How close to criminal negligence are we

[GT]

But, if you violate industry accepted safety standards - especially after you (as an industry) agreed that these were the "safe" limits do you not prove yourself more negligent in the absence of further scientific standards or newly adopted safety standards?

Industry standards are not law, PERIOD!

Now that was for criminal liability, civil torts are a completely different ball game.

[Lohman446]

Industry standards are not law, PERIOD!

Not disagreeing with you for a moment on this part, nor am I trying to argue for the point of arguing. Do you not think it possible for a DA to argue, perhaps successfully, that disregard for those industry standards represents a reckless disregard for safety and rises to the level of criminal negligence?

If I drop a piano from five stories, even if there is not a law saying I can't and it kills someone - even if it was not intentional is it not a reckless disregard for safety rising to criminal standards? Especially if I was moving someone and decided to drop it rather than go down the stairs?

If I serve beef that somewhere along the line I have ignored industry standards, even if not required by the FDA am I not criminally liable if someone dies from eating it?

Or in your own example - what if you have, and know you have, a broken brake line, but the vehicle has been stopping ok.. just not to the standards it should. Are you not criminally negligent then?

Or lets go back to your own speeding example. You violated the speed limit - but you don't go to jail for speeding. You go to jail for something along the line of negligant homicide or reckless disregard for public safety.

Industry standards are not law - but failure to follow them may be proof of a disregard for safety that rises to the level of criminal negligence. The point is, a lot more is covered by negligence statutes than what is specifically spelled out. They are broad, encompassing statutes, open to interpertation. I venture that ignoring industry guidelines makes us negligent.

[Lohman446]

Some days I have to make a choice. Should I freeze my balls or shoot marbles from my ramping & bouncing 3.7 FLY? Soooo many suckers. So few marbles and frozen paintballs.

Criminal negligence? No way. Screw'em if they can't take a joke.

This was the fourth post to this discussion, I bring it back here, with my reply

You say it as a joke, and I don't dispute that. But is not that example just the extreme example of disregard for the safety standards that prohibit bounce and ramping? How, except in the extreme, is ramping and bouncing, in the eyes of negligence, different?

And I leave the question open for you GT? I see your side of this, but I think your underestimated the reach of criminal negligence statutes

[sbpyro]

Hows about another point of view on this?
300fps. Do any of you remember why this was the limit on the chrony?
I believe that someone had documented the amount of energy it would take to break a bone in the hand. That is a widely accepted standard in the industry. If someone was shot with a hot marker that was turned up by the player , that player is going to be kicked out. If someone dies from a paintball that is shot from an intentionally hot marker then someone is going to jail and it won't be for neglience.
The industry doesn't want to limit itself by creating a standard on bps, which I have no problem with. But when the marker is enhancing the player instead of being an extension of the player that is the problem I have. Paintball has had a pretty good record so far for saftey, but unfortunately with some attitudes that are around the paintball field is it a good thing to leave unresponsible youths with a marker that will do more than their ability. You can say this is a seperate problem but how many times have you played a woodsball game for fun and find the 2 or 3 punks that enjoy firing at eliminated players with a couple of bonus balls and how many of them are running around with the latest and greatest.
I'm a firm believer if you can pull 25bps or even 1000 bps with out any electronic or mechanical help go for it. But if you are relying on your equipment to perform for you well then enough said.
On an ending note I was playing a game, when my buddy caught a string at some odd angle to his mask knocking it off. Freak accident but can happen. He dove down and a ref had to dive over him to protect him. Had the gun have some sort of ramping or other enhancement feature that would have continued to fire after he let go of the trigger I'm sure my buddy would be called cyclops. One pull and release should always = 1 shot.

[GT]

Not disagreeing with you for a moment on this part, nor am I trying to argue for the point of arguing. Do you not think it possible for a DA to argue, perhaps successfully, that disregard for those industry standards represents a reckless disregard for safety and rises to the level of criminal negligence?

And I leave the question open for you GT? I see your side of this, but I think your underestimated the reach of criminal negligence statutes

Show me the case law. Lets be realistic, a DA has a choice on which cases to take and which not to. Example, there is a small town here in tx, they have 5 suspected capital murders for 5 different cases. Capital cases are extremely expensive and they can only take one case every five years. A DA can argue whatever and charge whoever he wants, but at the end of the day there has to be some sort of law wrapped around it.

Here is the statue in texas;

Sec. 19.05.Criminally Negligent Homicide.

(a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

"Criminal negligence" is defined in Sec. 6.03(d) thusly:
A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

They key phrase is:

his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.

Real dam hard to prove, criminally but real easy to do civily, with a ramping board at 15 bps, now if someone were to bunker a guy, rip his mask off and empty a hopper on his face....

Just an FYI, here is the most common penelty, sentence, in tx

State Jail Felony: 180 days - 2 years in jail; $10,000 also possible in addition to jail time

[hitech]

Based on those statutes I could see someone possibly successfully arguing that a person who "grossly" ignored ASTM safety standards is criminally negligent. Maybe not, but it certainly seems possible. And in states with "looser" definitions it would be easier. It is not a given by any means, but it certainly seems possible.

[Lohman446]

"Criminal negligence" is defined in Sec. 6.03(d) thusly:
A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

This is the funny thing about law. I take this and read the part "with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk" and think that violated accepted industry and protocol standards (ASTM in this case) perfectly fits the requirements under that statute for negligence. I also note some states, like Michigan, have antiquated firearm definitions that oddly seem to be able to define a marker as a firearm. I understand the law is open to interpertation. To me, what you just posted though, at least this quoted part perfectly defines the argument I make that we are treading a line. I do note that it is open to interpertation... and accept that a logical argument can be made to the other side as well. I think it would be hard to convince a jury, in a worse case scenario involving ramping software and a death, that your conduct was not negligent when it disregarded ASTM standards.

I think... if you were in ASTM standards, then you have a very defendable position. I do not beleive outside of them you do - I think that outside of them you are negligent.

There is a negligence issue - and I think we are very close to it - in fact I beleive we are over it. Considering the arguments that could easily be made I think it would be unwise to think we are not close to negligent.

You sighted case loads. Remember that public opinion, and grieving parents routinely affect what cases a DA pushes. I am worried, that in the worst case scenario, both of these would work against the defendant(s) from our sport.

And recall the ordinary person. You can give them your standpoint - everyone else does it so I had to to. But they are going to be told repeatedly by the DA. You violated known industry safety standards in order to win a game. Worse case scenario. "This young person was killed because you had to win a game" "This young person was killed because winning was more important to the defendant than known safety standards - standards agreed upon by the industry" "This young person was killed because the defendant wanted to win a game, regardless of the costs" You see the compelling logical argument from the side of negligence?

[PBX Ronin 23]

I think... if you were in ASTM standards, then you have a very defendable position. I do not beleive outside of them you do - I think that outside of them you are negligent.

There is a negligence issue - and I think we are very close to it - in fact I beleive we are over it. Considering the arguments that could easily be made I think it would be unwise to think we are not close to negligent.

You sighted case loads. Remember that public opinion, and grieving parents routinely affect what cases a DA pushes. I am worried, that in the worst case scenario, both of these would work against the defendant(s) from our sport.

Bingo! And if we were to consistently sweep under the rug the cases we may lose by settling out of court, then the economic consequences are still there. Who do you think the buck will be passed onto if a manufacturer was to factor in the legal cost into their prices?

[Vanced]

[GT]

Worse case scenario. "This young person was killed because you had to win a game" "This young person was killed because winning was more important to the defendant than known safety standards - standards agreed upon by the industry" "This young person was killed because the defendant wanted to win a game, regardless of the costs" You see the compelling logical argument from the side of negligence?

So the DA is going to charge someone criminally nelgent because a player bought a gun that didnt adhere to a private standard? Remeber that ASTM is something that is not sactioned by the state, and is a private standard. I understand the emtional side but I still havent seen a compleing argument for criminal charges.

Anything that happens it will be on the civil side. What will be real intresting to see the compenstory and if there would be an award of punative damages.

[GT]

My take is the insurance compaines will step in long before things get out of hand. Risk analysis is pretty amazing process, companies know how much your life is worth and if the product is still profitible..

[Vanced]

My take is the insurance compaines will step in long before things get out of hand. Risk analysis is pretty amazing process, companies know how much your life is worth and if the product is still profitible..

True... the power of the insurance company shouldn't be overlooked... but I see just the cost of the insurance going up the cost to the players going up... as long as people are willing to pay more, their will be someone to insure it... but it won't truly changing anything for a while until it gets much further out of hand than it is now... because the same as some will dump a couple grand on gear ... they'll always be the same some that will pay... what $20, $40 maybe more for field fees to play ... we all know the game can be a little addicting and somehow we rationalize the costs... It is still often cheeper than a good date night... playing paintball has to have a lower injury/death rate and cost to insure than young male drivers ?

And this may just leed to more cash strapped players going back to the renagade games, and such were the chances of injury go up even more ? That may just be a completly differnt can of worms...

[Beemer]

Ya ok

My take is the insurance compaines will step in long before things get out of hand. Risk analysis is pretty amazing process, companies know how much your life is worth and if the product is still profitible..

Risk analysis and companies know how much YOUR life is worth.........................................

Tell that to the families of these 2 people. They know jack &&&&

June 03 Olympia Washington
Brandon Johnson[son] killed by paintball gear we use

Feb 04 Sacramento or Cameron Park Calif.
Colette Contois[WIFE and MOTHER of 2] killed by paintball gear we use

Criminal maybe, maybe not, in these cases. Negligent with out a doubt. Why, because they KNEW there were issues way back when they changed the syle of valve from a 90 fitting that we were using. Whats the STATUS of these 2 cases. I would love to talk to these peoples lawyers.


Had to put this in
From here http://www.automags.org/forums/showt...92#post1799692

The ASTM is a wonderful concept but fact is nobody knows what their guidelines are and it doesn't seem like their even interseted in telling anybody what they want in a perfect world from the manufacturers. Companies are doing all sorts of testing on every sort of equipment you can imagine without any real knowledge of the guidelines.

The real world is going to get invloved with this sport sooner or later, and nobody and I mean nobody is ready. There are companies all over this industry who don't have a friggin clue about safety, assembling tanks wrong, making guns that shoot 25 bps, running the wrong pressures through hoses, all kinds of stuff and those are all major, big money manufacturers. NOT mom and pop shops and fields.

The reason for all of this is we're operating blind here, everything we base our standards on is hearsay and rumor. I want an unbiased, realistic orginization to tell us X balls per second at X fps is dangerous, because of X, do not exceed this. Or X procedure must be followed when putting a valve on a bottle. 2 people were KILLED last year because of improper tank assembly, I can't belive it's not more, we treat insanely high pressure gasses like they're nothing. People in the compressed gas biz look at how we handle 4500 psi like we're insane.

The majority of the people in this sport aren't capable of knowing when too much is far enough, they are all in competition both on the field and in the marketplace to beat the other guy, and aren't willing or capable to regulate themselves. A few years ago there was an bps agreement made and it went out the window as soon as they left the room. Leagues make rules to reign the insanity in and the insanity is the guys making the products that the rules are made for own the league!! SP makes guns that ramp/ bounce call it what you want out of the box and it's against the rules of thier own league, and the same goes for WDP.

We need a real life agency to provide us with real life guidelines to follow, and the products must then pass real life testing to see if they are safe or not. Markers are the least of our problems, ASA's, fittings, Goggle Systems, the whole mess of it needs to get taken more seriously or we're asking for bad trouble in the future. I'm the scuba industry has something similar to what I'm talking about.

Did somebody say ATF or .Gov?? Dont forget about the good ole CPSC. They are already looking over our shoulders.
Why were lawn darts banned again????????????????


I think they have a task force review going on or something.

This from the cyber world

"The CPSC staff engineer working on the Paint Ball issues is Vince Amodeo and is now
participating in updating the ASTM standard for Paintball Markers including the valving
requirements for the CO2 tank."

Mark Kumagai
Division Director, Mechanical Engineering
US Consumer Product Safety Commission


Peace Out
Beemer

[GT]

Risk analysis and companies know how much YOUR life is worth.........................................

Tell that to the families of these 2 people. They know jack &&&&

June 03 Olympia Washington
Brandon Johnson[son] killed by paintball gear we use

Feb 04 Sacramento or Cameron Park Calif.
Colette Contois[WIFE and MOTHER of 2] killed by paintball gear we use

Two people, two people, why should the industry change for two people? Anyone have a figure for the number of people, and frequency, "exposed" to a paintball co2 tank(my guess in the 10's of millions, easy). Willing to bet these are extremely rare cases, hard to convince anyone that there was a hint of negilence.

How many body bags did Ford fill with cops from exploding crown vics? How about our piss poor drunk driving laws in this country and the bodies pile up everyday, but hey two people died from playing paintball, lets rally togther and do call for immadate action. I say let the civil actions sort paintball out.

Please, God, tell me the U.S. gov't has something better to do than regulate paintball :rofl: :rofl:

[Beemer]

You just dont get it do you

Can you say proactive and not reactive???????????????

Oh ya dont forget the exploding pintos.

Next malfunction in this game takes out YOU. Make sure to leave instructions for the wife and or kids