- Joined
- Jun 28, 2024
- Messages
- 136
Hello Adham/Floki/Bobby,
Today, I received a verbal warning for SR 5.5. In this scenario, one of my officers entered the ghetto to respond to an Atm robbery, which is clearly an emergency situation (and we get the notification as an Emergency call in the PDA).
Now, what SR 5.5 actually states is that LSPD/SAHP/FIB are not allowed to patrol the ghetto unless there are at least three special officers present. In this case, was the officer patrolling? No, he was responding to an active Atm robbery. The person involved even mentioned in the description that they were doing an Atm robbery and my officer responded accordingly.
We cannot interpret or alter rules based on assumptions. SR 5.5 clearly says that a minimum of three special officers is required for patrolling the ghetto. It does not state that three officers are required to enter the ghetto in response to any emergency.
I had previously discussed this with Adham using the example of a store robbery and the response I received a day later confirmed that three officers are not required to respond. This case is no different the officer entered not to patrol, but to respond to an active Atm robbery.
I kindly request that you reconsider it and lift the verbal warning, as the reasoning provided goes beyond the intended meaning of SR 5.5
Today, I received a verbal warning for SR 5.5. In this scenario, one of my officers entered the ghetto to respond to an Atm robbery, which is clearly an emergency situation (and we get the notification as an Emergency call in the PDA).
Now, what SR 5.5 actually states is that LSPD/SAHP/FIB are not allowed to patrol the ghetto unless there are at least three special officers present. In this case, was the officer patrolling? No, he was responding to an active Atm robbery. The person involved even mentioned in the description that they were doing an Atm robbery and my officer responded accordingly.
We cannot interpret or alter rules based on assumptions. SR 5.5 clearly says that a minimum of three special officers is required for patrolling the ghetto. It does not state that three officers are required to enter the ghetto in response to any emergency.
I had previously discussed this with Adham using the example of a store robbery and the response I received a day later confirmed that three officers are not required to respond. This case is no different the officer entered not to patrol, but to respond to an active Atm robbery.
I kindly request that you reconsider it and lift the verbal warning, as the reasoning provided goes beyond the intended meaning of SR 5.5
