[MrJWhit] R3dtaile Note Appeal

Redtail
Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:04 am
Contact:

[MrJWhit] R3dtaile Note Appeal

Post by Redtail »

Thread title: [MrJWhit] R3dtaile Note appeal

Noting admin: MrJWhit
Ban type: Note
Note Reason: Harmbatonned a non-aggressive person who was stun immune as HOS.

My Side of the Story: The shift was fairly hectic for the last 30 minutes or so, dealing with a space traitor, and someone else who had sleeping carp. In addition to being hit with a looping rod twice. Then we have reports of Feasel having adrenals. In dealing with what I was dealing with, transferring someone who had sleeping carp and executing them, I was more focused on that incidence, and when I get back to being able to appropriately focus on what the rest of security was dealing with, I hear reports of Feasel running around with adrenals and gravity armour. I react appropriately and attempt to detain them. This lasts unti l the shuttle is called, where it’s too late to get to the armoury for more nonlethal options such as the temp gun. So had to make do with what we had, which even after being dragnetted, Feasel kept running around. At this point I was under full belief that they had adrenals, due to the context of the rest of the round and confirmed traitors on board. He finally got stunned again , and while, yes, I was accidentally still on harm intent when I went to baton him , the fact the warden , who was more knowledgeable on the situation than I , opened up with lethals, I followed suit, due to nonlethal options not being a possibility. It even says in the rules that We’re allowed to use lethal force when nonlethal options simply are not working. So after the warden used buckshot, I kept batonning him, which caused the gravity armour to trigger, repulsing us. I was working under the impression that it was toggleable, and that Feasel was doing it. So I I just wanted him to stop. Come round end, he was not a traitor. I don’t think this note is in good faith, due to it being perfectly rational to escalate to lethal force if nonlethal force was not accomplishing the job adequately enough. The application of lethal force was made in , good, but misguided faith, and I do not believe I should be noted for that. With all the information I had on hand, I, and the warden, resolved the situation as best as we could.

User avatar
Tarkin
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:35 am
Contact:

Re: [MrJWhit] R3dtaile Note Appeal

Post by Tarkin »

Well, as a person who both had previous expierence with Feasel, as well as was the sec officer that round (Shirey Bradshaw), I must agree with this appeal. For me, the whole thing with Feasel during that round started good while before this whole note-resulting event, as I saw Feasel who broke himself into Science (He was an assistant), turning the autoloathe on in order to get some... gravity core or something like that? I don't remember the exact name. Anyway, I tazed the guy, took the stuff he stole back to Science, dragged him out and decided to let him go, giving him a warn that I won't be that nice the next time, perhaps my sec mind being busy with something more important, afaik. And yeah, then Feasel, now in posession of that reactive armour by some miracle, did something that got him wanted (Assaulting a sec officer afaik). And thus, the cha-... pursuit started. Indeed, the guy ran like he was a ling or on some really good chems. Both due to the previous factor and that armour, any non-lethal means, that being tazers, disablers and stun batons have proven themselves to be useless. Thus, we had NO OTHER OPTION to stop a WANTED PERSON. Regardless whether it was accidental or not, it is most important to mention Feasel's behaviour seemed to be at least somewhat like self-antagging, assuming he wasn't an one, as it turned out later. Because why in the world would a god damn assistant be desperately trying to lay their hands on item like that on blue? Exactly. Not to mention not willing to subdue at all cost throughout the entire pursuit.

So yeah, I support this appeal.

MrJWhit
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:17 am
Contact:

Re: [MrJWhit] R3dtaile Note Appeal

Post by MrJWhit »

All right, so let's go through when a security officer is allowed to use non-lethals, on a case by case basis. This is using https://katlin.dog/citadel-rules/main at the most current up to date version at the time of writing.


Use of lethal force
As a member of the stations Security force you are one of the best armed and protected people on the station, equipped with the almost latest in non-lethal takedown technology. It is for this reason that the situations that warrant the use of Deadly Force are few and far between, in the grand majority of circumstances you will be expected to use your stun weapons, which indeed are many times more effective than lethal options, to diffuse a situation.
This is just describing the ideology of when security is to use lethal force, and when it isn't. It claims that the first and foremost action by security is to use non-lethal options, and then escalate. But, it doesn't describe what is, and isn't a valid escalation. That starts here (with a small amount of swamping for emphasis, nothing is left out):
Code Red Situation - situations which would warrant a Code Red, such as: full blown mutinies, hostile boarding parties, and Space Wizards automatically authorise lethal force. (Note: The Alert Status is not required to be elevated to Code Red as in most of these scenarios the Chain of Command will be too damaged or otherwise occupied to raise the Alert Level.)
This was a single assistant, it wasn't a code red situation and nobody is arguing that.
Severe Personal Risk - sometimes getting close enough to a target to slap the cuffs on will create significant personal risk to the Officer. Deadly force from range is recommended to subdue Wizards and Changelings.
This also was not the case. Looking through the attack logs, the only aggressive action that Feasel had taken was shoving an officer earlier. This was what caused the entire incident, and also not relevant because of the lack of "significant personal risk" due to Feasel not attacking a single person.
Criminals in hostile environments such as space, fire, or plasma leaks also fall into this category, as do criminals believed to be in possession of high explosives. Ranged lethal force is the only reasonable option in these conditions.
The incident took place on the escape shuttle, with just them running around. This is not relevant here.
Armed and Dangerous - if a suspect is in possession of weapons, including stun weapons, and you have reasonable suspicion that they will use these against you, lethal force is permitted. Although in the majority of cases it is still preferable to attempt to detain them non-lethally.
In this case, Feasel had no weapon on his person. Had no weapon drawn. Did not attack anyone, did not steal a weapon, therefor, it is not a "reasonable suspicion that they will use these against you".
Unauthorized personnel in the armory are considered by default to be Armed and Dangerous, maximum force is permitted to subdue such targets.
Not relevant, as mentioned earlier, the incident took place on the escape shuttle.
Multiple Hostiles - it can be extremely difficult to detain multiple hostiles. As a last resort if you are being mobbed you may deploy your baton in a harmful manner to thin the crowd. Generally it is better to retreat and regroup than stand your ground.
Not relevant, it was a single person.
Non-Lethal Weapons Ineffective - certain targets are impervious to NLWs, such as Mechs, Xenomorphs, Borgs, and Hulks. Lethal force may be used against these targets if they prove hostile.
This is the only argument that holds even the slightest amount of water. The argument you provide is that non-lethal weapons were useless against Feasel, and that's correct. However, that's not what the rule states. It states that if they do not have the ability to be stunned, and they are hostile, then it is authorized. To just claim that the first part of the rule is accepted, means that the result (lethal options) is accepted, is blatantly false. This is not an or, or an exclusive or, this is an inclusive if statement. If this person cannot be stunned, next check if they are hostile.
Feasel was not hostile, did not draw a weapon, did not make a weapon, did not have a weapon on them, nor attacked a single person along with the fact that they explicitly said that they didn't have one (I understand the concerns for lying, but concerns need to have some basis of doubt to them before dismissing them entirely). It is unreasonable to assume that someone who did not draw a weapon and did not use a weapon, has a weapon, and therefor you are at significant personal risk.

So in total, none of the signifiers of what is acceptable lethal force was met. So, this was a server rule violation, and met with a note stating as such.


Next, the idea that "because the warden did it, it's acceptable" is completely backwards thinking. Players, can be wrong about the rules. They can be in the wrong about what is the proper procedure, and the warden was warned similarly to you because they also failed to meet the lethal weapon requirements as stated by the rules.


Also, if you claim that you didn't mean to harmbaton, then the note can be updated to that, but that was not mentioned during the ahelp and it's unreasonable to assume that I can read anyone's mind. But then you continued by saying that you also used lethals after harmbatonning, so the intent of the note is consistent.


So, in conclusion, as the head of security you are obligated to not just follow the rules of the server, but act as a moral compass of the officers under you. By skirting the rules, it's promoting that other officers should skirt the rules as well, and they only apply if it's convenient. It's the reason we hold the heads of staff to a higher standard, they get extra tools, better looking equipment, meta protection, and the ability to boss people around (to a certain extent). With more responsibility, the more scrutiny that's included with it and the more careful they have to be following the rules.


As a side note, if you feel like the rules should be updated to reflect this, that's fine. But we play by the rules that are given, not by the rules that we want.

Redtail
Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:04 am
Contact:

Re: [MrJWhit] R3dtaile Note Appeal

Post by Redtail »

But absolutely the signifiers were met. Nonlethal force wasn’t working, so lethal was a proper escalation. The fact you keep resorting to the explicit wording isn’t great. The spirit of the ruling is ‘if nonlethal means don’t work, lethal is a rational escalation’ . Sure, the warden’s buckshotting wasn’t’ great, as once they were batonned and in stamcrit, even if a little harmed, it would’ve been easy to arrest, but hindsight’s 20/20. The fact is, the warden was the more knowledgeable person on the situation, they went with lethal force, I figured they had good reason , because the player is a knowledgeable player. Aaand I wasn’t skirting, the rules , at all. It was a rational escalation since nonlethal means weren’t working, that lethal was the only available option. My decisions were completely rational. And considering the context of the shift, it was reasonable to believe that they had adrenals, and just as reasonable to understand that their admitions to just being hopped on nuka kola could /easily/ have been missed. That’s the kind of thing you’d repeat over and over again or PDA relevant parties. Not just say in the easily missable common. This note was /not / okay due to all the context leading up to the rational, but misguided, application of lethal force.

User avatar
CawingCrow
Junior Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:10 pm

Re: [MrJWhit] R3dtaile Note Appeal

Post by CawingCrow »

Not relevant, it was a single person.
It does weight relevance, because the AI actively fought back against Security, to insure Feasel's safety. We were allowed to conclude, that there were multiple hostiles present, like a Zero law’d AI, as it bolted down doors and gave false information of Feasel’s location, to prevent us to catch him.

Also, as you apparently refuse to understand, is that the repulsive armour, which he was wearing, did indeed injured Crew and Security personnel. Especially, as the Security officer, who demanded him arrested, was badly injured due the officer crashing into multiple walls, as he attempted to stunbaton Feasel. Myself included crashed into concrete, as I attempted to disable him. Feasel bland provocation, self-antagonisting and powergaming shouldn’t be ignored as a fact, like you currently do.

MrJWhit
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:17 am
Contact:

Re: [MrJWhit] R3dtaile Note Appeal

Post by MrJWhit »

Redtail wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:25 pm
The fact you keep resorting to the explicit wording isn’t great. The spirit of the ruling is ‘if nonlethal means don’t work, lethal is a rational escalation’ .
The rules are what we all agree upon and agreed to. If you feel that the rules are not worded properly, or not fully encompassing of the possible outcomes, then contact Izzy and request a change. But until the rules have been changed, the rules are what we play by. What you wish that the rules were is not relevant to what the rules are, that's why they're rules.
Then, if the rules are changed, you were still obligated to follow the current rules.
Redtail wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:25 pm
Sure, the warden’s buckshotting wasn’t’ great, as once they were batonned and in stamcrit, even if a little harmed, it would’ve been easy to arrest, but hindsight’s 20/20. The fact is, the warden was the more knowledgeable person on the situation, they went with lethal force, I figured they had good reason , because the player is a knowledgeable player.
The warden is known for validhunting, and, according to the AI, flew out of the brig the instant that someone who had a movespeed bonus of 1 with lethal shotgun in hand was mentioned over the radio.
And, to repeat myself, just because someone is doing something possibly rule breaking, does not mean that it's allowed. It's more reasonable, but that doesn't mean it's allowed.
Redtail wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:25 pm
Aaand I wasn’t skirting, the rules , at all. It was a rational escalation since nonlethal means weren’t working, that lethal was the only available option. My decisions were completely rational. And considering the context of the shift, it was reasonable to believe that they had adrenals, and just as reasonable to understand that their admitions to just being hopped on nuka kola could /easily/ have been missed. That’s the kind of thing you’d repeat over and over again or PDA relevant parties. Not just say in the easily missable common.
So, because you didn't have enough information, that justified breaking the rules? Is that the argument here?
Because you didn't pay attention enough, or didn't give the proper thought and followed others, that means it's acceptable?
Failure to compile to the rules as written is a rule violation.
Redtail wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:25 pm
This note was /not / okay due to all the context leading up to the rational, but misguided, application of lethal force.
But it is still a violation of the rules as written, and as such, there's a note.


CawingCrow wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:09 am
Not relevant, it was a single person.
It does weight relevance, because the AI actively fought back against Security, to insure Feasel's safety. We were allowed to conclude, that there were multiple hostiles present, like a Zero law’d AI, as it bolted down doors and gave false information of Feasel’s location, to prevent us to catch him.
No, the phrase is "multiple hostiles", and specifically "detain(ing) multiple hostiles". This is not a case where the AI was shocking doors, siphoning, or any of the multiple lethal options that an AI has. They were not hostile, and you can't assume that because someone can be hostile, that they are.
CawingCrow wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:09 am
Also, as you apparently refuse to understand, is that the repulsive armour, which he was wearing, did indeed injured Crew and Security personnel. Especially, as the Security officer, who demanded him arrested, was badly injured due the officer crashing into multiple walls, as he attempted to stunbaton Feasel. Myself included crashed into concrete, as I attempted to disable him.
To clarify, the repulsive armor in question only triggers with a 50% block chance against tasers, this can be shown in code, and not super relevant.

But, an automatic response, one that everyone involved knows what it does, especially after the first time. It's effectively self-harm. The closest analogy I can come up with, is if someone has the brain damage that causes them to lash out, you walking up to them, and them punching you, then using that as assault.
CawingCrow wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:09 am
Feasel bland provocation, self-antagonisting and powergaming shouldn’t be ignored as a fact, like you currently do.
Multiple people can be wrong.

User avatar
CawingCrow
Junior Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:10 pm

Re: [MrJWhit] R3dtaile Note Appeal

Post by CawingCrow »

To clarify, the repulsive armor in question only triggers with a 50% block chance against tasers, this can be shown in code, and not super relevant.

That's not an argument. As already mention a thousand times, Feasel was on Adrenals. Even if a taser went through the RNG, he immediately pushed himself up and just ran away. There was no way to catch him non lethally at situation, that we were in.
But, an automatic response, one that everyone involved knows what it does, especially after the first time. It's effectively self-harm
Bullshit. First, you trying to tell me, that we are obligated to only use Non-lethal options and now you call it self-harm, if we do. Stick either to your Rule lawyering or commit to one thing already.
Multiple people can be wrong.
Multiple people are less likely wrong, than a single individual. Also, that still doesn't excuse Feasel's self-antagonisting and powergaming, that you blatantly ignore.

GrayRachnid
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:18 am
Contact:

Re: [MrJWhit] R3dtaile Note Appeal

Post by GrayRachnid »

As an observer that was watching the shuttle chaos unfold, I just want to mention that Feasel was in full stamcrit when the warden decided to buckshot him.

MrJWhit
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:17 am
Contact:

Re: [MrJWhit] R3dtaile Note Appeal

Post by MrJWhit »

CawingCrow wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:29 am
To clarify, the repulsive armor in question only triggers with a 50% block chance against tasers, this can be shown in code, and not super relevant.

That's not an argument. As already mention a thousand times, Feasel was on Adrenals. Even if a taser went through the RNG, he immediately pushed himself up and just ran away. There was no way to catch him non lethally at situation, that we were in.
He wasn't on adrenals, he had nuka cola. When he was tased the first time, he dropped it
Feasel was not an antag, did not have antag items. I understand you can't see into someone's antag datum, but it's relevant, because you assumed that they were an antag because they had a movespeed buff.

Next, someone can get tased, and then push them back up. It's not a hardstun, it applies knockdown and around 35-60 stamloss (I couldn't find the actual code). The point being, someone can get tased, and then immediately push themselves back up to run around some more, without the use of stam regenning chemicals. I've done it plenty of times myself.
The second taser shot will put them in stamcrit (if it hits).

How do I know this is true? Because you did put them in stamcrit, and then unloaded a lethal shotgun on them while they were on the ground. Stamcrit has a visual indicator, you could have been able to see if they were out of it.
CawingCrow wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:29 am
But, an automatic response, one that everyone involved knows what it does, especially after the first time. It's effectively self-harm
Bullshit. First, you trying to tell me, that we are obligated to only use Non-lethal options and now you call it self-harm, if we do. Stick either to your Rule lawyering or commit to one thing already.
It's active harm vs passive harm. By existing, they can cause a minor annoyance. Everyone with a reactive armor shell is not suddenly a harm machine and treated as such.
CawingCrow wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:29 am
Multiple people can be wrong.
Multiple people are less likely wrong, than a single individual. Also, that still doesn't excuse Feasel's self-antagonisting and powergaming, that you blatantly ignore.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm acknowledging it. But, quite literally, two wrongs don't make a right.

ForrestWick
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:00 pm
Contact:

Re: [MrJWhit] R3dtaile Note Appeal

Post by ForrestWick »

I cryo'd early that round because I was pretty mentally drained after watching the HOP just walk right into the SM and die. I observed quite a few things that I'd like to add on that while unrelated to Feasel himself do somewhat impact this appeal.

Ana Bowchief made a spear either before or directly after the mime emagged into the SM chamber and I called him out. The spear was a plasma tipped one to boot. She then resisted all efforts by one officer to take it away and was seen openly carrying it and sprinting around to different areas and maint with it. Gladwyn, the warden that round, and Chase both knew of all this and did nothing. Meanwhile Feasel had reactive armor he claims he intended to give to sec but wanted to play with it first, and a bottle of nuka cola.

Chase ignored the person with a 24 brute weapon but because Feasel was wearing reactor armor he was ordered to be arrested. And we know OOC that reactor armor is an objective for traitors sometimes, so it feels like Chase and Gladwyn both were just going hard meta there.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests