cp702

This topic has been moved to the appropriate forum. Please post in the correct location in the future.

Funny story: I just decided to do a patrol as Michael in his beta LSPD uniform, and came across one of these events. I arrested the robber, and took him to the station, and it all worked pretty well, except that the guy kept saying things to the effect of "get away from me," "stop chasing me," etc. when he was in the cruiser on the way to jail.

No. It's unconstitutional for the states to deny marriage on the basis of whether or not the two people involved are of the same sex, for two (linked) reasons. First, it's unconstitutional for states to deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. This doesn't always prohibit treating different people differently (for instance, states are allowed to pass a law that treats convicted criminals differently from non-criminals, or treats the poor differently from the rich), but there has to be a legitimate reason to make a distinction (it's not acceptable to make a distinction for the sole purpose of suppressing a minority), and the needed legitimacy depends on the distinction (in general the threshold is very low, but in some cases it rises above that, such as in gender discrimination and racial discrimination). Second, marriage has been considered a "fundamental right" for some time now (since at least when SCOTUS struck down bans on interracial marriage), and the government cannot infringe a fundamental right without meeting very tough standards under the Due Process clause, as to interfere with liberty without good cause is considered to automatically violate due process of law. (No, you would not think the clause means this. It doesn't stand out on a simple reading of the clause. However, it is the law of the land, well-established in US caselaw.) None of those prohibit allowing gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage means that states are not infringing upon a fundamental right, nor making unjustifiable distinctions between people. In fact, the Constitution has now been held to *require* allowing gay marriage, so I'm not sure how it'd be unconstitutional to allow it. First: "Sure, but there are more important things to do right now than protecting the rights of a minority" was literally an argument used against the civil rights movement. It is an absolutely terrible argument, and is the refuge of those who know discrimination is unjustifiable but don't want to confront that fact. To quote MLK: Second, and this may surprise you, the US government in fact consists of multiple people, and can do more than one thing at a time. Yes, there are other important things (although "protecting the civil rights of minorities" is near the absolute top of the list of "important things for the government to do ASAP"). For instance, it's important to monitor infectious disease. The CDC did not stop everything to deal with gay marriage. It's important to keep airports secure. The TSA did not stop everything to deal with gay marriage. It's important to keep the borders secure, and keep people flowing over them. CBP did not stop everything to deal with gay marriage. It's important to keep military forces at a state of readiness. The DoD did not stop everything to deal with gay marriage. Hell, even the Supreme Court (the only body that actually was directly dealing with this instead of doing the other stuff they could have done) didn't stop everything to deal with gay marriage. On June 26, they issued another decision as well, that one striking down a certain enhanced sentencing provision for habitual offenders (for unconstitutional vagueness). The day before, they issued two other decisions, one on the Affordable Care Act and one on the Fair Housing Act. So, first, we cannot both agree that there are more important things for the Supreme Court to handle than gay marriage; this is exactly the kind of thing that they exist to do (particularly because there was a disagreement between federal appeals courts; absent that there's an argument they should focus on cases where there is a split, because if the appeals courts all agree SCOTUS need not bother. But there was a split, so it became definitely their job). Second, the Supreme Court didn't drop everything to handle gay marriage; it was one case among 75-80 (the typical number of cases per year).

I'm sorry, but very little of what you said about the Confederate flag, the Confederacy, or the Civil War is in any way accurate. The Confederacy seceded for a primary purpose of preserving slavery. This is not a point subject to reasonable debate. I will repeat from the other thread: The actual vice president of the Confederacy, who had some idea what it was about, labeled slavery and subjugation of blacks as the cornerstone of the Confederacy. It contained a line in its actual constitution explicitly protecting slavery, with no end date. It is absolutely legitimate to consider the Confederacy the face of slaver, since that was actually a (if not the) primary point of contention between them and the United States. In fact, their support of slavery was a factor in their loss of the war: Europe had economic reasons to support them, but no European country could justify supporting a nation seceding for the absolutely abhorrent reason of protecting slavery. The Confederate flag is, in fact, a symbol of racism. It has been recognized as this for a very long time; if you didn't know that, you should probably have paid more attention. Confederate flags were not flown at the SC state capitol in the mid-1900s. Quite conveniently, they were added when the civil rights movement was taking off (in 1962), and people were telling Southern states to be less of racist fuckwads. Ever since then, it has been routinely condemned as a symbol of racism, because, to be clear, it was the actual emblem of people who literally fought a war to preserve the right to own human beings based on race. The "heritage" it represents is, in fact, one of extreme racism. Yes, there has been racism under the US flag, but the United States was not in fact established for the purpose of preserving the institution of slavery. The Confederate battle flag was simply not such a big thing until the South clung to it when they couldn't cling to Jim Crow laws as much anymore. As for memorials: It's actually instructive to look at German war memorials in France. It's quite possible to respect the soldiers who died without in any way glorifying their cause. Few people object to respecting people who died in battle. That doesn't mean you pay any tribute at all to their cause, which, again was perpetuating the institution of slavery. Germans who died in WWII are in memorials that don't honor the cause they fought for. I see no reason why a memorial for soldiers who died should necessarily honor their cause.

It would (probably) have been illegal for the federal government to make it illegal through statute, yes. And it would (probably) have been illegal for the feds to make it legal through statute. But states are bound by the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding;" the 14th Amendment is not unconstitutional pretty much by definition. So, the Supreme Court (in its capacity as the final arbiter of the meaning of the United States Constitution, which is not a controversial status) is on pretty firm ground deciding what the Constitution says, and applying the Constitution to the states. Whether a state law violates the Constitution is a case arising under the Constitution, and the Constitution explicitly gives the federal courts jurisdiction over all such cases. Basically, there's no real argument that the Supreme Court should have left this to the states. The actual (somewhat similar) counterargument is that it should have been left to the political process, and courts shouldn't rule on such an issue. This actually is a general rule of thumb for courts, but if the 14th Amendment requires states to allow same-sex couples to marry, that's a legal question instead of a political one. The dissenters argued essentially along that line (this is a matter for the political process), but the majority felt otherwise. But that would apply just as much to federal laws; there's no reason for a federal court to defer to the state on interpretation of federal laws (state laws are a different matter), and if the Constitution bans something then states can't say otherwise.

The Supreme Court appears to think otherwise. In fact, they seem to think that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, which is why they struck down every ban in every state as a violation of the Constitution.

@Break @Mercuri How are you trying to spawn it? The RAGE hook won't autocomplete the name, but it should spawn it if you manually type the name. Did you make sure to add to vehicles.meta and carvariations.meta?

No.

There are no Coast Guard patrol vehicles in GTA V. The marked vehicles are LSPD, LSSD, and park rangers (the bikes are also LSPD, even though they're used by SAHP). To go with realism, California state park rangers have authority throughout the state (they're paid to deal with parks, but can arrest anywhere, and there are also often parks in cities that they'd be paid to handle). CHP have statewide authority also. LASD and LAPD officers have the authority to arrest statewide for offenses committed in their primary jurisdiction, or things done in their presence posing a risk to life or property or a risk of escape. Hot pursuit is allowed; officers don't legally have to hand off their cases as they cross county or city lines. Feds, of course, don't need to worry about internal subdivisions when performing federal duties (although under California law, federal agents actually do have the same authority to enforce California laws as California peace officers do). State prison guards don't have generic statewide authority, but do a job outside the area right around prisons, and have statewide authority to do that job. In no case, then, do any of the peace officer types parodied in V legally have to call local backup; if they do call local backup, it's just per agency policy (since they're not paid to patrol everywhere), but even then I don't think pursuit would be an issue. So, no. I don't think LSPDFR should force you to follow one narrow view of RP, leaving aside both people who want to patrol everywhere and people who RP according to the actual way California law works.

You probably can't. I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect only the front door of the sheriff car is mapped for a decal. Remember: You can't draw arbitrary textures on a Rockstar car, because Rockstar only maps the cars to account for the livery that is in fact being applied.

Also, this seems more like a modding tutorial. Thread moved. @TheF3nt0n: I found that this wasn't quite enough, because the interior stayed untextured. To fix it, you need to tell V to use the vehshare textures. To do that, look at the bottom of vehicles.meta, for things that look like <Item> <parent>vehicles_poltax_interior</parent> <child>police3</child> </Item> Copy the entry for the vehicle you're putting in (in my case I'm adding a second Interceptor, so I copied that), and change <child> to your model name, like so: <Item> <parent>vehicles_poltax_interior</parent> <child>sahp3</child> </Item>

GTA IV's texturing used the exact same system. You could not make a police car black using the texture alone. That's because colors were in the carcols file. What you're mixing up is how *modded* cars did textures (which was incredibly inefficient and system-intensive, but very flexible) with how Rockstar did textures (which only used textures where needed, meaning textures were reserved for visual *elements*, with things like the color of the car handled through a dedicated system that didn't require a huge picture).

You can actually do just about anything with the RAGE console, because it has an "Execute" command that will dynamically compile and run code (and there's a "V" icon in the Windows system tray which makes it easier to write more complex things). So, write a short plugin to give ammo, and execute it with the console. Other than that, no way.

I think it's mostly the "more spacious" aspect. The CHP requirement was that the vehicle had to be able to fit four fully-equipped officers with a full set of gear in the trunk; that's because the CHP needs to deploy officers in large numbers across the state. The payload capacity of the sedan is around 300 lbs. less than that of the SUV.

In the meantime, a "clear area" option (i.e. simply delete peds and cars in the surrounding radius) wouldn't be a bad idea.

This topic has been moved to the appropriate forum. Please post in the correct location in the future.

Sorry, but arguing it doesn't represent treason is just a load of BS. Here's the thing about that flag: It was created as the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. The battle flag, in fact. The flag was literally a standard for an army of US citizens to rally against in battle arrayed against the United States Army. It was, in fact, the very definition of a flag of treason: a flag for the express purpose of rallying people to wage war on the United States. There is no other view on it; it was not created to represent the South. It was a battle flag. Yes, the South stood for something they believed in. Too bad. What they believed in was utterly disgusting and deserved no respect; "stand up for what you believe in" isn't a good thing if what you believe in is that If that is what you believe in, and you stand up for it, you deserve utter condemnation. Roof also stood up for what he believed in; he will likely die for it. No one is suggesting that that is anything even slightly good in this case. Note that that was stated by the vice president of the Confederacy, who arguably had some clue what the Confederacy was on about, to be the "foundations" and "cornerstone" of the Confederacy. To quote him further, Now, there were other contributing factors; for instance, the South had pretty much no industry, and objected quite strongly to laws that seemed to favor industry in the north (for instance, import tariffs on manufactured goods). But to claim that slavery was not among the fundamental causes of the war? That's completely unsupported by any evidence. It's an overreaction to "the war was about slavery and only slavery;" however, the truth isn't "slavery was no factor," but rather "slavery was a significant factor, among other major factors, and the South's insistence on slavery was one of the major reasons they lost the war: it made it impossible for any other country to support them, because slavery was so repulsive to all the countries that would otherwise have loved the South to be independent." Also, it may interest you to know that England abolished slavery in all their African colonies in 1833. The Slavery Abolition Act excluded Saint Helena (in Oceania), the East India Company's territory, and Sri Lanka; it was abolished in East India Company land in 1843.

@K-9 police 9 Not necessarily. There are serious advantages to writing your own hook; it ends up much more tailored to your needs.

I'm not sure this can happen. To say it'd be "inconvenient" to have two separate fora is an understatement, and I'm not sure how licensing costs would change then. We could redirect both domains to the same thing, but splitting forums is something without a whole lot of advantages. If it changes, it'd be more likely to just move wholesale to a new domain with a redirect added. Regardless, I don't see the point in changing it.

FYI, if you *do* have a taser, tasing suspects is fatal. When running after someone, it's better to shoot them and then catch up to them than to tase them, because the latter will kill them.

This topic has been moved to the appropriate forum. Please post in the correct location in the future.

Well, yeah. Unless this becomes an actual paying job for Sam and Jay and LMS, everything is "when it's ready."

It might be nice to use with FiveM. However, making two mods compatible can be a major undertaking, especially if you change it as much as an MP mod does (remember, LCPDFR never actually officially supported MP, and had some pretty big integration issues AFAIK -- for instance, at least in testing, a pursuit didn't work well with two players using the siren; the AI wouldn't pull over for the person who initiated the pursuit because they were running from that player, but they'd pull over for the other player). It's entirely possible it'll work outright with FiveM, but the team isn't likely to devote the large amount of effort needed to get MP to work right, at least not for a while.

OpenIV will prompt you to mod files by copying the RPFs you're changing into a /mods/ directory and making the changes in the copy in /mods/. It comes with an ASI that will force the game to load the versions in /mods/ instead of the normal ones, leaving the normal versions unchanged. The upshot of this is that unless your game loads OpenIV.asi, it will not load the modified stuff. You can keep it from loading OpenIV.asi by moving dinput8.dll from the GTA V directory to somewhere else, and moving it back when you want to play SP again. This also disables *all* script mods; a mod manager is not needed to turn your game into a vanilla game for online play.

Unrelated suggestions go in a new topic. Related suggestions can go here. The one annoying thing for me is that on mobile devices (specifically Chrome on iOS), it takes a full second to load; I'll generally have been scrolling down, when the top of the page collapses. Isn't there some way to do it so that the browser knows to show just one row of images from the start? Maybe set a max height on that section with CSS?