Logic and good faith security peanut
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2022 5:35 am
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.Farquaar wrote:Anyone accused of being a traitor by a crew member[...]
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.CMDR_Gungnir wrote: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.
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.CMDR_Gungnir wrote:If you're THAT convinced that he stole them that you won't even stop and ask
"'No, they were my own."Pandarsenic wrote:Maybe even say ";Hey, QM, did you take the Thermal Pistols I ordered?" when you look at the prints.
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.sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:22 am of the QM that pulled a gun on them with intent to kill.
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.
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?"sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:35 am"'No, they were my own."Pandarsenic wrote:Maybe even say ";Hey, QM, did you take the Thermal Pistols I ordered?" when you look at the prints.
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.
American Policing.mp4datorangebottle wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 7:59 am 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?
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.sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:22 am Terrible takes in this peanut.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.CMDR_Gungnir wrote: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.
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.sinfulbliss wrote: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.CMDR_Gungnir wrote:If you're THAT convinced that he stole them that you won't even stop and ask
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.Pandarsenic wrote: 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?"
I love this. Saved for later.CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 12:33 pm
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.
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.
I'm here to dsiagree. The arrest was over weapons, regardless of who's they were the person was armed and dangerous.YBS wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:29 pmYou’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.
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.sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:35 am"'No, they were my own."Pandarsenic wrote:Maybe even say ";Hey, QM, did you take the Thermal Pistols I ordered?" when you look at the prints.
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.
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.kieth4 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:48 pm 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
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 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:07 pmthe 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.kieth4 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:48 pm 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
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.
pop quiz!
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.datorangebottle wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:20 pmpop 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
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.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
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.
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.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.
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!"datorangebottle wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 7:00 pmSec 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.
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.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.
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.
Security Policy 2 wrote:"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 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.Security Policy 1 wrote:"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."
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.Tearling wrote: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.
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.Archie700 wrote:the detective should have taken action to revive and cuff the guy for interrogation.
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.YBS wrote:I think the precedent needs to be enforced that sec has to declare intent to arrest during an arrest, somehow.
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.CMDR_Gungnir wrote: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.
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.CMDR_Gungnir wrote: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.
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.mindstormy wrote: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.
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 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 9:55 pm1. 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:Security Policy 2 wrote:"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 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.Security Policy 1 wrote:"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."
sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:05 pmWhen 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.Tearling wrote: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.
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.sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:05 pmexpressed the intent to seriously harm or kill the detective
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?
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.
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?
Ok so let's do it like this:Tearling wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 1:13 amsinfulbliss wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:05 pmWhen 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.Tearling wrote: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.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.sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:05 pmexpressed the intent to seriously harm or kill the detective
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.
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?
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.Sinfulbliss wrote: 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.
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.CMDR_Gungnir wrote:Actually! My opinion is objectively correct, because my opinion is backed up by the code.
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.CMDR_Gungnir wrote: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.
Well the good news is you have stun batons
Tips to cover your rear end as security in the future:
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".JusticeGoat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:53 am 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.
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:sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 1:25 am 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?
Mothblocks wrote:Arresting the (not from your information, innocent) QM
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.sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 1:25 am Fortunately sec doesn't need to wait for someone to harm them before they can retaliate.
3 cheers for a good headmin decision.Mothblocks wrote: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.
How does cargo buying weapons and planning/being in the process of distribution make them shitters? It skews the whole round.
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.Farquaar wrote: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.
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.Tearling wrote: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:
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.Farquaar wrote:2. Since when does weapons dealing make you instantly valid?
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)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.
Ok, to explain: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.