Mogs

"I can provide purchase documents of the vehicle if that is sufficient. Aside from that, you can see in the evidence provided in exhibit 3 that the vehicle is parked in the TED garage, in the HSIU section. Vehicles in the garage are to be presumed for use for TED members with appropriate certifications unless stated otherwise. Everything else relating was verbal communications between myself, Vincent Bishop and Zachary Wilson." (( @Urshankov @Zebulon ))

*Eileen Woodvine enters, sitting at the witness stand once more.* (( @Zebulon ))

"The dashcam provided doesn't show any reckless driving or excessive force, so no I do not believe that the policies were broken at that time. Furthermore, it doesn't seem as though any person was injured during this pursuit, and there was no sign of visual damage when the vehicle was moved out of the fleet." (( @Restrepo ))

"The vehicle was approved for use at that time, yes. I recall informing you on the day, which was April 27th, that you were able to use the vehicle. The vehicle then subsequently joined the HSIU fleet, before being removed shortly after." (( @Restrepo ))

"No, it is not. However, an officer still has a job to do. A ride-along shouldn't prevent an officer from doing anything they would otherwise do on a standard Lincoln patrol." (( @Zebulon ))

Imports will carry on as usual mates : )

"Vehicle pursuits are often unpredictable and therefore can cause issues. However if an officer becomes overly aggressive in pursuits then internal punishment will follow, and that's how it's been done in the past. If officers stick to the policies and follow the procedures then they shouldn't become overly aggressive, and shouldn't take unnecessary risk. However, it ultimately falls under the officer's decision at the time as decisions in pursuits, such as whether to continue or not to continue for example, is at the officer's discretion. To answer your question, not necessarily. If officers did everything according to the document, then there shouldn't be any major issues." @Zebulon

L&A

Majority of large farms are used for family RPers. The large farms up in the hill have inactivity protection on them all the time, meaning that players cannot make use of that particular plot. I know that cliff town had interest in one property for farming and such and tried to go about getting the property ICly, but the player never logged on and it still has activity protection till this day. Properties such as that should be realistic, and shouldn't be used for private pools and such. Not many people have gone into agriculture RP though and typically give up. However there is a niche who do want to do it, but cannot due to these ints being hoarded. Certain large farms however, to keep with immersion, could perhaps be monitored and controlled by FT to ensure that only players who wish to RP that sort of thing can make use of it.

Archiving as the property was force-sold.

"The main goal of the pursuit policies was to iron out all the problems we had at the time. We had a lot of damages reported on our vehicles as a result of aggressive ramming. We had a vehicle completely destroyed as a result of an officer driving it on train tracks. Furthermore, we had an abundance of unmarked units taking part, and taking lead in pursuits. Our policies in regards to pursuits prior to this document were broad and lacked detail and instruction. I felt, at the time, that detailed policies and procedures needed to be put in place to avoid reports about officers becoming overly aggressive and eager in pursuits." @Zebulon

**Eileen Woodvine stands up, stepping up to the witness stand**

Name: Bryn Comment: I hope that there's going to be some compensation for those affected by this.

exposed yourself