Congress is taking away LEOs judgement for Public Safety

Firestone Discussion
1

Current Proposed Bill: A Bill to Nullify an Amendment to the Firearm Act

What does this bill do?
This bill is essentially removing the fleeing felon rule in Firestone (for citizens and LEOs).

What is the fleeing felon rule?
The fleeing felon rule was established in the US Supreme Court in the case Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and it basically states when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

Now yes, it is a US Supreme Court case, but our law enforcement, legal terms, and court system work based on the US system. Citizens, that can be debated if they need the fleeing felon rule (as they don’t in real life). However, this law also defended and justified law enforcement in the fleeing felon rule as it applied to CFL holders and officers with their “(and or department provided) firearm.”

(FS) Scenario #1: An officer arrives on the scene at CD, to witness a man beating 5+ with a crowbar, some to red health/death. This suspect is deemed a deadly threat and an officer may use his firearm to neutralize the suspect. The officer begins to shoot the suspect, but as he does the suspect immediately deselects the crowbar and runs away. The fleeing felon rule allows the officer to continue firing his weapon on the subject as they are still a deadly threat. Now, if this bill were to remove fleeing felon rule. We would immediately have to switch to our tasers and try to subdue the suspect. However, as we switch to our tasers, the suspect beings to pull out the crowbar again and beat the officer and more citizens. The suspect would be already dead and everyone safe, due to the fleeing felon rule.

(FS) Scenario #2: This one LEOs see every day, a suspect runs over a crowd of people in his car, as he is driving off and fleeing, LEOs can continue to shoot at him with the fleeing felon rule. However, if this bill passes, LEOs must stop shooting immediately as “he isn’t a threat driving away.”

(Both of these scenarios are factual, and witnessed firsthand by me and many others!)

As a former Senator and FSP Major, I do not want to see LEOs prosecuted by the courts and DPS investigating them if this bill were to pass.

Just know, we have this law for a reason. Don’t take it away, just improve it.
Cough Fedora (https://gyazo.com/f15efe1d047173043864b6e851a80c79)

I know this is just a game, but in Firestone we have always strived for realism. I believe the fleeing felon rule is essential to our state and LEOs should be backed under it.

Protect LEOs, so they can protect you!

8 Likes
2

I understand the issue of citizens being involved, as you want them to call 911 instead of being vigilantes. However, this law is the only protection for LEOs as well with fleeing felon.

2 Likes
3

That amendment was originally cause LEOs kept getting fucked for doing their jobs

3 Likes
4

When an individual de-selects their weapon, that is the in-game equivalent of disarming themselves (should be role played as dropping their weapon on their floor, etc…).

When an individual disarms themselves and proceeds to run away from an officer, they no longer pose a threat to life until such point as they arm themselves once again

You shouldn’t be shooting at someone running away from you to begin with unless they are still armed and are charging at others with the intent to harm.

2 Likes
5

No, we RP it was “putting away in your coat” or something. As you can easily re-select the gun. Not dropping it. Still a deadly threat.

Unless they type “drops gun” and if they pull it back out, it’d be FRP.

3 Likes
6

Here’s the problem- a guy can shoot at me with an AK and as soon as he puts it away, it’s illegal to shoot him, once he pulls it back out, he’s good to kill again, it’d be an on and off thing

5 Likes
7

i see cars driving away and leo shooting at the car to disable it not to protect themself so idk how i feel about them doing that

2 Likes
8

Honestly this new Congress is very anti-LEO

4 Likes
9

If the gun is in their coat and not in their hand, and they’re actively running away from you then they no longer should be classified as a threat in the now. Their goal in that moment is to get away from you, not kill you.

In the event that they re-equip the weapon, (we now have a motion that can detect this), you can then detect the threat to your life and then deadly force would be authorized.

You should only be using deadly force when your life is in immediate danger in the moment. I don’t see how an individual that doesn’t have a weapon in their hand and runs from CD to RoGreens is posing a threat to you. He’s just running away.

2 Likes
10

Even then, I’d like you to point me to a time where a law enforcement officer encounters a murder suspect, the suspect begins to flee, and the officer fires his weapon at the suspect that’s running, and doesn’t use their taser.

2 Likes
11

We talk a lot about civs FRP’ing, but LEO’s FRP as well, probably even more.

2 Likes
12

He is still a risk to public safety. By him escaping, he still holds a threat to shoot people later. He can just as easily click (1, 2, 3, 4…) to put that gun in his hand. You are still armed and dangerous if that gun is in your inventory.

This only applies to in the moment actions. Not “you shoot me, so I shoot you 3 hours later.”

Looking back at scenario #1.

Prime Example of Fleeing Felon, the suspect fired on officers (an active threat), but he tried to run away and was shot in the back (as he was still a threat). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXceyZLGyyU&has_verified=1

5 Likes
13

In this example, the man attempted to flee, but before he could drive off the officer killed him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0SsIZbkQGQ

3 Likes
14

In this example, the suspect fires on an officer, and as he is driving away the officer is shooting at his car. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy1qbLjkJnY

3 Likes
15

As already explain to Fastbird4 in dms, this is to prevent people from getting shot in the back when they’re not posing an active threat. The FCC (I’m a member of the FFC for those who don’t know) Has dealt with cases where someone is using their CFL against a suspect who hit someone, the suspect flees unarmed, and is then gunned down. Other CFL’s see this person shooting an unarmed person and shoot them in return. Then we just have a mess of people shooting eachother for what they think is a justified cause. This is obviously a problem. It should NEVER be okay to shoot someone who is not actively posing a threat.

For LEOs this is different. Say someone shoots someone at CD and is now fleeing gun away. If their gun is away and they are running LEOs should NOT shoot them in the back. This is POST material I’m talking about. They should follow the use of force model and use what is appropriate. Taser if their gun isn’t out and if their gun comes out then upgrade to using lethal force. This doesn’t give the criminals an advantage. The animation doesn’t take longer for LEOs than it does criminals. The taser is more accurate and can be fired faster than a firearm when appropriate. It takes less than a second to reload a taser.

Also, Firestone doesn’t use U.S Case Law so that is irrelevant. With the current legislation we are allowing CFLs to commit legal murder which is not okay. It says those with a CFL are supposed to guess if someone poses an active threat while running unarmed and to SHOOT them if they think they do. That is ridiculous. A civillian with a CFL is not an LEO. Their job is not to aid LEOs. They are permitted a firearm to defend themselves or those around them. If someone is fleeing without a weapon out they are no longer an active threat. As a civilian you should contact law enforcement, the people trained and responsible for dealing with those criminals if they flee. This is also enforced by SOF v Tor

2 Likes
16

Maybe instead, we should make a delay time of some sort where LEOs/CFLs cannot shoot a suspect after a certain period of time. They need to know that the suspect is armed.

2 Likes
17

I concur with this statement in its entirety. Simply put, if you have concerns, refer to the use of force model established in POST.

3 Likes
18

That would be hard to enforce for a few reasons. How is someone supposed to know off hand how much time has passed for starters.

2 Likes
19

Yes, but this law was established to protect LEOs. I am fine with citizens being removed from it, but not LEOs.

With this law, LEOs can disable vehicles (deadly weapons) of fleeing suspects who just ran 10 people over at the CD bus stop. Despite driving away, they are threats.

Scenario 1 explains in perfect detail about crowbars.

I know we don’t use case law, but our entire government and legal terms revolve around the US. Also, we strive for realism the best we can. We don’t want to worry about a lawsuit just because a shooter puts his gun away only to pull it back out when he turns a corner and when we miss our taser shots.

Plus we also have Fed law “a person who commits a murder via a weapons and then puts it away still authorized to lethal force.”

If you kill someone and put the gun away while running, despite the gun being in your hotbar, you are still a threat as you can just pull it out. You didn’t “drop the gun” and you aren’t “unarmed.”

5 Likes
20

This all circles around to, how realistic do we want Firestone to strive to be. It is “just a game” but we strive for realism the best we can.

2 Likes