***banned from our field***

[MarineRDNC]

After reading Wicked Ways thread about him being kicked from a field, I thought I would post about a recent experience at our field...

Okay so like 2 weeks ago I was playing at our field Rush Paintball (www.RUSH-Paintball.com) and everything was fine all day long except for some newbies shooting me when i was already out but thats not a big deal andnot what I'm here to talk about. But it was the last game of the day and we decided to play an airball game. I work at this field and my bestfriends family owns it... but since everyone was leaving except for a few people 2 refs decided to play along with us. One of the refs being my bestfriends brother. The teams were 4 on 5, me 2 refs and one other kid being the 4 and some other kids being the 5. But okay the game starts, and this one moron runs out onto the field using the ref shield. No one saw him with it before the game started so there was no way of us stopping him. But anyways we saw him run to a bunker in front of me off the break. Caleb (my friends brother the ref), stopped in the middle of playing and walked up to the kid and said "what do you think you're doing? give me the shield now!". And the kid started giving him crap and wouldnt give it to him, and Caleb told the kid get off the field! but the kid wouldnt get off but Caleb finally stole the shield from him and turned to walk off the field to put the shield back, thats when the kid turned and lit caleb up in the back 3 times. Caleb turned and shot him the same amount of times and was screaming at him to get off the field and he was banned from playing there. The kid just ignored him and kept playing, so I said screw this, and i went and bunkered the kid in the back and ran off to bunker 2 more kids that were left. The douchebag turned and shot me in the back after he was out and then started running his mouth, so i turned and shot him in the leg. He pointed the gun at me and i stopped and said "DO IT!" and caleb stepped in and said "Do it and see what happens!"

The kid walked off the field and we told him he was banned from playing at Rush again and to leave immediately. He did as it was the end of the day anyways. Caleb had 3 welts on his back fromt he kid and I had one big bloody one on my shoulderblade. We went home everything was fine.
I changed clothes and got ready for my sisters softball game when the owner (Calebs mom and dad) called and said I need to come down there because the cops were there. SoI had to go back to the field and talk to them. Turns out the kids DADDY didn't like that he had a welt on his back from me bunkering him and he came down there wanting to fight someone. So the owners called the Cops and they came down to talk to everyone. I told them the story along with everyone else that watched what went on. The kids dad is wanting to sue Rush Paintball! On what terms I don't really know because the cops said he would haveno case because nothing wrong was done except by the acts of his kid.

Thruout the course of all this, no one cussed at him or threatned him, we just told him to get his stuff and leave and never come back. The kid had been warned before for acting up but nothing harsh. He is only the 3rd person we've had to ban. I mean he is only complaining because he got a welt from me and he got banned. Hell... I have cancer right now, my welt was bleeding his wasnt, and I never complained once. Welts are part of paintball, if u dont like it DONT PLAY!!!

[eric]

Ive played at Rush, nice place. People seemed pretty nice there too.

Sucks that that happened, but most people who say they want to sue dont end up doing it. If he does I think it would be pretty hard to get around it, as the kid had to sign a waiver to play.

[MarineRDNC]

thanks man, you oughta come play soon... we just redid the airfield, we moved it to a bigger area and its now big enough and designed for tourneys. we're actually having a 3 man young guns tourney tomorrow.

But yeah I doubt he'll sue, he has nothing to go against. And we could always counter-sue if it came to that.

[Meph]

That's why you need to have people like me attend these events.



I have some of the most fun in the parking lots after the events! hint hint, nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more!

[MarineRDNC]

yeah i know what u mean, I wanted to deck him but then I would be showing my age and then i COULD get sued. and plus its not good for buisness...

btw I can see u like monty python

[Halliday]

I don't have much experience with lawyers, but I do know here in the US anybody can sue just about anybody else for anything. Does that mean he'll win, no. Could he be a pain in the rear, yes.

[raehl]

You had an employee shoot a customer outside the context of the game.

Smartest thing your field owner could do is fire your friend right now.

- Chris

[elpimpo]

Originally posted by raehl
You had an employee shoot a customer outside the context of the game.

Smartest thing your field owner could do is fire your friend right now.

- Chris

how was it out of the context of the game he bunkered him these things happen. and why should the owner fire him

[raehl]

Originally posted by elpimpo
how was it out of the context of the game he bunkered him these things happen. and why should the owner fire him

I'm talking about the ref who walked off the field, got shot, then shot the player three times.

He should fire the ref as it indicates the ref was acting outside the bounds of field policy.

Of course, IANAL, so the field owner should really ask a lawyer what the best thing to do is and start saving up to pay the settlement.


- Chris

[elpimpo]

Originally posted by raehl


IANAL, - Chris

???????

[raehl]

I am not a lawyer.

[Tron]

Originally posted by raehl
I am not a lawyer.

Doubt they fire their kid...

-Tron

[spacedtedybear]

In situations like this, that is what waivers are for. Especially #4 on their webpage.

[shartley]

Originally posted by raehl
You had an employee shoot a customer outside the context of the game.

Smartest thing your field owner could do is fire your friend right now.

- Chris
You are very correct.

Employees, even when playing, are bound to follow the procedures of the park (or place of business). Most states and townships do not allow employees to use physical force to enforce rules of their business or business place. I would be that many here don’t even realize that store and mall security (as well as a good many College campus’) don’t allow their employees to physically touch someone in the course of their duties either. In many places to do so would result in them being charged with assault. They however rely on the average person NOT knowing this. So when they say “come with me” most people think they HAVE to. WRONG. ;) Most of the time you can simply walk away. (I would check with your local laws however, this is not the case with some places, just a good deal of them.)

In the situation as described above, the only legal action that could be taken is to stop the game and tell the individual to leave. If he did not leave, the police were to be called and have them escorted off of the property and told never to come back. And if they did, it would be criminal trespass and they would be arrested.

The welts are not the issue in this case, but the “punitive” measures the employee took to enforce his words, or more likely just to shoot him because he got shot. If an employee can’t understand that this is not acceptable behavior for staff, then he should not BE staff. Once you become a staff member at a park you are held to higher standards than an average player, because it is not just YOU that can be sued, but the park as well. It is not just YOU that has a reputation to think about, but the park as well.

And waivers do not cover employees shooting people as a punitive action… sorry.

[sbpyro]

Was there a ref for this game?
(if the refs were playing they should know when someone is pulling a ref shield that it is not allowed)
The ref that retaliated to the kid should not have shot him and by doing so undermined the respect that ref should have. Everyone's got to play by the rules. That kid should have known best of all since his parents owned the field.

My opinion of appropriate action on this would have been to walk my team off the field grab an active ref and had the kid sat down for grabbing the ref shield.

But then again I was not in the situation.

[Brak]

i dunno what the deal is, i wouldve just whooped his *** and sent him home.

but my dad is a lawyer, and theres no way he could actually have a case. he could file a case, sure, but with no permanent damage to him, he could only sue for being banned from the field. like that guy who sued a coach when his son didnt make the baseball team. what a douche.

and if they do file a case, countersue for harassment!

[Star_Base_CGI]

MarineRDNC, my mom is getting treatment for cancer. Get well soon!

That kid was a jerk, if his parents signed the release form guess what. No leg to stand on.

Wah, and yes you can sue anyone for anything in America. Doesnt mean you will win but some people do. I would have shot a hopper on him.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Brak
i dunno what the deal is, i wouldve just whooped his *** and sent him home.

but my dad is a lawyer, and theres no way he could actually have a case. he could file a case, sure, but with no permanent damage to him, he could only sue for being banned from the field. like that guy who sued a coach when his son didnt make the baseball team. what a douche.

and if they do file a case, countersue for harassment!
Because your Dad is a lawyer there is no way he could actually have a case? LOL Now THAT is funny.

Sure he has a case. And he has a case for a couple reasons. If the REF shot him while being a REF, he has a case. If the REF shot him while NOT being a REF (as punitive measures…. Which it clearly was) but still was being employed that day, he has a case. If there was no ACTIVE REF at that game, he has a case.

No, it is not about the damage done or not done by being shot. It is about who did the shooting and why.

And if you would have, as an employee of the field, “whooped his rear” and sent him home, there would have been even MORE grounds for a case against both you and the field.

And guess what? If you think you can just sue (and have a chance of winning) for harassment because someone sued YOU… LOL It does not work like that… TRUST me. Being sued ONCE for anything is not even close to grounds needed for winning a harassment case… even less when the other party actually HAS a justified case. The legal system is not set up so that if someone loses their case, they can be counter sued for harassment for filing the case in the first place.

Yes, you can counter sue for things, but not for BEING sued.

[Wickster]

generally, waivers are not worth the paper they are printed on. I know when you sign the waiver before playing it makes it sound as if you are signing your life away, but you cannot sign away your rights. (this is what my law professor told me last class (grad school) while we were talking about waivers for school field trips, etc.) The prof has been a circuit court judge for about 20 years.

I doubt the kid really has a case- using common sense, but the waiver means nothing.

[raehl]

I know of actual cases in the midwest where lawsuits were thrown out based on the waiver.

Now, there are some very specific things the waiver can and can not say to be held up as valid (i.e. you can't have a waiver that says "player holds field harmless for anything", but you can have one that says "Player holds field harmless for all but any wontonly negligent acts" or something) but waivers DO work.

If anything, they establish that a customer was aware of risks of participation.

- Chris

[Wickster]

If you know of actual cases where waivers have been held up, then I am glad that they do. I also agree that waivers DO show that the player is aware of risks. Waivers however do not remove the field from laibility (or keep them from being sued).

Thank you for the clarification Raehl.

[Brak]

Originally posted by shartley

Because your Dad is a lawyer there is no way he could actually have a case? LOL Now THAT is funny.

Sure he has a case. And he has a case for a couple reasons. If the REF shot him while being a REF, he has a case. If the REF shot him while NOT being a REF (as punitive measures…. Which it clearly was) but still was being employed that day, he has a case. If there was no ACTIVE REF at that game, he has a case.

No, it is not about the damage done or not done by being shot. It is about who did the shooting and why.

And if you would have, as an employee of the field, “whooped his rear” and sent him home, there would have been even MORE grounds for a case against both you and the field.

And guess what? If you think you can just sue (and have a chance of winning) for harassment because someone sued YOU… LOL It does not work like that… TRUST me. Being sued ONCE for anything is not even close to grounds needed for winning a harassment case… even less when the other party actually HAS a justified case. The legal system is not set up so that if someone loses their case, they can be counter sued for harassment for filing the case in the first place.

Yes, you can counter sue for things, but not for BEING sued.

what permanent damage was done to the kid? could you tell me that? you can't sue for being shot. could you give me a prediction of how the deposition will go? the kid will be deposed, have no idea what to say other than "he shot me and it hurt but i shot him and then i got kicked out and theyre big fat jerks" and have the case thrown out right then and there.

and did you read about the coach sued by a parent for not letting his kid make the team? the coach countersued for being sued by the parent in the first place. his reason: "how else will i prevent it from happening again?". what if the owner of the paintball place thinks a kid will try to pull it again?

[Recon by Fire]

Not a lawyer either, but I work in litigation :)

What should have happened as soon as the kid did not leave when told to do so, was a call to the police. Criminal Trespass!

Despite the other events, I doubt the field will face any real trouble. The kid willingly escalated and caused the discord. Waivers are pretty useless but they can be helpful in declaring the players knowledge and expectation of the physical aspects of playing.

The kids dad is an ***-munch and it is probably where the kid gets it from!

[shartley]

Originally posted by Recon by Fire
Not a lawyer either, but I work in litigation :)

What should have happened as soon as the kid did not leave when told to do so, was a call to the police. Criminal Trespass!

Despite the other events, I doubt the field will face any real trouble. The kid willingly escalated and caused the discord. Waivers are pretty useless but they can be helpful in declaring the players knowledge and expectation of the physical aspects of playing.

The kids dad is an ***-munch and it is probably where the kid gets it from!
Just a slight correction… if the police came and escorted him off the property, it would not be Criminal Trespass. They can not arrest him for trespassing when asked to leave.. the first time. They could only arrest and charge him with disorderly conduct if he refused to leave when the police asked him to (or even if they wanted to push the issue of him not leaving when the OWNERS asked him to leave… but normally they would not). It only becomes Criminal Trespass AFTER the police escort him off the property and TELL him to never return. THEN upon returning, it is Criminal Trespass, not before.

[Recon by Fire]

Ah, not so fast Shartley-son :)

We are both assuming they have similar laws as we each have respectively. In Texas, once you are told to leave and do not, it becomes criminal trespassing. Then again, if you throw toliet paper on someone's house at night you can also be shot dead :) Damn, I love Texas!

[shartley]

Originally posted by Recon by Fire
Ah, not so fast Shartley-son :)

We are both assuming they have similar laws as we each have respectively. In Texas, once you are told to leave and do not, it becomes criminal trespassing. Then again, if you throw toliet paper on someone's house at night you can also be shot dead :) Damn, I love Texas!
Ahhh.... Valid point. Got a copy of that law? ;)

Oh... and he is not in Texas. :D I guess the argument would then hinge on what the law states in HIS state. ;)

[Albinonewt]

I can't imagine that anything will come of the lawsuit. The ref firing on the kid was certainly inappropriate, but given the kid's behavior and conduct I do seriously doubt anything will happen with it.

Besides, what exactly would the kid sue for? Not for injury, disfigurement, emotional scarring. And I can't see punitive damages coming into play in this sense.

But, nothing is impossible. The ref shouldn't have returned fire, even if the kid was wrong to shoot first.

[raehl]

Lawsuit->Jury.

Jury->variable.

Variable->settlement.


- Chris

[cphilip]

I had a friends mothers brother who once dated a lawyer... so I know! :rolleyes:

As "employee's" of the field you were bound to a higher standard. And you did use force to settle the issue. You should have stopped the play immediately, left the field and called the Police. At that point you could have gotten him for assault. But then you took matters into your own hands and as they say "two wrongs never make a right". I have to agree the field SHOULD distance itself from all of you that acted as Refs (field employee) that participated in the retaliation of this kids actions. You made the wrong choice as to how to deal with it. Never take the law into your own hands. least you get burned by that same law. He may also still be guilty of assault but you now have put the field in the postition of its employee's using undue force and means rather than using the law to enforce order. Nothing would have been lost by you taking cover and calling the law. And much would have been gained.

[MarineRDNC]

Okay first off you guys... the kid and his dad arent pissed because Caleb shot him after he shot Caleb... he's mad because I bunkered him and the baby got a welt, then he got banned. If he wouldn't have gotten banned, the little baby would never have came back and threatened to sue!

And Caleb (the one that turned and shot him) wasnt reffing that game... as I stated before he was playing the game along with me on my team. And I believe Caleb did still have the right to shoot him as Caleb was still in the game... he was never shot out. Unless you wanna count this douche shooting him in the back after he told him to get off the field.

And for those of you who said this... why in the hell would we fire Caleb, when his parents own the freaking company? You guys are about retarded... we told the kid to leave, he wouldnt, he lit caleb up after being asked to leave the game... caleb shot him, i bunkered him, he shot me in the back, i turned and shot him, he threatened to shoot me again, I told him to "do it" he walked off the field left game over and the end of the day, 30 minutes later, daddy comes threatening to sue because he got a welt from me bunkering him. END OF STORY

[cphilip]

Caleb was an agent of the field. In fact he stoped the game to take the shield away from the kid and acted as an agent in directing the kid in what to do. Your description now mine. He was no longer acting as a player in the game at that point. And even a Owner that might playing does not relieve himself of his liability for HIS actions or his repsonsibilities as the owner. Same goes for an Employee.

My kid or not he would not be Reffing for me any longer. He should have stopped the game and called the cops! Period. You woulda had this little screwball by the nutz if you had of done that.

[MarineRDNC]

well either way the kid isnt going to sue, if he was he would have done it already. it happened going on 3 weeks now this coming sunday. and even so, when we did call the cops and they came and we all told them the story, both cops that I and Caleb talked to said that the actions that we took were perfectly legal and that if the kid did sue, he would have no case.

I still know alot of you don't agree with me and with the actions that we did take, but if you would have been there and actually had seen what went on you would understand.

[cphilip]

Oh I understand. I too would have been tempted to light him up. I don't think anyone doesn't understand your emotions. But I was trying to make a point for next time. Trust me I have done the wrong thing before and so I am not trying to preach at you. Just trying to give you my perspective of how you might do "better" next time. Acting on emotions often lead to mistakes making your position vulnerable. And so its best to let the offender keep all the blame rather than have to share it. The only way to do that is to remain cool and collected and make him pay the REAL hard way. I know I woulda felt better for a minute after I shot the little creap but I woulda felt even better seeing him in court on an Assault charge in some serious trouble. And all the while not having to worry in the least about even the chance of being successfully sued. That would have been better is all I was saying.

[shartley]

Originally posted by MarineRDNC
Okay first off you guys... the kid and his dad arent pissed because Caleb shot him after he shot Caleb... he's mad because I bunkered him and the baby got a welt, then he got banned. If he wouldn't have gotten banned, the little baby would never have came back and threatened to sue!

And Caleb (the one that turned and shot him) wasnt reffing that game... as I stated before he was playing the game along with me on my team. And I believe Caleb did still have the right to shoot him as Caleb was still in the game... he was never shot out. Unless you wanna count this douche shooting him in the back after he told him to get off the field.

And for those of you who said this... why in the hell would we fire Caleb, when his parents own the freaking company? You guys are about retarded... we told the kid to leave, he wouldnt, he lit caleb up after being asked to leave the game... caleb shot him, i bunkered him, he shot me in the back, i turned and shot him, he threatened to shoot me again, I told him to "do it" he walked off the field left game over and the end of the day, 30 minutes later, daddy comes threatening to sue because he got a welt from me bunkering him. END OF STORY
So Caleb was NOT a REF?

So Caleb was PLAYING?

So, as a player, he had no authority to tell ANYONE to get off the field, right? And if he turned his back to another player who was on the opposite team and got shot, how is that the other player’s fault? How is that NOT allowed? Seems to me that if you are PLAYING and get hit by another player you ARE out. And any shots you take after that are ILLEGAL.

And parents can’t fire their own children? Interesting. I would however bet that as their CHILD they would be even more concerned that their own blood was following the rules and not making the business look bad. Heck, I sure would.

WAS there a REF at that game? If not, why not?!?! And you said “we” told him…….. are YOU a field employee? And if not, what “power” did you have to tell anyone ANYTHING?

Fields are responsible for ALL actions taken on their fields, during standard business, or on off hours.

Seems to me this “story” is changing a bit as we go along. And you are sure being mature about tossing out names every chance you can get.

END OF STORY? LOL Not likely. You will be LUCKY if it is the end of the story… and so will the field.

[MarineRDNC]

I know completely what you mean cphilip, i think Caleb would have been smarter not to shoot him back but he is only 13 yrs old right now and Caleb isnt always the quickest to think if you know what I mean.

On a similar note, I was telling this story to my girlfriends uncle who used to play alot in tourneys and such too, and he said one time a guy at their field was being a turd burglar like this kid, and he got lit up. And he didnt' like it so the guy went and pulled a pistol on everyone and threatened to kill everyone that shot him... That was the last day her uncle played because he got too afraid of getting shot over a simple sport like paintball

[MarineRDNC]

Okay shartley i don't remember anyone asking you to come in my thread and be a dick about this like that kid! If you have an opinion, state it, but don't get an attitude like you were there and this happened to you.

And for your information yes I am a field employee so don't give me your crap about what "power" i have.

And we had 1 ref during that game, but he was dealing with a situation on the other side of the field and didn't see what was going on.

You tell me MR. tough guy... if you were playing at a field that your parents owned, you were playing in a game, and u saw a kid run onto the field with a shield that belonged to the refs... your telling me you would just sit there and let him keep playing with it? The kid would should have been out anyways as he was using the shield for protection as the rules of paintball states that if anything you are holding onto or touching except for a bunker gets shot during game play you are out! That includes ur gun, mask, urself, harness, empty pods sitting on ur lap... or in this case A SHIELD THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE! And as an employee the kid should have left the field the first time when asked to leave, no questions asked!

and as a player Caleb still does have the authority to tell someone to leave. You are such a retard dude, because look at what u said this way... Say you are the owner of a field and you're playing a game with your customers. One of the players does something very illegal and wrong.. you're saying the owner has no right to tell him to leave when he owns the field/property/company etc.? Well you're about retarded and need to go rethink what u just said.

[cphilip]

OK lets cool down the name calling. Thats flaming.

[MarineRDNC]

sorry he's just getting my tempers flaring

[shartley]

Originally posted by MarineRDNC
Okay shartley i don't remember anyone asking you to come in my thread and be a dick about this like that kid! If you have an opinion, state it, but don't get an attitude like you were there and this happened to you.

And for your information yes I am a field employee so don't give me your crap about what "power" i have.

And we had 1 ref during that game, but he was dealing with a situation on the other side of the field and didn't see what was going on.

You tell me MR. tough guy... if you were playing at a field that your parents owned, you were playing in a game, and u saw a kid run onto the field with a shield that belonged to the refs... your telling me you would just sit there and let him keep playing with it? The kid would should have been out anyways as he was using the shield for protection as the rules of paintball states that if anything you are holding onto or touching except for a bunker gets shot during game play you are out! That includes ur gun, mask, urself, harness, empty pods sitting on ur lap... or in this case A SHIELD THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE! And as an employee the kid should have left the field the first time when asked to leave, no questions asked!

and as a player Caleb still does have the authority to tell someone to leave. You are such a retard dude, because look at what u said this way... Say you are the owner of a field and you're playing a game with your customers. One of the players does something very illegal and wrong.. you're saying the owner has no right to tell him to leave when he owns the field/property/company etc.? Well you're about retarded and need to go rethink what u just said.
Excuse me?

Who is being Mr. tough guy?

And your arguments don’t hold any more water now with all your personal insults than they did before. If you don’t like my questions, then maybe you should have thought about what was done.

As an employee, you don’t take it upon yourself to SHOOT someone as part of doing your job. PERIOD. As soon as they stepped out the role of PLAYER and took on the role of EMPLOYEE, they are held to higher standards.

You really need to grow up. I was not insulting to you and only put you on the spot using your own words… can’t deal with it, don’t post about it. I did nothing wrong and will be damned having some kid call ME names when I didn’t do anything wrong. Get a clue.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by MarineRDNC
sorry he's just getting my tempers flaring

And didn't we just discuss why thats a good time to move away, cool down for a while and not get caught up in reacting out of anger? ;)

[cphilip]

Sam please try and not talk down to the kid. It's insulting. I know I come across that way sometimes too. But I try my best not to. Please help me here and do the same?

[MarineRDNC]

Originally posted by cphilip
Sam please try and not talk down to the kid. It's insulting. I know I come across that way sometimes too. But I try my best not to. Please help me here and do the same?

this thread is obviously just getting the worst of everybody so if you could, would you just mind deleting the thread for me so more words dont get thrown about here? Thanks

[shartley]

Originally posted by cphilip
Sam please try and not talk down to the kid. It's insulting. I know I come across that way sometimes too. But I try my best not to. Please help me here and do the same?
I am sorry if I came across as talking down. Let me apologize for that..... I apologize. I hope he does not think you are being condescending by calling him a kid though.

I was only trying to ask him questions about what he actually posted. I guess I hit a nerve being too close. I am sorry.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by shartley
I hope he does not think you are being condescending by calling him a kid though.

Yep your right. See there I go again doing it too! ;)

See when I type that term "kid" I am thinking in my mind that I consider all of these guys "my kids". So I mean it as a term of endearment realy. And I just do not think sometimes it comes across that other way. Sorry if it does. But yep I said before and will say again. I am guilty of it too.

[MarineRDNC]

its alright u can call me a kid... i am only 16. And shartley, sorry for calling you a dick and retarded and whatever else I said. You just got my tempers flaring and I'm not really feeling great in the first place due to radiation and chemo therapy.

[shartley]

Originally posted by cphilip


Yep your right. See there I go again doing it too! ;)

See when I type that term "kid" I am thinking in my mind that I consider all of these guys "my kids". So I mean it as a term of endearment realy. And I just do not think sometimes it comes across that other way. Sorry if it does. But yep I said before and will say again. I am guilty of it too.
;) Kind of hard not calling things as we see them though... even if no offense is intended isn’t it? ;)

[shartley]

Originally posted by MarineRDNC
its alright u can call me a kid... i am only 16. And shartley, sorry for calling you a dick and retarded and whatever else I said. You just got my tempers flaring and I'm not really feeling great in the first place due to radiation and chemo therapy.
I hope you feel better. I am well aware of the chemo therapy and radiation process. I hope everything turns out okay and you feel better soon.

[cphilip]

Yep its hard sometimes to put it in a way it does not send unintended thoughts. I agree.


Sorry your not feeling well Marine. Hope things are getting better for you.

[FatMan]

Jeez, you guys can be such asses! Phil has played several times in a situation without a ref and would very quickly be ready to speak to a player who was out of line. I'm glad you guys like everything to be so sparkly clean, but in the real world people go out and play - sometimes without a ref, sometimes with an owner or other authority playing in the game. And if someone does something stupid like that kid did, goes over and addresses the situation. There's nothing ILLEGAL about that! Sure shooting back is not a good idea - its childish at best, but illegal - bullfeathers!

Shartley why have you got to go a run your mouth (er, fingers?) every time a thread opens? You didn't even READ the guy's post! It took someone pointing out what was obviously stated that the guy was IN THE GAME. But NO, you have just got to jump in there and redirect the whole damn thread in YOUR direction. I mean, yes, what the kid did was not the right thing to do, it made sense to point that out but NO! FIRE the guy! ILLEGAL! AGENT of the establishment! You just have to blow it all out of proportion and argue the nitpicks until any semblence of the original thread is gone.

Jeez!

I feel better now!

FatMan

[shartley]

Originally posted by FatMan
Jeez, you guys can be such asses! Phil has played several times in a situation without a ref and would very quickly be ready to speak to a player who was out of line. I'm glad you guys like everything to be so sparkly clean, but in the real world people go out and play - sometimes without a ref, sometimes with an owner or other authority playing in the game. And if someone does something stupid like that kid did, goes over and addresses the situation. There's nothing ILLEGAL about that! Sure shooting back is not a good idea - its childish at best, but illegal - bullfeathers!

Shartley why have you got to go a run your mouth (er, fingers?) every time a thread opens? You didn't even READ the guy's post! It took someone pointing out what was obviously stated that the guy was IN THE GAME. But NO, you have just got to jump in there and redirect the whole damn thread in YOUR direction. I mean, yes, what the kid did was not the right thing to do, it made sense to point that out but NO! FIRE the guy! ILLEGAL! AGENT of the establishment! You just have to blow it all out of proportion and argue the nitpicks until any semblence of the original thread is gone.

Jeez!

I feel better now!

FatMan
LOL Too funny. Relax before you have a heart attack big guy. ;) Yeah, I was the ONLY one talking in this thread (or others). LOL Seems you have no problem grabbing that soap box and megaphone and doing a bit of yelling yourself. :D

I knew what happened, and was only reiterating it. My questions were not serious questions, but rhetorical questions. A man of obvious learnin’ such as yourself should know all about that. :)

I am glad you feel better though…. Mr. Pot… meet Mr. Kettle. ;)

[Lohman446]

[i]
On a similar note, I was telling this story to my girlfriends uncle who used to play alot in tourneys and such too, and he said one time a guy at their field was being a turd burglar like this kid, and he got lit up. And he didnt' like it so the guy went and pulled a pistol on everyone and threatened to kill everyone that shot him... That was the last day her uncle played because he got too afraid of getting shot over a simple sport like paintball [/B]

Interesting... this is why they make what is called a CCW in Michigan, authorizing one to carry a concealed pistol. I don't carry mine on the paintball field, way too physical of a sport for me to think that safe. On my field I know of at least two people who have a CCW and some that carry (a very secured concealed) pistol nearly everywhere they go who beleive they can do it safely. First person who draws a weapon and threatens is going to have a problem.

As far as liability - who cares, this is why in business you carry very very expensive liability insurance - behind articles of corporation that keep employees under a corporation that holds very little in the way of assets (thus not a liability suit target). A waiver just makes you get a better lawyer to get past it and keeps the common person from sueing you - most lawyers realize that all but a few waivers are a joke.

[dave_p]

ok, i didnt read every reply in this post.also i am not a particularly opinionated member of this forum and tend to stay clear of this kind of thing.
that being said:

markers should never have been fired in anger with malicious intent by anyone period ever. it borders assault.
this is the kind of thing that is ruining this sport. i dont see how that is debatable.

[Lohman446]

I have to agree with Dave P - if you have a problem put your marker down - if you have to settle a problem physically, fine, face the lawsuit/criminal justice system that way. But quit making potential headlines of our sport.

[Recon by Fire]

Originally posted by raehl
Lawsuit->Jury.
Jury->variable.
Variable->settlement.


Don't you mean:

Lawsuit = settlement

Jury = BIG monetary judgement


I hate settlements! Even when you know you can beat a case they will often settle to save on the cost of fighting the suit because it ends up cheaper.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by dave_p
markers should never have been fired in anger with malicious intent by anyone period ever. it borders assault.
this is the kind of thing that is ruining this sport. i dont see how that is debatable.

Truer words have not been spoken...

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by FatMan
Shartley why have you got to go a run your mouth (er, fingers?) every time a thread opens? You didn't even READ the guy's post! It took someone pointing out what was obviously stated that the guy was IN THE GAME. But NO, you have just got to jump in there and redirect the whole damn thread in YOUR direction. I mean, yes, what the kid did was not the right thing to do, it made sense to point that out but NO! FIRE the guy! ILLEGAL! AGENT of the establishment! You just have to blow it all out of proportion and argue the nitpicks until any semblence of the original thread is gone.

With the possible exception of Dave's comments, Truer words have not been spoken (sorry, I say that alot, ya'll are gonna start getting used to it)

[Lohman446]

I have been flat out told by my liability company that if I shoot someone (not paintball marker) and it is justifiable self defense - no matter how clear cut it is - they will settle with that persons estate for any sum up to $130,000 - that is the number they have calculated the risk to not be worth it. And every civil attorney knows that, thats what they ask for, thats what they get. I know this ahead of time - even if I have no civil liability. Now that's just sad.

[FatMan]

Originally posted by Lohman446
I have been flat out told by my liability company that if I shoot someone (not paintball marker) and it is justifiable self defense - no matter how clear cut it is - they will settle with that persons estate for any sum up to $130,000 - that is the number they have calculated the risk to not be worth it. And every civil attorney knows that, thats what they ask for, thats what they get. I know this ahead of time - even if I have no civil liability. Now that's just sad.

Yes sad - and why is that? Because if you put the matter to a jury, no matter how "clear cut", no matter your expert testimony, no matter how good your argument, juries can, and do find against you a certain non-insignificant part of the time. Sit on a few juries yourself and you'll see. It is really, really scary that people have to put their lives into the hands of a jury.

Thus, you never, ever, want to do that for something like a shooting, let alone a fatal shooting. You start out the trial with a great big minus sign (don't let ANYONE tell you this innocent until proven guilty crap - your average juror will have an initial tendecy to be against you if you shoot and kill someone, no matter the reason).

Thus, anyone who shoots someone unless it is really, really the last resort, has his head firmly planted in his ***!

FatMan

[Xyxyll]

Woah! Woah! Guys... shartley was basically explaining what should have happened, what shouldn't, what could happen, and what should not happen in the future. I don't see anything inappropriate with what he is saying.

MarineRDNC, dude man... he's only trying to help. Chill. (Also sorry to hear about your cancer... :( )

[eric]

marine, whats your name?

[SirOssis]

Originally posted by shartley

Ahhh.... Valid point. Got a copy of that law? ;)

Oh... and he is not in Texas. :D I guess the argument would then hinge on what the law states in HIS state. ;)

I've had to have a few people removed from the store I work at in IL. To get them banned from the store legally( to get criminal trespassing) a certified letter has to be sent to the person and then have it CC'd to the local police. But the store wont do that because then its on record that the store was aware of a problem and if that person came back and did something then the store would be liable for laxed in its supervision of it store grounds.

[1stdeadeye]

Actually reading all of the posts, it sounds like no big deal. The banned kid's father sounds like a white trash blowhard. If he was really going to sue anyone, I doubt he would go to the site of the alleged incident and try to fight!

People like that are not worth your time! I wouldn't even think twice about them! Blowhards need to blow up then fade away. Lawsuit? From your description, I seriously doubt it!

Good luck with the chemo though! :cool:

[MarineRDNC]

eric: my name is Ryan Dionne