New Crime & Punishment Will Be Broken If You Fly with CRIMES OFF

Personally I don't believe it's up to the Cmdr to decide whether the police respond to a crime scene, it's up to the police themselves.

I agree, which is my main objection to the "report crimes but don't send police". That simply would not happen. "Hey, Mr Policeman - there's a fight going on here and I'm going to murder someone". "Oh, ok, I'll leave you to it.".

Aashenfox raised a suggestion thread to actually get some feedback on this (link is earlier in this thread). Maybe people could post whether they support the idea or not in that thread. The arguments in this thread have been circular for quite a while...

EDIT: I think it's the link Riverside posted just above...
 
Last edited:
The only obfuscation here is not reporting a crime against yourself doesn't take away your right to self-defense...

In the "real world" it may not, in a "rational world" that you imagine it may not... But under the laws in the ED universe it bloody well DOES take away that right. The fact that it does is the entire thing you're objecting to!

There is no legal system in the world that denies you the right of self defense.

Rubbish. I can name a dozen countries in the real world right now that are less intrinsically corrupt than the somewhat dystopian ED universe where self defense will result in the legal system grinding you into tiny pieces even if you are technically in the right to act as you did.



ED-Universe Prosecutor: Objection! Under the galactic criminal code offenses against a defendant that the defendant has not reported to the authorities may not be introduced as affirmative defenses or mitigating circumstances.
ED-Universe Judge: Sustained. Defense counsel will not refer to that alleged incident and the jury will disregard any reference thereto.
 
Just had a bit of a look at the first and last few posts on this. Seems to me that the OP has a point. Currently you've got a choice of "no consequences for attacking me" or "full force of the law." If both of those are OK what's the problem with "no consequences for attacking me beyond the results of a fight between us"? Strikes me as a resonable thing to ask for. I don't see many downside. It doesn't turn things into a free-for-all murder-with-no-consequence-fest because you still have the choice of turning RC on. The worst thing would be attacking a clean CMDR without knowing whether you'll get a bounty and the police showing up. We could argue about whether or not a bit more such uncertainty going into a fight is a good or bad thing.
 
In the "real world" it may not, in a "rational world" that you imagine it may not... But under the laws in the ED universe it bloody well DOES take away that right. The fact that it does is the entire thing you're objecting to!



Rubbish. I can name a dozen countries in the real world right now that are less intrinsically corrupt than the somewhat dystopian ED universe where self defense will result in the legal system grinding you into tiny pieces even if you are technically in the right to act as you did.



ED-Universe Prosecutor: Objection! Under the galactic criminal code offenses against a defendant that the defendant has not reported to the authorities may not be introduced as affirmative defenses or mitigating circumstances.
ED-Universe Judge: Sustained. Defense counsel will not refer to that alleged incident and the jury will disregard any reference thereto.

Go on then, name me a legal system in which if you are attacked by a random peer, you are not allowed to defend yourself. I take your challenge.
 
Go on then, name me a legal system in which if you are attacked by a random peer, you are not allowed to defend yourself. I take your challenge.

It is a Cardinal Rule in gaming that one doesn't apply real world examples to what happens in a video game. E|D is set in a fictional (this point is most important) future, dystopia. If you can name me any country in the world that will attempt to kill you for a parking infraction, or loitering I will take your point. Otherwise, we are talking about the systems involved in this particular dystopia where you need the local authorities permission to defend yourself. By turning RC off, you give up the option, not a "Right", (We don't have guaranteed rights in E|D) to defend yourself.
 
Last edited:
Go on then, name me a legal system in which if you are attacked by a random peer, you are not allowed to defend yourself. I take your challenge.

I think going down the Real Life examples is getting out of hand, but let's humour this for a moment.

Let's assume for a moment that the ED universe is based on English & Welsh Law.

Looking at the UK's Crown Prosecution Service web site specifically dealing with self-defence...

Public Interest

Self-defence, being an absolute defence, is a matter of evidence and is not in itself a public interest consideration.

In many cases in which self-defence is raised, there will be no special public interest factors beyond those that fall to be considered in every case. However, in some cases, there will be public interest factors which arise only in cases involving self-defence or the prevention of crime.

These may include:

Degree of excessive force: if the degree of force used is not very far beyond the threshold of what is reasonable, a prosecution may not be needed in the public interest.

Final consequences of the action taken: where the degree of force used in self-defence or in the prevention of crime is assessed as being excessive, and results in death or serious injury, it will be only in very rare circumstances indeed that a prosecution will not be needed in the public interest. Minor or superficial injuries may be a factor weighing against prosecution.

The way in which force was applied: this may be an important public interest factor, as well as being relevant to the reasonableness of the force used. If a dangerous weapon, such as firearm, was used by the accused this may tip the balance in favour of prosecution.

Premeditated violence: the extent to which the accused found themselves unexpectedly confronted by a violent situation, as opposed to having planned and armed themselves in the expectation of a violent situation.

In Nightshady's case. He perceives himself as defending himself against two attackers.

According to England & Welsh Law, seeing as Nightshady stayed around to 'defend' himself against those two attackers, by shooting back at them, the Law would see him as using Excessive Force.

Nightshady could have decided the best form of defense was retreat.

The police would have arrived at the scene, spotted the wreckage of two ships, and Nightshady would have been sent to the court for trial for murder. With a very high likelihood of being sent to Sing Sing for the excessive use of force involved in the killing of his two attackers.

See, this is why going down the route you are going, isn't doing you any favours, foxy.

Ultimately, ED is set in a Dystopian, harsh, nay Dangerous and unfair universe. Cops here are Inspector, Judge, Jury, and Executioner all wrapped up in one package. There are no trials, and in a game of this nature there can't be any trials.

At the same time, different star systems have degrees of Law Enforcement, varying from none in Anarchies, to Low, Medium, and High Security. For these security ratings to have any kind of meaning, players can't just bypass the inconveniant Cop part of a justice system in ED just because they want to defend themselves unaided.
 
Last edited:
In my country, and I mean really, if you see someone walking outside your house carrying your laptop and is using your keys to start your car to leave, and you try to stop him and hit him in the head, you are accused of assault. Sick world we are living in, atleast report crimes function in ED follows certain logic...
 
Person starts shooting a gun in a populated area. Cops respond and tell the man to put the gun down. Man refuses. After many hours of negotiations, the police decide to use force. The man does not have the right to shoot the cops in self defense.

In this universe, anyone can respond to a crime and mete out justice on you if you have a bounty. in a weird sort of way, anyone can be "the cops". If they are administering justice, you do not have the RIGHT to shoot back in self defense. You have that option, but it's reasonable that "assaulting an officer of the law" is then added to your list of crimes.

IMO the flaw is that there is only one way to administer justice, and that is death penalty. It's not like a player bounty hunter can detain you and throw you in jail or bring you in for questioning.

More or less, that's what happens, or will more closely match that when 3.0 releases. You will remember, I don't know when last you loss a ship, that your Commander doesn't die, he is whisked off to the last place she/he docked. In 3.0 criminals caught out, will have to go to a detention center, and pay their dues.

And, a key point to make here is; In order to become that agent of law enforcement you mention, we need to gain direct permission from a the local authorities to act on their behalf. You scan a ship, and wait for the handshake that resolves the target's I.D. along with their legal status. If the local authorities (mind you we are not considering KWS's here) return a result of "Wanted", we are granted permission to act as their agent. This is the reality of how we operate, and this is the filter one has to use to understand how to navigate the E|D legal system.
 
Person starts shooting a gun in a populated area. Cops respond and tell the man to put the gun down. Man refuses. After many hours of negotiations, the police decide to use force. The man does not have the right to shoot the cops in self defense.

In this universe, anyone can respond to a crime and mete out justice on you if you have a bounty. in a weird sort of way, anyone can be "the cops". If they are administering justice, you do not have the RIGHT to shoot back in self defense. You have that option, but it's reasonable that "assaulting an officer of the law" is then added to your list of crimes.

IMO the flaw is that there is only one way to administer justice, and that is death penalty. It's not like a player bounty hunter can detain you and throw you in jail or bring you in for questioning.
I got the impression that the OP was clean, so that comparison doesn't work. After all shooting a ship with a bounty isn't a crime anyway whether report crimes is turned on or not.
 
This is getting so much nowhere I no longer feel the point of discussing this ridiculous matter.
Not that I no longer consider it discussion-worthy, but because - ultimately - this game is such a mess that one more broken system doesn't make any difference.

See, if this game was "dangerous", then once you lost your ship, you'd be done. It's gone. Want it back? Buy a new one.
If this game was "dangerous", people wouldn't be dying 20 times a day, griefing on weak players etc. Because each time they died, they would lose everything.
Similarly, if this game wasn't a mess, there wouldn't be a condition under which you can fire upon clean player without consequences.
And if this game wasn't a mess, you wouldn't have lore-contradicting systems that mess up lore-contributing systems.

But I'll be honest, this debate is not worth the time anymore. People should be working together towards helping Frontier getting the game better and better, instead of tirelessly trying to prove wrong one another and for what? For the sense of being right? For the sense of "my right is more righter than your right"?

I'm guilty as charged of participating, and I see it brings nothing positive to the table so I'm backing off.
Care to join me?
 
Last edited:
This is getting so much nowhere I no longer feel the point of discussing this ridiculous matter.
Not that I no longer consider it discussion-worthy, but because - ultimately - this game is such a mess that one more broken system doesn't make any difference.

See, if this game was "dangerous", then once you lost your ship, you'd be done. It's gone. Want it back? Buy a new one.
If this game was "dangerous", people wouldn't be dying 20 times a day, griefing on weak players etc. Because each time they died, they would lose everything.
Similarly, if this game wasn't a mess, there wouldn't be a condition under which you can fire upon clean player without consequences.
And if this game wasn't a mess, you wouldn't have lore-contradicting systems that mess up lore-contributing systems.

But I'll be honest, this debate is not worth the time anymore. People should be working together towards helping Frontier getting the game better and better, instead of tirelessly trying to prove wrong one another and for what? For the sense of being right? For the sense of "my right is more righter than your right"?

I'm guilty as charged of participating, and I see it brings nothing positive to the table so I'm backing off.
Care to join me?

I get it. A Withdrawl with honor.....
 
Oh trust me, honor is not on the stake here. Well, not primarily anyway.
It's just futile and completely pointless because at the end of the day, no matter who's right or wrong, this game:
1) has so many other issues;
2) we're not even certain Frontier even acknowledges there's a problem;
3) there are so many other time-worthy things to do, and they also induce positive feelings at the same time.

Why would anyone willingly subjugate himself/herself to such negativity for lengthy amount of time... I don't know.
I'm going back to AC: Origins, which sits patiently in the background waiting for me to finish reading/writing.
It also has flaws, but I love the Egyptian setting. Maybe one day I can visit Valley of the Kings in person, until then - I can have a virtual go at it.
 
Last edited:
Genar, you are absolutely wrong in the eyes of the law in great Britain.

I'll let Ralph King, detective inspector at Cambridge constabulary explain in simple terms on Quora, what the uk self defences law states, in response to someone asking about self defense laws in the uk...

What's so tyranical about not wanting to give legal protection to someone to hurt another?
The law is very clear, you can use reasonable force to defend yourself, or your property, or another.
What it doesn't let you do is 'tool up' beforehand or inflict a good dose of summary justice on another.

What's so hard to understand about that?
 
Last edited:
Oh trust me, honor is not on the stake here. Well, not primarily anyway.
It's just futile and completely pointless because at the end of the day, no matter who's right or wrong, this game:
1) has so many other issues;
2) we're not even certain Frontier even acknowledges there's a problem;
3) there are so many other time-worthy things to do, and they also induce positive feelings at the same time.

Why would anyone willingly subjugate himself/herself to such negativity for lengthy amount of time... I don't know.
I'm going back to AC: Origins, which sits patiently in the background waiting for me to finish reading/writing.
It also has flaws, but I love the Egyptian setting. Maybe one day I can visit Valley of the Kings in person, until then - I can have a virtual go at it.

Funny, I like the game. Once you understand the mechanics involved, making your way around is quite enjoyable.
 
Genar, you are absolutely wrong in the eyes of the law in great Britain.

I'll let Ralph King, detective inspector at Cambridge constabulary explain in simple terms on Quora, what the uk self defences law states, in response to someone asking about self defense laws in the uk...

The key point is reasonable force. If you can escape you should, if you cannot run you can use enough to stop the attack (ie make them run). The OP could have run (there was nothing to stay and defend other than his/her own ship).
 
Oh and also, this...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=uk+self+defense+laws

The key point is reasonable force. If you can escape you should, if you cannot run you can use enough to stop the attack (ie make them run). The OP could have run (there was nothing to stay and defend other than his/her own ship).

Nope, there is nothing in the law that says escape is preferred to self defense, he completely made that up. On the contrary, see link above.
 
Oh and also, this...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=uk+self+defense+laws



Nope, there is nothing in the law that says escape is preferred to self defense, he completely made that up. On the contrary, see link above.

"In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment."

Well, what I saw was, in the first sentence, that one can only use Reasonable force. Which means you can't use a gun, to protect yourself from fists.

If you look at a more formal description of English law on the matter (as supplied earlier by Genar) you will see, below, that there is very close scrutiny on what level of force is used. Nit-picking about a specific mention of retreat is really an attempt to deflect the point being made. Self Defense is not an open and shut case in real life.

Public Interest

Self-defence, being an absolute defence, is a matter of evidence and is not in itself a public interest consideration.

In many cases in which self-defence is raised, there will be no special public interest factors beyond those that fall to be considered in every case. However, in some cases, there will be public interest factors which arise only in cases involving self-defence or the prevention of crime.

These may include:

Degree of excessive force: if the degree of force used is not very far beyond the threshold of what is reasonable, a prosecution may not be needed in the public interest.

Final consequences of the action taken: where the degree of force used in self-defence or in the prevention of crime is assessed as being excessive, and results in death or serious injury, it will be only in very rare circumstances indeed that a prosecution will not be needed in the public interest. Minor or superficial injuries may be a factor weighing against prosecution.

The way in which force was applied: this may be an important public interest factor, as well as being relevant to the reasonableness of the force used. If a dangerous weapon, such as firearm, was used by the accused this may tip the balance in favour of prosecution.

Premeditated violence: the extent to which the accused found themselves unexpectedly confronted by a violent situation, as opposed to having planned and armed themselves in the expectation of a violent situation.

In the end, none of this matters, because all we care about here, is the legal system within E|D. In that legal system you need the local authorities permission to defend yourself.
 
Genar, you are absolutely wrong in the eyes of the law in great Britain.

I'll let Ralph King, detective inspector at Cambridge constabulary explain in simple terms on Quora, what the uk self defences law states, in response to someone asking about self defense laws in the uk...

It's a decent quote, but doesn't take into consideration proof. Also, using physical defense is only applicable if other options are not available. ie can you remove yourself from danger. The use of force is a last resort.
 
"In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment."

Well, what I saw was, in the first sentence, that one can only use Reasonable force. Which means you can't use a gun, to protect yourself from fists.

If you look at a more formal description of English law on the matter (as supplied earlier by Genar) you will see, below, that there is very close scrutiny on what level of force is used. Nit-picking about a specific mention of retreat is really an attempt to deflect the point being made. Self Defense is not an open and shut case in real life.

Public Interest

Self-defence, being an absolute defence, is a matter of evidence and is not in itself a public interest consideration.

In many cases in which self-defence is raised, there will be no special public interest factors beyond those that fall to be considered in every case. However, in some cases, there will be public interest factors which arise only in cases involving self-defence or the prevention of crime.

These may include:

Degree of excessive force: if the degree of force used is not very far beyond the threshold of what is reasonable, a prosecution may not be needed in the public interest.

Final consequences of the action taken: where the degree of force used in self-defence or in the prevention of crime is assessed as being excessive, and results in death or serious injury, it will be only in very rare circumstances indeed that a prosecution will not be needed in the public interest. Minor or superficial injuries may be a factor weighing against prosecution.

The way in which force was applied: this may be an important public interest factor, as well as being relevant to the reasonableness of the force used. If a dangerous weapon, such as firearm, was used by the accused this may tip the balance in favour of prosecution.

Premeditated violence: the extent to which the accused found themselves unexpectedly confronted by a violent situation, as opposed to having planned and armed themselves in the expectation of a violent situation.

In the end, none of this matters, because all we care about here, is the legal system within E|D. In that legal system you need the local authorities permission to defend yourself.

Why are we talking about the level of force? WE're talking about attempted murder, always, there are no degrees in elite to worry about. Anything about the amount of force is completely irrelevant, they were using laser weapons to try to kill him, in ANY view of ANY law, retaliation with the same laser weapons is reasonable response, especially with odds 2 to 1 against. How can you not see how irrelevant the level of force is? Everyonen has a basic right to reasonable self defense, there's nothing unreasonable in the OP in terms of the force employed, so please can we move on to something that actually matters? Like logic, insanity and fun?

It's a decent quote, but doesn't take into consideration proof. Also, using physical defense is only applicable if other options are not available. ie can you remove yourself from danger. The use of force is a last resort.

There's no need for proof in a video game, though. The game engine can be altered to determine who attacked who, this is again accurate, but not relevant to the actual situation I feel.

For those who think there's a lega;l thing here, onyl have to ask yourself two questions.

1) Is it right that anyone has a right to defend themselves from attack, and if you cite uk law, also their property and another person? Agreed? Good. Then, 2) was the response reasonable int he case desribed in the OP, a response to an attempted murder with the same weapons and method being used in attack, with adds against at 2 to 1? Would he not have actually still been within his rights to use even MORE powerful weapons, IF he had them, due to the numbers disadvantage? IF you answer no tot hat, then you're kidding yourself.

And there ends any kind of 'legal' challenge to self defense of the kind 'perpetrated' by the op.
 
Last edited:
Why are we talking about the level of force? WE're talking about attempted murder, always, there are no degrees in elite to worry about. Anything about the amount of force is completely irrelevant, they were using laser weapons to try to kill him, in ANY view of ANY law, that is reasonable response, especially with odds 2 to 1 against. How can you not see how irrelevant the level of force is? Everyonen has a basic right to reasonable self defense, there's nothing unreasonable in the OP in terms of the force employed, so please can we move on to something that actually matters? Like logic, insanity and fun?

Because we are really talking about a video game's mechanics. To take advantage of Self Defense, under real life law, you need proof. You need that proof in E|D as well. The proof accepted by the local authorities only comes from your ship's computer. When you tell the computer not to report crimes against you, you have no proof to offer. Without that proof, the local authorities won't give you the required permission to defend yourself. Simples.

P.S. Above, you are talking about adding, or altering a current feature to reach a desired result. That is perfectly fine. But, claiming that C&P is broken, because you can't misuse a feature is an entirely different matter.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom