Currently under Marine Law self-defense is subject to a “proportional force” clause that means that if a Marine believes their life is in danger they are required to retaliate with the same level of threat as their opponent. This is explicitly said to be guns only against guns and melee weapons only if your opponent has a melee weapon.
This strikes me as a bit overkill, particularly given that there is already a caveat to self-defence that requires a Marine to escape and alert the MP instead of fighting back if they are able to do so.
If a Marine has legitimate reason to believe that someone is actively trying to kill them and has no way to avoid conflict I see no reason why they should be limited with the level of force they can use provided they are solely acting to keep themselves safe.
Do not attack another player without a legitimate, explainable roleplay reason that could be applied in a similar, real-life scenario. A fist fight does not suddenly escalate into a gun fight. Should one defend themselves from grief or improper escalation, the staff handling the matter decides if a punishment is given out and to who. Staff may also decide to leave things in character. Even if you are justified, you are still susceptible to Marine Law.
Lethal Weapons/Chemicals used as weapons
For example: Inaprovaline Overdoses, Chloral Hydrate, Tramadol/Oxycodone Overdoses
If at any point combat is disengaged and both parties leave the area, you cannot skip escalation and plunge back into a fight. What’s done is done.
There used to be a rule clarification, I believe, where it was stated that you can be permitted to use excessive force to defend yourself if the situation was dangerous enough to warrent the use of extreme force.
An example given was you being struck by someone in melee, normally you could only defend yourself proportionally by using melee, but if you were in critical health, meaning even a single melee hit could knock you into unconsciousness or death, then you could escalate straight to using a firearm as you had reasonable grounds to believe your life was in danger and that you had to use non-proportional force.
I don’t believe this is the case anymore but I do think it used to be
In cases where there is a serious threat to life, such as being punched to the borders of crit, escalation in the linear sense does not apply. The most important part of escalation is appropriate force, this means that you use an appropriate amount of force to the situation. For example:
Being punched twice on full health is not a serious threat to your life. It would not warrant you throwing hell to the wind and blasting away your comrades.
Being punched twice after already being critically injured can be seen as a risk to your life, and you can take appropriate action. This is subject to circumstances however and not a greenlight for any situation.
You’re approaching this from a “stand your ground” doctrine to what force is reasonable. One commonly found in the US. It’s important to note several things:
- the threat must be able to be reasonably perceived as a threat to life. (you covered that)
-the threat must be active (again you covered that)
- the response needs to be appropriate to the threat (here’s where you misstep).
The current verbiage limits it both in rules and law so that you can only respond with likewise force. By removing that you’re making the assumption that it is reasonable to respond with infinite force once a threat is substantial enough. Which isn’t true.
In CM there is no creature that can’t be taken down either: non lethally, or without permaing them.
Removing this cap makes it fine to double PB someone who pointed a pistol at you (justified) and then continue to nail them into the ground with shots until they’re dead (unjustified).
The issue is once they stop being a threat you should stop so yes, force should be limited as a marine in crit is a threat to literally nobody.
I don’t intent for that to be my point as there is already another caveat that states that once a potential threat is no longer able to harm you, you’re required to disengage. I completely agree with this. Other laws already cover the obligation to try to disengage from any lethal fight and call the MPs.
I was mostly just a bit confused why if someone is trying to stab someone to death, it’s inappropriate to use a sidearm to defend myself. I guess that is kind of covered by the law ediblebomb posted though. I admit- I was in a debate about Marine Law too early in the morning and forgot how the rules interacted there.
Shooting is seen as more lethal than stabbing. And in truth you’re right it’s just a restriction of I.E. if you discharged your weapon in self defence it probably shouldn’t be an issue IC. It is an OOC issue though
Hear me out, one stab has an RNG chance of bone break/IB and that can kill me if there is no medic around so a single knife stab is a threat to my life and warrents a magdumping in response. Until admins understand this simple concept I will continue to get IE bans.
Ps. its also LRP to stab someone with a gun and not expect shot.