Answered Self defense

Self defense for killing a Detective as an innocent or T buddy as a Traitor has a clause that requires the current player to be in "immediate danger" to be able to constitute self-defense and kill the detective or t buddy. There were many previous threads regarding this very situation and it's been established that this varies widely from situation to situation and there isn't a specific criteria- the staff just know when something is or isn't. This time, I'd like to get a clearer picture about this variable situation as if I'm a new staff. After all, I just have to know whether something is or isn't imminent danger and right now I have no clue what self-defense even is beyond what's stated in the Extended Rules by @Opalium .

To start, I'd like for the answer to:

1. Explain to me as if I'm @ekksdee , a Trial Moderator just picked up yesterday, how I'm supposed to evaluate if something constitutes imminent danger or not.
2. Give verdicts on the cases in this question, and explain why each situation is or isn't imminent danger.
3. If one of the verdicts differ from the rest, explain why it's different and the cause behind each verdict itself.
4. For better fulfilling my aim, give a small explanation on how a similar situation COULD have the opposite verdict.
5. Answer each point individually to allow a slow reader reader such as myself to be able to clearly understand what sentence is addressing what.

​

Through this question, I aim to:

1. Gain a better understanding on how and why one is in imminent danger.
2. As if I'm @ekksdee again, gain enough understanding about this situation by reading this to be able to allow @Yuuki to be assured that I know enough about imminent danger to be promoted to a Moderator position assuming the rest of the duties as a Moderator have been met.
3. Spot the differences between similar scenarios and decipher whether it is self-defense or not.

​

Situations:

1. A Traitor buddy shot me once right in front of me with an AK 47, but stopped for 2 seconds. Since he or I haven't moved, I shoot him after the 2 seconds, killing him.
2. A Traitor buddy has shot me with a Double Barrel, and is waiting for the gun to load the next to bullets. In the time between the loading, I shoot and kill the T buddy.
3. A Traitor buddy has me with an MP7 3 times from behind my back, but when I turn and aim at him, he's reloading his MP7. I take this time to kill him.
4. A detective has thrown an incendiary in the spot I'm standing in, and is standing among a crowd 1.5 seconds away from me. He or the crowd isn't in fire. I walk out of the fire to get a clear shot in the detective, and kill him after the 1.5 seconds.
5. My detective buddy has planted a C4, but as a detective, I have a defuse kit or have the ability to buy one and defuse the bomb. However, I instead kill my detective buddy to get the wire # and defuse the C4.
6. I'm on the popular map Life of the Roof standing on the edge like a normal innocent, and a Detective comes up to be with his Riot Shield and pushes towards the edge, just enough to not die. I walk closer to the concrete again, and the detective walks a little back, which takes about 2.6 seconds. Watching that I'm again on the edge, charges at me with his riot shield once again. I take this time that he's charging at me to kill the detective for pushing me towards the edge the first time around, effective about 2.6 seconds after I was initially put in danger.

​

To better fulfill the aim I have set to the question, I'd like to be allowed to provide pictures and further clarification regarding each scenario should any of them be too vague to be evaluated before the question is locked or marked answered. After all, I'm not interested in what is or isn't at a staff member's discretion, but because I AM the staff, know more about self defense.

 

My views and take at the rules may be a little outdated compared to today, but I will still give my input on the situations, even if they may be incorrect now. I play very conservatively, and don't easily kill people for petty things.

I'll refer to the person being shot as you. This is something that has been a constant topic of debate: "It was within x amount of seconds, so it's within the rules." There is simply no way to define a "moment" in a way that everyone will agree upon. Some staff members may still view this as being in imminent danger. Some may not. You have to think of these situations as a "what would you do, as a staff member with good intentions" kind of way. If he shot you once and then 2 seconds pass, would you consider yourself in imminent danger? Does this player have a history of randomly shooting traitor buddies? Is his karma low? Does this player have a history of being toxic or has a negative way of playing TTT? Alternatively, is this a well known player? Is this a staff member, maybe? If you move immediately, does he trace you with his gun? Was his intent to kill you, or did he just shoot you in the foot? You have to take these all into consideration when determining your level of danger. In the end that player will probably be slain for RDM, either way.

I would definitely define this as being in imminent danger. The double barrel is incredibly powerful, and shooting someone, anyone, with it displays your intent to kill. Take into consideration the questions above, such as if he is still tracing you while reloading, and optionally blow him away.

This one is similar to the AK-47 case. A few more things to consider here: How many people are around? Did he clearly intend to shoot you or is there someone behind you? (crossfire) Or, were you alone and he began shooting you, seemingly at random? Is he taking aggressive maneuvers to possibly avoid your return fire? Reading situations is a skill that you will pick up the more you play TTT. It all comes down to reading their intentions.

These are pretty good example cases, I will give you that. I play extremely conservatively, meaning it takes a lot for me to kill someone who I know isn't a traitor. This case is a little different from the others, because the source of danger switches from the detective to the incendiary grenade. People putting you in imminent danger now would be those blocking you from leaving the fire by, for example, blocking a doorway. I wouldn't kill the detective unless he is the one preventing me from leaving the fire. I would still report him afterwards, though, if I took damage from the fire.

I don't believe I've ever been in this situation before. This case alone could go with some official clarification. Should you be forced to spend credits on a defuser because a DETECTIVE planted a C4? I will let the current staff team decide on this, as there isn't really any rule clarifying this case.

Leave time out of it. I hope I've put my viewpoint into cases like this into your mind via the previous examples. He pushed you towards a ledge, which is traitorous. He now intends on doing it again. My life is in danger if I don't remove the fact that I'm about to possibly be pushed off the ledge. If he didn't want to be killed, he shouldn't have acted in that manner.

I've noticed a lot of Q&As being posted regarding situations that are largely defined by context. These are very hard to nail down unless you force your player base to think in a certain way. The best way to prevent these situations from arising is by playing by example. Don't be the person who kills everyone for petty things. Players look up to staff members. If you show a negative way of playing, people will follow that way just to be closer to you. Getting people to play with a positive mindset is something that can be achieved either by removing those who play negatively, or by removing the ability to play negatively, both of with are more or less morally impossible. My answers here may be wrong, and my way of thinking may be wrong these days, but I welcome the open discussion of these cases and look forward to seeing how others view them.

~Verified

 

Helix answered this in one of my previous Q&A posts.

 

Why is this one a thing then? My biggest problem is that I cannot kill a detective who is shooting 1 hit(headshot) kill guns next to my head theres nothing I can do yet when they plant a 45+ second C4 I can kill them even though they can defuse it themselves.
Its also contradictory to detective jihading, I cant kill him even though im in immediate danger but the excuse is that detective may drop the jihad.

You can remove this post if its too far from OP as I dont answer any questions but Im asking for clarification.

 

1. A Traitor buddy shot me once right in front of me with an AK 47, but stopped for 2 seconds. Since he or I haven't moved, I shoot him after the 2 seconds, killing him.
Answer : Subjective to the mod handling the case. 2 seconds isn't much time but at the same time is enough time to react, depends on the person. Would be considered a toxic act regardless.

2. A Traitor buddy has shot me with a Double Barrel, and is waiting for the gun to load the next to bullets. In the time between the loading, I shoot and kill the T buddy.
Answer : Valid self defense. The time to reload is quite a bit for that specific gun. What's surprising is that you didn't die.

3. A Traitor buddy has me with an MP7 3 times from behind my back, but when I turn and aim at him, he's reloading his MP7. I take this time to kill him.
Answer : Once again, valid self defense. Reloading can mean one out of two things; either they're gonna kill you and finish the job or just reloading the gun itself. Wouldn't want to take a chance with the first option.

4. A detective has thrown an incendiary in the spot I'm standing in, and is standing among a crowd 1.5 seconds away from me. He or the crow isn't in fire. I walk out of the fire to get a clear shot in the detective, and kill him after the 1.5 seconds.
Answer : I'd say RDM. He didn't make any further attempt to kill you besides that.

5. My detective buddy has planted a C4, but as a detective, I have a defuse kit or have the ability to buy one and defuse the bomb. However, I instead kill my detective buddy to get the wire # and defuse the C4.
Answer : Valid self defense. Activating a C4 means multiple people's lives are in danger.

6. I'm on the popular map Life of the Roof standing on the edge like a normal innocent, and a Detective comes up to be with his Riot Shield and pushes towards the edge, just enough to not die. I walk closer to the concrete again, and the detective walks a little back, which takes about 2.6 seconds. Watching that I'm again on the edge, charges at me with his riot shield once again. I take this time that he's charging at me to kill the detective for pushing me towards the edge the first time around, effective about 2.6 seconds after I was initially put in danger.
Answer : RDM. Should've killed earlier for it to be valid.

I posted this earlier but noticed a typo.

 

I wholly understand that there isn't a strict time limit. However, there is clearly a time limit somewhere. If I kill my T buddy for shooting me 5 minutes earlier in the round, it is RDM since I was no longer in imminent danger. You cannot say in this situation that time is not part of the evaluation at all. Through the answer to my previous post, I'd like to better understand how a situation is evaluated, and allow other players to gain a better insight into what an admin or a staff member thinks when they evaluate these types of situation. The point of answering this through the eye that I'm a staff member is to allow the text to be better geared towards explaining the 6 situations I outlined above, rather than catering to answer a general situation, to which I know staff members have discretion. I'm making this thread to gain how you would teach a staff this discretion. As the median staff member only stays here 61 days, there must be some sort of way they are taught how to evaluate these situations since as Han Solo pointed out,

If staff know about this, and we assume that telepathy doesn't exist, a new staff member must be taught to evaluate this every 61 days or so and I'm interested in joining this conversation. I know answering each of the details will take long, so I deeply thank whoever answers this.

EDIT: This was in reference to @POP STAR 's answer, which was made public before anyone else's was.

 

Han is correct staff are just expected to recognize it, but it's also something that develops for staff over time as they get exposed to different immediate danger situations. There isn't really a requirement for our mods to understand these more complex intertwining rules the moment they are promoted because they are always encouraged to ask questions to their fellow staff members should they ever not be certain about how to handle a situation. Even as admins and leads we confer with our peers about weird situations that we don't have certainty about as it's one of the best ways to ensure that the choices that we make aren't just what I see as fair, but what a lot of people see as fair.

As there was a section of Verified's response that doesn't have an answer I figure that I will go ahead and provide my stance here. I want to state that I almost entirely agree with what he wrote above since it really nicely sums up the situations and what I would have responded with for each situation.

5. My detective buddy has planted a C4, but as a detective, I have a defuse kit or have the ability to buy one and defuse the bomb. However, I instead kill my detective buddy to get the wire # and defuse the C4.

This is a pretty tricky situation, since it itself is situational. If the detective thought that it was too timely to buy the C4 and risk getting shot/exploded while standing still and instead decided to do the arguably faster action of killing the other detective, I wouldn't slay for it since they had a logical reason to make the kill. On the other hand, if the detective was saying things about having a diffuser before or immediately after the kill or was gloating about how they got away with killing that detective, I'd say he entirely RDM'ed simply because he had another path he could have taken that he also knew about. This whole situation becomes a word vs. word situation really quickly, and unless it's pretty clearly someone who is just killing for the sake of killing I would ultimately end up stating that this is not RDM.