Great, more morons to ruin the sport. (world cup story)

[Skoad]

So, rummaging through all the facts and rumors this is basically what happened.

Team Psycho Circus (PC)

PC basically accused the ref's of a poor job during their losses down at the World Cup. So what do they do? They devise a plan to instead of playing the last game, they would unload on the refs off the break.

Seems game started and 2 of the PC players just completely laned a couple of the ref's while the other PC players just sat in the deadbox. One of the PC shooters even reloaded with another pod and continued to shoot the refs. Refs and others started to chase the PC players when they ran out of the playing area (into the crowd, on the other side of the nets). PC players then kept shooting at the refs while they were running away on the outside, spectator area.

Eventually they were caught, the 2 players banned for life from PSP and Disney property, and the rest of the team banned for 1 year. Police fined them for trespassing and booted them off the property.

Also it seems this team has a history of pulling retarded stunts like; doing the old run through, whaling on the opposing team even though PC was already dead.

One of the PC players even posted on pbnation defending their actions. Also they had someone video tape the thing so they could get their 5 seconds of pbnation fame, but the video hasn't popped up yet. To make matters worse it seems a bunch of crowd and pbnation kiddies are supporting them for doing this or just brushing it off like no big deal.

more in the thread here: http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=1251186&page=1&pp=21 Iceman91 is one of the PC players.

[Rudz]

ban the idiots from ao, pbn, pbf, and any other pb forum, they deserve to be lined up and shot, jackass style, or more yet, put posters of the idiots at fields nationwide, so every 1 kno how retarted they are

[TheAngryDrunkenRussian]

I'm sry but these guys give the sport a bad name. They shouldn't be banned from the sport but their idea of revenge should be. if they wanted to say their was bad reffing then they should have just boycotted the tourney and warned others before their actions.

"every action you make has its out come good or bad"

adios :cuss:

[neppo1345]

Thats completely unjustifiable....there is no reason to unload on the refs like that...

yeah, they're gonna make bad calls, they're human...but just imagine if every team in professional sports did that...they've been around longer...they're not gonna get rid of the nfl or nba...but they could get rid of the PSP...cause im sure disney doesn;t want to be associated with that image...

it happens every now and then...but not on such an a**anine scale as this...

simply pathetic, these guys are a disgrace to our sport...

[RoadDawg]

I like how people always blame the refs for their failures.

People complain that the refs don't always catch the wiping... but yet how many of those players that complain wipe hits themselves?

Players like this make me glad to not play the tourny market. Simply unbelievable.

[siloseven]

this is why I can't play tourni ball... I woul dhave killed them, not sat around and did nothing not shot my paint back, no joke I would kill then - i might come up on muder 1 or something of the like. but I would be happy taking someone or someones off this planet for that kind of stunt.

secondly, this confermes why I don't go to PBN or anything but AO. AO is the best comunity I have been in and Love the poeple here. Rock ON!!!

:headbang:

[RoadDawg]

this is why I can't play tourni ball... I woul dhave killed them, not sat around and did nothing not shot my paint back, no joke I would kill then - i might come up on muder 1 or something of the like. but I would be happy taking someone or someones off this planet for that kind of stunt.

secondly, this confermes why I don't go to PBN or anything but AO. AO is the best comunity I have been in and Love the poeple here. Rock ON!!!

:headbang:

too bad AO is getting worse by the hour... hmmm the good ol days.

[TheGrindPunk]

Unfortunately the paintball community shot itself in the foot, by changing its appearance and trying to become accepted by the mainstream. The more interest from the mainstream = more marketability, and it's now all business. It's about the money now, not the sport, and that is why you have the same gun coming out every year with a new date stamped on it.
It's sad to say, but expect more of this kind of thing to happen.........

[ZimMonkey]

Once again, I feel dumber for having read something on PBN.

However, I think that it is nescessary for people to get the word out about these guys... Whats to stop them from doing that again? At some local field maybe? Or maybe overshooting a rental-toting frist-timer? Or even overshooting me? (That would be VERY detramental to their health, but still...) It would be nice if we could somehow stop these guys from playing anything but backyard ball... in their own backyard.

[Evil1]

Why would people do something like this? These people who were involved in this stunt are borderline retarded or something. Why would they make a fool of themselves on a national level like this?

[shartley]

I don’t think they got enough. They should have been charged with assault as well.

[siloseven]

I don’t think they got enough. They should have been charged with assault as well.

I have not read it nor seen it, but if I was the officer called, I am thinking - assault with a deadly weapon, assault and battery, endangerment, endangerment to a minor (assuming there are kids there), wreckless endangerment, aggravated assault, possably attempted murder (no one in the stands had protection) and that is just off the top of my head. not to mention all the civil caose that can stem. I am sure I can think of more :wow:

[siloseven]

too bad AO is getting worse by the hour... hmmm the good ol days.

but still, compared to the rest (exept warpig) AO is way better. i gave up on PBN long time ago, it is almost nothing but riff raff and little to nothing was done about it.

[automikey]

I don’t think they got enough. They should have been charged with assault as well.


My adult response:

It looks like a premeditated attack that was intended to cause harm. Not part of the paintball game at all, and therefore even though it occured on a paintball field it should be considered assault (technically battery I think) and prosecuted as if it occured anywhere else.


My childish response:

The paintball community could just police itself by discussing this matter with the offensive team members in a designated forum. Say, in the parking lot after the game...

[phantomhitman]

This is absolutely rediculous. I mean they only got one hopper and a pod at the ref? I thought the tourney players had the cheater boards to roast the r3fxurz!!1 :rolleyes:
Just another group of idiots that all tourney players will get the blame for.

[billmi]

assault with a deadly weapon, assault and battery, endangerment, endangerment to a minor (assuming there are kids there), wreckless endangerment, aggravated assault, possably attempted murder (no one in the stands had protection)...


I shudder to think at the precedents that would be set if anyone was ever charged with crimes like that for shooting a paintball gun at a person who was willingly on a paintball field, and wearing the appropriate protective equipment (i.e. lighting up a ref.)

If that ever happens, it means that shooting another player in a game is the same crime, because they are being shot under the same conditions.

The day that happens, the game of paintball will be criminalized.

Sure, punching someone, is assault, but if shooting them on the field during a game is assualt, we're all in trouble.

[Lohman446]

I shudder to think at the precedents that would be set if anyone was ever charged with crimes like that for shooting a paintball gun at a person who was willingly on a paintball field, and wearing the appropriate protective equipment (i.e. lighting up a ref.)

If that ever happens, it means that shooting another player in a game is the same crime, because they are being shot under the same conditions.

The day that happens, the game of paintball will be criminalized.

Sure, punching someone, is assault, but if shooting them on the field during a game is assualt, we're all in trouble.

Are you 100% certain it isn't?

[Muzikman]

I don’t think they got enough. They should have been charged with assault as well.

Not that I don't trust Skoad, I just want to hear this from someone who was there and that I know I can trust. If this is honestly how it went down, the punishment surely didn't fit the crime.

If it really came down like that, I wouldn't be supprised if someone presses charges.

I also agree, no matter what, getting kicked out of PSP isn't even a slap on the wrist, it was more like a tap on the butt. It doesn't hurt them at all.

As for being bared from Disney property, like that would ever be enforced. I doubt if they tried to go to Disney World that big red lights would start flashing when they went to buy their tickets.

[Muzikman]

Well, here ya go.

deadly weapon n. any weapon which can kill. This includes not only weapons which are intended to do harm like a gun or knife, but also blunt instruments like clubs, baseball bats, monkey wrenches, an automobile or any object which actually causes death. This becomes important when trying to prove criminal charges brought for assault with a deadly weapon. In a few 1990s cases courts have found rocks and even penises of AIDS sufferers as "deadly weapons."

Assult
NOUN:
A violent physical or verbal attack.
An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

Even if you are a willing perticipent in the game, if the persons intent is to hurt you, then it's assult. And I see no reason why a paintball gun would not be a deadly weapon.

If a baseball player went after another player with a baseball bat and beat him with it. I am sure they that player could be charged with assult with a deadly weapon.

I think Intent is the key.

[Lohman446]

Well, here ya go.

deadly weapon n. any weapon which can kill. This includes not only weapons which are intended to do harm like a gun or knife, but also blunt instruments like clubs, baseball bats, monkey wrenches, an automobile or any object which actually causes death. This becomes important when trying to prove criminal charges brought for assault with a deadly weapon. In a few 1990s cases courts have found rocks and even penises of AIDS sufferers as "deadly weapons."

Assult
NOUN:
A violent physical or verbal attack.
An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

Even if you are a willing perticipent in the game, if the persons intent is to hurt you, then it's assult. And I see no reason why a paintball gun would not be a deadly weapon.

If a baseball player went after another player with a baseball bat and beat him with it. I am sure they that player could be charged with assult with a deadly weapon.

I think Intent is the key.

I agree. If a football player (unarmed) intentionally tackles a ref it would be assault. This was not the incidental and accidental contact that happens from playing sports, or the intentional contact between participants. This was an intent, outside of the boundaries of the game, to inflect pain on non-players. The level of assault hinges on the level of pain / injury that was able or intended to be inflicted.

[KRAKMT]

I would not have any qualms about prosecuting the case if it happened as posted everywhere. Keep in mind that most states allow misdemeanors to be charged within 1 year, high crimes even longer- doubt it is over.

Many states still follow the old common law where assault is the threat- battery is the touching.- Looks like florida is the old common law. Many states also have higher penalties for assaults against sports officials that might apply. And as to whether it might be a deadly weapon- it will depend on the caselaw in florida. We have a case where a pair of panyhose were deemed a deadly weapon when used to choke some one.

I would definately prosecute the case but it will depend on the officials, the league and the police.



784.03. Battery; felony battery
(1) (a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, "conviction" means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.

§ 784.045. Aggravated battery
(1) (a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2. Uses a deadly weapon.
(b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.
(2) Whoever commits aggravated battery shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

[UTDragun]

I agree. If a football player (unarmed) intentionally tackles a ref it would be assault. This was not the incidental and accidental contact that happens from playing sports, or the intentional contact between participants. This was an intent, outside of the boundaries of the game, to inflect pain on non-players. The level of assault hinges on the level of pain / injury that was able or intended to be inflicted.
A ref got knocked out at the UT vs. South Car. game, it was incidental, but he layed on the ground for a good 15 mins. just kinda coincedental that you mention football players and refs.

[billmi]

I think Intent is the key.




Assult
NOUN:
A violent physical or verbal attack.
An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.


Not only is it not the key, it's not even part of the definition.



We play paintball.

You shoot me.

I say you were mad at me, and thus you intended to hurt me, you have now committed assault.

Fortunately, intent is not an issue for the courts, as it is not a crime to want to hurt someone, only to take the act of hurting them.

If the action is to shoot someone with a paintball gun, and they are on a paintball field, and they are wearing appropriate protective gear, then they won't be hurt.

If you prove in a court that they will be hurt by shooting them with a paintgun, even though they are willingly on the field, and wearing the appropriate gear, then you've proven the thing that is dangerous to paintball, because now anyone who commits that same action is knowingly causing harm to their target in the eyes of the law.


For what role intent plays, sure, you can argue that if someone takes a paintgun and fires it from a car at innocent pedestrians, they are probably intending to hurt them. But how can you argue that if someone shoots at someone on a paintball field, who is properly equipped, that they are intending to hurt them, if they are doing the exact same thing that always happens on a paintball field? Even with overshooting - if shooting one ball isn't an attack, shooting 5 won't be either - 5 times 0 equals 0.

[Lohman446]

Not only is it not the key, it's not even part of the definition.



We play paintball.

You shoot me.

I say you were mad at me, and thus you intended to hurt me, you have now committed assault.

Fortunately, intent is not an issue for the courts, as it is not a crime to want to hurt someone, only to take the act of hurting them.

If the action is to shoot someone with a paintball gun, and they are on a paintball field, and they are wearing appropriate protective gear, then they won't be hurt.

If you prove in a court that they will be hurt by shooting them with a paintgun, even though they are willingly on the field, and wearing the appropriate gear, then you've proven the thing that is dangerous to paintball, because now anyone who commits that same action is knowingly causing harm to their target in the eyes of the law.


For what role intent plays, sure, you can argue that if someone takes a paintgun and fires it from a car at innocent pedestrians, they are probably intending to hurt them. But how can you argue that if someone shoots at someone on a paintball field, who is properly equipped, that they are intending to hurt them, if they are doing the exact same thing that always happens on a paintball field? Even with overshooting - if shooting one ball isn't an attack, shooting 5 won't be either - 5 times 0 equals 0.

I think you're wrong on intent and participants of the game. The refs were not participants for intentional contact - intent matters and is needed for actual assault and not simple negligence (whole 'nother ball game). The definitions of assault above involve intent.

[Arstron]

I shudder to think at the precedents that would be set if anyone was ever charged with crimes like that for shooting a paintball gun at a person who was willingly on a paintball field, and wearing the appropriate protective equipment (i.e. lighting up a ref.)

If that ever happens, it means that shooting another player in a game is the same crime, because they are being shot under the same conditions.

The day that happens, the game of paintball will be criminalized.

Sure, punching someone, is assault, but if shooting them on the field during a game is assualt, we're all in trouble.

What happened on the field is bad enough, but when you run outside of the field, near spectators (who are un protected) and start shooting paint, thats another ball game. I cant belive there are people that stupid playing at that high of a level. Anyone at that level should respect our sport and understand just how dangerous it can be!

[shartley]

Bill,
I have to respectfully let you know you are quite wrong in your assessments on assault and how it pertains to paintball (and other sports). As a former Police Officer I can tell you that many actions which are done legally within the confines of a sport suddenly become assault when done illegally (or to the excess) even on the playing field. And equipment which is normal to use in a sport suddenly becomes a dangerous weapon when used in a manner not intended or within the rules of the game.

And your assessment of overshooting is also wrong. No, a single shot at a player who is PLAYING the game is not assault. But shoot that player 50 times in rapid succession while knowing they are already marked out, IS assault. And willfully shooting a Ref even once, is assault as well. Why? Because they are not a PLAYER, but an officiating person. So why not charge players with assault every time a Ref gets hit by a ball? Because unintentional contact is not assault in this context.

While you seem to want to lump all actions under one umbrella (i.e. shooting is shooting) it could not be farther from the truth. No more so than a late hit to a quarterback is all fine and well since during the game you are allowed to tackle the quarterback; or a boxer is allowed to beat up the referee simply because he “knows what is happening in the ring” and it is legal to punch his opponent. I could give example after example of how actions are not the same as all other “similar” actions, but I am sure that is not necessary. Heck, if you even touch a baseball referee, even ever so slightly, in aggression you will be kicked out of the game. And try touching a police officer, even ever so slightly, in aggression and see what you are charged with.

[billmi]

What happened on the field is bad enough, but when you run outside of the field, near spectators (who are un protected) and start shooting paint, thats another ball game.

I wasn't at that field when it happened, and didn't get this part of the story.

There, I agree wholeheartedly.

[FSU_Paintball]

The reffing was absolutely atrocious. The bias that some of them showed was unbelievable. I've been playing for eight years and this is as bad as anything I've ever seen. Opposing teams were watching our games, coming up to us and saying "Man, you guys are getting SCREWED."

All that said.... those clowns should be banned for life from every league. That does NOT help improve the situation.

[Chronobreak]

shooting a ref is also a lot diff than shooting a player in the game

might as well have been shooting specatators :eek:

i say the lifetime ban for the 1-2 people is more than fair, as they should never play p-ball again, if that is their attitude about the sport, and respect for refs probly doing their best to make good calls and dealing with not only that teams BS, but the other 15-500 teams there


you dont purposely shoot a ref EVER(rules?) let alone lane them. :mad:
as a ref i would have had the police come and take the markers and possible pressed charges to teach them a lesson


bill, precident of such a thing? what show that your not suppose to get pissed and shoot the heck outta refs and shoot in a staging area where no one has goggles or protection? :rolleyes:

like i said not like it was a player it was refs/and possibly spectators.

i woudlve tackled to sumnuva

anyways this behavior has to stop.

on a sidenot does anyone knwo the age of the people that did this?

kids/adults? seems very imamture and not well thought thru.

[billmi]

Bill,
I have to respectfully let you know you are quite wrong in your assessments on assault and how it pertains to paintball (and other sports). As a former Police Officer I can tell you that many actions which are done legally within the confines of a sport suddenly become assault when done illegally (or to the excess) even on the playing field.

I apprecieate both what you are saying, and the experience behind it.



And equipment which is normal to use in a sport suddenly becomes a dangerous weapon when used in a manner not intended or within the rules of the game.


This is very true.



And your assessment of overshooting is also wrong. No, a single shot at a player who is PLAYING the game is not assault.

OK.


But shoot that player 50 times in rapid succession while knowing they are already marked out, IS assault.

How so? This, to me is the big question. If 1 time is 0 assault, how is 50 times 0 going to equal anything but 0. For those 50 hits to be an assault, just that one shot must be knowingly causing harm, at some level to the recipient. If that is the case, then shooting someone, is intentionally hurting them, and committing assault, no?

Legally speaking, how many shots is assault, and how many is the game?



And willfully shooting a Ref even once, is assault as well. Why? Because they are not a PLAYER, but an officiating person. So why not charge players with assault every time a Ref gets hit by a ball? Because unintentional contact is not assault in this context.


Then, it should be easy for a ref to claim assault any time he is hit by a team with which a call was previously disputed, yes? The dispute shows cause for intent Would assault charges stick for a ref shot with one ball? With 2? With 5?



While you seem to want to lump all actions under one umbrella (i.e. shooting is shooting) it could not be farther from the truth.


Let me clarify the umbrella, because I'm not talking about it being that big (all shooting.) I'm talking about shooting a person who is wearing the equipment that the industry says will provide them safety in an enviornment where they are likely to be hit by paintballs.

If they are adequately protected, how can I possibly be intending to hurt them? I know they will not be injured by my activity, it's not assault. However, if they are vulnerable to injury by my shots, then I am knowingly taking an action to hurt them.

The problem with that, while it is assault, is that a player takes the same action against other people wearing the same level of protection during the course of a game.

Shooting at, or around the unprotected crowd - that's another story.


No more so than a late hit to a quarterback is all fine and well since during the game you are allowed to tackle the quarterback; or a boxer is allowed to beat up the referee simply because he “knows what is happening in the ring” and it is legal to punch his opponent.


Not the same. The effect of taking a takle on the body will change radically with whether or not the athelete is prepared for it. The boxing referee is similarly not physically prepared for the hit, nor is he wearing the same protective gear as the athlete. The paintball referee is in many cases more protected than the athelete that takes the same type of hits, and body position isn't going to play into how hard a paintball hit is.

If the defining standard is anger, then half the teams that have won World Cup should be hauled off for assault - they get worked up to go after the other team. If the defining standard is that the action is going to cause injury, then we are talking about the same thing - it's the same level of force countered by at least if not more protection.



I could give example after example of how actions are not the same as all other “similar” actions, but I am sure that is not necessary. Heck, if you even touch a baseball referee, even ever so slightly, in aggression you will be kicked out of the game.

And similarly, if you make any physical contact with another player or ref you'll be off the paintball field.


And try touching a police officer, even ever so slightly, in aggression and see what you are charged with.

So by the inverse, if the aggression is the issue, if I'm laughing and smiling, a police officer will just nod and smile if I walk up and poke them in the shoulder with my finger? I expect I'd be right in the back of the car facing the same charges.

[KRAKMT]

Intent is a necessary element of most crimes. As has been discussed they preplanned and video taped it. The statutes I posted are the florida criminal code- Intentional is the first word.

Applied to these facts- poding while shooting at a ref, preplanned video tapeing, and shooting outside of the field rise to malicious conduct worthy of prosecution. But that will be determined by the police/prosecutors.

It would come down to credibility of the witnesses and a jury of 12 but from everything posted charges would be appropriate.

Is it bad for paintball if stupid people do stupid things?Yes. Should we ban baseball because people use baseball bats to break legs?

[billmi]

i say the lifetime ban for the 1-2 people is more than fair, as they should never play p-ball

With that, I completely agree. IMHO, it's been a long time coming for enforcement to get strong enough where it will make a difference for things like this.



bill, precident of such a thing? what show that your not suppose to get pissed and shoot the heck outta refs and shoot in a staging area where no one has goggles or protection?

I'm with you on this. It was my understanding from discussions at the Cup, that the incident involved a run through on the field by two players, one shooting refs to distract them while the other was shooting the other team. It is possible we are talking about two separate incidents, but I don't think so.

I do question now, what really happened. To do a runthrough on the field, and then shoot around spectators would require shooting the players, the refs, then run through the flap in the back of the field into the staging area, run around to get outside of the netted staging pit, and then around to the opposite side of the field where the spectators are. There are no openings in the net on the spectator side.

I would think there are all sorts of charges from assault to endagerment that could be appropriate for shooting at or near people who weren't on field, and weren't wearing proper protective gear.

[Muzikman]

Ok, let's use hockey.

A ref on the ice is wearing skates, shin pads and helmet (some wear even more protection). This is (for the ref) the required safety gear.

If someone shots the puck around the boards and hits a ref in the head, nothing happens to the player. He did not mean to hit the ref. The ref just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If someone shoots the puck with the "intent" to hit the ref, the poop hits the fan for that player. Not only would he get an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty which ejects him from the game. I am sure the league would look at the situation and decide if a suspension should be issued. The ref would also have the ability to get the courts involved and have the player charged, outside of the hockey league, in the court of law.

I see paintball no different. Now that is just basing this off the shooting of a ref on the field.

But look what happened with Todd Bertuzzi and Steve Moore. That all happened while the game was being played and both players were wearing the required safety gear. (on that note, I still don’t think Bertuzzi’s suspension was worthy of the infraction)

[billmi]

If someone shoots the puck with the "intent" to hit the ref, the poop hits the fan for that player. Not only would he get an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty which ejects him from the game. I am sure the league would look at the situation and decide if a suspension should be issued. The ref would also have the ability to get the courts involved and have the player charged, outside of the hockey league, in the court of law.

I see paintball no different. Now that is just basing this off the shooting of a ref on the field.


Here's where I see it as different, and I can see intent playing in.

In Hockey, played by the rules, you are never intentionally shooting the puck at a person (or are you? I have always lived in warmer areas, and though I had a pro hockey player as a neighbor once, never really got into the game.)

In paintball, you are normally intentionally shooting the paintball at people, and they are normally protected such that you know, when you pull the trigger that what you are doing is not going to cause them injury or harm.

I can see through the course of this discussion that since a ref is normally only going to take hits accidentally, how there can be an intent based argument there, but again, there shouldn't be a way for that action to be injurious.

I'm still having trouble (this being in the conceptual sense, not related to any specific incident) with a valid argument for overshooting becoming assault without single shooting also being an assault.

[athomas]

There are times when generally accepted actions on the field become acts of violence. If a ball player were to intentionally aim and hurl a baseball at an umpire, it is outside the normal part of the game and is intent to injure. If a hockey player intentionally drills a puck at a ref and hits him, it is a criminal offence not a penalty. I expect the same should be true for paintball. It is generally accepted that refs get hit with the odd paintball (sometimes quite a few and maybe a few are intentional), but aiming at any nonplayer (even people in the deadbox would count here) for the purpose of inflicting pain could be a criminal matter if done to the extreme.

The analogy that 50 x 0 = 0 doesn't hold up. Ever give someone a knuckle rub on the head. It wouldn't be considered dangerous, but if you did it 50 times, it would wear through the skin and cause damage and possible scarring. Anything done in excess, with malicious intent is dangerous.

[billmi]

The analogy that 50 x 0 = 0 doesn't hold up. Ever give someone a knuckle rub on the head. It wouldn't be considered dangerous, but if you did it 50 times, it would wear through the skin and cause damage and possible scarring. Anything done in excess, with malicious intent is dangerous.

A sound argument, but its reprecussions disturb me.

If it is true that after X hits, paintball is injurious, then for a field operator to run games in such a manner where >X hits are possible (number of guns on the field, not stopping a player from playing the rest of the day after having been hit X-1 times, etc.) is negligence.

And it begs the question, what is the value of X? How do we determine it?

[Muzikman]

Bill, you would probably know this, but what was deemed as the number of times a lens could safely be hit with a paintball before it would fail. If memory serves me right I think it was 15 times. So if that is the number then 15 hits should be considered assault as that is the point at which the required safety gear can fail. Now, all 15 hits more than likely would not all be on the lens, but there is also that chance that it could.

[shartley]

I apprecieate both what you are saying, and the experience behind it.
Thank you.



How so? This, to me is the big question. If 1 time is 0 assault, how is 50 times 0 going to equal anything but 0. For those 50 hits to be an assault, just that one shot must be knowingly causing harm, at some level to the recipient. If that is the case, then shooting someone, is intentionally hurting them, and committing assault, no?

Legally speaking, how many shots is assault, and how many is the game?
Yes AND no. I think you are too conveniently simplifying things for the purpose of argument alone though.

Is one shot “over shooting”? How about 3? 5? It would depend on the field, right? Well, assault is much the same.

Contrary to popular belief, many laws and their enforcement are not “cut and dry”, but are dictated by the Officer on the scene and the Prosecuting Attorney. Playing these types of semantic games rarely gets folks out of trouble, but more times than not gets them in more of it. And just because lower levels of assault are not normally charged does not mean they can’t be. That is like saying “I go 80mph down this road all the time and never get pulled over for speeding, therefore there is no speed limit!”

Then, it should be easy for a ref to claim assault any time he is hit by a team with which a call was previously disputed, yes? The dispute shows cause for intent Would assault charges stick for a ref shot with one ball? With 2? With 5?
Again, no. Read my above comments.

Let me clarify the umbrella, because I'm not talking about it being that big (all shooting.) I'm talking about shooting a person who is wearing the equipment that the industry says will provide them safety in an enviornment where they are likely to be hit by paintballs.
As pointed out by myself and others…. Refs are not players. What they are wearing is inconsequential to whether assault occurred or not.


If they are adequately protected, how can I possibly be intending to hurt them? I know they will not be injured by my activity, it's not assault. However, if they are vulnerable to injury by my shots, then I am knowingly taking an action to hurt them.
This almost sounds like you have never played the game… and knowing you HAVE I will not dignify it with an answer.


The problem with that, while it is assault, is that a player takes the same action against other people wearing the same level of protection during the course of a game.
By taking that stance you have just removed Referees from being officials of the game to being active players IN the game. Again, it does not matter what the Refs are wearing, but their roll in the game.


Shooting at, or around the unprotected crowd - that's another story.
Not really. It is worse, but not another story. Only active PLAYERS involved in an ongoing game are to be shot at intentionally… period. Anyone who is not an active player in an ongoing game who is shot intentionally by someone has just been assaulted. Now whether charges are filed or not would depend on many other factors; from those involved (the victim), the field owner, police on scene, etc. And even if charges are not filed it does not mean assault didn’t happen. There are many crimes committed every day, even in the sight of law enforcement that do not lead to charges being filed. And there are even more that are dropped later because of many reasons (time, expenses, etc.), but still it does not mean the crime did not happen.

Not the same. The effect of taking a takle on the body will change radically with whether or not the athelete is prepared for it. The boxing referee is similarly not physically prepared for the hit, nor is he wearing the same protective gear as the athlete. The paintball referee is in many cases more protected than the athelete that takes the same type of hits, and body position isn't going to play into how hard a paintball hit is.
And many times they are not. Every argument you bring now can be countered by simply reversing the positions, and still be correct.


If the defining standard is anger, then half the teams that have won World Cup should be hauled off for assault - they get worked up to go after the other team. If the defining standard is that the action is going to cause injury, then we are talking about the same thing - it's the same level of force countered by at least if not more protection.
Again you are over simplifying things. I did not however say “anger” was the defining standard. I said “aggression”. And both anger and aggression are allowed when following the rules of the game. But the moment you go outside the rules in a blatant attempt to harm another player (or Ref) it is assault. And I will also add that whether someone IS harmed or not is not the standard either, but the intent or the possibility of harm caused by the action.

Please stop trying to take legal actions within the rules of a game and make them either legal or illegal in ALL situations. You and I both know this is a faulty argument and is not accurate in practice.


And similarly, if you make any physical contact with another player or ref you'll be off the paintball field.
I agree with this, with a slight modifier…… any intentional physical contact with an opponent or ref in an aggressive manner. That would disqualify a pat on the back, any unintentional contact such as bumping into each other, etc.

So by the inverse, if the aggression is the issue, if I'm laughing and smiling, a police officer will just nod and smile if I walk up and poke them in the shoulder with my finger? I expect I'd be right in the back of the car facing the same charges.I think you know this to be a weak attempt to twist what was said. My response to it is contained within all my other responses above.

And with that I will try to let it go. I know the truth about matters and how the law works. Almost every argument above seemed to be simply for the sake of argument and not for the sake of truly clarifying an issue. I know you to be a well educated man (as well as quite bright) and find it hard to believe that your responses were not typed out with a huge Cheshire Cat grin on your face. ;)

:cheers:

[billmi]

Bill, you would probably know this, but was was deemed as the number of times a lens could safely be hit with a paintball before it would fail. If memory serves me right I think it was 15 times. So if that is the number then 15 hits should be concided assult as that is the point at which the required safety gear can fail. Now, all 15 hits more than likely would not all be on the lens, but there is also that chance that it could.

So if I play 15 points of X-Ball and shoot a person one time during each point that's assault if they don't change their goggle lens? And if I accidentally put three shots on them I've committed 1/3 assault?

And no, I'm not really seeing either of those issues as assault, just extending the logic to the absurd to discuss the point.

[Muzikman]

It would be up to the player to make sure his safety gear is in working order. I have been told many times over the 13 years I have been playing that if you take a direct hit in the lens you "should" change it. So, one would have to assume that since it's the players responability to maintain his safety gear, that yes, he changed the lens.

[phantomhitman]

ok guys, stop

group hug :cheers: :dance: :bounce: :D , now lets play paintball

[SummaryJudgement]

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while....... :tard:

[phantomhitman]

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while....... :tard:

If you are refering to me then I am sorry. I tried my best to live up to your internet forum expectations but I have failed. Woe is me.....what am I ever going to do. :rolleyes:

If you are not refering to me then ignore me, live long and prosper. :hail:

[mobsterboy]

everyone stop arguing. This is just what a jackass stunt like that is suppose to do, create a riot and havoc among the paintball community. Play paintball, by the rules you know are right. If something happens, apologize, and if you are gonna do something stupid, dont do it. No one cares about legalities, just play, have fun and enjoy the sport while it lasts

[Muzikman]

I have known Bill Mills online since about 93 or so. Not that we are friends, but we have talked in chat, forums and even in person at events over the years. I hope he knows that I respect his thoughts and ideas. This goes for most people online, unless they have given me reason otherwise. So what we are doing here is having a discussion, and if you notice unlike some people and forums, we are not calling each other names.

For those out there watching, this thread is a perfect example of an online "discussion".

[Lohman446]

everyone stop arguing. This is just what a jackass stunt like that is suppose to do, create a riot and havoc among the paintball community. Play paintball, by the rules you know are right. If something happens, apologize, and if you are gonna do something stupid, dont do it. No one cares about legalities, just play, have fun and enjoy the sport while it lasts

I'm interested, and as Muze mentioned, I don't see very many people arguing. We are discussing various different ideas on how this could / should be handled coming from a variety of different backgrounds.

[vonort]

Bill question for you. When Lasoya knocked the guy out a few years back. Would you consider that an assault? Since the paintgun has no intent of harm. 12 shots to the head would mean ther is still 0 chance of injury?

Just curious

[Lohman446]

Bill question for you. When Lasoya knocked the guy out a few years back. Would you consider that an assault? Since the paintgun has no intent of harm. 12 shots to the head would mean ther is still 0 chance of injury?

Just curious

Not Bill, but I figure to take a stab at this one. No - its not assault, there is no intent. May it be negligence in the uncaring? That question gets a little more blurred as no intent is required, just failure to take reasonable steps to avoid injury.

[vonort]

Good point Lohman. But what I'm refferring to his point that if 1 shot is not assualt then 50 isn't. But if 12 shots to the head can knock someone out. Obviously there is a point that harm can be done by shooting someone with a paintball. And I agree the intent has too be there. If you are unloading on Refs. You are doing it intentionally. What Lasoya did may not of been intenitional,, just stupid. (lol).. But it does support the fact that there is a line at which point you ARE doing harm.

[Lohman446]

Good point Lohman. But what I'm refferring to his point that if 1 shot is not assualt then 50 isn't. But if 12 shots to the head can knock someone out. Obviously there is a point that harm can be done by shooting someone with a paintball. And I agree the intent has too be there. If you are unloading on Refs. You are doing it intentionally. What Lasoya did may not of been intenitional,, just stupid. (lol).. But it does support the fact that there is a line at which point you ARE doing harm.

The point becomes at what point is what you are doing not part of the game, or an incidental part (ie a ref getting hit under normal circumstances)?

[lopxtc]

But how do you define the line in which you cross normal play with obvious harm ...

Truthfully I think this is why the idea of paintball as a major sport (ie NFL, NBA, etc, etc, etc) is still a long way off. Its easy in other sports to define what is considered a "foul" when interacting with another player, but this is almost impossible in paintball. Slide tackling a person from behind, face masking a player, charging, "bean balls" ... all are easy to define as something that is outside the normal course of play. But in paintball shooting is the course of play, and when you have markers that spit out as many rounds as they do in a flick of a finger tip you just cannot say what is outside of the normal course of play.

And until some kind of centralized reffing system comes into play I cant see many things getting better. To many kid refs, and adult refs, are afraid to make a call against someone because they might get a verbal barage or even a physical barage in return. And too many of the high-end, high-speed players have become so used to this that they almost instinctively (spelling?) start yelling at refs even on obvious infractions of the rules.

Aaron

[Muzikman]

I agree with all that. For a player it might be harder to nail down the intent to cause harm, but for a ref it is easy. If you continue to shoot a ref, you have intended on hitting him and for no better reason than to harm him as he is not your intended target per the rules of the game. If you mistakenly hit a ref because he is checking someone, or pops out from behind a bunker that is one thing.

I think that laying on a guy when you know he has already been eliminated and you know it could be ".ntent to harm". For what other reason would you be shooting at him. Again, mistakenly hitting someone while they are walking off the field is one thing.

I think the major leagues need to set an over shooting rule if they do not currently already have one. Let's use the nice round number of 15. I think after 15 hits, you know the guys is out, he's not going to be able to wipe either. Now obviously you are not going to sit there and count each hit, but an experianced player and ref should be able to pick out over shooting.

[vonort]

The point becomes at what point is what you are doing not part of the game, or an incidental part (ie a ref getting hit under normal circumstances)?


I agree. Without witnessing the action in this case. Its hard too say. It very much sounds like it was over the line. And in all actuality I think its a case by case kind of situation.

With the high end equipment its hard too say what is overshooting. I just got back from a scenario event. Other side had our base so we did a hot insertion. I was about the 5th guy in. I got lit up.. It didn't bother me I knew i was going into a hornets nest. Now if I was out in the feild and got hit that many times from someone.. I would of been yelling for overshooting. So a lot of times it depends on the situation. But to intentionally go after the refs is a NO NO in any sport.

[mar]

Well, here ya go.

deadly weapon n. any weapon which can kill. This includes not only weapons which are intended to do harm like a gun or knife, but also blunt instruments like clubs, baseball bats, monkey wrenches, an automobile or any object which actually causes death. This becomes important when trying to prove criminal charges brought for assault with a deadly weapon. In a few 1990s cases courts have found rocks and even penises of AIDS sufferers as "deadly weapons."

Assult
NOUN:
A violent physical or verbal attack.
An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

Even if you are a willing perticipent in the game, if the persons intent is to hurt you, then it's assult. And I see no reason why a paintball gun would not be a deadly weapon.

If a baseball player went after another player with a baseball bat and beat him with it. I am sure they that player could be charged with assult with a deadly weapon.

I think Intent is the key.

totally agree.

[SummaryJudgement]

If you are refering to me then I am sorry. I tried my best to live up to your internet forum expectations but I have failed. Woe is me.....what am I ever going to do. :rolleyes:

If you are not refering to me then ignore me, live long and prosper. :hail:

Yeah, lol, sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring to the situation as a whole, not what you had to say. ;) :D

[Earthy]

In terms of what consistutes acceptable behaviour in a sport (amateur or professional) , it's my understanding that ANY contact that is deemed excessive can be legally considered assault. Look what has happened in the NHL when Todd Bertuzzi hit Steve Moore from behind. He was tried in a court of law and possibly faced 18 months in jail, and this is a sport that includes physical contact. Also when players play paintball they sign waviers agreeing that they will get hit as a matter of course, and that they agree to follow the field's rules. To my knowledge there are no fields that include overshooting or ref sniping as part of this agreement. Unfortunately the industry is encouraging outrageous behaviour and fosters a "bad boy" attitude. I am amazed that anyone would considered defending such actioins; however, if this team had a reputation for behaving this way then my question is why were they allowed to play in the first place. Having the $$ for the enterance fee does not give anyone the RIGHT to play, it is a PRIVILEGE. Players can exert a great amount of pressure on event organizers and field owners by refusing to play with those with unacceptable attitudes or reputations. As players the buck STARTS with us. :mad:

Sorry, for the tirade. I'll get down off my soapbox now.

[BD_Paintball]

my friend has played with Psycho Circus a few times. i just want to see the video

[Beemer]

Play paintball, by the rules you know are right.

It goes a little further then that. Play by the rules and the current SAFETY Standards that 47 people in the industry put down in the form of ASTM Standards. ie 1 shot 1 pull. Of course you know that and play by that Right?


No one cares about legalities, just play, have fun and enjoy the sport while it lasts

Doesnt seem like they care about your Safety either. Enjoy while it lasts.

Hey Muz, where did ya come up with 15 shots on a gog. ASTM tests at 8. Dye[Proto] says they test at twice the standard that would be 16 if it passes. I have had lenses fail with 1 shot at more then 15ft.[cracked] no matter how small its a Fail.

So if Im the Ref in this scenario, how do you keep me from or talk me out of filing charges?

___________

http://home.comcast.net/~beemerone/AoIL.gif

[hitech]

I think the point that Bill is trying to make that everyone is missing is how can shooting a properly protected person with paintballs (any amount) cause injury? If it can/does, then the game as we know it causes injury.

Since "we" don't consider it dangerous (does not cause injury) to shoot another properly protected person with paintballs (any amount), their intent was not to cause injury. Rather, it was to cause anger (i.e. piss them off).

Shooting in a crowd of unprotected persons is reckless...

[Lohman446]

I think the point that Bill is trying to make that everyone is missing is how can shooting a properly protected person with paintballs (any amount) cause injury? If it can/does, then the game as we know it causes injury.

Since "we" don't consider it dangerous (does not cause injury) to shoot another properly protected person with paintballs (any amount), their intent was not to cause injury. Rather, it was to cause anger (i.e. piss them off).

Shooting in a crowd of unprotected persons is reckless...

In full football gear tackle someone who is part of the ungoing game - no big deal.

Now go tackle the kicker trying to warm up off the playing field with malicious intent - big difference...

Or, tackle the ref, intentionally on the field

[lopxtc]

Hence the need for a clear definition (spelling?) of overshooting ... and then declearing overshooting an "offense" that will being on an in game penalty. Be it a 1 for 1, 2 for 1 ... what ever.

Again we are stuck with players wanting a faster game, faster guns, but no desire to figure out what to happen when this gets abused.

Truthfully I believe the speedball aspect of the sport has put itself into a place that the people running have no idea how to manage it safety wise and are only treading water hoping that the sharks swimming around them dont strike. I have said it before and I will say it again ... someone is going to die on the field, or on the way to hospital from the field. It can happen in any venue of the sport; but the chances get greater the more you shoot, the faster you shoot, and honestly the more immature your surroundings are.

I hope this never happens, but with the increase of incidents like this going on ... you never know anymore.

Aaron



I think the point that Bill is trying to make that everyone is missing is how can shooting a properly protected person with paintballs (any amount) cause injury? If it can/does, then the game as we know it causes injury.

Since "we" don't consider it dangerous (does not cause injury) to shoot another properly protected person with paintballs (any amount), their intent was not to cause injury. Rather, it was to cause anger (i.e. piss them off).

Shooting in a crowd of unprotected persons is reckless...

[Muzikman]

I understand what Bill is trying to say, but I don't find that to be the case. Even properly protected, too many shots can cause the safety equipment to fail. Also, paintball is dangerous just as is any sport. The fact that we are shooting eachother with .68 cal balls at 200mph makes it that much more dangerous.

[hitech]

Again, I think this point is being missed. If shooting ANY reasonable amount (I'm not talking about thousands) of paintballs at someone can cause injury then we have a serious problem.

[Skoad]

I see it like the Todd Bertuzzi incident in the NHL, you know the one where he just skated up behind Steve Moore and just punched him in the back of the head. Of course theres checking and hockey is expected to be very physical, but not like that - punched from behind when your nowhere near the puck then pushed down and breaking your neck. Same with paintball...you know your going to get shot but not 200 times.

I believe Bertuzzi was charged with assault, but it was a while ago...may be wrong.

[lopxtc]

Yes but the only required piece of safety gear is a full front face mask, and lenses. Its quite easy to hurt someone in the neck, back of the head, or groin.

It doesnt take very many shots in any of those three areas to cause a significant injury, even at speeds under 300 fps, and shooting only as fast as a pump can shoot.

I love the sport, but lets not fool ourselves any time we go out to play (wearing only the "required" protective gear) we risk serious injury ... why do you think we all sign a waiver that says if we are killed while playing its not the fault of the field.

Aaron


Again, I think this point is being missed. If shooting ANY reasonable amount (I'm not talking about thousands) of paintballs at someone can cause injury then we have a serious problem.

[Lohman446]

Again, I think this point is being missed. If shooting ANY reasonable amount (I'm not talking about thousands) of paintballs at someone can cause injury then we have a serious problem.

Bumping at above highways speeds is allowed in NASCAR - do it on the road intentionally and it is assault with a deadly weapon...

[hitech]

Bumping at above highways speeds is allowed in NASCAR - do it on the road intentionally and it is assault with a deadly weapon...

Certainly. Shooting someone with paintballs during a paintball game is allowed. Shoot someone with paintballs "on the road" and you will be arrested...

[Lohman446]

Certainly. Shooting someone with paintballs during a paintball game is allowed. Shoot someone with paintballs "on the road" and you will be arrested...

And the question becomes where is the line - in legal ideas I think it would be active participant of the game. There is bound to be incidental shooting of the refs that is an obvious hazard, but intentional shooting of the refs is neither obvious nor forseeable.

[KRAKMT]

Intent is the key issue- Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other;

It will be a fact based decision like everything in the law. If you are a spitter when you talk doesn't mean you intentionally assaulted someone when you spit on them. When you hack a lung oyster on someone because you are pissed then it is a crime.

Or the pitcher that tries to bean an ump because he is pissed. They may all reach the level of battery. But many decisions go into deciding to try a case.

The facts given were that because they had gotten screwed in the last game on the field that if they were loosing instead of going to the dead box they were going to shoot the refs. They planned to film there stunt. Two players proceeded to open up on the refs and one was reported to have taken the time to pod. They were then chased out and proceeded to shoot?

The law does not work the way you guys are trying to make it out. The world and the law is not black and white it is gray and depends on fact specifics, political bent, hech what you had for breakfast.

If you shoot a player with a paintball it is not agaist there will- If you stand and shoot me multiple times and reload, and plot your actions and brag about what you are going to do with your friends then that is over the line.

Ps Lohman you made my skin crawl when you used reasonable/forseeable that is tort negligent talk not criminal. Just the damn lawyer speak.

[Tyger]

Again we are stuck with players wanting a faster game, faster guns, but no desire to figure out what to happen when this gets abused.

It's a matter of they don't care. They wanna shoot their guns and watch somoene else twitch in pain. "If you cant' take it, stop playing." That is 'till they get lit up. "REF! He's OVERSHOOTING! PULL HIM! PULL HIM!"

Someone's gonna have to be put in a hospital before the players, and the "powers that be", are forced to do give a damn. Psycho Circus could have serously injured someone with their little act of revenge. Lucky for us, that didn't happen, or we'd be having a completely different discussion on this forum. Nobody really cares about the game of paintball as a whole, it's all about themselves, and what they can get out of the game of paintball before they leave and go on to the next cool thing. Revenge is a selfish act, and more often than not it gains you nothing more than temporary satisfaction.

But I'm willing to put dollars to donuts that this incident will be buried, ignored, and forgotten as all the other incidents have been. So for now, we'll have more "stunts" like this one, and Salm, and the other fistfights that have happened at 'Cup over the years.

-Tyger

[Lohman446]

Ps Lohman you made my skin crawl when you used reasonable/forseeable that is tort negligent talk not criminal. Just the damn lawyer speak.

I'm sure you are aware of my opinion of the possibility of criminal penalties around paintball. I am also fairly certain that you consider civil penalties and a case pushed by a victim through the civil courts as far more likely than a criminal case pushed by a DA.

[KRAKMT]

In this case criminal punishment is more likely. I am aware of your opinions regarding liability as we have discussed it a bit. But know that it will be case specific. With these facts I think the police/DA would be very justified in bringing charges(if not somewhat obligated). From the facts these people intentionally caused bodily injury or harm. Well beyond acceptable behavior.

As for civil penalties- it is the rule of the pocket. It would come down to who is injured and who done the injuring. To bring a civil suit agaist a couple of psycho circus guys would probably be a waste of effort. Unless they are famous movie or music stars. And from the facts it would be hard to say that PSP is responsible. That would get into the reasonable forseeable acts and whether they were negligent. Generally, there are some rules against negligence for others intentional torts.

This is a different issue than the full auto- field owner insurance case.



I'm sure you are aware of my opinion of the possibility of criminal penalties around paintball. I am also fairly certain that you consider civil penalties and a case pushed by a victim through the civil courts as far more likely than a criminal case pushed by a DA.

[Lohman446]

In this case criminal punishment is more likely. I am aware of your opinions regarding liability as we have discussed it a bit. But know that it will be case specific. With these facts I think the police/DA would be very justified in bringing charges(if not somewhat obligated). From the facts these people intentionally caused bodily injury or harm. Well beyond acceptable behavior.

As for civil penalties- it is the rule of the pocket. It would come down to who is injured and who done the injuring. To bring a civil suit agaist a couple of psycho circus guys would probably be a waste of effort. Unless they are famous movie or music stars. And from the facts it would be hard to say that PSP is responsible. That would get into the reasonable forseeable acts and whether they were negligent. Generally, there are some rules against negligence for others intentional torts.

This is a different issue than the full auto- field owner insurance case.

Obviously not knowing all of the financials - at one point (and I no longer know if this is true) it was possible to sue someone's sponsors for there actions during an event in civil court. When one considers that some of these fields adn stores are not well hidden behind corporations as happens in other businesses, I think it might be possible to find some reasonably deep pockets - not major deep, but not as poor as some might think.

[scrumpy]

Great, more morons to ruin the sport.
Maybe I'm weird but I'm not as excited as you sound.

[KRAKMT]

It would revert back to the 1st year law school mantra- it depends.
Just for discussion you would have to sue the players for common law battery(intentional harmful or offensive touching). And also the sponsors for negligence- failure to control or some kind of agency relationship. Like I mentioned the sponsors are generally, not responsible for the intentional torts of others- just as your employer is generally not responsible if you punch someone on the street. (unless they new or should have known your proclivity to do harm).
So in order to get to the pockets (sponsors) the underlying behavior must be a negligence case- the players failed to act in a reasonable prudent behavior and the sponsors were negligent in training or overseeing the players.

Now lets take a dynasty player that unintentionally shoots someone 30 times in the head- the way to get there would be to argue marker malfunction- product liability, or possibly player negligence (maybe personal trigger job) then based on an agency relationship between smart parts and dynasty it might be possible. Then you would have a pocket to target.

We had a case where a lady was tossed out of a voting place (private hotel) for asking for signatures on a voter initiative (anti elk farming I think). She brought a case against the hotel owner for battery. The jury found in her favor and gave her a dollar. Great she won then because she did she was entitled to attorneys fees. $70,000.

There are many creative lawyers out there that might be able to make a case but only if it was worth the time- they have to live and eat also.




Obviously not knowing all of the financials - at one point (and I no longer know if this is true) it was possible to sue someone's sponsors for there actions during an event in civil court. When one considers that some of these fields adn stores are not well hidden behind corporations as happens in other businesses, I think it might be possible to find some reasonably deep pockets - not major deep, but not as poor as some might think.

[Lohman446]

I understand the idea that justice is very often how much you can afford. Remember, this was not punching someone in the face on the street, but doing so in the game. I would at least get the sponsors attention (even if I ultimately lost).

[KRAKMT]

But the sponsor will argue this was not part of the game- "it was an intentional act by a very dispicable person that we had no way of knowing would act sooo inapropriately. We have no way to know or to stop some deranged criminal. Ya ya a criminal is who he is and should be punished for his bad behavior- and we nolonger sanction or sponsor such dasterdly acts."

But even if you had a creative lawyer to get to the sponsor- how much is on the line- the pain and suffering the refs received- over and above the pain that they received in every game? It would be very hard to convince the jury you should have a boat load for a guy that was overshot more than he signed up for. So you would be into the nominal damages or token amount and then have a bunch o attorneys fees to fight for.

Is there a criminal case- definately. Dependant on the victims willingness to cooporate.
Is there a civil case battery case against the players- definately- intentional tort.
Is there a civil case against the sponsor- would depend on what they new or should have known- what would a reasonable person believe.
Would someone bring the civil case- doubtful. Like they say a principle and a subway token will get you a ride on subway. Without the token you just walk with your principles.

[Muzikman]

Like I mentioned the sponsors are generally, not responsible for the intentional torts of others- just as your employer is generally not responsible if you punch someone on the street. (unless they new or should have known your proclivity to do harm).
So in order to get to the pockets (sponsors) the underlying behavior must be a negligence case- the players failed to act in a reasonable prudent behavior and the sponsors were negligent in training or overseeing the players.


Just curious though, if I was at work and went to a client, walked over to him/her and knocked him/her out. I know I could/would be charged, but could the company I work for also since they sent me there?

This is not the same as me leaving work and knocking someone out in the street such as you discribe.

[KRAKMT]

Would they be responsible for knocking the person out? generally, not. They are not responsible for your intentional torts.

Would they be responsible if they knew or had reason to believe you were a psycho? then possibly. Now don't take this as legal advice if you are thinking about committing a tort. I don't necessarily practice in this area and I am wayyy over simplifing it.
But without cracking a book and without reading cases from your area- that is the general rule.

Now the negligence cases are more often the case- employee is driving and hits another motorist.
Was the employee driving on a work related issue?
How about the short stop off at his own house and then gets in an accident.
Many cases with these scenarios.

But the general rule is employers are not responsible for intentional torts. Might look up some of the postal employee cases and see what the claims were.





Just curious though, if I was at work and went to a client, walked over to him/her and knocked him/her out. I know I could/would be charged, but could the company I work for also since they sent me there?

This is not the same as me leaving work and knocking someone out in the street such as you discribe.

[Lohman446]

But the sponsor will argue this was not part of the game- "it was an intentional act by a very dispicable person that we had no way of knowing would act sooo inapropriately. We have no way to know or to stop some deranged criminal. Ya ya a criminal is who he is and should be punished for his bad behavior- and we nolonger sanction or sponsor such dasterdly acts."

But even if you had a creative lawyer to get to the sponsor- how much is on the line- the pain and suffering the refs received- over and above the pain that they received in every game? It would be very hard to convince the jury you should have a boat load for a guy that was overshot more than he signed up for. So you would be into the nominal damages or token amount and then have a bunch o attorneys fees to fight for.

Is there a criminal case- definately. Dependant on the victims willingness to cooporate.
Is there a civil case battery case against the players- definately- intentional tort.
Is there a civil case against the sponsor- would depend on what they new or should have known- what would a reasonable person believe.
Would someone bring the civil case- doubtful. Like they say a principle and a subway token will get you a ride on subway. Without the token you just walk with your principles.


They called themselves Psycho circus and you did not question there mental stability? :D And I agree, aside from upsetting the sponsor, you might not get a ton - then again, a lot of these cases are gambles anyways I assume.

[Muzikman]

Krakmt,

Ya know, it's good that a discussion can even stay civil when a lawyer steps in. Thank you. I honestly mean that.

We need more threads like this on AO. Just wish it wasn't about bad stuff happening in our sport.