i224 - Brandishing a Weapon

[Scheveningen]

In essence: "To draw, show or exhibit a weapon to another person in a threatening or aggressive display."

The details: A 'weapon' in this context is any dangerous tool that is designed to cause lethal or serious bodily harm - even tasers count . Mouse-guns are not weapons, and therefore cannot be brandished. It doesn't matter if a handgun or energy gun is unloaded or empty.

Why?: Basically I'm really tired of seeing security officers draw their .45s and tasers when they do not have to - likewise I'm sure that everyone else that has to deal with security in this kind of situation is also rather tired of it, because without an explicit regulation to deal with this kind of behavior it's extremely hard to deal with it when the majority of our rounds where this regulation could be relevant would be non-canon. Same deal with cargonians openly brandishing self-made swords that they made and trying to be vigilante badasses instead of responsible weapon holders. Weapons are not really meant for taking the law into your own hands (yes, looking at you, security, this counts for you too), they're meant primarily for giving certain people the right to defend their own lives or the lives of others with deadly force. Yet I've seen many such cases where this doesn't happen and a firearm gets brandished and later set off because there's an anxiety connotation for when a deadly weapon gets drawn and someone gets threatened with it, and both parties freak out over it and someone gets hurt unnecessarily because this kind of behavior isn't regulated or necessarily given a punishment in the first place.

Yes, this really is a situation that doesn't have flat out charges barring this kind of behavior. "Gross negligence" is far too vague and any head of security worth their salt still has to inevitably half-ass various other vague charges just to get issues like this tied up properly just to police their own department. "Contraband" would not easily count either because a weapon doesn't have to be legally owned to be brandished - security is the case example of who does this the most anyway, and there are plenty of code red cases where I allow emergency weapons to be made by the crew so long as they use them for self-defense and not aggression. But then how am I supposed to deal with them if there isn't an explicit charge to deal with the people who abuse the right I give them to have the means to protect their own life, or the lives of others?

Therefore, implement this charge as an orange level offense, since brandishing a dangerous weapon is a rather different threat of bodily harm and can't necessarily be construed as assault either. This shouldn't be a yellow charge since regulation of weapons use is not a mild issue, it's pretty serious.

[Pratepresidenten]

I can see the merit of this vs security, but as for everyone else, wouldnt contraband+minor assault/threat of murder or serious injury make all the baddies go away?

[The lancer]

We do have a charge called "use of excessive force" which is aimed for security. Brandishing weapons is also covered by the station alert system. If need be we can just add that into the charge.

[UnknownMurder]

I had a healthy discussion about this in the #serious_discussion with @Scheveningen.

I like the intended message it is trying to achieve. I don't think adding a regulation is a good way to go on about enforcing it but it is a worthy try. My guts tells me that Captain, Head of Security, or Security would just utter "Oh, he's just doing his job." and turn a blind eye to it. I think it should be more of a station or internal security directive thing. It should already part of the SOP (me thinks) to de-escalate an issue with talking and not use pew pew guns too suddenly. But again, I don't think anyone follows SOP to the letter. I probably skipped a part of SOP because /shrug/. 

Given the scenario. There are two non-antags officers on a shift. Officer A pulls out a gun too early and breaks the infraction. Officer B tries to arrest Officer A. Officer A resists. Officer A escapes from Officer B. You now have one officer on the shift. This becomes moot and leads to internal destruction. Moderation team rules it as IC issue. Officer A is declared rogue. What now? Chase after Officer A?

9 minutes ago, The lancer said:

We do have a charge called "use of excessive force" which is aimed for security. Brandishing weapons is also covered by the station alert system. If need be we can just add that into the charge.

Lmao, no. A use of force is any kind of actual contact with the suspect.

[CatsinHD]

Honestly I think the best way to get around this is to advocate for de-escalation more. It'd be hard to justify enforcement OOCly and ICly it'd be incredibly hard to enforce because of the nature of what the sec officer has at their disposal and often how you get to that situation with one being at the ready while the other has to react.

[TrickingTrapster]

I think we may also need to address the point of 'in a threatening way'. Showing equipment to a cadet wouldn't apply to this infraction, but drawing it in the middle of the hallway would. I'm also pretty sure there's a way to draw things non-aggressively and aggressively. Perhaps we can judge it by that? I don't see this as a bad addition but I do think it needs to be thought through all the way.

[Peppermint]

Feels like a non-issue that can fall under other categories tbh.