How many Devil Mags?

[Lohman446]

You may disagree but I think I have a reasonable argument to support my position - and more to the point an overly cautious lawyer to advise me. I do understand it is a very cautious position, but you also have to realize, under strict interpertation of Michigan law, a paintball marker is most definetly a firearm.

http://automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=167377

[GT]

You may disagree but I think I have a reasonable argument to support my position - and more to the point an overly cautious lawyer to advise me. I do understand it is a very cautious position, but you also have to realize,

http://automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=167377

I know we have had this dicussion before.

under strict interpertation of Michigan law, a paintball marker is most definetly a firearm.

If that were true and someone was hurt in an incident it wouldnt matter what fire mode you had on your super e blaster 6000, or a pump.

more to the point an overly cautious lawyer to advise me

My advice? Get better counsel. Paintball is not a crime. If someone were hurt due to your negligence, which is dam hard to prove unless you tied the guy down and shot a case into is face, it would be difficult for them to attach any civil penelties to your person. Typically a crime that results in the death of another, durring the course and scope of the crime, can attach some kind of negligent manslauder, or the likes in your state. This is the typical charge if underage or DWI's kill a family on the way to church. A case I heard recently; a crack smoker set a house on fire, fire dept. responded and one fireman was killed. They nailed the guy for manslaughter. Crime results in death of another, results in criminal liability.

IMnsHO, eventually result in a large lawsuit.

Agreed but there is a huge difference bewteen Civil and Criminal Liability. I tried explaining the difference in the previous thread.


Start a new legal thread Lo, would be intresting to see if there is any case law at all that establishes a presdence...

[Lohman446]

I do agree that civil liability the only thing that a non-ASTM acceptable mode would do is increase the verdict against you, civilly your screwed if something happens in paintball, mostly because our civil legal system sucks.

And the criminal issue is a long stretch - I understand that. That being said, even if the risk is minimal, its a risk I feel I should do everything I can to make even more minimal. Could I be wrong here? I hope in a way I am. I'm not willing to take that chance. Criminal negligence need not be an act in itself, it need be just extreme negligence - and I agree the stretch is there and long. I'm just risk adverse in this area I guess.

[11 Bravo]

What are you a celebrity or something? Why are you always going on about liability? People get shot up all the time and dont go to court over it. Why would they go after you.

[Lohman446]

What are you a celebrity or something? Why are you always going on about liability? People get shot up all the time and dont go to court over it. Why would they go after you.

Risk avoidance. I'm not talking the all the time shot up - I'm talking the time, that I beleive is inevitable, when someone is seriously hurt or killed playing. Its a risk inherent of the game. I accept that risk everytime I go play, as do many other people, I think its an obvious risk. However, if someone is injured and decides to, you do not have much defense in civil court, especially with a jury. I make the leap that the risk of criminal liability is there as well, others disagree with me there - it is probably a greater leap than need be taken.

[11 Bravo]

Do you drive around in a rubber car? Cause you have a better chance of getting sued over what happens with your car than you do with what happens when you play paintball.

[Lohman446]

Do you drive around in a rubber car? Cause you have a better chance of getting sued over what happens with your car than you do with what happens when you play paintball.

Not for criminal issues assuming I am following applicable laws and my car (to my knowledge) meets current safety standards. I am not trying to claim the risk is high, I play paintball, I accept the risk. However, I have done what I feel is necessary to minimize the risk. Might it be too much? Sure, for some people, but I also do not feel that ramping is that great of a help in playing. I have taken the steps I feel necessary. Might I be considering consequences and situations that are not likely? Sure, but it does not diminish my love of the game at all.

The thread I sited earlier explains my reasoning a little better.

[KRAKMT]

I have been waiting for the lawsuit that bankrupts a company. I think the argument is easily made that a manufacturor that creates a product in violation of the safety standards knowingly creates an unreasonable risk of injury- keep in mind I meerly have to convince 12 inexperienced people. I will sue the player(because I have to) the field, the seller, the manufaturor and the chip manufacturor. Give me one promising college student that has been accepted to medical school who looses an eye and you will see a very large verdict.
As to the comment that the civil jury system sucks. Why? Because people are willing to hold their breath until something actually happens before they are willing to change and then they ***** about the system. That is ignorant propaganda!
K

[Lohman446]

As to the comment that the civil jury system sucks. Why? Because people are willing to hold their breath until something actually happens before they are willing to change and then they ***** about the system. That is ignorant propaganda!
K

Want the sound bite answer - our civil jury system today is more like winning the lottery than it is about actual justice. I have a problem with jury awards that exceed "reason" and are often enough given. Punitive damage, at one time reserved for only the worst of offenses, has been replaced with pain and suffering awards that seem to have little basis in the reality of hte pain and suffering and more in regards to the defendants income from the action - what punitive awards where reserved for and there application limited.

No... its not ignorant propaganda, while there are neat sound bites that help my side of the argument there is a reasonable argument as well.

[phantomhitman]

I think you can throw your astm standards out of the window when you hurt someone on a field. Like stated before, if you shot them with a ramping dm5 or one ball with a pump its not going to matter. I also believe the astm is out of date with what is going on in todays paintball games (and yes i know they update them almost every year). I highly doubt the astm people, or the crew they send out to test paintball standards are in the current scene of paintball or do years of research before posting their findings (and yes i know every once in a while they talk to the current scene players/ownders). I do not know who they contract to do their work, and I refuse to pay for safety findings, so I will be ignorant forever I guess.

[SCpoloRicker]

PSA

Thread has been horrifically derailed.

/PSA

[Lohman446]

Yeh, we should have to include our guess to the first question of the thread in our responses

// Mine was twelve
/// Has no clue what PSA stands for
//// What is the etiquette for using these things anyways Ricker?

[KRAKMT]

So 12 people that here ALL the evidence and not just the media selected evidence are unreasonable. Or is it that they somehow are not a cross selection of the same society we live in. People here the "sound bites" and then decide what is reasonable based on there own assumptions not on the evidence. The same people who complain are the same people thast find any reason to get out of jury duty are the same people that complain about the courts. Its all bunk!
Where is the reasonable part of the argument ignorant people that here a snipit of facts that determine reasonable based on there own biases or 12 people that here weeks of facts that must assess credibility. How many of the facts do you actually know about the famous McDonalds case versus the actual facts.

Want the sound bite answer - our civil jury system today is more like winning the lottery than it is about actual justice. I have a problem with jury awards that exceed "reason" and are often enough given. Punitive damage, at one time reserved for only the worst of offenses, has been replaced with pain and suffering awards that seem to have little basis in the reality of hte pain and suffering and more in regards to the defendants income from the action - what punitive awards where reserved for and there application limited.

As for ASTM standards- This might be a good defense

I think you can throw your astm standards out of the window when you hurt someone on a field. Like stated before, if you shot them with a ramping dm5 or one ball with a pump its not going to matter. I also believe the astm is out of date with what is going on in todays paintball games (and yes i know they update them almost every year). I highly doubt the astm people, or the crew they send out to test paintball standards are in the current scene of paintball or do years of research before posting their findings (and yes i know every once in a while they talk to the current scene players/ownders).

But I think 12 reasonable people will look to the ASTM standards versus players to determine safety. Thats what a trial is for.


I hope there are more than 3 verticle frame/Devilmags I would hope at least 20? I was once going to be one but alas I just have a dallara at GA Devils waiting for a decision.



//Yes Yes it is!

No... its not ignorant propaganda, while there are neat sound bites that help my side of the argument there is a reasonable argument as well

[Lohman446]

So 12 people that here ALL the evidence and not just the media selected evidence are unreasonable. Or is it that they somehow are not a cross selection of the same society we live in. People here the "sound bites" and then decide what is reasonable based on there own assumptions not on the evidence. The same people who complain are the same people thast find any reason to get out of jury duty are the same people that complain about the courts. Its all bunk!
Where is the reasonable part of the argument ignorant people that here a snipit of facts that determine reasonable based on there own biases or 12 people that here weeks of facts that must assess credibility. How many of the facts do you actually know about the famous McDonalds case versus the actual facts.

I was thinking more in the lines of the 6 billion dollar verdict award agaisnt GM, and not the McDonalds argument. However, in both cases "pain and suffering" awards were actually punitive awards that should nto have been useable. Some people who disagree with you do so from the point of reasonable logic. If you cannot understand that simple fact I can direct you to a former forum member who doesn't seem to get it either. You want to assume me to be ignorant you can, but instally attacking someone without understanding there arguments is a very poor form of debate. Disagree with me, thats fine, but don't come on here and assume my position is based on ignorance, its not.

// you can't use the /// to respond to a quote.. I don't think
/// Still guessing 12, might be wrong

[11 Bravo]

Soooo, How many Devil mags did we come up with?