Jump to content

Your thoughts on law enforcement and jail?


Amellis

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Smilesville said:

I'd provide the alternate theory that a visceral reaction to a suggestion has far more to do with unwarranted feelings of persecution rather than anything I've actually said. Still, whether or not a suggestion I've made is adopted, there is value in bringing those biases to the fore - never mind the implementation of a suggestion has very little to do with persuading a large number of people so much as persuading the right people.

 

A suggestion will never please everyone - and will certainly never please anyone who is predisposed to oppose it, regardless of its merits. Those people are not the audience I'm intending a given suggestion for, so there's really no sense in trying to woo those people.

Then who is your intended audience? Because I can hardly imagine anyone receptive of the language and rhetoric you utilize, and the way you present your ideas. There’s also the philosophy behind your position that must be incredibly exhausting.

Link to comment

 

2 hours ago, eTaylor said:

Imagine you’re a cop, and you don’t have the energy or inspiration to conduct a meaningful and engaging traffic stop. Why make the stop in the first place? 

 

I think it's because after a while you've heard it all before. There are maybe half a dozen lies people use in character to justify what they were doing; which is fine but it feels like the same RP from both sides after a while. IMO traffic stops aren't for small talk really at all. The purpose of the stop assuming it's for a traffic offence is to tell the person what they did and dish out a resolution. Whether that's a warning, ticket, arrest, etc. it'll all depend. I'll absolutely get into it with someone at a stop if it calls for it but for the most part the realistic goal of a routine traffic stop is to instruct the driver what infraction they're accused of and get out of there. In the hundred of stops I've conducted I've had someone admit fault three times. I literally kept track because it happens to infrequently. If someone said "Hey officer my mistake, it won't happen again" or whatever, it's such a significant event I feel forced to let them go with a warning 😂. 99% of them are just people arguing IC/OOC which might be why the goal is always to get the hell out of there before it turns into a fight (again).

 

In my mind if I hold someone at a stop for 30 minutes lecturing them we'd get complaints that we're forcing people to sit there and roleplay with us when for the most part I just find the same person doing the same thing two days later anyway. People on their 20th+ registration violation ticket can vouch for that.

 

Edited by Sush
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Sush said:

In my mind if I hold someone at a stop for 30 minutes lecturing them we'd get complaints that we're forcing people to sit there and roleplay with us when for the most part I just find the same person doing the same thing two days later anyway. People on their 20th+ registration violation ticket can vouch for that

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Smilesville said:

The flavor of the week is law enforcement brute forcing the device process by placing 15 bugs in a single house - flagrantly taking advantage of the insane cooldown for picking up a single device in the process.

 

 

I don't know who started this rumor or lie, but please check your sources before you start spreading lies in order to spread your ideas.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Sush said:

 

 

I think it's because after a while you've heard it all before. There are maybe half a dozen lies people use in character to justify what they were doing; which is fine but it feels like the same RP from both sides after a while. IMO traffic stops aren't for small talk really at all. The purpose of the stop assuming it's for a traffic offence is to tell the person what they did and dish out a resolution. Whether that's a warning, ticket, arrest, etc. it'll all depend. I'll absolutely get into it with someone at a stop if it calls for it but for the most part the realistic goal of a routine traffic stop is to instruct the driver what infraction they're accused of and get out of there. In the hundred of stops I've conducted I've had someone admit fault three times. I literally kept track because it happens to infrequently. If someone said "Hey officer my mistake, it won't happen again" or whatever, it's such a significant event I feel forced to let them go with a warning 😂. 99% of them are just people arguing IC/OOC which might be why the goal is always to get the hell out of there before it turns into a fight (again).

 

In my mind if I hold someone at a stop for 30 minutes lecturing them we'd get complaints that we're forcing people to sit there and roleplay with us when for the most part I just find the same person doing the same thing two days later anyway. People on their 20th+ registration violation ticket can vouch for that.

 

I agree with you, but I just wonder why you’d subject yourself to that. I know for a fact you can make a rough but generally accurate judgment on which cars and drivers would render an interesting interaction and which don’t. I’ve had stops where officers were clearly playing the cat and mouse game using legal and bureaucratic loopholes, sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful. So I’d say it can and is being done but not necessarily in the forefront. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Blowin' Hollows said:

We do not have access to those a lot of the time. When we are fortunate to be able to role play CCTV footage, have several complying witnesses, casings etc, we do try our best to work on it in a fair manner so we are not playing to win against the criminal party.

The limitations make investigation of crime difficult.

 

I do have a question, though. While RPing early on at Davis, as well RPing traffic accidents, and other incidents over time, my character was a "witness" to a lot of crimes. My character is also a civilian and is quite fine with being honest to police...if she's asked to help them, and thinks it's safe to do so. But a problem I noticed early on was that some - not all, but enough to make it noticeable - police RPers quite obviously didn't know how to assess a crime scene and canvass potential witnesses. On multiple occasions where I put her right there at the crime scene and made it obvious that she was a witness, nobody bothered to ask, let alone get a statement.

 

But the whole "snitches get stitches" mentality in Davis meant she was never going to put herself forward without some encouragement.

 

And while we're at it, that same mentality, although seeming known by everyone, never seemed to factor into how interviews were conducted whenever someone did conduct one. Every time, the LEO just started asking questions in front of a crowd right there at the scene. I saw so many potential witnesses just lie and say they saw nothing. My character also lied out of self-preservation when I saw known gang members lurking around. I often wondered why nobody ever took potential witnesses to a location away from others and then try to use tricks (or just plain charisma) to convince them to talk. Davis LTD had a staff/storage room that was perfect for it.

 

Combine this with a court system which would enable judicial orders prohibiting the publishing and public disclosure of witness identities and you potentially increase the evidence available for convictions.

 

So my question is this: What sort of crime scene investigation training is offered to LEO RPers in the game, and are there protocols that have to be complied with? Do people get any training on how to take a statement as well as what needs to be in it?

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Greyfeather said:

Combine this with a court system which would enable judicial orders prohibiting the publishing and public disclosure of witness identities and you potentially increase the evidence available for convictions.

It's called sixth amendment. You can't prove the witness' life is in imminent danger? His identity needs to be reviled if requested by the defense. And it's really hard to prove someone's life is in imminent danger. Saying that the other party is known gang member can't help a lot. The case can't even be based on some witness statements, use this as an example. Cases were mostly based on confirmation of a confidential informant that they did it, I had to settle because all three cases would be dropped.

 

https://forum.gta.world/en/topic/38106-cf-431-20-state-of-san-andreas-v-yvette-rocha/

https://forum.gta.world/en/topic/38107-cf-432-20-state-of-san-andreas-v-camila-delgado/

https://forum.gta.world/en/topic/38105-cf-430-20-state-of-san-andreas-v-hector-decastro/

 

Trust me, it's not that easy-

Link to comment
Just now, Greyfeather said:

I didn't say keep the identity from the defense.

It's open court. What do you think, you can just give the statement and not take the stand in the court? That's not how it goes. Whatever you said it's worth little to zero if you don't take the stand.

Link to comment
  • Wuhtah locked this topic
  • effion unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...