- Joined
- Jun 28, 2024
- Messages
- 137
Hello Mr. Floki,
I would like to respectfully bring to your attention that SR 5.5 does not state that three special officers are required to enter the ghetto for an emergency response, such as an Atm robbery. The rule specifically states:
Here, it's important to distinguish the term “patrolling.”
Patrolling refers to routine or active surveillance of an area without any specific incident or emergency taking place, it does not include responding to emergency calls
In the scenario in question, my officer entered the ghetto in direct response to an Atm robbery, which is marked as an emergency call in the PDA. This was not patrolling. It was an emergency response, which the rule does not restrict.
Moreover, if we start treating every emergency response as "patrolling," we will be severely limiting our ability to perform core law enforcement duties in high crime areas. This is not the intention of SR 5.5.
To further clarify, I had earlier discussed a similar scenario with Adham using the example of a store robbery, and the response confirmed that three officers are not required to respond in such situations. The Atm robbery falls under the same emergency category.
And even if there is an OOC punishment that an officer cannot respond to an Atm robbery without having two additional officers, it is an individual punishment, not an organizational one.
Therefore, I kindly request that you recheck this case and consider revoking the verbal warning, as it appears to be based on a misinterpretation of SR 5.5. The officer’s actions were well within the bounds of the rule, and he responded as expected in an emergency.
Thank you for your time and understanding.
Please read carefully what I’ve written and take a moment to check SR 5.5 to understand what it actually says. It refers specifically to patrolling and I have explained that very clearly
I would like to respectfully bring to your attention that SR 5.5 does not state that three special officers are required to enter the ghetto for an emergency response, such as an Atm robbery. The rule specifically states:
Here, it's important to distinguish the term “patrolling.”
Patrolling refers to routine or active surveillance of an area without any specific incident or emergency taking place, it does not include responding to emergency calls
In the scenario in question, my officer entered the ghetto in direct response to an Atm robbery, which is marked as an emergency call in the PDA. This was not patrolling. It was an emergency response, which the rule does not restrict.
Moreover, if we start treating every emergency response as "patrolling," we will be severely limiting our ability to perform core law enforcement duties in high crime areas. This is not the intention of SR 5.5.
To further clarify, I had earlier discussed a similar scenario with Adham using the example of a store robbery, and the response confirmed that three officers are not required to respond in such situations. The Atm robbery falls under the same emergency category.
And even if there is an OOC punishment that an officer cannot respond to an Atm robbery without having two additional officers, it is an individual punishment, not an organizational one.
Therefore, I kindly request that you recheck this case and consider revoking the verbal warning, as it appears to be based on a misinterpretation of SR 5.5. The officer’s actions were well within the bounds of the rule, and he responded as expected in an emergency.
Thank you for your time and understanding.
Please read carefully what I’ve written and take a moment to check SR 5.5 to understand what it actually says. It refers specifically to patrolling and I have explained that very clearly
