Report a player - Joseph Tadworth - GTA RP

[Jxmmy]

Report a player 

Your In-game Name: Hugo Hardshaft

Name and/or ID of the player(s) you are reporting: Joseph Tadworth

Which server did the incident take place on: GTA RP

Date of the incident: 08/02/22

Time of the incident (GMT) 24hr Format: 2040

What best describes this incident ?: G1.1, G1.5, G1.8, C1.7

Please (in detail) describe the incident: Let me give you some backstory, me and a friend have been roleplaying out new characters for a bit of 'different' roleplay. We are unorganised, and dumb criminals. For the past few days we have had a good amount of fun hostage scenarios involving officers such as Ryan Kray, Wyatt Adams, Adam Busy and more.

Today, we decided to rob a liqueur store. We planned to use a local faggio as our escape vehicle as we had it in the back of our minds that we were going to lose the situation, but wanted to make something interactive and fun for the officers on scene, as we did just a few days ago.

Everything was going swell, we had the hostage in the back of the shop and negotiations had begun, we were providing, in my opinion, really good roleplay to the hostage and the officers outside.

We were preparing to leave the shop and initiate the pursuit, however this is where things went wrong.

The negotiating officer had said we are good to leave now. We left and got onto our faggio. Tadworth rammed his police vehicle into our faggio at 30MPH+ resulting in the vehicle exploding and killing us both and the negotiating officer. I believe that this type of ramming, with a wall being right ahead of him may fall into the Fail Driving (G1.8) category as it is extremely unrealistic for a police officer to purposely have his vehicle smashed into a wall, and knowingly squash two people in the process.

By ramming the vehicle in this manner, even after negotiations had occurred, I see this situation as powergamed (G1.5). There was no way for us as criminals to escape this situation nor win it. This was made as a police win only situation, even ruining the run for the police outside ready to pursue our vehicle. This is shown in clips provided below, from crim and police POV.

I know this one is a bit lighter, but I would argue that this would also fall under RVDM. While there was a roleplay reason, the rule specifically says that the roleplay reason must be 'valid'. I would not have said that there was any valid reason to use his vehicle here, considering there were already officers holding tasers opposite the door.

This entire situation had now been ruined by this incident, it is clear that police and us as criminals were not happy with the decision made by Tadworth. I personally think that this would come under the rule Common Sense (C1.7).

After this situation had finished, I requested to talk to Tadworth in Police Liaison 1. I expected him to agree with us to be honest, yet he had a strong belief that everything he did in this scenario was correct and that he didn't do anything wrong here. I believe that this shows the mentality within him that he cannot accept his wrongdoings, even when he makes a mistake.

Overall, please see the clips provided below from multiple peoples POV's. Some may be shown as repetitive however I think it is really important to show how many people think this incident was poor roleplay and could have definitely been played out to a higher standard.

Link to any evidence (Youtube/Screenshot):

[REMOVED]
Police POV - https://medal.tv/games/gta-v/clips/uZprIGbYh5TPy/d1337m928hMe?invite=cr-MSxxbmcsNTk2MjY2ODcs
Police POV - https://medal.tv/games/gta-v/clips/uZpvfPgF04Utc/d1337hB3X0VC?invite=cr-MSw1WlcsNTUwMzUxMjYs
Negotiating Officer - https://youtu.be/JisicC2qC2g?t=660 (10:57)
This report is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!: Yes

You tried to resolve the situation with the player(s) before reporting: Yes

This is not a revenge report (Abuse will lead to forum/community bans): Yes

 

[Tadworth]

Good evening, thank-you for your report.

I will answer your points in order as to ensure I encapsulate everything you have said into one response here.

We are unorganised, and dumb criminals. For the past few days we have had a good amount of fun hostage scenarios involving officers such as Ryan Kray, Wyatt Adams, Adam Busy and more.

When arriving on scene, I was informed of largely the same information by others on the ground with me, which played very significantly into my decision-making process in this incident. I will come back to this statement later.

Tadworth rammed his police vehicle into our faggio at 30MPH+

I do not know how you have calculated the exact speed of my vehicle at the point of impact, and would appriciate if you could provide evidence of this fact (at least as you describe). If not I would suggest that this point isn't really relevant.

resulting in the vehicle exploding and killing us both and the negotiating officer. I believe that this type of ramming, with a wall being right ahead of him may fall into the Fail Driving (G1.8) category as it is extremely unrealistic for a police officer to purposely have his vehicle smashed into a wall, and knowingly squash two people in the process.

I know this one is a bit lighter, but I would argue that this would also fall under RVDM. While there was a roleplay reason, the rule specifically says that the roleplay reason must be 'valid'. I would not have said that there was any valid reason to use his vehicle here, considering there were already officers holding tasers opposite the door.

You are correct this did result in the vehicle exploding, however, the collision did not in fact result in any "killing", you were both revived and arrested by Charlie Cubbs - and dealt with for the offences you committed. I will provide some evidence that this is not "fail driving" contrary to G1.8, I also explain why in my opinion this was also not RVDM.

In the real world - "Lord Morris in Palmer v R stated the following about someone confronted by an intruder or defending himself against attack: If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, **it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. "There was no way for me to know that the bike was going to blow up - unfortunately that is just what happened (and no - for context, I didn't actually know this was possible, IRL this would physcially not happen, as you know - things don't just explode). Further to this, I used a pre-emptive strike in line with: "There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75)."

Guidance from the IOPC states:

Scooter and moped-enabled crime has been most prevalent in the London area, but the guidance changes have been issued to all chief constables in England and Wales by the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s (NPCC) Lead for Police Pursuits. The updated guidance acknowledges tactical contact as a legitimate use of force for appropriately trained police drivers where authorised – key in giving them the confidence to carry out their jobs without fear of prosecution. It also seeks to ‘better support police officers in carrying out their assessment of the situation and risks posed’. The guidance covers issues like the use of alternative tactics, weighing up the severity of the suspected offence and the likelihood of causing injury to the riders, others and themselves. It also reinforces that the use of the tactic must be authorised.

The use of force was:

• Authorised
  
• Conducted by a properly trained driver
  
• Reduced the risk to the general public, others and myself
  

According to the College of Policing:

Where preventive or pre-emptive actions are clearly proportionate to the intelligence available, their use is preferable to pursuit.

• In this case, I avoided the pursuit by utilising an approved pre-emptive tactic. Which as stated above is preferable to a pursuit.
  

A video released below describes the tactic and how it is employed in real life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIeFlRpaync

I would therefore argue that my driving does not go contrary to rule G1.8 - whereby the standard of driving is assessed against a "realistic" standard, which I have outlined below.

By ramming the vehicle in this manner, even after negotiations had occurred, I see this situation as powergamed (G1.5). There was no way for us as criminals to escape this situation nor win it. This was made as a police win only situation, even ruining the run for the police outside ready to pursue our vehicle. This is shown in clips provided below, from crim and police POV.

Returning to my earlier point, where you stated that you are "dumb criminals" who are "unorganised", and you also stated "we had it in the back of our minds that we were going to lose the situation". How can you simultaniously claim that I powergamed in this scenario? "There was no way for us as criminals to escape this situation nor win it. This was made as a police win only situation" does not really compare to your initial "we had it in the back of our minds that we were going to lose the situation". It seems to me that you are unhappy with the way that this ended, not that you lost in the first place.

This entire situation had now been ruined by this incident, it is clear that police and us as criminals were not happy with the decision made by Tadworth. I personally think that this would come under the rule Common Sense (C1.7).

I have not seen any evidence that this breaks the rule of Common Sense - and it feels like you've just put this here as I can't really write anything further to argue it, so I guess ultimately, since you've reported me for 4 seperate rule breaks - if it comes to this one I'd argue that there is no breach in the Common Sense rule as I've answered to all your points.

After this situation had finished, I requested to talk to Tadworth in Police Liaison 1. I expected him to agree with us to be honest, yet he had a strong belief that everything he did in this scenario was correct and that he didn't do anything wrong here. I believe that this shows the mentality within him that he cannot accept his wrongdoings, even when he makes a mistake.

I still do not believe I did anything wrong and stand by this. I can accept wrongdoing, however in this case I cannot as I do not believe I made a mistake.

 

[Anonymous Monkey]

Good Morning Tadworth,

Thank you for the reply given here, it's certainly nice to see an explained version of your POV.

Though some of the points you made are correct, I believe that you are only pulling small sections of this 'case law' that suit your needs. If you have a look through the rest, it shows that this use of force was a cut clear case of excessive force to hit us with a multiple ton heavy vehicle that is guaranteed, IRL to cause us servere physical harm, when there were officers ready with stun-guns. However that is mostly an issue that will be dealt with in game, and had no real reason for you to bring it up here.

Regarding the powergaming counter claim, you're correct! We knew that we would likely lose, and are unhappy with the way it ended, this doesn't mean that what you did was not powergaming though? The chance of us winning was still there, yet you wiped it by ramming us with a vehicle and, intentionally or not, exploding our bike.

At the end of the day, I'm completly fed up with the mentality coming from cops recently in situations regarding hostages. As an acting superintendant of the police you should be fully aware of the police rules set in place by command and I believe that you have set the complete wrong example to all the other officers on scene at this situation.

I will not be replying further unless requested to by staff.

 

[Anonymous Monkey]

Was not going to be replying, however this rule has just been brought up to me which I also believe you to have broken.

(G1.7) Community leaders - Players who are business owners, organisation leaders or high ranking police officers/NHS personnel. These players should be a leading source of quality story lines and consistently strong roleplayers. Thus will be held to a higher standard under our rules and guidelines. If you wish to become a community leader, you should consistently create roleplay scenarios of a high standard for yourself and others.

Being as you are a lead / command member of the LSPS, you are not setting a high standard of the rules towards the other police involved there.

 

[Tadworth]

Though some of the points you made are correct, I believe that you are only pulling small sections of this 'case law' that suit your needs. If you have a look through the rest, it shows that this use of force was a cut clear case of excessive force to hit us with a multiple ton heavy vehicle that is guaranteed, IRL to cause us servere physical harm, when there were officers ready with stun-guns. However that is mostly an issue that will be dealt with in game, and had no real reason for you to bring it up here.

An issue of excessive force is one for the courts not for a player report.

Regarding the powergaming counter claim, you're correct! We knew that we would likely lose, and are unhappy with the way it ended, this doesn't mean that what you did was not powergaming though? The chance of us winning was still there, yet you wiped it by ramming us with a vehicle and, intentionally or not, exploding our bike.

There was still a chance of you winning, you just needed to pick a better escape vehicle. I will repeat once more, I did not know that or expect your vehicle would explode.

At the end of the day, I'm completly fed up with the mentality coming from cops recently in situations regarding hostages. As an acting superintendant of the police you should be fully aware of the police rules set in place by command and I believe that you have set the complete wrong example to all the other officers on scene at this situation.

I am fully aware of Police rules and procedure and followed them at this incident. Once again though, a breach of police rules isn't a rule break anyways - so it's not relevant.

I do not have any "mentality" I take each situation as it comes and decide on actions based on the risk . In this case, you turned up to a shop robbery on little moped and expected us to allow you to drive off just because the rules dictate that we should, which I may add - is powergaming in itself.

(G1.7) Community leaders - Players who are business owners, organisation leaders or high ranking police officers/NHS personnel. These players should be a leading source of quality story lines and consistently strong roleplayers. Thus will be held to a higher standard under our rules and guidelines. If you wish to become a community leader, you should consistently create roleplay scenarios of a high standard for yourself and others.

Being as you are a lead / command member of the LSPS, you are not setting a high standard of the rules towards the other police involved there.

In future feel free to copy the whole rules page out when reporting somebody, it would be easier than simply stacking things that have some vague relevance to the point you're making.

I hold the police and myself to a very high standard of roleplay. Your roleplay in this incident was far from excellent itself and in fact - made me consider how poor the quality of roleplay on the server has become - particularly in Police on Gang interactions over the past months, as there has been a rise in crime which is on reflection - nothing like the UK. Your story of being a "dumb" criminal, does not hold up to any test of common sense and it is in no way realistic or provide any form of quality roleplay to anybody. Allowing you to get on your bike and drive 30 seconds around the corner contributes nothing to your RP story and would have, if anything made this whole situation even less realistic or even semi-realistic.

It is astounding to me that in this case - I am the one being reported when really - the roleplay leading up to this situation was completely below par and provided me, and others with absoloutely no resemblance of the UK, policing or just life in general.

We are a serious roleplay server - there is nothing serious about "dumb" "unorganised" criminals robbing a shop and expecting a police force to allow them to leave when they are clearly outnumbered and outmanned. Many think I have the wrong mentality in this situation, I would suggest that actually - you have completely the wrong mentality here.

Anyone who thinks I am here for anything but high quality roleplay is quite frankly just wrong. I have been a member of this community for eight years and have not once been reported for fail RP / low quality RP - if that doesn't prove that I provide a high quality standard of roleplay accross the board I do not know what does.

 

[Anonymous Monkey]

I really didn't want to continue replying, but your points that you bring up make it hard not to.

There was still a chance of you winning, you just needed to pick a better escape vehicle. I will repeat once more, I did not know that or expect your vehicle would explode.

In the future, I'll use a local sultan, like every single other situation that police are involved in? We are trying to do something different.

I do not have any "mentality" I take each situation as it comes and decide on actions based on the risk . In this case, you turned up to a shop robbery on little moped and expected us to allow you to drive off just because the rules dictate that we should, which I may add - is powergaming in itself.

We did not expect you to let us drive off free of charge, we expected a chase. You know that thing called fun that SOME police are forgetting people log on to have. Also if you think I have broken any rules, please take that up in a seperate report.

In future feel free to copy the whole rules page out when reporting somebody, it would be easier than simply stacking things that have some vague relevance to the point you're making.

No need for this snarky & cocky comment.

Your roleplay in this incident was far from excellent itself and in fact - made me consider how poor the quality of roleplay on the server has become - particularly in Police on Gang interactions over the past months, as there has been a rise in crime which is on reflection - nothing like the UK.

I'm sorry? Where was my roleplay 'far from excellent' as I would love to know and improve in the future. I actually recieved 3+ DMs praising me for my roleplay following this situation, showing that this here is clearly an unpopular opinion in this case.

It is astounding to me that in this case - I am the one being reported when really - the roleplay leading up to this situation was completely below par and provided me, and others with absoloutely no resemblance of the UK, policing or just life in general.

Once again, report me if you think my roleplay was below par, as I believe my roleplay in this scene was of a good and high standard.

We are a serious roleplay server - there is nothing serious about "dumb" "unorganised" criminals robbing a shop and expecting a police force to allow them to leave when they are clearly outnumbered and outmanned. Many think I have the wrong mentality in this situation, I would suggest that actually - you have completely the wrong mentality here.

Are you telling me that dumb and unorganised people do not rob stores IRL? They may not bring a hostage, but that's a must on RPUK due to police mentality. Stating that we are outnumbered, police will ALWAYS outnumber civs. Bringing 20 cops to a shop robbery is one thing, using that to breach / ram us and not give chase is another.

Anyone who thinks I am here for anything but high quality roleplay is quite frankly just wrong. I have been a member of this community for eight years and have not once been reported for fail RP / low quality RP - if that doesn't prove that I provide a high quality standard of roleplay accross the board I do not know what does.

Being here for a long time means nothing about this situation. You clearly think that what you did in THIS situation was absolutely fine and you think that OUR roleplay was the one that was not to standard.

I'm completely and utterely dissapointed as, as you mentioned, being here for 8 years, you'd think you would see the wrongdoings in this situation.

 

[Tadworth]

We did not expect you to let us drive off free of charge, we expected a chase

What do you believe made you entitled to a chace? As I said previously, if you expected anything that is powergaming.

I'm sorry? Where was my roleplay 'far from excellent' as I would love to know and improve in the future. I actually recieved 3+ DMs praising me for my roleplay following this situation, showing that this here is clearly an unpopular opinion in this case.

I think this is more an observation about the state of what people think is 'good' roleplay than anything. I have recieved a number of messages from members of the police stating that they think I did the right thing, it means nothing.

Are you telling me that dumb and unorganised people do not rob stores IRL? They may not bring a hostage, but that's a must on RPUK due to police mentality. Stating that we are outnumbered, police will ALWAYS outnumber civs. Bringing 20 cops to a shop robbery is one thing, using that to breach / ram us and not give chase is another.

We may always outnumber you but that's where you actually have to be smart? Dumb criminals obviously do not stand a chance against a well resourced, well trained and organised police force. I'd argue that allowing you anymore room for manuver than we already had in this scenario would've been a case of fail RP because of how badly you had planned the whole situation, how poor your negociations were, and how well the police in this scenario outmanuvered you. It's okay to roleplay a 'dumb' criminal, but don't get angry when that means you're dealt with in the way the police would deal with a 'dumb' criminal.

Being here for a long time means nothing about this situation. You clearly think that what you did in THIS situation was absolutely fine and you think that OUR roleplay was the one that was not to standard.

You are absoloutely correct.

 

[Anonymous Monkey]

Not going to be replying further. This is just going to be back and forth, I will let staff deal with this as they will.

 

[Tadworth]

Not going to be replying further. This is just going to be back and forth, I will let staff deal with this as they will.

Thanks

 

[Charles Vane]

Okay, i will nip this in the bud.

For me this report here shows part of the problem we are seeing at the minute. Tadworth, yes.. you can pull our real life examples and maneuvers which would be similar to this and show how in the 'Real world' this would be a valid tactic. However for me, here on a roleplay server that is not entirely relevant. 

The way i see it is 2 people. 2 people who are here on this server for the same reason. To provide and receive high quality roleplay and try to make scenarios as engaging as possible. What we see in this report is one side trying to do that (the criminal) and the other side (Tadworth) doing the complete opposite. You cannot sit there and honestly say you made that scenario engaging or even fun and quite frankly I am shocked you would do something like that Tadworth. Much the same as some of your officers who left the scene after you had done that. We would be doing the server a dis-justice here if we allow this as 'quality roleplay' from someone held in such a high position and for this reason you are going to be receiving a 1 day ban for G1.7 (Community Leader).

You have NOT provided any high quality roleplay. if you thought there roleplay was sub-par then by all means you could have reported them too. 

You police have a tonne of assets available and you had them there, on hand. Traffic for the chase, firearms if things get messy and christ. You probably could have left a probie with a tazer to go after these 2 and they would have ended up caught. The fact here is, you shut down any chance of roleplay and further scenario then left someone else to deal with them after. I expect better from you. 

Joseph Tadworth - 1 Day Ban - G1.7

 

[Charles Vane]

Thank you for doing your part in keeping the community clean.

Your report has been approved and action has been taken against the reported player.

If you are out of pocket due to this case please now open a compensation request here, Do make sure to mention this report.