Logic and good faith security peanut

[Farquaar]

viewtopic.php?p=633551

Anyone accused of being a traitor by a crew member must be executed on the spot. Do not give them a chance to weasel their way out of justice by talking things out. It's the only way that you can be sure the traitorous criminal scum are all stopped.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Detective literally even has a thing it puts in the chat when you connect telling you that you're not a Security Officer, and your job is to investigate, not seek out arrests to make.

If you're THAT convinced that he stole them that you won't even stop and ask, you're no longer investigating, you're actively trying to make the arrest. Shoulda just went "QM's prints are the only one on the crate" over Sec Comms and directed the Officers to him.

[sinfulbliss]

Terrible takes in this peanut.

Anyone accused of being a traitor by a crew member[...]

They weren't accused of being a traitor. Hearsay is different from direct evidence of having committed a crime. And they didn't execute on the spot, they executed after being threatened.

Detective literally even has a thing it puts in the chat when you connect telling you that you're not a Security Officer, and your job is to investigate, not seek out arrests to make.

Manuel is a completely different place from LRP. This is essentially negligible and there are no "stay-in-your-lane" rules on LRP. So it's a nonissue here.

If you're THAT convinced that he stole them that you won't even stop and ask

The funny thing is, it's irrelevant whether or not the QM stole them. Possession of restricted weapons is a 3XX major offense under Spacelaw (if you want to get into proper sec arrest RP). The fact the QM was stockpiling and in possession of thermal pistols itself is enough for 5 min brig/gulag, or at the very least confiscation, which is what Julia was attempting. In fact the QM stated he intended to sell them off to the whole crew. That's arguably a worse crime and poses a much greater threat than just nabbing sec's pistols for yourself.

The only thing you can even theoretically fault them for is killing after the QM was stamcrit, but considering Julia shortly found the HoS critted and a dead officer after, they clearly had bigger issues going on than overseeing the revival of the QM that pulled a gun on them with intent to kill. Also, thermal pistols will often decap and kill at the exact same time in my experience. The same shot that causes them to die may decap. So it's very easy to shoot with the intent to kill or crit and accidentally decap.

[Pandarsenic]

Just play Sec Officer or HOS if you wanna BE THE LAW

Ask Science to research if you wanna print more Forensic Scanners

Maybe even say ";Hey, QM, did you take the Thermal Pistols I ordered?" when you look at the prints.

[sinfulbliss]

Maybe even say ";Hey, QM, did you take the Thermal Pistols I ordered?" when you look at the prints.

"'No, they were my own."
Still technically a crime that merits an arrest. Announcing themselves like this would have avoided the unnecessary lethal altercation that took place, but put yourself in their shoes. If the QM did steal the thermal pistols, would they just say, "oh yep that was me, I stole sec's thermal pistols!" Of course not. They'd either not respond or make something up. The only way to find out for sure is to search them yourself. And if you're gonna do that, you probably don't want to give them advance warning about it. That's like the cops calling an illegal gun dealer on the phone to alert him that they are the police and they'll be on their way shortly.

[datorangebottle]

The detective is a detective, not judge, jury, and executioner. She had the QM stunned and blew his head off anyway. Why was critting necessary again? Did she not manage to procure a pair of cablecuffs, zipties, or handcuffs on the way to medical?

[Archie700]

Imperfect information results in ban - number 371831

[Tearling]

of the QM that pulled a gun on them with intent to kill.

When did the QM express an intent to kill? As they stated in the thread, it seems like they were going to fight for self defense because they couldn't tell the detective was security. Given the detective was apparently in blue, and in swat armor instead of regular gear, it's understandable they would make that mistake in a split second decision which they couldn't even make, because they were executed before they had the chance to fight back. If the situation had continued it's entirely possible that even if the QM shot the detective, they likely would have given up upon realizing the detective was security. Unless you can prove the QM would have killed the detective, this argument is moot.

This is a case of Security who made an incorrect arrest, escalated that incorrect arrest, and then played victim because QM drew a gun.

They'd either not respond or make something up.

If the detective had tried to talk to the QM in this case, the QM might have been able to tell the Detective that the crate of guns the Detective ordered were at "X" location. Detective would have gotten his own guns, QM would be cleared, and case would be closed. "Yeah this situation could have been avoided if I spoke to you directly." is something the Detective said, admitting that the situation could have been avoided if they tried talking. The detective took the risk that he might be arresting an innocent person without sufficient evidence, the detective took the risk by executing the QM in medical. All of the risks in this case were made by the detective after careful deliberation, not spur of the moment decisions like the one the QM made when he saw someone in a blue uniform and armor stun him.

[Archie700]

It would be better if massa just asked or checked the console, they had ample time before going into the cargo bay itself.
And even if death was needed due to imperfect response, the detective should have taken action to revive and cuff the guy for interrogation. Yes it is against space law to own those insane weapons, but it's not considered a traitor weapon and prior to that he wasn't killing people with them.

[Pandarsenic]

Maybe even say ";Hey, QM, did you take the Thermal Pistols I ordered?" when you look at the prints.

"'No, they were my own."
Still technically a crime that merits an arrest. Announcing themselves like this would have avoided the unnecessary lethal altercation that took place, but put yourself in their shoes. If the QM did steal the thermal pistols, would they just say, "oh yep that was me, I stole sec's thermal pistols!" Of course not. They'd either not respond or make something up. The only way to find out for sure is to search them yourself. And if you're gonna do that, you probably don't want to give them advance warning about it. That's like the cops calling an illegal gun dealer on the phone to alert him that they are the police and they'll be on their way shortly.

You'd be surprised how often people will just answer honestly when you ask them about their crimes, if you do it specifically enough. Generally, if you go, ";Hey, X, did you do [thing you did exactly]" I find they go ";Ahaha yeah that was me, you got me" or provide an intentionally unconvincing ";N-noooooo?"

The detective is a detective, not judge, jury, and executioner. She had the QM stunned and blew his head off anyway. Why was critting necessary again? Did she not manage to procure a pair of cablecuffs, zipties, or handcuffs on the way to medical?

American Policing.mp4

[iamgoofball]

Detectives have easy access to rubber rounds they've got no excuse for blasting heads off like this anymore

[YBS]

This ticket will set an interesting precedent as sec.

That said, I've always hated loose cannon det unless you are the only sec personnel on board.

I try to imagine this happening during a high chaos round where Massa might have had to defend their own life multiple times already and I could see someone getting adrenal in this situation,

BUT

I think the precedent needs to be enforced that sec has to declare intent to arrest during an arrest, somehow.
The secmasks have a "im security" red text button that you can fit into your epic robusting macro spam.
The part that makes this ban feel justified for me is that the comms were so bad that QM thought he was being attacked by an unknown assailant.

I think M is right that this is very much an IC issue if words had been exchanged at all. I wasn't there to see if they had even exchanged chat logs in any way.
QM's crime wasn't even violent (which would be different if you had dead victims from unknown energy damage).

This whole exchange has NRP energy which is a part of what we're all trying not to do.

--Except Sinful, but we have already agreed to never agree on much of anything.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Terrible takes in this peanut.

Detective literally even has a thing it puts in the chat when you connect telling you that you're not a Security Officer, and your job is to investigate, not seek out arrests to make.

Manuel is a completely different place from LRP. This is essentially negligible and there are no "stay-in-your-lane" rules on LRP. So it's a nonissue here.

Irrelevant. It's the entire point of the job. Why have it be a separate job if any SecOff can just grab a forensics scanner? It's not about 'stay in your lane' rules, it's about The Detective Isn't Full Security, that's why they're the only Sec job that can't enter Perma, that's why half the stations have them unable to enter the Equipment Room (or used to, anyway), that's why they don't get access to SecHUDs. That's why they can't use the cell timers. Their baton and revolver are for self defence, not valid hunting. If you want to unga the valids, play SecOff.

If you're THAT convinced that he stole them that you won't even stop and ask

The funny thing is, it's irrelevant whether or not the QM stole them. Possession of restricted weapons is a 3XX major offense under Spacelaw (if you want to get into proper sec arrest RP). The fact the QM was stockpiling and in possession of thermal pistols itself is enough for 5 min brig/gulag, or at the very least confiscation, which is what Julia was attempting. In fact the QM stated he intended to sell them off to the whole crew. That's arguably a worse crime and poses a much greater threat than just nabbing sec's pistols for yourself.

Space Law is a guideline and not something that MRP even has to follow, because it's kinda shittily made. But let's accept that. Let's play by your rules.

Possession of weapons is a Major crime. Major Crimes are 500 points the gulag or 5 minutes sentence. While Drug Distribution is raised to Medium compared to the Minor of Drug Possession, it does match Medium crime severity. Unless you're going to tell me Cargo selling things (which the HoS knew about and never tried to stop him, thus being effective permission) is on par with Murder or Grand Sabotage, I don't think we can jump it up to Capital.

Not that any of this matters because you strawman'd it. You've identified that the QM has weapons and intends to distribute them. You are the Detective. You tell the Officers about it and they go grab him, you don't actively go seeking him because it's not your job. If you step outside of your job and you fuck it up, you get punished. If an assistant tries to validhunt a tot, but they're wrong and the dude is a non-antag, they get a day ban for an unjustified kill/RR.

But Security is held to a higher standard. The fact it's a three day job ban is pretty merciful, since the assistant who fucked it up gets server banned instead.

Perhaps if he did any of his own job (investigation) instead of going unga valid hunting, he wouldn't have fucked it up.

You'd be surprised how often people will just answer honestly when you ask them about their crimes, if you do it specifically enough. Generally, if you go, ";Hey, X, did you do [thing you did exactly]" I find they go ";Ahaha yeah that was me, you got me" or provide an intentionally unconvincing ";N-noooooo?"

A trick that Cimika taught me that (I think) she often used on Terry, was when you've got someone dead to rights, tell them about it and throw your cuffs at them and tell them to cuff themselves. Usually they'll do it because they know cooperating means they're probably not gonna just get executed.

Sure, maybe they'll use that opportunity to attack, but it helps at least pause the eternal arms race between Sec and Antags with silent, no-interaction takedowns.

[YBS]

A trick that Cimika taught me that (I think) she often used on Terry, was when you've got someone dead to rights, tell them about it and throw your cuffs at them and tell them to cuff themselves. Usually they'll do it because they know cooperating means they're probably not gonna just get executed.

Sure, maybe they'll use that opportunity to attack, but it helps at least pause the eternal arms race between Sec and Antags with silent, no-interaction takedowns.

I love this. Saved for later.

[kieth4]

Full of bad takes.

>be qm
>decide to start arming crew fnr by selling them guns because???
>get found by det
>pull gun
>get killed.

Where did the detective go wrong?? On lrp detective is the same as a seccie they broke no rules here. The qm is basically ban baiting

[kieth4]

Why are you all acting as if purchasing weapons as cargo and using private buy to bypass the lock is allowed or something and makes you immune from sec

[YBS]

Why are you all acting as if purchasing weapons as cargo and using private buy to bypass the lock is allowed or something and makes you immune from sec

You’re right here, but the ticket isn't about sec protocol, though det arrests are already questionable. It’s not even breaking escalation rules even though full lethaling someone you’ve stamcrit as sec with full kit is excessive. It’s the NRP that was so pervasive that QM thought he was being antagd.

It’s the greytide level of low effort into conflict resolution that is acting like the det is maxing his KDR.

It’s the fact that it went down this way over a nonviolent threat with no belief that QM was going go go around murderboning except for the guns purchasable by him. If the QMs already shot someone, then yeah, jump up his ass.

But this was an IC investigation that basically never happened in the place of an NRP fight.

[kieth4]

Why are you all acting as if purchasing weapons as cargo and using private buy to bypass the lock is allowed or something and makes you immune from sec

You’re right here, but the ticket isn't about sec protocol, though det arrests are already questionable. It’s not even breaking escalation rules even though full lethaling someone you’ve stamcrit as sec with full kit is excessive. It’s the NRP that was so pervasive that QM thought he was being antagd.

It’s the greytide level of low effort into conflict resolution that is acting like the det is maxing his KDR.

It’s the fact that it went down this way over a nonviolent threat with no belief that QM was going go go around murderboning except for the guns purchasable by him. If the QMs already shot someone, then yeah, jump up his ass.

But this was an IC investigation that basically never happened in the place of an NRP fight.

I'm here to dsiagree. The arrest was over weapons, regardless of who's they were the person was armed and dangerous.

During an arrest in which was valid the perp pulled out weapon which we can assume he was going to shoot the det with, in response the det killed him and left him in medbay to be revived.

An investigation would've led to the same conclusion: the person is armed and dangerous, if anything it would've made them more valid for death.

Don't you think it's more nrp to order guns to sell during a seemingly hectic round(basically self antag) then when you're getting arrested for having weapons to try to PULL OUT A GUN AND TRY TO SHOOT THE OFFICER ARRESTING YOU?

[mindstormy]

Maybe even say ";Hey, QM, did you take the Thermal Pistols I ordered?" when you look at the prints.

"'No, they were my own."
Still technically a crime that merits an arrest. Announcing themselves like this would have avoided the unnecessary lethal altercation that took place, but put yourself in their shoes. If the QM did steal the thermal pistols, would they just say, "oh yep that was me, I stole sec's thermal pistols!" Of course not. They'd either not respond or make something up. The only way to find out for sure is to search them yourself. And if you're gonna do that, you probably don't want to give them advance warning about it. That's like the cops calling an illegal gun dealer on the phone to alert him that they are the police and they'll be on their way shortly.

This is equivalent to a no knock warrant. People that play sec like this are part of the problem on LRP. I would not equate this to an illegal gun dealer. It is more like the cops calling fedex when they haven't received their shipment and will be on the way to investigate the blasting the office manager because they saw a box that looked like theirs.

[BONERMASTER]

Act like an antag, get treated like an antag.


With warm regards
-BONERMASTER

[datorangebottle]

Full of bad takes.

>be qm
>decide to start arming crew fnr by selling them guns because???
>get found by det
>pull gun
>get killed.

Where did the detective go wrong?? On lrp detective is the same as a seccie they broke no rules here. The qm is basically ban baiting

the detective went wrong by trying to shoot him into crit instead of taking their cuffs out of their bag and arresting the qm when they had him stunned.
or by not having cuffs during an arrest.
or by trying to make an arrest as the detective, who isn't given the gear to make arrests for a reason.
pick one.

[kieth4]

Full of bad takes.

>be qm
>decide to start arming crew fnr by selling them guns because???
>get found by det
>pull gun
>get killed.

Where did the detective go wrong?? On lrp detective is the same as a seccie they broke no rules here. The qm is basically ban baiting

the detective went wrong by trying to shoot him into crit instead of taking their cuffs out of their bag and arresting the qm when they had him stunned.
or by not having cuffs during an arrest.
or by trying to make an arrest as the detective, who isn't given the gear to make arrests for a reason.
pick one.

How about as a non antag you don't try to shoot the fucking detective??????? As bonermaster so masterfully put it: Act like an antag and get treated like one. Buying weapons to sell to the crew is incredibly antagonist. When the det tries to arrest you for having said weapons shooting them is EVEN MORE antagonistic.

[datorangebottle]

How about as a non antag you don't try to shoot the fucking detective???????

pop quiz!
A mysterious person(not visually identifiable as security/the detective) walks up and wordlessly smacks you with the police batong. Do you:
1) submit to being stunned and possibly just die
2) waste time examining them
3) pull out an immediately available weapon and fight back

[kieth4]

How about as a non antag you don't try to shoot the fucking detective???????

pop quiz!
A mysterious person(not visually identifiable as security/the detective) walks up and wordlessly smacks you with the police batong. Do you:
1) submit to being stunned and possibly just die
2) waste time examining them
3) pull out an immediately available weapon and fight back

Not visially identifiable?? They were wearing riot armout (that sec starts with.) and the ID of the detective. By ordering the weapons the QM should've known that sec was going to come after them eventually.

It was not red. Nor did I see anything that matched sec on the sprite other than the helmet as I was talking to someone about a sale I was lining up

The person in question still had very much security gear on and it's INCREDIBLY dishonest to suggest that riot gear is not sec gear because it's not red. These are some insane mental gymnastics.

Your implication here is that they're valid to shoot down sec(with guns that they obtained illegally and had no right having) for an incredibly valid arrest because the seccie in question is wearing gear from the armoury.

[datorangebottle]

Not visially identifiable?? They were wearing riot armout (that sec starts with.) and the ID of the detective. By ordering the weapons the QM should've known that sec was going to come after them eventually.

Sec has a standard uniform that includes the color red for a reason. It makes them extremely identifiable. If someone wearing full riot armor batongs you during an incredibly chaotic round, it's equally likely to be security or just straight-up round removal. Or both, in this case.

For all the QM knew, all of sec was already dead and there was someone running around wearing riot armor, a gas mask, and the det's ID.

Your implication here is that they're valid to shoot down sec(with guns that they obtained illegally and had no right having) for an incredibly valid arrest because the seccie in question is wearing gear from the armoury.

My implication is that you shouldn't be shooting someone to death when you already have them arrested and the most wrong they did was pull a gun(that they PURCHASED FROM CARGO, WHICH IS ALLOWED) out of their bag. They didn't even get a shot off.

[kieth4]

Not visially identifiable?? They were wearing riot armout (that sec starts with.) and the ID of the detective. By ordering the weapons the QM should've known that sec was going to come after them eventually.

Sec has a standard uniform that includes the color red for a reason. It makes them extremely identifiable. If someone wearing full riot armor batongs you during an incredibly chaotic round, it's equally likely to be security or just straight-up round removal. Or both, in this case.

For all the QM knew, all of sec was already dead and there was someone running around wearing riot armor, a gas mask, and the det's ID.

Your implication here is that they're valid to shoot down sec(with guns that they obtained illegally and had no right having) for an incredibly valid arrest because the seccie in question is wearing gear from the armoury.

My implication is that you shouldn't be shooting someone to death when you already have them arrested and the most wrong they did was pull a gun(that they PURCHASED FROM CARGO, WHICH IS ALLOWED) out of their bag. They didn't even get a shot off.

I disagree. The HoS has a black turtleneck that gets looted a lot of the time too which is black. These are security clothes and not a reason to attack the guy lethally arresting you. You cannot go "Because they're not red!!" They are sec gears that can be gotten roundstart. You can literally apply your logic to any arrest "he had a gas mask and a sec id!! I had no way to know he wasn't an antag!"

Alright, then we've got another question to bring up. Why are you selling guns during an extremly chaotic round? Why are you actively as a non-antag apply even more pressure to security then ahelping when killed for it?

In the eyes of the rules when they pulled a gun and tried (but failed) to shoot sec they became an antag and Julia was in their full right to remove them. This is without discussing the fact that they tried to arm the crew with guns as the hos and rest of sec was dying.

[Tearling]

You cannot go "Because they're not red!!" They are sec gears that can be gotten roundstart.
In the eyes of the rules when they pulled a gun and tried (but failed) to shoot sec

1. Yes, you can. Remember, they didn't shoot the detective, they only drew the gun. The fact is that it was a split-second decision that, if the detective didn't outright kill them, could have resulted in the QM realizing that they were the detective, and willingly putting their weapon away. The detective jumped the gun to execute them for something they might have done, not something they did do, it's important to separate those two.

2. In the eyes of the rules:

"Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated."

"The only exception is that security is generally considered to be armed with non-lethal methods to control a situation. Therefore, where reasonably possible, security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods."

The detective had the QM stunned, had help in the conflict, was surrounded by medical doctors in case somehow everything went wrong and the QM still escaped, and despite all of that, decided to execute. This is not reasonable.

[oranges]

if you play detective like a security officer you deserve everything yo uget

[Onpine]

this is what julia is doing to our poor admin team

[sinfulbliss]

When did the QM express an intent to kill? As they stated in the thread, it seems like they were going to fight for self defense because they couldn't tell the detective was security.

When they drew the lethal weapon that does severe wounding damage they expressed the intent to seriously harm or kill the detective. They did it in self-defense thinking the det was an antag, and that's their right - but it is also the detective's right to now consider them a hostile threat and neutralize them. This is an IC issue.

the detective should have taken action to revive and cuff the guy for interrogation.

I would almost call it dereliction of duty for a detective to ignore the HoS getting crit and a seccie being killed in the halls by tiders to instead spend time reviving and subsequently interrogating a QM for ordering thermal pistols. Investigating a crime in that scenario is equivalent to a seccie chasing someone for insul theft while a cult is summoning Narsie.

I think the precedent needs to be enforced that sec has to declare intent to arrest during an arrest, somehow.

If TG added a combat indicator, then this would be possible. Unfortunately if you have found an actual antagonist, they will jump you while you're declaring intent. The person to get the first baton hit will almost always win the fight, so this is not really an option for security unless the skill gap between the seccie and antag is so wide that it doesn't matter either way. If this was made policy sec would be even less popular to play than it already is on LRP.

Irrelevant. It's the entire point of the job. Why have it be a separate job if any SecOff can just grab a forensics scanner? It's not about 'stay in your lane' rules, it's about The Detective Isn't Full Security, that's why they're the only Sec job that can't enter Perma, that's why half the stations have them unable to enter the Equipment Room (or used to, anyway), that's why they don't get access to SecHUDs. That's why they can't use the cell timers. Their baton and revolver are for self defence, not valid hunting. If you want to unga the valids, play SecOff.

Again, this only applies to Manuel. You play exclusively Manuel so your opinion is correct for the server you play. It is absolutely false for LRP and the detective can in perfectly good conscience assume the role of sec or even HoS if they want. It's not even remotely close to rulebreaking or relevant.

But Security is held to a higher standard. The fact it's a three day job ban is pretty merciful, since the assistant who fucked it up gets server banned instead.

The assistant would have been server banned because they would have had no business batonning the QM for thermal pistols. Sec has what are called metaprotections, because they are allowed and expected to arrest people for crimes, and you are not allowed to kill them or attempt to kill them simply for doing their job. If you do then you open yourself up for execution or worse.

I would not equate this to an illegal gun dealer. It is more like the cops calling fedex when they haven't received their shipment and will be on the way to investigate the blasting the office manager because they saw a box that looked like theirs.

Sure, if the office manager had two dozen .50 caliber revolvers that he planned on selling to people off the streets, and pointed one at the cop that broke into their office.

[kieth4]

You cannot go "Because they're not red!!" They are sec gears that can be gotten roundstart.
In the eyes of the rules when they pulled a gun and tried (but failed) to shoot sec

1. Yes, you can. Remember, they didn't shoot the detective, they only drew the gun. The fact is that it was a split-second decision that, if the detective didn't outright kill them, could have resulted in the QM realizing that they were the detective, and willingly putting their weapon away. The detective jumped the gun to execute them for something they might have done, not something they did do, it's important to separate those two.

2. In the eyes of the rules:

"Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated."

"The only exception is that security is generally considered to be armed with non-lethal methods to control a situation. Therefore, where reasonably possible, security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods."

The detective had the QM stunned, had help in the conflict, was surrounded by medical doctors in case somehow everything went wrong and the QM still escaped, and despite all of that, decided to execute. This is not reasonable.

So you're arguing that they should have peacefully detained a person who had intent to supply the station with guns and had just tried to kill them. At that exact moment both the HoS and another seccie were being killed and calling for help so it's unreasonable to expect them to arrest and drag in someone acting clearly antagonistic. You've failed to explain why on such a hectic round the QM was even planning to supply the crew with guns.

[Tearling]

When did the QM express an intent to kill? As they stated in the thread, it seems like they were going to fight for self defense because they couldn't tell the detective was security.

When they drew the lethal weapon that does severe wounding damage they expressed the intent to seriously harm or kill the detective. They did it in self-defense thinking the det was an antag, and that's their right - but it is also the detective's right to now consider them a hostile threat and neutralize them. This is an IC issue.

expressed the intent to seriously harm or kill the detective

Which one, seriously harm or kill? Earlier you said they were intending to kill the detective, now you're saying they might have just tried to seriously harm them? Next are you going to say they might have just tried to regularly harm them? The problem with this logic is you have no idea what they would have done, none of us do, because while the QM drew the weapon they did not use it. On the other hand we know the QM was innocent, we know the Detective executed the QM, and we know the Detective broke the rules. Flat out. Just read the rules.
Rule 1, Security policy 1.
"Therefore, where reasonably possible, security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods"
It was more than reasonably possible to arrest the QM as they were already stunned.

So you're arguing that they should have peacefully detained a person who had intent to supply the station with guns and had just tried to kill them.

They ALREADY had them detained. They were stunned and on the ground. They, after detaining the suspect, decided to execute the suspect with no discussion or valid reason. Also, when did the QM try to kill the Detective?

[sinfulbliss]

Which one, seriously harm or kill? Earlier you said they were intending to kill the detective, now you're saying they might have just tried to seriously harm them? Next are you going to say they might have just tried to regularly harm them?

Who knows! Whatever they felt like? A thermal pistol's only function is to seriously harm or kill. It wounds so a single shot can create piercing wounds which will make you start to bleedout. Fortunately sec doesn't need to wait for someone to harm them before they can retaliate. If someone charges you with a baton as security, you can lethal them. If they only intended to stun you nonharmfully and steal your shoes? It doesn't matter. Brandishing a weapon with the clear intent to use it is enough.

Hell, a long time ago I caught a dayban for throwing and missing a spear at an officer. The spear missed, but because my intent was to hit the officer, it was treated as self-antagging. The intent is what matters, not the action itself. This applies ICly as well.

= On the other hand we know the QM was innocent

We know the opposite. The QM was in possession of restricted weapons (3XX crime) and had stockpiled them with the intent to give them to the crew (probably an even worse crime). They were not at all innocent, why do you keep repeating this?

[mstachife]

This is an odd one. If the QM had managed to fire off the pistol they had just pulled out we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[kieth4]

When did the QM express an intent to kill? As they stated in the thread, it seems like they were going to fight for self defense because they couldn't tell the detective was security.

When they drew the lethal weapon that does severe wounding damage they expressed the intent to seriously harm or kill the detective. They did it in self-defense thinking the det was an antag, and that's their right - but it is also the detective's right to now consider them a hostile threat and neutralize them. This is an IC issue.

expressed the intent to seriously harm or kill the detective

Which one, seriously harm or kill? Earlier you said they were intending to kill the detective, now you're saying they might have just tried to seriously harm them? Next are you going to say they might have just tried to regularly harm them? The problem with this logic is you have no idea what they would have done, none of us do, because while the QM drew the weapon they did not use it. On the other hand we know the QM was innocent, we know the Detective executed the QM, and we know the Detective broke the rules. Flat out. Just read the rules.
Rule 1, Security policy 1.
"Therefore, where reasonably possible, security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods"
It was more than reasonably possible to arrest the QM as they were already stunned.

So you're arguing that they should have peacefully detained a person who had intent to supply the station with guns and had just tried to kill them.

They ALREADY had them detained. They were stunned and on the ground. They, after detaining the suspect, decided to execute the suspect with no discussion or valid reason. Also, when did the QM try to kill the Detective?

Ok so let's do it like this:

QM'S actions = They are valid.

Valid = able to be killed.

It's literally that simple, they had no inclination to be non-lethal with someone who was clearly acting like a traitor.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Again, this only applies to Manuel. You play exclusively Manuel so your opinion is correct for the server you play. It is absolutely false for LRP and the detective can in perfectly good conscience assume the role of sec or even HoS if they want. It's not even remotely close to rulebreaking or relevant.

Actually! My opinion is objectively correct, because my opinion is backed up by the code. If Detectives were supposed to be actively hunting people down to make arrests, they would have access to cell timers, permabrig, and every station's equipment room. But they don't, because they're not supposed to have that stuff or be doing that. While the Detective might be ALLOWED to on LRP, that doesn't mean he's SUPPOSED to. At that point, why have it be a separate role when you could just give the scanner to any officer? So, while there were other personnel there to assist (remember, the thing shows someone else was batoning, and the thread is full of mentions that the HoS had been nearby) he decided to just execute someone, instead of actually doing his part of his job.

While you might not ban an MD for not showing up when they're needed on LRP, remember that part of the rules that says Security is held to higher standards.

In this case, these 'higher standards' are 'the bare minimum'.

[Pandarsenic]

I can't believe the QM's prints were on a crate

Next we may even hear of a Cargo Tech's prints on a crate!

[sinfulbliss]

Actually! My opinion is objectively correct, because my opinion is backed up by the code.

The code makes no statements about the rules. We are here because of the accusation of a rule violation, and as you said the detective acting as sec on LRP is allowed, so clearly that is not relevant.

While you might not ban an MD for not showing up when they're needed on LRP, remember that part of the rules that says Security is held to higher standards.

It's a complete misreading of this rule to think that detectives are therefore expected, enforceable by this rule, to investigate and not to make arrests. What it means is that sec isn't allowed to do minorly antagonistic things, like create a conflict with someone and then use their sec gear to win the conflict. Since they have metaprotections and a team, a sec officer always has the advantage in any conflict, so consequently they're expected not to shit around and create them.

Nothing about this is even remotely relevant, though, to a detective and arresting. From an administrative perspective they might as well be a security officer. Manuel is the only place this would matter.

[massa]

I look forward to the good faith gameplay and RP interactions we will get now that you can draw a gun on security and ahelp when you get killed for it.

However, the note is very agreeable now.

[Pandarsenic]

I look forward to the good faith gameplay and RP interactions we will get now that you can draw a gun on security and ahelp when you get killed for it.

Well the good news is you have stun batons
Flashes (for non-QMs)
Flashbangs
DIsablers
E-guns and beanbag shotguns next to the SWAT armor
Energy Bolas
Handcuffs
Zipties
Cable cuffs

[Farquaar]

I look forward to the good faith gameplay and RP interactions we will get now that you can draw a gun on security and ahelp when you get killed for it.

Tips to cover your rear end as security in the future:

• Unless you found antag gear or comparable solid proof, don't execute.

• If you're going to execute, ask the HoS or Cap first. If the HoS/Cap okays a bad/flimsy execution, it's their fault not yours unless you lied to them to get authorization.

• Lethals are perfectly okay if the perp resists arrest, but try to clone revive and interrogate unless you've got solid evidence that the perp is an antag (i.e. more than "they resisted arrest")

Followed all of these in my years on Sybil and Manuel, never got a note for bad secwork.

[JusticeGoat]

If a sec officer has a perp in cuffs and they don't have a way out eg freedom implant/ling, there is no reason to execute. Handing out harsh justice is the captains, and hos's job provided the station is not burning down, heck even then just leaving them stripped in a locked cell is normally enough.

[Farquaar]

If a sec officer has a perp in cuffs and they don't have a way out eg freedom implant/ling, there is no reason to execute. Handing out harsh justice is the captains, and hos's job provided the station is not burning down, heck even then just leaving them stripped in a locked cell is normally enough.

Yeah, but there are few things more satisfying in SS13 than taking a traitor to the reeducation chamber, plugging in a plasma canister, watching him reee as you press the igniter button and say "I love the smell of plasma in the morning".

[Tearling]

We know the opposite. The QM was in possession of restricted weapons (3XX crime) and had stockpiled them with the intent to give them to the crew (probably an even worse crime). They were not at all innocent, why do you keep repeating this?

Stockpiling weapons with the intent to sell them to the crew is objectively not a worst crime, and is not one you can execute for. Not even the detective thought this. Spacelaw is just a suggestion, the QM was innocent. Looks like headmins agree:

Arresting the (not from your information, innocent) QM

Fortunately sec doesn't need to wait for someone to harm them before they can retaliate.

In this case they did, because we have no reason to believe the QM would have fired on the detective if he was given more time to realize who the person stunning him was.

You were in full riot gear, and made a completely wordless arrest on someone who could not immediately discern you as a security officer. Being stunned on LRP can be a complete death sentence, it is reasonable for the QM to fear for their life.

3 cheers for a good headmin decision.

[kieth4]

It's simply a poor ruling. So now cargo aren't valid if they're being shitters with weapons? What a complete joke.

[Farquaar]

It's simply a poor ruling. So now cargo aren't valid if they're being shitters with weapons? What a complete joke.

1. What evidence was provided that cargo were being “shitters with weapons”?
2. Since when does weapons dealing make you instantly valid?

[kieth4]

It's simply a poor ruling. So now cargo aren't valid if they're being shitters with weapons? What a complete joke.

1. What evidence was provided that cargo were being “shitters with weapons”?
2. Since when does weapons dealing make you instantly valid?

How does cargo buying weapons and planning/being in the process of distribution make them shitters? It skews the whole round.

Think of the tools validhunters get well they now have guns too which completely fucks the round.

In my close to 2k hours I have always killed cargo weapon dealer especially if they ever dared pull a gun on me as as it has absolutely 0 benefit to the round and they're using.

This will happen every single round as a "gimmick" same with cargonia. It isn't fun.

The question lies in why as a non antagonist are you out there dealing weapons?in the case of a revolution it skews it, in the case of antags it skews it in the case of shitter crew it skews it. Brig doesn't work as cargo don't stop and instead wait their 5-10 minutes and leave. I therefore view weapon dealing as behaviour on traitors or giga shitters would engage with so try to ensure that they are always killed for it.

[sinfulbliss]

If you're going to execute, ask the HoS or Cap first. If the HoS/Cap okays a bad/flimsy execution, it's their fault not yours unless you lied to them to get authorization.

This is absolutely not true and this method of trying to shift blame will not work. The person who does the execution needs to know it's justified. "HoS said I could" is not justification to execute someone for a flimsy reason, and you will absolutely be bwoinked for it.

Stockpiling weapons with the intent to sell them to the crew is objectively not a worst crime, and is not one you can execute for. [...] Looks like headmins agree:

Julia didn't know the QM was stockpiling weapons, so the execution wasn't being done for that. The execution was done for pulling a thermal pistol. The headmins believe this isn't enough to execute for, so that's the rules now. They haven't made a statement yet on whether or not stockpiling weapons makes someone valid, though.

2. Since when does weapons dealing make you instantly valid?

There is a reason things like raiding the armory makes you valid. Distributing weapons to the crew without cause creates a massive threat for security - imagine what would happen if it's revs. Someone giving everyone weapons is infinitely worse than someone breaking into armory to gear themselves up.

[Archie700]

Let's establish some facts.

viewtopic.php?p=633609#p633609

This is correct, this is why my post was framed from my contextual/IC perspective: I saw one crate. I didn't see any other activity in cargo almost at all, besides the coming and going of miners. My perception and understanding, at this time, was that these items were stolen. I must have missed the business about you selling them on comms because I probably would have left you completely alone, or asked about the crate. Instead, I continued under the assumption that you had stolen them and were 'at large' as I said. Because this was the information I had access to, and missing every little green piece of text when you're almost constantly swamped by greys isn't unthinkable.
As I was working under the assumption you were potentially dangerous, there was no shot in hell I was going to tell you I was with the PD or announce my intentions. That's a crackhead take and expectation. Security baps potential threats with batongs.

Massa said they would not have arrested them for selling weapons. So we're not going to say that Julia was going to kill the QM for that reason, that was never the case, the reason why she wanted to arrest him was because she thought the QM took the guns for himself. (note that arresting and permaing a QM for selling weapons without authorization IS valid, but massa stated they wouldn't have done that had they known that he was going to sell the guns so it wasn't the reason why)

We can afford that you did not intend to kill or round remove them, because your intention to crit is what we are deeming problematic.

You were in full riot gear, and made a completely wordless arrest on someone who could not immediately discern you as a security officer. Being stunned on LRP can be a complete death sentence, it is reasonable for the QM to fear for their life. You, on the other hand, had them completely stunned, and decided to lethal them anyway--there was no reason to fear for your life. Several wounds were inflicted, all which have distinct sound effects and visual cues to let you know they are happening, you should have realized the damage you were causing.

The situation beforehand is you investigating the fingerprints on the crate, and deducing the QM to have stolen your crate. This is perfectly enough to justify an arrest, and you had all the affordances to do so (I need to stress, they were completely stunned). Arresting the (not from your information, innocent) QM, accusing them of the crimes, as well as interrogating why they pulled out lethals so fast, etc etc, all would've made for exactly the type of paranoia-based investigations that we want detectives to do.

Ok, to explain:

1. It's not exactly reasonable to assume that people will always react reasonably when a sec officer decked in black riot gear wordlessly stuns them in medbay without announcing anything. This is the "fight-or-flight" response in action, and his PoV was that someone who he cannot identify immediately suddenly walked up to him and tried to stun him. He chose to defend himself given the situation. (Yeah, you can punish him for that but the issue was what happened)

2. Shaps's reasoning was that while the kill itself would be valid in a vacuum due to him pulling up a gun, the failure was on the part of the detective to adequately ask the QM on what happened to the order and assuming it was stolen from her. Mothblocks's reasoning is different: while she can arrest the QM due to him having his fingerprints on something he isn't supposed to have, her escalation to excessive lethal force despite the QM having been taken down non-lethally was what made the headmins keep the ban. Ultimately the issue was not with the fact that lethal force was used, it was the fact that excessive lethal force was used on a stunned opponent that needed to be interrogated.

3. While it was established that the shift was basically chaotic with greytiders everywhere, it should be noted that there was no mention of anyone stopping the detective from killing the QM. In fact, logs showed that one of bystanders present actually helped in stunning the QM with the detective. The detective was not in immediate danger after stunning the QM and could have stopped after the first pistol was empty to handcuff the QM, if not after the stunning. Dragging the body away from the head made it clear to medical that this was someone security did not want revived, regardless of Massa's actual intentions.

This basically was a bad escalation as a result of either 1. not checking with the QM or cargo first before investigating the crate, thereby drawing the wrong conclusion, or 2. blasting someone who had already been subdued beforehand to crit due to him drawing a gun when he can be reasonably assumed to defend himself.

Which leads to an unanswered question - if you wordlessly stun a person without concrete proof that he was an antagonist and he draws a gun at you, but you subdue him, do you kill the person after the fact or try to investigate?

[BONERMASTER]

You could make the argument, that gearing yourself up with riot armor and wordlessly charging the quartermaster, and then shooting him in the back of the head seven times, is perhaps, in the eyes of some, not the most ideal way to play a criminal investigator.

With dubious regards
-BONERMASTER