Heavily flawed penal code

[Jedai]

1 minute ago, Brett said:

No, but there’s an example of someone here in this thread being held for 60 hours on a 2 hour charge. That’s the thing.

 

Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Aggravated Battery. Charges weren't stacked for the sake of letting the player go on about his day at that. Which wasn't a "2 hour" charge as misinformation leads people to believe.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Jedai

[Bospy]

4 minutes ago, Brett said:

Did they say what the charge even was for? 

You have to ask @Mantle, but @cryybabyycryy also had a similar instance. I’m not blaming anyone for these issues, though - I think that it is a genuinely good idea to have people cooperate on an OOC level with investigations. The issue is once you give players a power than can be abused without a lot of oversight, situations like this could feasibly happen. You have a right mindset when it comes to punishment in cases of abuse, but it may be difficult to track. I think there needs to be more recourse than an appeal to IA. Lawyers should definitely be an active component.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Bospy

[Jedai]

1 minute ago, Bospy said:

You have to ask @Mantle, but @cryybabyycryy also had a similar instance. I’m not blaming anyone for these issues, though - I think that it is a genuinely good idea to have people cooperate on an OOC level with investigations. The issue is once you give players a power than can be abused without a lot of oversight, situations like this could feasibly happen. You have a right mindset when it comes to punishment in cases of abuse, but it may be difficult to track.

This isn't difficult to track at all. There's a requirement to log WHY someone is detained for 72 hours on their record. No one except for the Chief of Police can delete records off the MDC. Every time an action is done within the MDC it's logged with a date and time. If someone were to jail someone without the paperwork, we'd know and they'd get removed. 

[Bospy]

2 minutes ago, Jedai said:

This isn't difficult to track at all. There's a requirement to log WHY someone is detained for 72 hours on their record. No one except for the Chief of Police can delete records off the MDC. Every time an action is done within the MDC it's logged with a date and time. If someone were to jail someone without the paperwork, we'd know and they'd get removed. 

 

The opportunity still lies that people can choose to investigate things they have more than enough evidence to arrest or indict someone for. Who decides what standard of evidence is enough to finally arrest someone for? Brett has said he’d be harsh with anyone who abuses it, but that’s what I’m talking about. 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Bospy

[Brett]

Alright well, we'll let that slide because we don't have all the details on that specific incident to make the judgement on this thread. But as far as the main argument goes, I do wish to await Mantles response to my questions. Mind you, I'm on LSPD for about anything I can be on them about and I do ensure that people who mess up get punished when I hear about it and PD could testify that any day of the week. I'm not Pro or Anti-PD or Pro or Anti gangster. I'm by my position one of the more neutral figures for both sides to approach to complain about things as I have to do IC appropriations for damages for even your average joe. The only thing I care about is logic and reasoning. If PD is investigating things they have enough evidence to charge, then PD needs to be held to account. And like I said before, the only people who really should be detaining are Detectives at least on the 72 hours, because there are so few instances where a normal patrol officer may need to do so and if I'm being honest, most wouldn't even spend the headache trying to do it because they just wish to get back on patrol. 

[Bospy]

7 minutes ago, Brett said:

Alright well, we'll let that slide because we don't have all the details on that specific incident to make the judgement on this thread. But as far as the main argument goes, I do wish to await Mantles response to my questions. Mind you, I'm on LSPD for about anything I can be on them about and I do ensure that people who mess up get punished when I hear about it and PD could testify that any day of the week. I'm not Pro or Anti-PD or Pro or Anti gangster. I'm by my position one of the more neutral figures for both sides to approach to complain about things as I have to do IC appropriations for damages for even your average joe. The only thing I care about is logic and reasoning. If PD is investigating things they have enough evidence to charge, then PD needs to be held to account. And like I said before, the only people who really should be detaining are Detectives at least on the 72 hours, because there are so few instances where a normal patrol officer may need to do so and if I'm being honest, most wouldn't even spend the headache trying to do it because they just wish to get back on patrol. 

 

I’m happy to hear this, but I just want to give a hypothetical: this is what troubles me.

 

A malicious detective or officer doesn’t like someone on an OOC level. They also have enough evidence to arrest them. But to fuck with them, they decide they need to gather “further evidence” that is beyond the level required for a sentence they’re holding the person for in the first case. Say it’s a gangmember. They want to get more evidence for more charges, but they themselves don’t know what those would be. So the person can already be arrested, but they’re fishing for more. So instead of arresting that person for 2 hours, they punish them by giving them 72 hours. After 40 hours, they decide they can’t find anything else and finally arrest that person.

 

That’s my nightmare and why I’ve been arguing so passionately. If you already have a reason to arrest a guy, don’t go fishing for more with this investigative hold. You’re giving me some more security with your responses, Brett, but I am still concerned about how someone could use this to fuck with a guy they don’t like. That’s why I’m saying have a judge sign off on it beyond a bar standard of 24 hours or something. That way, even if it’s abused, it can be stomached and a player can seek IC recourse afterwards.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Bospy

[Bospy]

And with the DUI case, my point was you could theoretically arrest a guy for DUI first off but continue to fish while telling him you’re “investigating.” It probably wouldn’t happen, but it could. I’m happy you’re against that concept.

[Brett]

1 minute ago, Bospy said:

 

I’m happy to hear this, but I just want to give a hypothetical: this is what troubles me.

 

A malicious detective or officer doesn’t like someone on an OOC level. They also have enough evidence to arrest them. But to fuck with them, they decide they need to gather “further evidence” that is beyond the level required for a sentence they’re holding the person for in the first case. Say it’s a gangmember. They want to get more evidence for more charges, but they themselves don’t know what those would be. So the person can already be arrested, but they’re fishing for more. So instead of arresting that person for 2 hours, they punish them by giving them 72 hours. After 40 hours, they decide they can’t find anything else and finally arrest that person.

 

That’s my nightmare and why I’ve been arguing so passionately. If you already have a reason to arrest a guy, don’t go fishing for more with this investigative hold. You’re giving me some more security with your responses, Brett, but I am still concerned about how someone could use this to fuck with a guy they don’t like.

It's hypotheticals like this along with a lot of other problems, why I'm and have been working on completely removing PD's ability to charge on their own. I'm working on getting a working DA system where people will have representation right from the get-go when they are charged and/or detained, and someone who is not a police officer and an actual BAR licensed Attorney from the DA's office will be ensuring that both PD are held to account, charges are correct, and things are handled in a more legalistic and fair manner. I've been drawing up plans for it for months, and hopefully should see implementation of it this month. PD has already been alerted to the idea, and I do think the public once they hear of it will also be satisfied with the result. 

 

An image of some of it is here for viewing. 

 

Point being, I'm actively working on fixing the PD charging mechanisms and making the system more fair. When people like earlier insult me in doing that, or assume that I'm just "Sticking up for systems of oppression," or something is when I get turned off from wanting to engage in more conversation. I'm not hard to work with, but you do have to diligently work with me to find a solution. Not saying this personally to you, just in general to anyone. 

[Jedai]

4 minutes ago, Bospy said:

 

The opportunity still lies that people can choose to investigate things they have more than enough evidence to arrest or indict someone for. Who decides what standard of evidence is enough to finally arrest someone for? Brett has said he’d be harsh with anyone who abuses it, but that’s what I’m talking about. 

 

And the likelihood of that happening so far has been inconclusive. We all know that people are going to operate off of Probable Cause and physical evidence in order to conduct an arrest. The Standards of Evidence aren't lacking at all. The penal code is very to the point with most charges. Like Brett has said on numerous times and as I've said numerous times, the only person who really ever uses this clause are Detectives and even then most of them usually have enough to arrest someone more times than not. In Mantle's case, he was held for a more than justifiable reason and the Detective in question when they weren't working irl were working on concluding his case to the best of her ability. 

 

In Erika Schmidt's case, their case wasn't even fully investigated properly due to another Officer's error and they were charged more leniently than the initiating Officer who put them in detainment to begin with would have. The Officer who committed this error was then FIRED because like I've said before, this isn't hard to track. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Bospy said:

A malicious detective or officer doesn’t like someone on an OOC level. They also have enough evidence to arrest them. But to fuck with them, they decide they need to gather “further evidence” that is beyond the level required for a sentence they’re holding the person for in the first case. Say it’s a gangmember. They want to get more evidence for more charges, but they themselves don’t know what those would be. So the person can already be arrested, but they’re fishing for more. So instead of arresting that person for 2 hours, they punish them by giving them 72 hours. After 40 hours, they decide they can’t find anything else and finally arrest that person.

 

That’s my nightmare and why I’ve been arguing so passionately. If you already have a reason to arrest a guy, don’t go fishing for more with this investigative hold. You’re giving me some more security with your responses, Brett, but I am still concerned about how someone could use this to fuck with a guy they don’t like.

 

 

Well for one, we hold people to much higher OOC integrity in the PD than on other servers so we just don't employ this kind of mindsets to begin with. For two seeing as how once again there needs to be a justification for the Officer in question to do this hold anyway, if they fail to produce any reason for actually holding someone other than "I'm looking for more to arrest them on", then you can bet your ass they're out.

 

 

However I pose a counter question, i, if someone did commit further crimes and a lead were to be presented during processing, is it still considered abuse for a Detective to then put someone in for 72 hours to further investigate that lead if the crimes committed are linked to the same situation? 

[Bospy]

13 minutes ago, Brett said:

Point being, I'm actively working on fixing the PD charging mechanisms and making the system more fair. When people like earlier insult me in doing that, or assume that I'm just "Sticking up for systems of oppression," or something is when I get turned off from wanting to engage in more conversation. I'm not hard to work with, but you do have to diligently work with me to find a solution. Not saying this personally to you, just in general to anyone.

Understandable, and I appreciate you revealing that. I’ve seen similar systems in the works before. I’ll just say this: as you can see, not responding can galvanize the opposition. I apologize for getting worked up as a result. If I had know this system was in the works, I wouldn’t have used any of the rhetoric I used. I was arguing from the uneducated perspective about the present - which still is, to an extent, an issue, but not one that I’m exceedingly worried about provided this system comes soon.

 

I’ve settled down, but I feel like the 72 hour hold would be more suited to when representation does exist in the form of DAs/lawyers/etc. Personally, that’d be sick to exist, but when it doesn’t, it sort of leaves a criminal without much recourse and without a lot of interaction. Your outline looks superb.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Bospy