How close to criminal negligence are we

[Lohman446]

I see it as a rights issue. You want to step on an individuals rights to have something? Allow people to make up their minds if they want something or not. And allow them to use said something with respect. What do you think is more dangerious a paintball marker or say a .308 rifle? Here in Wisconsin at age 14 one can after successfully passing Hunter Ed carry that rifle in the woods without adult supervision. It is a huge responsabilty! It is my job to train are young people proper safety and to fail thoughs who aren't ready. Maybe instead of taking something away for everyone maybe there should be some sort of safety course set up to use these markers.

But you do not have the right to be criminally negligent. What I am saying is that when the tragedy occurs a court is going to find someone criminally negligent under current laws.

[SlartyBartFast]

I see it as a rights issue. ... Maybe instead of taking something away for everyone maybe there should be some sort of safety course set up to use these markers.

But if a group or individual fails to effectively live up to their responsibilities, it is within society's right to limit the group's or individual's rights. ( the rights of others come bofore individual rights.)

Yes, there probably should be safety courses for paintball players. That is EXACTLY the kind of thing we're talking about here.

Personally, I'd think personal training is a waste of effort until the industry has training and enforcement for events, refs, and fields.

[REDRT]

Negligence does not require intent.

To be criminaly negligent you would have first have knowen that your actions could have caused such an outcome. Most for the kids on the field have got a clue as what could happen, but why spoil it for everyone? Proper training is a good step. Has anyone ever trained you on paintball safety? What not to do? Other than keep your mask on and use a barrel plug. Come on really. The only negligence I see is the lack of training in a serious game where there is potential to be accidents.

[Lohman446]

To be criminaly negligent you would have first have knowen that your actions could have caused such an outcome. Most for the kids on the field have got a clue as what could happen, but why spoil it for everyone? Proper training is a good step. Has anyone ever trained you on paintball safety? What not to do? Other than keep your mask on and use a barrel plug. Come on really. The only negligence I see is the lack of training in a serious game where there is potential to be accidents.

No, you have to ignore safety standards - ATSM in this case. Ramping / bounce / and markers that fire without touching the trigger are in violation of ATSM safety standards. A reasonable person has to be able to see the outcome - and I think a reasonable non player would find you guilty.

The question would be - should a reasonable person have seen the possible outcome with current information and standards. And because you were outside of ATSM standards I think you would have a very hard time convincing a jury "you didn't know it could happen".

Remember - it is not "you" who has to know the outcome of your actions, it is a "reasonable person" and that is a jury question. I personally think one that someone in paintball is going to get hurt by.

[PBX Ronin 23]

The NEGLIGENCE I see are:

1. A board manufacturer who blatantly makes and sells non-ASTM compliant boards.
2. A board manufacturer who doesn't have product liability insurance for their products.
3. A manufacturer that makes non-ASTM compliant guns.
4. A Field Operator that doesn't abide by their insurance company's and the ASTM on safety issues.
5. A Tournament Promoter/League that doesn't act upon a non-ASTM compliant issue.
6. A Player who replaced his stock board with and uses a non-ASTM compliant board.

Should I go on.....because I can. And I'm not even a lawyer looking to make as much money to compensate my client for their loss and suffering. DO YOU GET THE PICTURE YET?

[Lohman446]

The NEGLIGENCE I see are:

1. A board manufacturer who blatantly makes and sells non-ASTM compliant boards.
2. A board manufacturer who doesn't have product liability insurance for their products.
3. A manufacturer that makes non-ASTM compliant guns.
4. A Field Operator that doesn't abide by their insurance company's and the ASTM on safety issues.
5. A Tournament Promoter/League that doesn't act upon a non-ASTM compliant issue.
6. A Player who replaced his stock board with and uses a non-ASTM compliant board.

Should I go on.....because I can. And I'm not even a lawyer looking to make as much money to compensate my client for their loss and suffering. DO YOU GET THE PICTURE YET?

I would also add
Any player using a stock board that is not in compliance with ATSM standards.

Though I will grant it is the most defendable position of the list I do not think you would escape all charges.

[SlartyBartFast]

To be criminaly negligent you would have first have knowen that your actions could have caused such an outcome. Most for the kids on the field have got a clue as what could happen, but why spoil it for everyone? Proper training is a good step. Has anyone ever trained you on paintball safety? What not to do? Other than keep your mask on and use a barrel plug. Come on really. The only negligence I see is the lack of training in a serious game where there is potential to be accidents.

[SlartyBartFast]

Remember - it is not "you" who has to know the outcome of your actions, it is a "reasonable person" and that is a jury question.

You beat me to it.

That's one of the tenets of Tort law that all those that oppose the current sytem fail to provide a decent substitute for.

The only injustice in all the various cases is that it costs so much to determine what the "reasonable person" standard is and to have a case tried or thrown out on those grounds.

Then there's the unfortunate stupidity of the twelve people who have to make an intelligent decision after essentially being the first twelve to be too stupid to avoid jury duty.

[REDRT]

Do you think a million dollar law suit is going to stop them? Problably not. It is all about the money bottom line. Big business can make more money making thing that a majority wants than limiting products that a smaller group wants. As with AGD and the e-markers. If something were to happen they would settle out of court and business goes on as usual. The use of scare tactics and propaganda isn't going to change anything! A reasonable approach would be creditable evidents on why they have to change and not just speculation.

[Lohman446]

Do you think a million dollar law suit is going to stop them? Problably not. It is all about the money bottom line. Big business can make more money making thing that a majority wants than limiting products that a smaller group wants. As with AGD and the e-markers. If something were to happen they would settle out of court and business goes on as usual. The use of scare tactics and propaganda isn't going to change anything! A reasonable approach would be creditable evidents on why they have to change and not just speculation.

My crictical evaluation of the situation is someone is GOING TO GO TO JAIL over criminal negligence - this is not a settle out of court, pay some money, walk away situation. Show me where I am wrong if I am.

The reason being that when someone is killed, and we are in violation of ATSM standards we are in fact criminally negligent - in my opinion.

[REDRT]

I say self police the industry, before big brother steps in.

But sounds more like a dictatorship.

[REDRT]

My crictical evaluation of the situation is someone is GOING TO GO TO JAIL over criminal negligence - this is not a settle out of court, pay some money, walk away situation. Show me where I am wrong if I am.

The reason being that when someone is killed, and we are in violation of ATSM standards we are in fact criminally negligent - in my opinion.

Your speculating someone is going to get killed, when in fact it hasn't been an issue.

[Lohman446]

Your speculating someone is going to get killed, when in fact it hasn't been an issue.

Ahhh... good answer - do you beleive that it will never be an issue?

[Lohman446]

But sounds more like a dictatorship.

How - I never said what form that regulatory body should take - in fact I think the industry has the most to loose by not making it, and a good stance to be able to make it. I never indicated that one person shold do it, nor did I say how that body should be formed.

[PBX Ronin 23]

Your speculating someone is going to get killed, when in fact it hasn't been an issue.

So if we were to follow your logic, someone has to die first before it justifies taking action?

Apparently, after reading enough of the responses to your post that regardless of how reasonable and logical the argument against your position, you just will not waver. I'm already am at a loss for words. Good luck and godspeed.