anyone ever get kicked off a field too?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shartley


While a paintball gun being randomly discharged toward me in normal course of play isn't considered deadly I would tend to believe that one leveled at me, by putting it to my throat, and accompanied by threats may constitute a threat to my life.

Everyone on the paintball field is trying to SHOOT everyone on the opposing team (and if you have a bunch of newbs, maybe even their own team ). The equipment was specifically designed to shoot people.

True, but then we get into the next element of the arguement. Designed to shoot people with what intent? The simple answer is the intent to get paint on the person so they stop playing. In this example, the standard intent has already been satisified, as the 2 people in question were both marked with paint and no longer playing. In this case the specific intent of the person with the paintball gun is to harm, and that's what sets this apart from normal play.



Sure it does, because in this instance I signed up to play paintball, and instead I'm getting a maniac threatening me with harm and gun. And he has physically threatened me by holding it to my throat.



It's hardly impossible (although not entirely likely) to justify that. Suppose your person with the hockey stick was threatening him in a convincing manner and clearly brandishing the stick as a weapon. In that case it would be possible for the other person to be intimidated enough to clearly, and rightfully so, fear for his life. How many hits to an unprotected head by a determined assaulter with a hockey stick can you take? I can't take many.



Too murky, not touching that. On one hand, firing a single round is sufficient force to "remove" the threat. On the other hand, if witnesses are going to testify that i threatened him, then he threatened me, then i shot him because I felt threatened, I'm boned.



I grew up with guns. I've been a licensed pistol and rifle instructor since I was 21 and 18. I have tought all kinds of different combat classes and about the legality of weapons. So, I most certainly have a sound basis for my viewpoint. Although that certainly doesn't mean I'm automatically right, it does mean that I'm not some crackpot that watches TV and then professes to know the law.

And on that note, it is especially because of my extensive exposure to firearms that I would take so seriously any mistreatement of paintball guns, from holding it to someone's throat to shooting at a person in anger. I woudn't do that with any real firearm and nor would I with any "fake" firearm, it isn't safe practice and it isn't what i teach in firearm safety. When I'm at the field and I see people point unplugged barrels at me with their hand on the grip I nearly have a heart attack. I can't tell you how many markers I've swatted out of people's hands and how many people I've restrained (not with hard core force, just grabbing their gun and pointing it down) for that nonsense. I take very seriously the handeling of all firearms.

That being said, I would never pull my own firearm on someone unless I had a sincere and honest belief that it was him or me, and at that point I'm putting two in his head. In the example with the marker to the throat, I would at the point have no problem pulling my knife on him (as stated way long ago) so that he is away I take my safety very seriously, and will not tolerate it being jeopardized by some kid that wants to act tough with a gun. I would not attack him, but I would make it very clear that if he pulls that trigger he's coming out of this in much worse shape then I am.

But as for the issue of shooting the guy using a paintball gun in a threatening way, i really think that given the right breaks in the case the person could get away with it, or at least get the charges or sentencing reduced. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really see a convinving argument there that has an ok chance of working. Lot's of things would have to be just right though, but I think it's possible.

But, I don't want to know who's right enough to shoot a kid at paintball, and unless you're willing to do it I suggest we chalk this up to a difference of opinion on a purely speculative manner.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by hitech


I didn't say anything about threatening. I said that in the normal course of play you could have a marker pointed point blank at (even touching) your throat and fired. If you would truly fear for your life in that situation, why do you play?

And yes, I have seen someone shot in the throat with the barrel touching their throat. The "victim", a friend of mine, confirmed it was touching when fired.

In the normal course of play a football player can have his leg snapped to the point that it would never work again. But it is very rare, and almost always the result of someone doing something wrong.

If someone walked up to your friend, touched the gun, and fired into his throat that guy did something wrong.

But don't sit here and tell me it's a normal and regular part of gameplay for people to touch their guns and delibertaly fire into someone's throat, because it isn't and you know it. Accident's happen, and sometimes people overshoot or don't allow surrender because they're a little too pumped with adrenaline, but they do not threaten with a paintball gun and hold the gun to the throat. A pointblank shot to the throat in gameplay is definitly inappropriate, and at most fields I play at would at the very least make the person sit for that.

[hitech]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
But don't sit here and tell me it's a normal and regular part of game play for people to touch their guns and deliberately fire into someone's throat, because it isn't and you know it.

Would you fear for your life if on the paintball field someone pointed paintball gun at your throat so close that it touched it? If yes, then why do you play as it can easily happen (blind bunker move). If no, then you would NOT be justified in the use of deadly force, period. The bottom line here is that I don't believe that you can justify the use of deadly force because someone threatened you with a paintball marker on a paintball field during game play. Do you honestly believe that you could justify the use of deadly force?

[shartley]

Albinonewt
While a paintball gun being randomly discharged toward me in normal course of play isn't considered deadly I would tend to believe that one leveled at me, by putting it to my throat, and accompanied by threats may constitute a threat to my life.



Albinonewt
True, but then we get into the next element of the arguement. Designed to shoot people with what intent? The simple answer is the intent to get paint on the person so they stop playing. In this example, the standard intent has already been satisified, as the 2 people in question were both marked with paint and no longer playing. In this case the specific intent of the person with the paintball gun is to harm, and that's what sets this apart from normal play.



Albinonewt
Sure it does, because in this instance I signed up to play paintball, and instead I'm getting a maniac threatening me with harm and gun. And he has physically threatened me by holding it to my throat.



Albinonewt
It's hardly impossible (although not entirely likely) to justify that. Suppose your person with the hockey stick was threatening him in a convincing manner and clearly brandishing the stick as a weapon. In that case it would be possible for the other person to be intimidated enough to clearly, and rightfully so, fear for his life. How many hits to an unprotected head by a determined assaulter with a hockey stick can you take? I can't take many.



Albinonewt
Too murky, not touching that. On one hand, firing a single round is sufficient force to "remove" the threat. On the other hand, if witnesses are going to testify that i threatened him, then he threatened me, then i shot him because I felt threatened, I'm boned.

You would have to prove that shooting was the level NEEDED, not that it was sufficient. And that is where many of your arguments fall flat.

Albinonewt
I grew up with guns. I've been a licensed pistol and rifle instructor since I was 21 and 18. I have tought all kinds of different combat classes and about the legality of weapons. So, I most certainly have a sound basis for my viewpoint. Although that certainly doesn't mean I'm automatically right, it does mean that I'm not some crackpot that watches TV and then professes to know the law.



Albinonewt
And on that note, it is especially because of my extensive exposure to firearms that I would take so seriously any mistreatement of paintball guns, from holding it to someone's throat to shooting at a person in anger. I woudn't do that with any real firearm and nor would I with any "fake" firearm, it isn't safe practice and it isn't what i teach in firearm safety. When I'm at the field and I see people point unplugged barrels at me with their hand on the grip I nearly have a heart attack. I can't tell you how many markers I've swatted out of people's hands and how many people I've restrained (not with hard core force, just grabbing their gun and pointing it down) for that nonsense. I take very seriously the handeling of all firearms.



Albinonewt
That being said, I would never pull my own firearm on someone unless I had a sincere and honest belief that it was him or me, and at that point I'm putting two in his head. In the example with the marker to the throat, I would at the point have no problem pulling my knife on him (as stated way long ago) so that he is away I take my safety very seriously, and will not tolerate it being jeopardized by some kid that wants to act tough with a gun. I would not attack him, but I would make it very clear that if he pulls that trigger he's coming out of this in much worse shape then I am.

And in pulling a knife you have increased the level to much higher than I believe a court would find necessary as well. You see, it takes less effort to simply push the barrel off your neck than it does to pull a knife and use it. And in fact, in the time it takes to do that, you could actually be shot. Try convincing a jury that you thought it was better defense to take the time to find and pull a knife over simply using your arm/hand to push the barrel away. Sorry, it would not hold water.

Albinonewt
But as for the issue of shooting the guy using a paintball gun in a threatening way, i really think that given the right breaks in the case the person could get away with it, or at least get the charges or sentencing reduced. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really see a convinving argument there that has an ok chance of working. Lot's of things would have to be just right though, but I think it's possible.

Again, I disagree. But I hope no one has to test it out.

Albinonewt
But, I don't want to know who's right enough to shoot a kid at paintball, and unless you're willing to do it I suggest we chalk this up to a difference of opinion on a purely speculative manner.

Yes, we can chalk it up to differences of opinion. But I would advise anyone reading this to take into account where the opinions are coming from and decide who they think may have a better idea of the realities of the situation. And then they should decide if it is worth testing out or not.

[hitech]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
But don't sit here and tell me it's a normal and regular part of gameplay for people to touch their guns and delibertaly fire into someone's throat, because it isn't and you know it.

[cockermongol]

Originally posted by hitech

Would you fear for your life if on the paintball field someone pointed paintball gun at your throat so close that it touched it?

Yes.

Originally posted by hitech

If yes, then why do you play as it can easily happen (blind bunker move).

It can't easily happen. It would be one in a million. I guess it's a risk you take. People have died playing football, it doesn't stop me from playing. In this situation he was guaranteed a ball to the throat.

Originally posted by hitech

The bottom line here is that I don't believe that you can justify the use of deadly force because someone threatened you with a paintball marker on a paintball field during game play. Do you honestly believe that you could justify the use of deadly force?

ABSOLUTELY. He is threatening the use of deadly force, in this situation I would honestly fear for my life. If I was packing, I would use it. Bottom Line. If it would get that barrel out of my throat, then SO BE IT.

[hitech]

Originally posted by cockermongol
Yes...ABSOLUTELY. He is threatening the use of deadly force...

I don't believe you. If you were actually in that situation you would change your mind before killing someone because they threatened you with a paintball marker. Your really going to say to the arresting officer, but sir, he pointed a paintball gun at me! Those things can be dangerous!

However, if my some stretch of imagination you are telling the truth, I feel sorry for you. It's going to land you in jail.

Originally posted by cockermongol
It can't easily happen. It would be one in a million.

So, you're telling me that a blind bunker move is a one in a million event? Ever played in/watched a tournament?

[raehl]

Blah blah blah....

One quick point:

Being in danger is generally *NOT* a sufficient justification for self-defense, especially self-defense homicide. Not only must you be in danger, but you must ALSO be unable to remove the danger through non-violent means, or non-lethal means.


If someone places a paintball barrel on your neck, and you take out your gun and shoot him, that's not self-defense, as you could have just as easily (perhaps even more easily/effectively), moved so teh barrel wasn't pointed at you, or failing that, forcefully removed the barrel from your neck.


- Chris

[Recon by Fire]

Re: Blah blah blah....

Originally posted by raehl
One quick point:

Being in danger is generally *NOT* a sufficient justification for self-defense, especially self-defense homicide. Not only must you be in danger, but you must ALSO be unable to remove the danger through non-violent means, or non-lethal means.

I hate to drag this argument on further, but the above is not necessarily true. Some states do not require "retreat" before the use of dealy force. This whole discussion of defense and such is highly subjective to state laws. There is no one answer to cover all locales.

Like I said before, fighting and paintball are not good bed fellows and should be kept seperate, no matter what!

[Gman63]

After following this thread for a few days I feel the need to chime in. First, both players were wrong. Second how did the player get close enough to place the barrel of his marker on Wicked's neck. If Wicked approached this other player while shouting obscenities, no court in the country would say he or anyone else in that situation was justified in killing someone. In fact if verbal shouting was all that was going on and you rapidly approached an individual, that individual would be considered in their right to possibly try and defend him or herself. Now not being there as an eyewitness to the incident I cannot pass judgement of right or wrong, from what I have gathered on this thread alot of wrong on alot of sides.
Wicked, a word of advice from someone who has participated in alot of sports at top amature and professional levels, next time it happens, smile at the person, tell them it was a nice shot, chid them with niceities and then wax his or her butt in every game you can the rest of the day. Also after everytime there eliminated, smile at them and give them a quick" You'll do better next time". Keep cool, and learn from all of your experiences.

[WicKeD_WaYz]

First let me state this.

Even though I know, and a lot of people else on this board know, getting shot in the throat at point blank CHANCES ARE would not kill a person. Therefore my life was not threatened necessarly.

quick side note: wierd stuff happens sometimes. I guess I COULD have died.


continuing on... A court of law could easily prove that a paintball gun, shot at that close of range, could kill someone. Why? Because Im assuming most lawyers, judges, jury members, etc. have not actually played. A lot of people look at our sport like we are playing some war game with realistic guns. Thats why it would not be beyond me to think that a court of law could prove a paintgun is a deadly weapon.

Think of it this way. If I walked down the street and stuck and marker to a guys throat and said give me your money. If he pulled out a gun and shot me in self defence, he could probably convince a jury that his life was threatened.

O ya and Sam. By saying that when I signed a waiver to play and therefore I have no reason to complain when someone sticks a gun to my throat, thats crazy. As soon as I walked into the deadzone I was no longer playing paintball. The marker then was used as a weapon. (lethal or non-lethal I will leave up to you guys)

[raehl]

No..

He could convince a jury that *HE* reasonably believed his life was threatened.

You know better.

- Chris

[Shift]

Malicious intent was intended by the dude with the gun pointing at wicks neck. wick just wanted to yell and vent anger. If thats illegal, New York is going to jail.


i got shot in the back of my bald head from 10 feet away... it bleed a lot.... still brusied and scabbed... happened a week and 3 days ago... someone puts a gun to my neck from point blank, they will regret it... either that or ill end up getting my *** kicked


chris

[shartley]

Originally posted by WicKeD_WaYz
First let me state this.

Even though I know, and a lot of people else on this board know, getting shot in the throat at point blank CHANCES ARE would not kill a person. Therefore my life was not threatened necessarly.

quick side note: wierd stuff happens sometimes. I guess I COULD have died.


continuing on... A court of law could easily prove that a paintball gun, shot at that close of range, could kill someone. Why? Because Im assuming most lawyers, judges, jury members, etc. have not actually played. A lot of people look at our sport like we are playing some war game with realistic guns. Thats why it would not be beyond me to think that a court of law could prove a paintgun is a deadly weapon.

Think of it this way. If I walked down the street and stuck and marker to a guys throat and said give me your money. If he pulled out a gun and shot me in self defence, he could probably convince a jury that his life was threatened.

O ya and Sam. By saying that when I signed a waiver to play and therefore I have no reason to complain when someone sticks a gun to my throat, thats crazy. As soon as I walked into the deadzone I was no longer playing paintball. The marker then was used as a weapon. (lethal or non-lethal I will leave up to you guys)

[sbpyro]

Wow,
I've been playing paintball for a while now and this post just amazes me.

I guess rec ball in cali is a little more competitive (sorta like their softball).

Not saying I would have reacted differently or the same with someone pointing a paintgun at my throat since I wasn't there and not my throat. (And have been shot in the throat from the distance of 2 to 3 ft it hurts)

I think this is just something all fields ( I understand they were understaff) should be aware of and strict rule placed on any physical contact should not be tolerated.

The fields I've played on we have a 10 ft surrender rule (within 10 ft offer it doesn't mean it will be taken) and this will often cause a debate of you couldn't have gotten close enough to surrender us in a bunker. I was in a situation 2 weeks ago where 3 guys in a bunker were being accused of blindfiring against my team. So I was out of air anyways decided to rush the bunker. I pointed over the bunker and yelled surrender (which they didn't have to take) but since their guns were in the netting they really shouldn't have much of a choice. They cover man pops out and nails me in the side of the ribs and stitched me a couple of times on the back from about 15 ft. So I'm out I turn and start walking out (with gun up and barrel plug in) and proceed to get lit up from behind.
Yes I was bs'd but I also realized I was in the line of fire so I walked to a point near the exit of the field an finished my arguement with the 3 in that area.

I find out later those 3 are notorious for wiping and apparently whining. But I don't think I ever felt that I was at any point in any danger no matter how heated our arguement was.

I'm old now so I can't use the I'm underaged excuse (also there is also the term tried as an adult). I do believe that each player is responsible for their actions, whether it be blindfire or empting a hopper into someone at point blank. It disgusts me that this incident got to the point of physical contact (gun to throat not the shoving/reaction). But I also think that trying to justify the reaction is wrong also (not as much but wrong is still wrong) because it happen and no matter what you can't take back the reaction it happened (ie if i shot some one saying I'm sorry or that he had a weapon won't make the fact that I shot him changed). I think that this post was a way for wicked to vent a frustration with an idiot on the field. But all the reply post about him being wrong is a frustration of other ppl with problems like this occuring at their fields.

My opinion on this issue is that ppl in our sport need to be more responsible with their actions on and especially off the field (ppl playing renegade in woods or worse shooting up the neighborhood). I believe that one of the things that we agree upon is that the ref's word is the law (doesn't mean I will always agree with it but save the whining for someone who cares) and that there should be a level of respect for all other players. And if the culprit is a newbie let the appropriate ppl handle it. If it is being ignored should you really be playing at that field (I don't believe that there is any fields that would allow the behavior of sticking a marker in someone's throat to be unpunished).