Girl shoots burglar with paintball gun

[Glickman]

This all sounds pretty crazy to me. If I'm going to be aggressive towards someone that could potentially kill me, I will not be doing it with a paintball gun. I've been shot with a paintball gun. Whenever we play those scenario games where they take a volunteer from each team to be the "president" (can only be killed with a headshot at my field) I'm always him... you know why? Because paintballs dont hurt, they sting. And I'm certain I'm not the only one who can take the pain.


NigelF

the above is exactly why they make crappy defense weapons.

[astroboy]

Source - google ... this was a very publicized case around the world and guess what, I still remember it enough to dig up the facts after more than 10 years have passed...

yes he was arrested but when someone is acquitted, doesn't that make it legal precedence? subsequent cases will always refer back to this case and say if it was ok before why isn't it ok now?

I'm sure it is a little more complicated than that...

So he was still arrested and charged w/ manslaughter right? answer that w/ yes or no please.

also what source please? do you get the baton rouge times in ontario?

even if partially true, Im sure the deliberation was over whether or not the killer was "threatened" by the teenager walking toward him after a gun has been pointed in his direction.

And besides.....the teenager was a minority and the south is racist and segregated, so that couldve contributed to the decision of the Jury.....but, he was still arrested and charged w/ the crime. It was the jury that was conviced by the drama in the courtroom....and I think that is a shame.

[yakitori]

Source - google ... this was a very publicized case around the world and guess what, I still remember it enough to dig up the facts after more than 10 years have passed...

yes he was arrested but when someone is acquitted, doesn't that make it legal precedence? subsequent cases will always refer back to this case and say if it was ok before why isn't it ok now?

I'm sure it is a little more complicated than that...

and when did google or the internet ever become a valid source of information. It is just an echo chamber of opinions, that is for the most part unregulated.

so are all ppl who are acquitted actually innocent of the crime they were charged of? ehehm OJ.

It was only acquitted likely because of the Jurys decision. There may have been more to the case than you know that lead them to make such a decision. That still doesnt mean that the law is, you can shoot someone on your property just for trespassing.

I tell you what (and aggie too), just believe what you want and go ahead and shoot someone for tresspassing, you sort out the details later, and come back on and post what happened to you.

just because some police officer says it doesnt mean its true. They just arrest you and let the judge decide. So, if you think its legal to shoot someone and you want a more valid opinion, ask a few judges. Better yet, send a letter to your congressman and ask.

[Lohman446]

The law in MI constantly relies on the perceptions of a reasonable person. If they jury beleived that the person who pulled the trigger had a reasonable threat of imminent and serious harm (even if it was not real, just reasonable) then he had, in MI the justification to use deadly force. I don't know that case well enough to understand the verdict, or the evidence that was presented for the defense, or even the defense that was attempted (I'm guessing, on VERY little information, it was an affirmative defense).

and when did google or the internet ever become a valid source of information. It is just an echo chamber of opinions, that is for the most part unregulated.

so are all ppl who are acquitted actually innocent of the crime they were charged of? ehehm OJ.

It was only acquitted likely because of the Jurys decision. There may have been more to the case than you know that lead them to make such a decision. That still doesnt mean that the law is, you can shoot someone on your property just for trespassing.

I tell you what (and aggie too), just believe what you want and go ahead and shoot someone for tresspassing, you sort out the details later, and come back on and post what happened to you.

just because some police officer says it doesnt mean its true. They just arrest you and let the judge decide. So, if you think its legal to shoot someone and you want a more valid opinion, ask a few judges. Better yet, send a letter to your congressman and ask.

[ApexAZ]

Sorry not really trying to call anyone out You anology sounds good and is true is some aspects. Consider this, if you fire a 50 cal BMG round and a 5.56 round which will have better penetration at any distrance. Now that is using two rounds that are pretty far apart. Bullet design also has a effect. The army green round is designed to be somewhat as a armor pirecing round. The problem is when it hits a person it just zips through like a icepick. Making a neat hole with no damage. LE hollowpoints do not have this problem and show to have a "better first hit" take down, while some soliders complain that the green tip does not put someone down and takes multiple hits to do so. Alot of this is subjective and firearms is still a art and not always a science. sorry about the spelling I am not the greatest typest.

I thought that was the whole point of the 5.56 round. Not to kill, but to wound. More wounded soldiers = more resources needed to care for them.

[yakitori]

The law in MI constantly relies on the perceptions of a reasonable person. If they jury beleived that the person who pulled the trigger had a reasonable threat of imminent and serious harm (even if it was not real, just reasonable) then he had, in MI the justification to use deadly force. I don't know that case well enough to understand the verdict, or the evidence that was presented for the defense, or even the defense that was attempted (I'm guessing, on VERY little information, it was an affirmative defense).

thats exactly my point. We dont know the details of the case and we havent heard the info that the jury had. Maybe there was more to the story than was released to the newspaper or even google.

I agree with Lohman, and the law in TX is not different than MI. It is not "legal" to kill someone for the crime of trespassing, unless they are armed and/or attacking you in a manner that could threaten your life.

[ApexAZ]

I also wonder how this makes paintball look to naive people... =/

If they're effective at stopping a burgler, are they safe?

[txaggie08]

the "black" guy living next door or just the guy living next door. You have proven my point and you really are an aggie.
:spit_take

so im not allowed to say he is black, becasue he is, and because it proved my point. it wouldnt have mad SENSE you little smart ...... if i had said"the guy" next door. Geta life and come out of your little arrogant yankee world were there is no bigitry(yet the klan started(the modern caln anyway)in the north)
I guess ill just let yall live in your little diluded world were your always right in legal matters. i would however suggest staying off private propert in Texas. Some of us dont read the forums for legal advice, we talk to the police

[txbanditraven]

the law in TX is not different than MI. It is not "legal" to kill someone for the crime of trespassing, unless they are armed and/or attacking you in a manner that could threaten your life.

Your response was childish at best. Control your emotions over the web, or be banned for a while. This is your ONLY warning. Army

[txaggie08]

congratulations youve made me look stupid and are liable to get yourself banned. granted hes right about the law......

[bull]

I'll tell you that you are wrong also. I was a police officer in Texas for a couple years, YOU CAN'T SHOOT SOMEONE FOR JUST TRESSPASSING.

If you still don't want to believe me just check a case called Tennessee v. Garner. This was just a little trend setting case heard by something called the Supreme Court back in 1984, it kinda says the same thing!

[txaggie08]

ima get out of this argument cause everyone gonna be right. i quit. I know what i was told by local authorities, and i will continue to abide by what i was told. ive seen that case btw. i guess ill have to review it again to see what your talking about.

[Glickman]

[Cameo]

Kudo's to Lohan...
Persoanlly I would run. I would get out of harms way any way possible...grab the nearest vase and break it ONLY if you are trapped. No material item in this world is worth losing my life. Life is to precious. I also would never teach my child to try to retaliate against a thief. A child does not stand a chance against an adult and more then likeley they will just piss the adult off and give the adult a reason to hurt them.
Why in the world would someone want to kill another person for breaking in??? You would have killing that person weighing on your mind for eternity. Is your big screen tv and your wives pearls really worth that personal tourment?

[Target Practice]

Goddamnit, whatever happend to grabbing a gun, killing the sunovagun, and getting an award for it. I tell you, this country has gone soft.

Edited for filter activation.