PK guideline update to reflect new federal rules of evidence (Duty to contest)

[KingJewMonaclu]

Hello all,

I've discovered kind of a loophole to the whole "Don't work with police, but making statements to cops is fine" pk rules.

The current rule states:

Quote

You cannot PK a civilian for simply witnessing or reporting a crime, it's natural for normal civilians to call the Police or report incidents, while you may attack them for this it is not considered a valid PK reason. You may only PK a Civilian if they are actively collaborating with a government agency to take you down, this means they have signed some form of Affidavit or witness statement and/or have the intention of testifying against you or your faction in court. You may also threaten people to make sure they don’t snitch. Murder (PK) is a last resort.

Which, on its face seems entirely fine. But since we're on the federal rules of evidence in the courts, it creates a stark, immediate issue. Originally, Hearsay was much more restricted. So, a cop hearing a victim say "Hey man that guys stealing my car" (this was a case against me i'm referencing here, guys already dead in an unrelated pk), the officers *can* include that in their affidavits to prove that the victim did have a crime committed against them.

So, the current rule being that reporting a crime isnt enough; reporting the crime actually *is* enough to prosecute someone. Their statements can be considered testimony under two rules: 

FRE 803(1)
FRE 803(2)

These rules state that hearsay is acceptable and admissible in court if it is:
(1) - Present Sense Impression: A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.
(2) - Excited Utterance - A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

So what does this mean for criminals? Someone yelling out "Officer this guy just killed someone" or "Officer, that guy stole my car" or "Officer he has a gun on him!" is ALL admissible in court. It's all usable. The person need not testify, that *is* usable by the officers' testimony. And the courts can, and always have had the capacity, to convict someone under a singular affidavit (which is debatable considering a previous precedent, but could still reasonably happen right now).

My suggestion is very easy to understand. A new addition to the rule. A "Duty to contest".

It works very simply. Joe Mecli, a civilian, witnesses someone shoot a guy. He yells out "Officer, that guy shot someone" when he sees a cop, who was not a witness to the actual crime. The officer, having heard the blast, arrests the guy on attempted murder charges or some other charges related (Discharge, Unlawful conduct, yadayada). Well now criminal guy Joe Gambino is in a dicey situation. Joe Gambino, is now allowed, by the rules, that if the testimony of the cop reflects what Joe Mecli said, he can locate Joe Mecli, and threaten him to "Contest". Appear in court and say "Nah that didnt happen".

This is the most fair addition to the rule, reflecting the new rules of evidence, and how we deal with witness statements. Now that the DAs office is aware that they can do this shit, they're going to be doing it *a lot*. And there needs to be a balance. 

The technicality of the rules should be that you have to locate the person in game, Identify them somehow (tie them to the name), and threaten them that they have to get you an affidavit stating the *opposite* before discovery closes. This should be done with at least 24 hours BEFORE discovery closes, as to provide ample time. Then, if they refuse to testify, or they switch sides again on the stand and say its true and the guy is a criminal, the family of that criminal should be able to give orders on the Joe Mecli, the civilian, for snitching.

 

 

Kind of a long one, but here's my change to the rule I would make:

You cannot PK a civilian for simply witnessing or reporting a crime, it's natural for normal civilians to call the Police or report incidents, while you may attack them for this it is not considered a valid PK reason. You may only PK a Civilian if they are actively collaborating with a government agency to take you down, i.e. signing an affidavit or working directly with police beyond the initial report. If their statements to police are later used by police to establish that a crime was committed, you may locate, identify, and threaten the individual in order to write an affidavit contesting that they never made those statements. If they fail to write that affidavit before discovery closes, or refuse to testify thereafter, or testify and state the opposite (thereby further implicating you), you may PK that person.

[Shauningt]

This is a really informing and genuinely nice forum post to read, that brings evidence and examples of previous incidents and how the roleplaying experience can be improved, with this rule change as well it is balanced and wouldn't cause harm to the current state of play on the server. Prime example of how to make change in a positive way!

TLDR: Massive +1 to this.

[RevampedRebel]

I like the idea but feel like there needs to be a time limit put on it. Further, there should be escalations put in place before just going "talk and you die" where most real mobs would try to just bribe them away since collaboration is often more effective than fear especially when used in conjunction. Just a thought. 

[KingJewMonaclu]

6 minutes ago, RevampedRebel said:

I like the idea but feel like there needs to be a time limit put on it. Further, there should be escalations put in place before just going "talk and you die" where most real mobs would try to just bribe them away since collaboration is often more effective than fear especially when used in conjunction. Just a thought. 

you're unaffiliated and im a gangster. fuck you nigga tell the courts you never said that shit or die? "why dont you bribe them?" gay take

[Davis]

+1 common sense

[helpitburns]

+1 great idea ngl

[Omerta]

Surprised this wasn't already baked in, but thinking and looking back- it definitely doesn't exist (yet).

Big +1 

Like Davis said, just good common sense and fair.

[bingus]

We'll look into this