[2 Dismissals - Bin Sun/29/2018]]Remove the detective's revolver's lethals

[Worthy]

And replace them with rubbers instead on round start.

The detective having lethals does nothing but encourage LRP validhunting behaviour where a single lucky hit with shrapnel can completely ruin an antagonist. Officers do not spawn with lethals, why should a detective? It's purpose is as a self defense weapon, it being loaded with rubbers would still mean it has this capability.

All the detective mains can line up or dogpile, I'm ready.

[Goret]

I agree with that. Give lethal bullets that could gib a limb with only one hit is illogical and un-fair.

[AmoryBlaine]

Either they get a .45 with rubber like the Officers or no gun at all. It's so awful having Dick Tracey arrive on scene pointing his .38 at some guy with a wrench for a weapon.

[Scheveningen]

They were deliberately given lethals so that they wouldn't go around detaining criminals as officers do. That's not their job.

It adds actual consequence to shooting someone down with a .38. It's meant to be a self-defense measure, hence the low capacity.

[JMJ_99]

Agree with schev, having lethals has actual weight to what you do rather than just a straight upgraded taser

[Worthy]

Shooting someone down with rubbers still has decent consequence as you will need to get your ammo replaced and you will still have fired a potentially lethal weapon. Except now you won't have straight up merked the antagonist with shrapnel and internal bleeding.

The job of a detective is investigative, they should be questioning and interrogating subjects, live ammunition simply does nothing to add to this role.

Live ammunition is useful in one case and that is putting down targets via shrapnel, usually targets that are armed and armoured themselves. The detective should NOT be coming in contact with these alone. If they are interrogating a confirmed hostile they should be doing such with officers nearby, preferably in the interrogation room in the brig. In this scenario they do not need live ammunition, as an officer is nearby to protect them.

The other scenario is where they are simply taking statements from crew members near a crime scene, if in this case an unarmoured person decides to have a go at the detective rubber bullets will drop them near just as quickly as live ammunition will via pain crit, except now it just won't straight up kill them.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

We had this same problem with rubbers. It caused people to bleed and was generally responded to very dramatically when it happened.

I am a detective main but still think rubber bullets would be wise. We can keep some lethals in the armory if necessary. If security officers can't carry lethals around on code green I do not think detectives should be able to. It actually make things more dangerous for you - if I'm in maintenence and someone in a gas mask and welding goggles starts disarming me, how do I stop them without killing them with shrapnel?

We should just have an energy revolver gun so we can use stun.

[Korinra]

Going to have to side with rubber bullets. It does seem odd for the Detective to have a more potent weapon than an officer. The CSI is fine with just a flash, but they don't deal with people directly as much, but the Detective should be dealing more with willing people or detained people, so a lethals gun seems excessive for "standard operations".

[AmoryBlaine]

It adds actual consequence to shooting someone down with a .38. It's meant to be a self-defense measure, hence the low capacity.

 

It really doesn't unless an ahelp is being made right after it's use or the Detective is so stupid they unload on someone they REALLY REALLY REALLY shouldn't have. Any other time it's chalked up as just being another day at the Office. Detectives already drop in to every single crime scene they can with full intent on making arrests or shooting something. They know their gun does damage. They want to deal that damage. The smart ones aim first so that they can play the "self-defense" card. The only way to combat this behavior is the punishment of death. Either .45 rubber or a flash for them. They are too cocky with their pistol.

[Azande]

We had this same problem with rubbers. It caused people to bleed and was generally responded to very dramatically when it happened.

I am a detective main but still think rubber bullets would be wise. We can keep some lethals in the armory if necessary. If security officers can't carry lethals around on code green I do not think detectives should be able to. It actually make things more dangerous for you - if I'm in maintenence and someone in a gas mask and welding goggles starts disarming me, how do I stop them without killing them with shrapnel?

We should just have an energy revolver gun so we can use stun.

 

I echo this. I was once attacked while chilling in the hall - a bald assistant started bashing me over the head with a fire extinguisher, I tried to flee at first but they were doing considerable damage - so I was forced to use the only defensive measure I had on me at the time, and I shot six bullets into them until they dropped and gave up, they unfortunately died.

I'd support the revolver outright being removed - CSI doesn't get one, and most detectives just use it to hunt antags regardless of what we say the revolver is for.

[Korinra]

I think the idea of having a revolver goes back to the idea of Noir style movies/TV where the Detective had a revolver as their only partner. However, like Azandie says, we can call it whatever we want to call it, in practice it's not being used for self-defense.

[Scheveningen]

and most detectives just use it to hunt antags regardless of what we say the revolver is for.

 

citation needed

[AmoryBlaine]

Most Detectives I see are either clueless baldies or extremely close to being that bad. I would say that the majority of .38 revolver applications are unneeded and uncalled for. The Detective should not be expected or implied to have any reason to be in a situation where a lethal firearm is needed.

Interviews are not dangerous, we have a viewing room with a two way mic and cameras to view any face to face interrorgations. They shouldn't be stalking maintenance, that is a task wholly unrelated to their profession. Active crimes are also none of their business.

Really, the Detective is an auxillary unit that assists with verifying that everything makes sense on paper. They link the evidence, the witness testimony and charges together and generally make sure things are nice and smooth. If shit gets real, they can use firearms, yes, but they are not suppose to be charging the heights.

They're an assistant, really. A very useful one. So I think by removing the .38 from their loadout, it encourages this auxillary role, which we need them to fill.

[MO_oNyMan]

Detective needs a firearm as a self-defense tool. He deals with potential criminals alone and officers are not always there to babysit you.

Now why would a detective need a lethal firearm? Because it adds consequences to his action thus discouraging detectives from using his gun unless the situation really calls for it and at the same time discourages people from messing with the detective making it serve as a deterrant. Giving the detective rubber bullets will encourage more frivolous use of the gun and be less of a deterant for people thinking to get a drop on the investigator. The logic of it makes perfect sense.

Detectives using their guns on antags is not really a problem since that's what it's for - to use it in emergency situations. Now the detectives purposfully seeking a shootout is entirely another issue and rather than taking tools from the detective i'd suggest adressing it with more strict enforcement of "detective is an investigator first" policy. By "chalking up" such incidents you encourage this behaviour so don't do that. Stick manslaughter to them, stick murder to them, order them to stay out of the frey when they can. Taking away the gun is too radical of a "fuck it" solution.

The anecdote with an assistant getting lit up contributes nothing to the point of removing the revolver. Detective's life was in danger - he responded with tools at hand, perfectly fine. Assistant was killed by his own stupidity. If you want to keep your attackers alive - control your fire or order rubber speedloaders.

-1 to the whole thing

[Worthy]

Firing a rubber still very much has consequence, as we've stated. Officers very rarely use their .45 rubbers to make simple arrests because they will get a tonne of flak for it if they do. Sure it has less of a consequence than firing a lethal weapon but the detective simply does not need to have this consequence in the first place. As you've said they're an investigative role, they should not be in a position to have to use lethal weaponry in the first place. Should officers be given lethal .45 too? To use in an emergency situation? This would be a terrible idea and give antagonists even less leeway.

You are also completely misreading my suggestion. I am not suggesting to take the gun away, I'm suggesting they have rubbers on round start instead. If an emergency situation is present they can still very much acquire lethal rounds for it.

[MO_oNyMan]

Yes, they shouldn't be able to use it. And the weight of a lethal chamber helps them in it. You're less likely to attack someone with a lethal weapon than someone with a non-lethal weapon (thus lowering the chance that the defender will have to use a gun to protect himself) and you're less likely use a lethal gun in a situation that doesn't warrant it (read non-emergency and detectives should not use them in a non-emergency). Officers are expected to actively interact with violent crewmembers (hence the less-than-lethal rubber bullets and lethals in the armory). Detective is expected to interact with violent crewmembers after they have already been pacified by the officer (hence the weight of the lethal rounds as a deterrant). Overall it's not the problem of the gun, it's a problem of poor conduct. So fight with poor conduct, not with the tools used as a part of it

[AmoryBlaine]

Detective is expected to interact with violent crewmembers after they have already been pacified by the officer (hence the weight of the lethal rounds as a deterrant).

 

Keyword: Pacified.

When exactly is the Detective going to need to apply lethal force after pacification? Why can he not use a flash or a baton or anything other than lethals.

Why is this Detective actively interacting with a threat while not being assisted by an Officer? This is ASKING to use the .38

[MO_oNyMan]

When exactly is the Detective going to need to apply lethal force after pacification?

During an interview

 

Why can he not use a flash or a baton or anything other than lethals.

He can but they are sometimes ineffective. There's no room for error when you're working alone most of the time and can't expect support

 

Why is this Detective actively interacting with a threat while not being assisted by an Officer?

Because officer has a lot of other shit to do besides babysitting the detective. There are 4 officers for the entire station of 50+ people. An officer assigned to constantly tail the detective is a waste of resources

again, it's the detective's literal JOB to directly interact with potentially dangerous and violent crewmembers alone. You'd think he would have to have a tool to reliably protect himself and dissuade the potential assailants from making a move

[AmoryBlaine]

When exactly is the Detective going to need to apply lethal force after pacification?

During an interview

 

Why can he not use a flash or a baton or anything other than lethals.

He can but they are sometimes ineffective. There's no room for error when you're working alone most of the time and can't expect support

 

Why is this Detective actively interacting with a threat while not being assisted by an Officer?

Because officer has a lot of other shit to do besides babysitting the detective. There are 4 officers for the entire station of 50+ people. An officer assigned to constantly tail the detective is a waste of resources

again, it's the detective's literal JOB to directly interact with potentially dangerous and violent crewmembers alone. You'd think he would have to have a tool to reliably protect himself and dissuade the potential assailants from making a move

Again. PACIFIED. You are interrorgating someone who has already been striped and brought to Security. You are in a room that is visible by cameras and has a mic in it. You should not be expecting to have to shoot this person in the chest lethally.

As for "no room for error", why not give Officers .45 lethals then? After all, Officers usually operate alone and are coming in contact with these hostile persons before pacification.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Let's give them rubbers and not make them completely defenseless.

There are antags in maintence you know.

[MO_oNyMan]

When exactly is the Detective going to need to apply lethal force after pacification?

During an interview

 

Why can he not use a flash or a baton or anything other than lethals.

He can but they are sometimes ineffective. There's no room for error when you're working alone most of the time and can't expect support

 

Why is this Detective actively interacting with a threat while not being assisted by an Officer?

Because officer has a lot of other shit to do besides babysitting the detective. There are 4 officers for the entire station of 50+ people. An officer assigned to constantly tail the detective is a waste of resources

again, it's the detective's literal JOB to directly interact with potentially dangerous and violent crewmembers alone. You'd think he would have to have a tool to reliably protect himself and dissuade the potential assailants from making a move

Again. PACIFIED. You are interrorgating someone who has already been striped and brought to Security. You are in a room that is visible by cameras and has a mic in it. You should not be expecting to have to shoot this person in the chest lethally.

As for "no room for error", why not give Officers .45 lethals then? After all, Officers usually operate alone and are coming in contact with these hostile persons before pacification.

 

Sometimes you interrogate people who are already brought to security and stripped. Most of the time they're not. Half the time you are not even in interrogation. Even when you are there's almost never someone in observation looking at the monitors and listening to intercom. The thing is if officers had to beat the shit out of the suspect, strip him, cuff him and drag him to security there's no real need to interrogate him at that point. Besides, officers have better things to do than sitting in the interrogation through a 20 minute questioning

As for officers getting lethals i never said i'm opposed to that. I actually would support that idea, it makes sense ICly. However even with rubber bullets officers are carrying an arsenal of tools with them while a detective only has what, a flash? So a gun needs to be able to cover for everything else

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

As a detective I am often prowling maintenence or by myself for extended periods of time, or shadowing suspected antags, or hiding recorders in fortuitous locations that require me to be by myself to make sure no one notices. If you got your desired result and removed the gun, I would be defenseless if the antagonist has eye protection, which is nearly all of them. I need a gun, rubbers or lethals, to defend myself from someone in welding goggles.

The CSI does not have a weapon because during standard situations they're in a crime scene that is already secured by security or the detective, and they are a scientist. They are the follow--up response. Detectives are usually stumbling into situations with antagonists. I need to be able to retreat while giving the antag the slow-down of pain.

I support giving them rubbers again, or at least a can of mace so they have a next level way to defend themselves.

If you took away their gun and cut off their hands and made them completely helpless, then we're going to end up with a lot of antags running around with basic security access and a lot of dead detectives.

[Kaed]

All this talk about lethal bullets encouraging people to take the gun more seriously is complete bunkus. People are playing a video game where they can hunt down bad guys, and at the end of the day, they're going to take glee at being able to shoot the antag if they get the chance.

It frankly doesn't matter what you put in their gun, they're going to fire it at someone any chance they get. That is the nature of guns in a video game. In real life, you can have inescapable life consequences for firing on someone and killing them, but here, the most you'll get is a slap on the wrist of your imaginary character or maybe a sec ban if you're completely awful. I'm not against taking away their gun and replacing it with something like pepper spray, or giving them rubber bullets.

But for fucks sake stop letting them start with code blue ordinance on their person. The whole concept of giving detectives a revolver was to reinforce the hard boiled gumshoe meme from back before we started putting higher standards into roleplay, which detectives don't really do in the first place these days. So they don't need deadly bullets to facilitate it either.

[LanceLynxx]

I mean if you guys /really/ want to go into "this makes logical sense" for giving a detective lethal ballistic rounds in a pressurized space station, first it doesn't make sense, and second of all, I doubt there would ever be an actual "detective" position within such a small population.

If anything, detective is a purely investigative job that should be more like IAA than an Officer, except for things beyond standard protocol violations etc.

[Pacmandevil]

They used to have rubbers at roundstart, and I still don't know why that was changed. as lethals actually detract from the self defence aspect of it.