what to do.

Also, I think this complaint's pretty much necroed.

[Doomberg]

Alright, despite this specific complaint's inactivity, I'd like to clarify something before I toss it into the archive.

The detective performing the duties of an officer, if we can even consider this a case of that, is an IC issue unless it reaches the point of antag hunting. Furthermore, we will not be taking punitive measures in any of the following situations in the future (excepting cases where our rules have clearly been violated, such as gank, powergame, etcetera):

- A member of the security force lethally shoots a fleeing or resisting suspect of a major violent crime (IE terrorism, murder, attempted murder), regardless of the suspect being visibly armed or not

- An antagonist lethally shoots a member of security who is in the process of compromising, arresting or firing upon said antagonist

- An antagonist lethally shoots a non-security crew member who fails to comply with demands, attempts to or succeeds in compromising said antagonist

With that aside, locking and archiving.

PS: Warning lifted.