Great, more morons to ruin the sport. (world cup story)

[billmi]

assault with a deadly weapon, assault and battery, endangerment, endangerment to a minor (assuming there are kids there), wreckless endangerment, aggravated assault, possably attempted murder (no one in the stands had protection)...

I shudder to think at the precedents that would be set if anyone was ever charged with crimes like that for shooting a paintball gun at a person who was willingly on a paintball field, and wearing the appropriate protective equipment (i.e. lighting up a ref.)

If that ever happens, it means that shooting another player in a game is the same crime, because they are being shot under the same conditions.

The day that happens, the game of paintball will be criminalized.

Sure, punching someone, is assault, but if shooting them on the field during a game is assualt, we're all in trouble.

[Lohman446]

I shudder to think at the precedents that would be set if anyone was ever charged with crimes like that for shooting a paintball gun at a person who was willingly on a paintball field, and wearing the appropriate protective equipment (i.e. lighting up a ref.)

If that ever happens, it means that shooting another player in a game is the same crime, because they are being shot under the same conditions.

The day that happens, the game of paintball will be criminalized.

Sure, punching someone, is assault, but if shooting them on the field during a game is assualt, we're all in trouble.

Are you 100% certain it isn't?

[Muzikman]

Not that I don't trust Skoad, I just want to hear this from someone who was there and that I know I can trust. If this is honestly how it went down, the punishment surely didn't fit the crime.

If it really came down like that, I wouldn't be supprised if someone presses charges.

I also agree, no matter what, getting kicked out of PSP isn't even a slap on the wrist, it was more like a tap on the butt. It doesn't hurt them at all.

As for being bared from Disney property, like that would ever be enforced. I doubt if they tried to go to Disney World that big red lights would start flashing when they went to buy their tickets.

[Muzikman]

Well, here ya go.

deadly weapon n. any weapon which can kill. This includes not only weapons which are intended to do harm like a gun or knife, but also blunt instruments like clubs, baseball bats, monkey wrenches, an automobile or any object which actually causes death. This becomes important when trying to prove criminal charges brought for assault with a deadly weapon. In a few 1990s cases courts have found rocks and even penises of AIDS sufferers as "deadly weapons."

Assult
NOUN:
A violent physical or verbal attack.
An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

Even if you are a willing perticipent in the game, if the persons intent is to hurt you, then it's assult. And I see no reason why a paintball gun would not be a deadly weapon.

If a baseball player went after another player with a baseball bat and beat him with it. I am sure they that player could be charged with assult with a deadly weapon.

I think Intent is the key.

[Lohman446]

Well, here ya go.

deadly weapon n. any weapon which can kill. This includes not only weapons which are intended to do harm like a gun or knife, but also blunt instruments like clubs, baseball bats, monkey wrenches, an automobile or any object which actually causes death. This becomes important when trying to prove criminal charges brought for assault with a deadly weapon. In a few 1990s cases courts have found rocks and even penises of AIDS sufferers as "deadly weapons."

Assult
NOUN:
A violent physical or verbal attack.
An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

Even if you are a willing perticipent in the game, if the persons intent is to hurt you, then it's assult. And I see no reason why a paintball gun would not be a deadly weapon.

If a baseball player went after another player with a baseball bat and beat him with it. I am sure they that player could be charged with assult with a deadly weapon.

I think Intent is the key.

I agree. If a football player (unarmed) intentionally tackles a ref it would be assault. This was not the incidental and accidental contact that happens from playing sports, or the intentional contact between participants. This was an intent, outside of the boundaries of the game, to inflect pain on non-players. The level of assault hinges on the level of pain / injury that was able or intended to be inflicted.

[KRAKMT]

[UTDragun]

I agree. If a football player (unarmed) intentionally tackles a ref it would be assault. This was not the incidental and accidental contact that happens from playing sports, or the intentional contact between participants. This was an intent, outside of the boundaries of the game, to inflect pain on non-players. The level of assault hinges on the level of pain / injury that was able or intended to be inflicted.

A ref got knocked out at the UT vs. South Car. game, it was incidental, but he layed on the ground for a good 15 mins. just kinda coincedental that you mention football players and refs.

[billmi]

I think Intent is the key.

Assult
NOUN:
A violent physical or verbal attack.
An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

Not only is it not the key, it's not even part of the definition.



We play paintball.

You shoot me.

I say you were mad at me, and thus you intended to hurt me, you have now committed assault.

Fortunately, intent is not an issue for the courts, as it is not a crime to want to hurt someone, only to take the act of hurting them.

If the action is to shoot someone with a paintball gun, and they are on a paintball field, and they are wearing appropriate protective gear, then they won't be hurt.

If you prove in a court that they will be hurt by shooting them with a paintgun, even though they are willingly on the field, and wearing the appropriate gear, then you've proven the thing that is dangerous to paintball, because now anyone who commits that same action is knowingly causing harm to their target in the eyes of the law.


For what role intent plays, sure, you can argue that if someone takes a paintgun and fires it from a car at innocent pedestrians, they are probably intending to hurt them. But how can you argue that if someone shoots at someone on a paintball field, who is properly equipped, that they are intending to hurt them, if they are doing the exact same thing that always happens on a paintball field? Even with overshooting - if shooting one ball isn't an attack, shooting 5 won't be either - 5 times 0 equals 0.

[Lohman446]

Not only is it not the key, it's not even part of the definition.



We play paintball.

You shoot me.

I say you were mad at me, and thus you intended to hurt me, you have now committed assault.

Fortunately, intent is not an issue for the courts, as it is not a crime to want to hurt someone, only to take the act of hurting them.

If the action is to shoot someone with a paintball gun, and they are on a paintball field, and they are wearing appropriate protective gear, then they won't be hurt.

If you prove in a court that they will be hurt by shooting them with a paintgun, even though they are willingly on the field, and wearing the appropriate gear, then you've proven the thing that is dangerous to paintball, because now anyone who commits that same action is knowingly causing harm to their target in the eyes of the law.


For what role intent plays, sure, you can argue that if someone takes a paintgun and fires it from a car at innocent pedestrians, they are probably intending to hurt them. But how can you argue that if someone shoots at someone on a paintball field, who is properly equipped, that they are intending to hurt them, if they are doing the exact same thing that always happens on a paintball field? Even with overshooting - if shooting one ball isn't an attack, shooting 5 won't be either - 5 times 0 equals 0.

I think you're wrong on intent and participants of the game. The refs were not participants for intentional contact - intent matters and is needed for actual assault and not simple negligence (whole 'nother ball game). The definitions of assault above involve intent.

[Arstron]

I shudder to think at the precedents that would be set if anyone was ever charged with crimes like that for shooting a paintball gun at a person who was willingly on a paintball field, and wearing the appropriate protective equipment (i.e. lighting up a ref.)

If that ever happens, it means that shooting another player in a game is the same crime, because they are being shot under the same conditions.

The day that happens, the game of paintball will be criminalized.

Sure, punching someone, is assault, but if shooting them on the field during a game is assualt, we're all in trouble.

What happened on the field is bad enough, but when you run outside of the field, near spectators (who are un protected) and start shooting paint, thats another ball game. I cant belive there are people that stupid playing at that high of a level. Anyone at that level should respect our sport and understand just how dangerous it can be!

[shartley]

[billmi]

What happened on the field is bad enough, but when you run outside of the field, near spectators (who are un protected) and start shooting paint, thats another ball game.

I wasn't at that field when it happened, and didn't get this part of the story.

There, I agree wholeheartedly.

[FSU_Paintball]

The reffing was absolutely atrocious. The bias that some of them showed was unbelievable. I've been playing for eight years and this is as bad as anything I've ever seen. Opposing teams were watching our games, coming up to us and saying "Man, you guys are getting SCREWED."

All that said.... those clowns should be banned for life from every league. That does NOT help improve the situation.

[Chronobreak]

shooting a ref is also a lot diff than shooting a player in the game

might as well have been shooting specatators

i say the lifetime ban for the 1-2 people is more than fair, as they should never play p-ball again, if that is their attitude about the sport, and respect for refs probly doing their best to make good calls and dealing with not only that teams BS, but the other 15-500 teams there


you dont purposely shoot a ref EVER(rules?) let alone lane them.
as a ref i would have had the police come and take the markers and possible pressed charges to teach them a lesson


bill, precident of such a thing? what show that your not suppose to get pissed and shoot the heck outta refs and shoot in a staging area where no one has goggles or protection?

like i said not like it was a player it was refs/and possibly spectators.

i woudlve tackled to sumnuva

anyways this behavior has to stop.

on a sidenot does anyone knwo the age of the people that did this?

kids/adults? seems very imamture and not well thought thru.

[billmi]

Bill,
I have to respectfully let you know you are quite wrong in your assessments on assault and how it pertains to paintball (and other sports). As a former Police Officer I can tell you that many actions which are done legally within the confines of a sport suddenly become assault when done illegally (or to the excess) even on the playing field.

I apprecieate both what you are saying, and the experience behind it.

And equipment which is normal to use in a sport suddenly becomes a dangerous weapon when used in a manner not intended or within the rules of the game.

This is very true.

And your assessment of overshooting is also wrong. No, a single shot at a player who is PLAYING the game is not assault.

OK.

But shoot that player 50 times in rapid succession while knowing they are already marked out, IS assault.

How so? This, to me is the big question. If 1 time is 0 assault, how is 50 times 0 going to equal anything but 0. For those 50 hits to be an assault, just that one shot must be knowingly causing harm, at some level to the recipient. If that is the case, then shooting someone, is intentionally hurting them, and committing assault, no?

Legally speaking, how many shots is assault, and how many is the game?

And willfully shooting a Ref even once, is assault as well. Why? Because they are not a PLAYER, but an officiating person. So why not charge players with assault every time a Ref gets hit by a ball? Because unintentional contact is not assault in this context.

Then, it should be easy for a ref to claim assault any time he is hit by a team with which a call was previously disputed, yes? The dispute shows cause for intent Would assault charges stick for a ref shot with one ball? With 2? With 5?

While you seem to want to lump all actions under one umbrella (i.e. shooting is shooting) it could not be farther from the truth.

Let me clarify the umbrella, because I'm not talking about it being that big (all shooting.) I'm talking about shooting a person who is wearing the equipment that the industry says will provide them safety in an enviornment where they are likely to be hit by paintballs.

If they are adequately protected, how can I possibly be intending to hurt them? I know they will not be injured by my activity, it's not assault. However, if they are vulnerable to injury by my shots, then I am knowingly taking an action to hurt them.

The problem with that, while it is assault, is that a player takes the same action against other people wearing the same level of protection during the course of a game.

Shooting at, or around the unprotected crowd - that's another story.

Not the same. The effect of taking a takle on the body will change radically with whether or not the athelete is prepared for it. The boxing referee is similarly not physically prepared for the hit, nor is he wearing the same protective gear as the athlete. The paintball referee is in many cases more protected than the athelete that takes the same type of hits, and body position isn't going to play into how hard a paintball hit is.

If the defining standard is anger, then half the teams that have won World Cup should be hauled off for assault - they get worked up to go after the other team. If the defining standard is that the action is going to cause injury, then we are talking about the same thing - it's the same level of force countered by at least if not more protection.

And similarly, if you make any physical contact with another player or ref you'll be off the paintball field.

And try touching a police officer, even ever so slightly, in aggression and see what you are charged with.

So by the inverse, if the aggression is the issue, if I'm laughing and smiling, a police officer will just nod and smile if I walk up and poke them in the shoulder with my finger? I expect I'd be right in the back of the car facing the same charges.