How close to criminal negligence are we

[GT]

What part of you don't have to violate a law to be negligent and as a result guilty of manslaughter do you not get. You violate accepted and known safety standards without any evidence to support the safety of what your doing, as such are guilty, in my opinion, of gross negligence - you have not acted in a prudent manner. Once again, you don't have to commit a crime to be negligent and guilty of manslaughter

so now we are talking about gross negilence. Tell me how gross can you be when all of the popular manufacters all offer some kind of debounce, shot buffering, ramping, and f/a modes? Attatching the gross part means you were way, way, wat out of line. Paintball, right now, is endorcing this behavior.

Now way this will ever fly in criminal court.

[Lohman446]

so now we are talking about gross negilence. Tell me how gross can you be when all of the popular manufacters all offer some kind of debounce, shot buffering, ramping, and f/a modes? Attatching the gross part means you were way, way, wat out of line. Paintball, right now, is endorcing this behavior.

Now way this will ever fly in criminal court.

So if everyone violates accepted industry safety standards its ok? Without some testing backing your decision to disregard ASTM I beleive you are grossly negligent in the eyes of the law - when may I ask was I not discussing criminal negligence? It is the consideration in the thread title. If I allow train cars to go down the street, without setting a lookout, even if every company does it, and someone is injured, even if that person could have pervented injury through action - I am grossly negligent... remember it is not what everyone else is doing but what a prudent person SHOULD do.

FYI - the train example is addressed in the example from which I quoted earlier - if you look it up there is case law precedent.

Also an interesting consideration - how many of those that come from the manufacturer as you suggest are still on original trigger settings - as in without having someone play with debounce, or adjust the trigger pull weight or length?

[kscullin]

Isn't unintentional negligence vs. intent the difference between manslaughter and murder? I don't believe there needs to be intent to harm to fall under negligence - just ignoring accepted safety standards/common sense.

If I'm driving down the road, playing with my CD player, and hit and kill someone because I wasn't looking at the road, I certainly didn't intend to hurt anyone. Still, I was negligent in paying due dilligence while I was driving. Involuntary negligent vehicular manslaughter, here I come.

[GT]

If I allow train cars to go down the street, without setting a lookout, even if every company does it, and someone is injured, even if that person could have pervented injury through action - I am grossly negligent... remember it is not what everyone else is doing but what a prudent person SHOULD do.

You bet you are, but I imagine if you look in the regulations, fedral regs, for trains there i ssome kind of proper language to address thier safety at rest. Federal is completely different than astm. Find me a case where someone violates astm and found crimianly neglent.

If I'm driving down the road, playing with my CD player, and hit and kill someone because I wasn't looking at the road, I certainly didn't intend to hurt anyone. Still, I was negligent in paying due dilligence while I was driving. Involuntary negligent vehicular manslaughter, here I come.

Due diligence is not a crime, however having a pair of headphones on, impeeding your ability to react, is negilgent.

Find a case where someone was convicted criminally for an industry practice that IS NOT a federal statue or law.

[Lohman446]

Find a case where someone was convicted criminally for an industry practice that IS NOT a federal statue or law.

Show me where the criminal negligence statutes require violation of a federal/state/local law.

And tomorrow on the case law, my time tonight involves hunting case law for Michigan Child Custody - thanks to my ex.

[SlartyBartFast]

Find a case where someone was convicted criminally for an industry practice that IS NOT a federal statue or law.

Use the power of Google.
"industry practice criminal negligence"

http://www.mcrlaw.com/publications2.asp?id=88

And alright you can be a smart-alec and say that's not an actual case, but use your brain and put 1 and 1 together to come up with 2.

Now how about this, even is you follow industry standards or "practice" you can still be found negligent.

The traditional view is reflected in two recent Alberta decisions, determined in 2002, R. v. General Scrap Iron and Metals Ltd. [2003] A.J. 390 (Alta C.A.), [2003] A.J. No.13, [2002] A.J.No.897, [2001] A.J.No.1282 and R. v. Canadian MDF Products [2002] A.J. No. 643. In both cases, the employers attempted to argue that their practices of stacking the scrap steel bales and the fibreboard reflected respective industry standards. They argued that if the workplace practices reflect industry standards, then, they were duly diligent (or should receive a reduce fine) because they had taken those steps which the industry deems to be reasonable to protect workers. In both cases, the courts rejected the argument that automatically, compliance with industry practice reflects safe practices. No additional training or other safety measures were required.

Candaian law and United States law seems pretty much identical on this issue.

[GT]

The traditional view is reflected in two recent Alberta decisions, determined in 2002, R. v. General Scrap Iron and Metals Ltd. [2003] A.J. 390 (Alta C.A.), [2003] A.J. No.13, [2002] A.J.No.897, [2001] A.J.No.1282 and R. v. Canadian MDF Products [2002] A.J. No. 643. In both cases, the employers attempted to argue that their practices of stacking the scrap steel bales and the fibreboard reflected respective industry standards. They argued that if the workplace practices reflect industry standards, then, they were duly diligent (or should receive a reduce fine) because they had taken those steps which the industry deems to be reasonable to protect workers. In both cases, the courts rejected the argument that automatically, compliance with industry practice reflects safe practices. No additional training or other safety measures were required.

Civil or Criminal case?

Criminal Negligence

Canadian law dictates that for a charge of criminal negligence, the prosecution must prove that the individual or entity charged acted so carelessly or with such reckless disregard for the safety of others as to deserve criminal punishment.

So you are willing to say that a kid with a ramping, bouncing, whatever can be found crimianlly liable because they played paintball and injured someone resulting in death. Using equipment that is sold to 10's of thousands of players that accidently resulted in death is not reckless disregaurd.

We can argue this all day long, I agree you can assign some civil penatilites, compensatory possibly punative damages, but there is zero evidence to convict on criminal charges.

[Lohman446]

Civil or Criminal case?



So you are willing to say that a kid with a ramping, bouncing, whatever can be found crimianlly liable because they played paintball and injured someone resulting in death. Using equipment that is sold to 10's of thousands of players that accidently resulted in death is not reckless disregaurd.

We can argue this all day long, I agree you can assign some civil penatilites, compensatory possibly punative damages, but there is zero evidence to convict on criminal charges.

Don't use the word zero when discussing law... tis seldom accurate. There is evidence in the statute that you may be convicted. Recall few markers are exactly how they came from the manufacturer (closer/lighter triggers for instance).

The fact of the matter is, if we don't learn to regulate ourselves and someone is killed there is a good chance that paintball becomes heavily regulated by government agencies. I still argue that there is definite negligence in our actions and disregard for safety standards and it may very well rise to the level of criminal negligence.

[Lohman446]

Civil or Criminal case?
.

If you had looked through teh source he had quoted you would find that its law that can involve jail.

penalties of imprisonment up to ten years in the case of injury, and in the case of death, life imprisonment. Organizations are subject to fines with the maximum for a less serious offence being $100,000.00, and no maximum fine provided for the more serious indictable offences.

[GT]

If you had looked through teh source he had quoted you would find that its law that can involve jail.

I meant the actual case. Can't we just agree that *I* win? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The fact of the matter is, if we don't learn to regulate ourselves and someone is killed there is a good chance that paintball becomes heavily regulated by government agencies. I still argue that there is definite negligence in our actions and disregard for safety standards and it may very well rise to the level of criminal negligence.

You bet. Where we disagree is there will ever been any criminal related issues, but then again if we could settle this by saying GT wins.....

[Lohman446]

You bet. Where we disagree is there will ever been any criminal related issues, but then again if we could settle this by saying GT wins.....

How about we settle this with common ground. Under the statute it is entirely possible that the disregard of ASTM standards may be enough grounds for criminal charges. However, there does not appear to be paintball related case law on this issue and the chances of charges being pressed to the point that someone ended up in jail is unlikely. The possibility of lessor criminal charges and punishment (fines, probation, record etc.) are more likely than spending time in jail... if a DA decided to push the charges. The possibility though, of going to jail, is distinct.

Civil charges, and a loss in civil court is nearly a given under the same circumstances.

[rabidchihauhau]

Hey, try this quote from the ASTM newsletter on for size:

"As with most standards in the United States, ASTM F24 standards become mandatory when cited in a contractual agreement or when referenced and mandated by a governmental body..."

This is in reference to the 'amusement ride' committee, but obviously applies to all.

from - http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/AUGUST_2003/hudson_aug03.html

and, if you go to www.cpsc.org

[ben-afficial]

indeed