Scheveningen Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 One: Reading people their rights is fun. Two: Protects the butts of security officers that arrest people. Three: More IC policy is always fun. “I am encouraged by Biesel law to inform you of your rights. First, anything you say can and will be used against you if it implicates you in a violation of Corporate Regulations. Second, you have the right to appeal your detainment and sentencing with the Head of Security, Internal Affairs, and the facility's Captain in that order. Third, your violations of Corporate Regulations may also be violations of civil law. These violations will be reported to civil authorities upon the conclusion of the shift and punished separately at the discretion of said authorities. Do you understand these rights as read?” Note, these rights are only to be stated to someone being served out a warrant for an associated crime in which they will be brigged for. It's (intended) procedure to read these rights out to someone immediately after their arrest. Failure to do so in certain cases that mandate it may cause the ranking head of staff to throw the case out and cause an immediate release of the individual being arrested.
Fire and Glory Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 This seems iffy to me, as-is there's three methods for some guy to do this. 1:Try to remember the entire paragraph and type out the entire thing, which no one besides Xander can likely accomplish. 2:Copy it from somewhere, probably the wiki. 3:Make a macro. I guess the second method is feasible as you basically need the regulations wiki open all day if you're too lazy to memorize it, though I feel like it's not really something someone should have to do. The third method is most practical though I do not think I should have to make a macro to play in security, and I'd wager a good chunk of the playerbase doesn't really have to know-how to make one without having to spend a while figuring it out. You could also use a hailer I guess but that's not really their intended use so you'd need two. Perhaps security is willing to put up with 2 and 3 but ultimately to me this mostly seems to be a good way to fuck with anyone remotely new in the job. A nicer way to put this in the game would be to make some snowflake verb or some new device to blurt out all of this on use, I guess. Just my 2 cents really.
AmoryBlaine Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 It makes sense. It is a formality, it should be a given, and not required for citing by ISD every time but it totally should exist so liars can be caught up under it.
JMJ_99 Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 From what I know the actual Miranda rights are rarely said during an arrest, they can be but there is no obligation to give them. They are given during a interrogation though
MO_oNyMan Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 Biesel law does not require reading rights even for law enforcement officers, let alone security officers. Moreover the part where you state that violations of Biesel law will be reported and dealt with by biesel authorities seems kind of excessive. And to top it off i really doubt that a loyalty implanted HoS will release a criminal on a basis of a handling officer not reading rights to them. So it's mostly just unnecessary fluff with the current state of affairs. That being said it would be interesting to slightly tweak Biesel laws and NT relationship with Biesel authorities to make such a thing required 1:Try to remember the entire paragraph and type out the entire thing, which no one besides Xander can likely accomplish. Oh come on. It's three pretty logical sentences. You don't even have to precisely word them. Just "everything you say can be used against you, you may appeal your sentence to loyalty implanted personnel, actions violating Biesel law will be reported to Bisel authorities"
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 Sec has to tell you your charges when they arrest you.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 I have no interest in memorizing this or having new players punished for not knowing it.
Azande Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 I come with a suggestion, and a comment. First. In Biesel, as per wiki - you do not need to be read your rights upon arrest. Period. Just given your charge. Now my suggestion, make a simple short and sweet text for the rights, and make the hailer have a pre-set option to use it. Maybe the hailers will be used more often then.
MO_oNyMan Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 I have no interest in memorizing this or having new players punished for not knowing it. isn't that why we have a cadet role?
Fire and Glory Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 1:Try to remember the entire paragraph and type out the entire thing, which no one besides Xander can likely accomplish. Oh come on. It's three pretty logical sentences. You don't even have to precisely word them. Just "everything you say can be used against you, you may appeal your sentence to loyalty implanted personnel, actions violating Biesel law will be reported to Bisel authorities" If it can be paraphrased that wouldn't be so bad I suppose. Now my suggestion, make a simple short and sweet text for the rights, and make the hailer have a pre-set option to use it. Maybe the hailers will be used more often then. I like this.
Zundy Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 I don't really care for it as you don't have to read rights in Biesel to : avoid lore bloat, because sec aren't the police and having a detailed SOP for sec is great for the hardcore players but hell on newbies and causals. However there's nothing stopping you from advising someone of their rights within Biesel I guess. Is this something sec mains want to see?
Synnono Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 I'm not really feeling this either. There's no need to formalize reading someone their rights as private security. You're there to enforce regulations and protect assets, not be the police. The rights of your co-workers are detailed in the terms of their contract, which they can review with HR if there is some sort of issue. Security has enough trouble following the procedures that are already in place, and adding more process to an arrest seems like mostly a good way to trip up more officers on more technicalities. I don't feel that's terribly additive to the game. Edit: I do, however, appreciate the pun potential for 'Miranda' rights. But, only if the rights themselves are absurdly restrictive and not very rights-y at all. Double Edit: Meant to put a dismissal vote in here. Whoops. If you wanna say something like this informally, feel free. I'm not really interested in making it formal policy.
AmoryBlaine Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 For me, I think it's just nice to have the phrase exist. It's not enforced, but it's there for if you wanna use it- like the out-dated SOP.
UnknownMurder Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 Synnono and Jackboot have already expressed my opinions. Although, I am not going to pull up a statement of Internal Security Miranda Rights whether it be from a notepad or wiki and paste this for each time I arrest a person whether it be a small crime or a high crime. You might want to give these two URL a reading, it's very interesting. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/statements-obtained-police-violate-miranda.html Anyhow, let's be serious and not shift unnecessary IC Policies onto Security Officers. Security Officers are controlled enough as it is. NanoTrasen is not a police department, they're a private corporation and they're not obligated to deliver a Miranda Warning to a person in custody.
Faris Posted May 1, 2018 Posted May 1, 2018 I'm fine with this being a little addition, an optional thing for flavor that Officers can do. I'm not fine with this being a forced thing as security already has to abide by a set of procedures. https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Guide_to_Security#Standard_Procedure From an in-character point of view, I'd imagine employees when signing their contract, would be given some document or other pertaining to their rights? So this isn't wholly necessary. Voting for dismissal.
Recommended Posts