On Lethals, Vaurca Mendibles and general violence

[Guest]

I think it's reasonable that Vaurca mandible bites are to be treated as an attack with a lethal weapon. This is because it's an equivalent of me trying to hack off your body parts with giant steel scissors. As such, I will now attempt to explain how protocol for lethals works.

If a single attack is done and acceptable levels of restraint shown:

In case of an unjustified attack (not in last resort self-defense) it falls under the charge of Assault or i208, with the maximum applicable sentence (30 minutes).

In case of unjustified use of the bite or other lethals as a member of security force while doing security duty it falls under the Severe Use of Excessive Force or i218 again, with the maximum time possible by the charge (25 minutes).

If the attacks go overboard and the victim dies:

In case of a non-security culprit and not in self-defense, the applicable charge is Murder or i301. Vigilantism murders, by security or not, or needless, blatantly uncalled for liquidation by security still count as murder. The sentence is self-evident.

In case of non-security culprit in self-defense or security staff in line of duty, the applicable charge is Manslaughter or i302. Being attacked is not an excuse to kill someone. If the death is unnecassary* or could've been avoided** the charge of Manslaughter is applicable.

*Security sometimes tends to kill criminals that, frankly, didn't need to be killed. If death is the only acceptable solution for a threat, go ahead. Else, you will be subject to a manslaughter charge.

**If you put someone into crit by act of self-defense and they die as a result, the charge is still manslaughter. The people you wound are your responsibilty until medical takes over.

So, to recap, this is how all attacks with lethals should be viewed. Admitedly, this is my view of it based on the Corporate Regs, common sense and human decency. Mendibles are just the tip of the iceberg surrounding levels of legal abuse weapons get in this game. So, this is an open call for all security to finally standardize how people are treated. Of course, which of these you chose are still open to your own interpretation of the evidence, but dicks in security, vindictive asshoes and random vigilante fucktards need their fair share of punishment.

[MagnificentMelkior]

This sounds reasonable except for your double asterix aside. Non-medical generally don't carry around any method of healing and I don't think that a valid self defense incident where lethal force was justified should carry any sort punishment. It ought to be your responsibility to make sure medical is informed, but to actually save them yourself? I don't think so, Especially when they could just get up and take their vengeance after you stabilize them.

If it were a medical personnel who self defended the other guy, then I do think they are obligated to help but I think it would be gross neglect of duty rather than manslaughter.

[swat43]

Question from a bit off topic, how brutal are vaurca bites, if any one knows really.

Also, what happens if both the Vaurca the victim who tried to assasinate the said Vaurca, but Vaurca injured the guy bad, still tried to save it, but failed to do so? Is he still charged that he killed the guy after giving brutal bites? (thoughts of getting bitten to death.. *shudder*)

And if the same scenario happens, but difference here is, if the said assasinator, who failed at his attempt to muder Vaurca, is held down/cuffed and still breaks free, and tries to injure, when is the moment that you trully know that the pacification of the enemy is no longer an option and must be taken out? Of the actions they do after wards or just dont take chances of him getting anywhere and bite his ass to death?

(Just my own questions that probably are easily answerable, but i still want to hear multiple versions of answers.. if there are such..)

[Jboy2000000]

Caurca bites are 30 brute, I think,

[SierraKomodo]

Unless this has been changed very recently, the wiki does specifically say the difference between manslaughter and murder is whether or not you had an intent to kill; This post kind of redefines that difference.

[CampinKiller]

Murder, (off the top of my head), involves premeditated intent to kill. Manslaughter would be killing without premeditated intent.

[Guest]

Unless this has been changed very recently, the wiki does specifically say the difference between manslaughter and murder is whether or not you had an intent to kill; This post kind of redefines that difference.

The whole idea behind my reasoning is that you cannot know someone's intent. So, let's say that someone attacks you and your life is in danger. You fight them off, using lethal means to protect your own life. As a result, the culprit is now lying on the floor, dying. You have two notable options; You can call medical and possibly make sure that he does not indeed die or you can be quiet and let him die. Which of these two both resemble manslaughter and which resembles murder? I'm pretty sure it's the second one. The former because you are letting someone die through your own action, thus blurring the line of intent, and the latter because you are causing death through your own neglect.

So, how do you solve this? You make it so it's in your best interest that the person survives, by automatically making the charge hinge on the result, not intent. Even if they die after you try and help, you are automatically free of the manslaughter charge, because you've proven that you were neither motivated to kill them, nor neglecting your innate responsibility for other people's safety.

[Guest]

Murder, (off the top of my head), involves premeditated intent to kill. Manslaughter would be killing without premeditated intent.

Except, vast majority of assault and manslaughter charges end up as attempted murder charges.

[swat43]

Thanks mate, that answers my questions! Cheers to you.. and cheese!

[CampinKiller]

Murder, (off the top of my head), involves premeditated intent to kill. Manslaughter would be killing without premeditated intent.

Except, vast majority of assault and manslaughter charges end up as attempted murder charges.

 

Re: assault, you are displaying, at the very least, intent to seriously harm. If you end up killing them, then it would be considered murder (the likely charge upon return to Biesel being 2nd Degree Murder, as assaults that escalate into a murder are rarely premeditated/grounds for a 1st Degree Murder charge). If you're defending yourself, then that is a different story.

Manslaughter does often get charged as Murder, unfortunately, and the few times I've seen/tried to tell the other staff that it's actually Manslaughter, said person usually is ignored or shouted down.

[Zundy]

If you attack some one and kill them (even with intent to subdue) it's murder. If you kill in self defence through reasonable escalation then you're fine. If it was unreasonable (you pull a knife in a fist fight) it's murder.

Manslaughter is more for not setting up X equipment properly (in the auroras case) causing death.

[Theplahunter]

If you attack some one and kill them (even with intent to subdue) it's murder. If you kill in self defence through reasonable escalation then you're fine. If it was unreasonable (you pull a knife in a fist fight) it's murder.

Manslaughter is more for not setting up X equipment properly (in the auroras case) causing death.

 

"Certain forms of provocation that frequently arise have traditionally been considered reasonable or unreasonable by the courts. A killing that results from anger that is induced by a violent blow with a fist or weapon might constitute sufficient provocation, provided the accused did not incite the victim. It is not reasonable, however, to respond similarly to a light blow. A killing that results from mutual combat is often considered manslaughter, provided it was caused by the heat of passion aroused by the combat. An illegal arrest of one who knows of or believes in his or her innocence may provoke a reasonable person, although cases are in dispute on the issue of whether such an arrest would justify a killing. An attempt to make a legal arrest in an unlawful manner by the use of unnecessary violence might also constitute a heat of passion killing that will mitigate an intentional killing."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

[Guest]

If you attack some one and kill them (even with intent to subdue) it's murder. If you kill in self defence through reasonable escalation then you're fine. If it was unreasonable (you pull a knife in a fist fight) it's murder.

Good point, but consider the following: The person has shown a clear intent to hurt you and you can't run or avoid the fight, does attacking preemptively with an idea to subdue count as murder?

Manslaughter is more for not setting up X equipment properly (in the auroras case) causing death.

The given snapshot kinda disproves that. It counts for killings in direct self-defense as well. Of course, the current 'laws' are subject to change. But why change it? We've had enough examples of retardedly drastic 'self-defenses' to qualify dealing with at least the most extremes ones.

[Theplahunter]

If you attack some one and kill them (even with intent to subdue) it's murder. If you kill in self defence through reasonable escalation then you're fine. If it was unreasonable (you pull a knife in a fist fight) it's murder.

Good point, but consider the following: The person has shown a clear intent to hurt you and you can't run or avoid the fight, does attacking preemptively with an idea to subdue count as murder?

 

Yes and No, if the man had a weapon and he was approaching you menacingly it could be considered self-defense due to fear. But if he is unarmed and you've beaten him once it's a bit more complex than that and may be considered pre-meditated murder. Or if he was unarmed and approaching you menacingly you started the fight and can be charged with Murder or Manslaughter. And if the man surrenders and you keep attacking him and kill him it's straight up murder.

[Lady_of_Ravens]

So, in short, if you're going to kill someone make sure there are no witnesses.

[Vanagandr]

"Homicide" means someone died and you were responsible.

"Manslaughter" means someone died and you were responsible, but-

"Voluntary Manslaughter" means you planned to kill them, but due to the circumstances, it isn't murder. Say, justified but excessive self-defense.

"Involuntary Manslaughter" means they're dead but IT WAS JUST A PRANK BRO I DIDN'T MEAN IT.

A pub fight that goes a bit too far would be manslaughter - even if weapons were used.

Involuntary Manslaughter is generally the result of Criminal Negligence - a duty of care was owed, the owed care was not performed, and anyone with half a brain would have been able to see that shirking could get someone hurt or killed.

There's also Constructive Manslaughter - you are committing a crime, and someone dies, and it is considered your fault and you are charged with manslaughter because they wouldn't have died without your crime.

Say, someone fleeing a gunman trips on some stairs and breaks their neck, even if the gunman doesn't shoot anyone he's still charged with murder because someone died and it was his fault because he set out to do a dangerous thing deliberately.

A genuine accident is not manslaughter.

Manslaughter also covers reckless behaviour that winds up killing someone, like if an Engineer vents a room and doesn't tape the door and someone walks in and dies, or a Detective fires blindly down a hall after a tator and one of the bullets gets someone in the brain meats.

"Murder" means someone died and you deliberately killed them.

Sometimes there's aggravating circumstances that increase the sentence; they were a witness to a crime, or a cop, or pregnant, or you poisoned them, or you were being paid to do it, or it was an especially gristly killing.

There's also Constructive Murder - you were committing a crime, and you killed someone; even if it normally wouldn't be considered murder, the circumstances make it inherently unlawful and you get a murder charge absolutely free.

It's not a thing in most Commonwealth states anymore AFAICT, but the 'States still have it in most places.

TL;DR:

If there's a fight going on and someone draws a knife and uses it, that's Aggravated Assault, or Assault With a Deadly Weapon, or Grievous Bodily Harm; GBH is also called Wounding With Intent.

If the other combatant dies, it's Manslaughter.

If someone jumps out of nowhere with a knife and stabs someone half a dozen times, that's Attempted Murder.

[Guest]

snip

A very good deconstruction, but unless we actually go around and implement all of these, we have to boil them down to existing charges.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Guest

[Vanagandr]

snip

A very good deconstruction, but unless we actually go around and implement all of these, we have to boil them down to existing charges.

That was the IRL stuff, yeah.

Not that I am not a lawyer, but I have looked into the subject a bit.

These things vary a lot depending on country though.

Spesslawified:

Minor Assault: realistic threats of attack or actual performance of an attack involving minor injury - fisticuffs, disarmspam, tabling etc.

Also covers attacks with various 'harmless' weapons, ex. a folder full of papers, a thrown rubber duck, 'softer' less-lethals - tasers, stunbatons, stungloves, pepper spray, flashes, etc.

Assault: an attack causing serious injury without the intent to kill.

An attack involving a 'real' weapon, ex. a wrench, a kitchen knife, a Unathi/Tajaran's claws, a Hulk's fists, a baseball bat, a bottle of Tunguska Triple Distilled.

Basically, if you can hit someone with it three or four times and they'll (barring ridiculous RNG) be able to survive without Medical's immediate attention, it's Assault.

Aiming for the head could definitely upgrade it to Attempted Murder, though.

Manslaughter: killing someone through negligence or an assault without the intent to kill.

An Engineer firing the PA while his mate is in front of it would qualify, as would a friendly knife-fight in the Bar that led to one of the participants bleeding out in Medbay.

Attempted Murder: an assault that was or would be perceived by a Reasonable Crewmember (lel) as a deliberate attempt to kill.

Ex. a Barfight where one of the participants went down and the other just kept whacking away, an attack with a "Lethal" weapon - one where even a single hit might be life-threatening - Detective's revolver, shotgun slugs, lasers, a fire axe, an energy sword, a Vaurca's mandibles, etc., or a sustained and dangerous attack with a lesser weapon - beating the shit out of someone's skull with an oxygen tank, or hackin' and wackin' and smackin' with a knife, or repeat harmbatonings to the skull.

Murder: as above, but someone died.

Self-Defense: can downgrade an assault/manslaughter/murder by several steps or all the way to a pat on the back and a handshake, depending on circumstances.

I like the way it's phrased in New Zealand law:

Self-defence and defence of another

Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

(SECTION 48, Crimes Act 1961)

Reasonably clear, innit? A little vague, though; it is Common Law, after all.

So, here's some stuff sort of cribbed from all over the place to act as guidelines.

Criminal Activity:

If you are attacked in the course of committing a crime, fighting, even to defend yourself and in a fashion that would otherwise be acceptable, is not self defense.

Provocation:

Is not a defense. What he said about your mother is irrelevant - you are a grown adult, not a hormonal teenager. If someone's making a nuisance of themselves, go to Security and get an injunction.

De-Escalation:

You should take reasonable steps to de-escalate the situation, where possible.

Try and talk him down, instead of running in to robust.

Immediate Threat:

An attack needs to be either in progress or believably imminent for intervention to qualify as defense of self or others.

Urist McCatbeast may have been mrowling over the radio about how much he hates you and wants you dead, but that does not mean you can shoot him the moment he steps into your Bar. If he takes out a fire extinguisher and starts hopping the counter, go for it, but if he can't realistically do anything to you, beanbagging him will get you brigged.

The nature of the participants also affects this; even your muscles have muscles, Engineer Crush McStompBones; an unarmed Phoebe Essel is not a credible threat to your life and limb unless a horde of metafriends are backing her up.

Proportionate Force:

The force must match the threat. If he's punching someone, you can punch him back or disarm him or table him or flash him or pepper-spray him, as suits your fancy; if he's going at someone with a fire extinguisher, you can tase him or beanbag him or break his leg with a baseball bat or any number of other things, but you can't just shoot him with slugs unless it looks like he's trying to bludgeon someone to death.

Shooting for the legs or arms DOES NOT downgrade a bulleting to Assault - if you're not justified in shooting to kill, you're not justified in shooting at all.

Note that that does not mean that you can empty the rest of the magazine into them once they go down - Self Defense ends when the assault does, and an attacker who can no longer stand is an attacker who cannot be seriously considered a threat, barring special circumstances, say, SCYAR NILA CAPTAIN'S OFFICE! or Urist McLing appears to wake from the dead, having healed all wounds!

This includes warning shots - do not fire a shot 'just to scare him off'. You are responsible for every round in your gun, and if one ricochets into an innocent, you will get the blame.

Depending on the circumstances - while alone, say, or from ambush - an attack with stun weapons could definitely qualify as an attempted Kidnapping, which is a very serious crime only a few steps below outright murder, and may justify considerable force.

Some things that may or may not be present depending on IC laws, regulations and culture:

Citizen's Arrest:

Regular crewmembers can act to assist Security when a crime is being committed, if necessary, but are subject to the same use-of-force restrictions as Security staff.

Defense of Property:

Property is of lower value than life - you can remonstrate with someone who's stealing stuff or performing vandalism up to the point of grabbing him by his filthy grey jumpsuit and throwing him out, but anything that causes him more than minor bruising is forbidden. You can't put him in a chokehold and strip-search him, either. If he starts getting frisky and pulls a weapon, though, all bets are off; as above, criminals are not justified in using force, even in self-defense.

Duty to Retreat:

If you get a reasonable chance to safely disengage and leave it to Security, you must take it. Staying to fight, without the likelihood that someone will be killed or seriously hurt if you retreat, will disqualify a claim of self-defense.

Re-Engaging:

If you successfully retreat and come back later for Robusted 2: Greyshit Boogaloo, you are the attacker now.

Needless to say, even in a legitimate self-defense situation, you need to call Security.

Disposaling the weapon you used will not help you to look like a paragon of virtue.

[Zundy]

snip

Five star post

 

10/10

[Guest]

Proportionate Force:

The force must match the threat. If he's punching someone, you can punch him back or disarm him or table him or flash him or pepper-spray him, as suits your fancy; if he's going at someone with a fire extinguisher, you can tase him or beanbag him or break his leg with a baseball bat or any number of other things, but you can't just shoot him with slugs unless it looks like he's trying to bludgeon someone to death.

Citizen's Arrest:

Regular crewmembers can act to assist Security when a crime is being committed, if necessary, but are subject to the same use-of-force restrictions as Security staff.

Defense of Property:

Property is of lower value than life - you can remonstrate with someone who's stealing stuff or performing vandalism up to the point of grabbing him by his filthy grey jumpsuit and throwing him out, but anything that causes him more than minor bruising is forbidden. You can't put him in a chokehold and strip-search him, either. If he starts getting frisky and pulls a weapon, though, all bets are off; as above, criminals are not justified in using force, even in self-defense.

Duty to Retreat:

If you get a reasonable chance to safely disengage and leave it to Security, you must take it. Staying to fight, without the likelihood that someone will be killed or seriously hurt if you retreat, will disqualify a claim of self-defense.

Re-Engaging:

If you successfully retreat and come back later for Robusted 2: Greyshit Boogaloo, you are the attacker now.

Needless to say, even in a legitimate self-defense situation, you need to call Security.

Disposaling the weapon you used will not help you to look like a paragon of virtue.

Well done, I agree with this. One of the most problematic, annoying things I've had to face during my time playing here are cats and engineers who would literally beat someone to the brink of death for traspassing into engineering or attacking. If you are going down the route of acting as militia, you should be held accountable to the same standards security has. People try and sell me that shit about cuffs and flashes, but a decent security officers without cuffs would disengage and call for help until someone with cuffs arrives or go get some.

That said, notes about personal property need to be made. The wrench or a piece of clothing you are using (unless you brought them to the station) do not necessarily belong to you. They are station's property, so they aren't actually stealing from you.

[Conservatron]

as an engineer who in the past has escalated things to violence, we should def be held accountable as security.

actually, more so than security. They, at least, have the benefit of saying 'i made a call and it required that level of force' non sec staff can really only say 'i decided to take matters into my own hands'

But it guess adding charges for vigilantism would be too anti-game

[Vanagandr]

Well done, I agree with this. One of the most problematic, annoying things I've had to face during my time playing here are cats and engineers who would literally beat someone to the brink of death for traspassing into engineering or attacking. If you are going down the route of acting as militia, you should be held accountable to the same standards security has. People try and sell me that shit about cuffs and flashes, but a decent security officers without cuffs would disengage and call for help until someone with cuffs arrives or go get some.

Citizen's Arrest and Defense of Property can't really be in if Duty to Retreat is in; they're sort of mutually exclusive.

If you're required to disengage the moment you get a safe opportunity, you can't exactly legally table and cablecuff a greyshit for smashing windows and stealing insulated gloves. Strictly speaking you can't even table and cablecuff him if he's knifing people, because after he's tabled and disarmed you can run away safely.

Essentially, it can be boiled down to Stand Your Ground vs Duty to Retreat.

Stand Your Ground: when in a place you have a legal right to occupy (home, workplace, etc.) you have every right to be there, and are not required to retreat from it in the face of unlawful force. You may use what force is necessary to resist illegal attacks, up to and including, if called for, lethal measures.

Duty to Retreat: you may not meet force with force unless you have exhausted every reasonable avenue of retreat.

Citizen's Arrest is a thing in most places, as I understand it, even those with a Duty to Retreat, but having a legal ability to do something and being able to do it, well, places with a Duty to Retreat are generally a lot more unreasonable, so to speak, about exactly what qualifies as 'reasonable' force; places without it are likely to overlook things that aren't completely excessive.

Exactly what applies to the Aurora, ICly, I'm not sure.

OOCly, my reading of the rule that "Killing in self-defense in NOT preferred. If possible, always try to flee, or disable your opponent." is that it supports an OOC Stand Your Ground; you can run away, or, if you do stay and fight, "if possible ... disable your opponent.".

Killing someone who you could have safely subdued is, after all, already ICly classed as manslaughter or murder. Probably Manslaughter, if it were otherwise self-defense; my reading of Severe Use of Excessive Force is that it's what you get if the situation called for a Minor Assault and you jumped straight to Assault, but it was otherwise self defense or legitimate Security work.

 

That said, notes about personal property need to be made. The wrench or a piece of clothing you are using (unless you brought them to the station) do not necessarily belong to you. They are station's property, so they aren't actually stealing from you.

Station property that has been entrusted to you and that is your responsibility to safeguard.

For the most part I'd say that wrenches, space heaters, fire extinguishers, food items and the general clutter about the station wouldn't justify force, but job-critical or sensitive items probably should - magic yellow gloves of +100 Lightning Resistance and printouts of private medical/employment/security records included.

Stealing stuff directly from someone against their will would generally require an assault to keep them from just stepping away, so that doesn't really count as Defense of Property.

IRL corporations are paranoid about lawsuits, and would never permit their staff to do anything on-the-job that might risk a lawsuit, up to the point of forbidding harsh language, much less the threat or use of physical force.

NT is something of a law unto themselves as I understand it; the Aurora being 'corporate territory', I suspect station crew could, as far as the law goes, get away with anything short of the most flagrant violations of legal rights and duties, or, in short, if NT Security doesn't arrest them for it odds are the defenders of Sol and Biesel's law and order aren't likely to make a fuss either.

[Susan]

Self-defense is justifiable homicide and you cannot be charged with a crime if your self-defense is found valid.

I never arrest people who kill someone coming at them with lethal intent because that doesn't make any fucking sense. If a dude is shooting at me with a gun I'm going to blow his head off, even if I have the means to take him down non-lethally. I mean, cops don't pull their tasers out when getting shot at by gangbangers.