Pollux

[Pollux]

Steam Name: Pollux

SteamID: STEAM_0:1:45419786

BanID: 82579

Ban Reason
BRA - FearRP

Staff Member: Kippsee

Involved users
JoshZ
Penguin
Me

Why should you be unbanned?
Video of the situation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCJtfv8Vi9w

So the only reason I see for this is because I didn't lower my weapon when asked to in the situation, even though by lowering it I would be putting everyones life in danger. I already explained this on the PR thread itself.

If I didn't follow him he can take the hostage away and harm them. He clearly stated he was planning to execute him and his reason for taking him hostage in the first place was to teach him a lesson for threatening him. I was close to him to negotiate, you can see me talking to him ingame (my audio doesn't record, but it does show me talking in the bottom right). He also didn't actually say to stop following him, which is why me and a police officer did with the others holding further back. I followed him until he entered slums, where I then fell back to wait for backup.

The only thing Josh asked for me was to lower my weapon, which I couldn't do as that would put my own life and the life of others around me in danger too (Me and another SRU were the only ones there for a while until others responded). Me putting my weapon down also means he can follow through and execute the hostage. As he obviously had an intention to harm the hostage there, I had to keep following at a close distance to make sure I can kill him if he does.

I really don't see how I broke FearRP here, in a situation which shouldn't have happened in the first place. The only demand he made to me was to lower my weapon which was unreasonable and puts more risk to myself and others around me, so why would I follow it? If anything, lowering my weapon would be breaking FearRP as i'm then not considering my own life and also the life of those around me (VP and President were both at the nexus front alongside multiple civilians).

If this wasn't done in public, then it would be different as the only life I would be risking was my own. If he didn't state he was going to execute him and this was in a private area, I would've likely lowered my shotgun and attempted to negotiate as I don't have to consider the life of others around me, only my own and the hostages life. As this was in public with multiple civilians alongside the president and vice, I couldn't follow his demand as it puts everyone in danger.

Lowering the weapon would just allow him to potentially take me and others around me hostage too, or allow him to easily "execute" the hostage as he stated he would in the start of the video. Considering you're even allowed to shoot hostage takers without retrieving the hostage first, I don't see how refusing to lower it is even close to breaking FearRP.

Can you still engage hostage takers as SRU or police without first retrieving the hostage?
Doing so should only be done if you are 100% sure that you have a clear shot towards the hostage takers, you should still prioritise the hostages lifes.

This is from the QA thread pinned in help and support, not sure if the stance on this has changed but it has been this way for a long time. It also doesn't help that I was only given this for my closing statement:

A 1 day ban punishment will be handed out as it is a clear breakage of FearRP, this doesn't need to drag any longer than it needs to. My closing comments on the matter is this, as the rule states, you should fear for your colleagues life as well as your own therefore the weapon should have been lowered. I understand what you are trying to say however I have seen situations like this before and tell everyone the same thing.

Yes I need to fear for my colleagues life and my own, which is exactly why I didn't lower it. In the video you can clearly see the VP, President and multiple people near the nexus while this was going down, I was the only SRU for a while until another joined and then left again. I don't see how I broke FearRP by prioritising my own life and the life of those around me versus one hostage, who I could best protect by instead keeping my shotgun trained on the single armed man at close range. I still think the best and only suitable course of action in this situation was for me to keep my gun raised and there's no reason I have to follow every demand he gave if they're not reasonable. As such, I don't think FearRP was broken in this case and the ban should be reconsidered, as if this is valid it a single hostage can pretty much get a criminal anything they want (eg. a dictator), which isn't realistic in the slightest.

[Kippsee]

If you were prioritising the life of the hostage then you would have put your gun down, the rule states this:

"3.5 You must follow FearRP by acting afraid of threatening situations that affect your own or accomplices' lives. To initiate FearRP have a weapon out and give out orders (text or voice). "

JoshZ followed the basic fearRP protocol of putting an officer under gunpoint and giving clear demands. You didn't follow the demands which is fearRP, there is nothing really anything else to add. Is the fearRP rule perfect, absolutely not (I personally dislike it) but there are no exceptions no matter what you think. I understand your reasoning, however it's semi serious, just follow the rule at face value.

Denied. The team discussed it and agreed on a day ban, therefore it will stay.