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

[KRAKMT]

Intent is a necessary element of most crimes. As has been discussed they preplanned and video taped it. The statutes I posted are the florida criminal code- Intentional is the first word.

Applied to these facts- poding while shooting at a ref, preplanned video tapeing, and shooting outside of the field rise to malicious conduct worthy of prosecution. But that will be determined by the police/prosecutors.

It would come down to credibility of the witnesses and a jury of 12 but from everything posted charges would be appropriate.

Is it bad for paintball if stupid people do stupid things?Yes. Should we ban baseball because people use baseball bats to break legs?

[billmi]

i say the lifetime ban for the 1-2 people is more than fair, as they should never play p-ball

With that, I completely agree. IMHO, it's been a long time coming for enforcement to get strong enough where it will make a difference for things like this.

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?

I'm with you on this. It was my understanding from discussions at the Cup, that the incident involved a run through on the field by two players, one shooting refs to distract them while the other was shooting the other team. It is possible we are talking about two separate incidents, but I don't think so.

I do question now, what really happened. To do a runthrough on the field, and then shoot around spectators would require shooting the players, the refs, then run through the flap in the back of the field into the staging area, run around to get outside of the netted staging pit, and then around to the opposite side of the field where the spectators are. There are no openings in the net on the spectator side.

I would think there are all sorts of charges from assault to endagerment that could be appropriate for shooting at or near people who weren't on field, and weren't wearing proper protective gear.

[Muzikman]

[billmi]

If someone shoots the puck with the "intent" to hit the ref, the poop hits the fan for that player. Not only would he get an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty which ejects him from the game. I am sure the league would look at the situation and decide if a suspension should be issued. The ref would also have the ability to get the courts involved and have the player charged, outside of the hockey league, in the court of law.

I see paintball no different. Now that is just basing this off the shooting of a ref on the field.

Here's where I see it as different, and I can see intent playing in.

In Hockey, played by the rules, you are never intentionally shooting the puck at a person (or are you? I have always lived in warmer areas, and though I had a pro hockey player as a neighbor once, never really got into the game.)

In paintball, you are normally intentionally shooting the paintball at people, and they are normally protected such that you know, when you pull the trigger that what you are doing is not going to cause them injury or harm.

I can see through the course of this discussion that since a ref is normally only going to take hits accidentally, how there can be an intent based argument there, but again, there shouldn't be a way for that action to be injurious.

I'm still having trouble (this being in the conceptual sense, not related to any specific incident) with a valid argument for overshooting becoming assault without single shooting also being an assault.

[athomas]

There are times when generally accepted actions on the field become acts of violence. If a ball player were to intentionally aim and hurl a baseball at an umpire, it is outside the normal part of the game and is intent to injure. If a hockey player intentionally drills a puck at a ref and hits him, it is a criminal offence not a penalty. I expect the same should be true for paintball. It is generally accepted that refs get hit with the odd paintball (sometimes quite a few and maybe a few are intentional), but aiming at any nonplayer (even people in the deadbox would count here) for the purpose of inflicting pain could be a criminal matter if done to the extreme.

The analogy that 50 x 0 = 0 doesn't hold up. Ever give someone a knuckle rub on the head. It wouldn't be considered dangerous, but if you did it 50 times, it would wear through the skin and cause damage and possible scarring. Anything done in excess, with malicious intent is dangerous.

[billmi]

The analogy that 50 x 0 = 0 doesn't hold up. Ever give someone a knuckle rub on the head. It wouldn't be considered dangerous, but if you did it 50 times, it would wear through the skin and cause damage and possible scarring. Anything done in excess, with malicious intent is dangerous.

A sound argument, but its reprecussions disturb me.

If it is true that after X hits, paintball is injurious, then for a field operator to run games in such a manner where >X hits are possible (number of guns on the field, not stopping a player from playing the rest of the day after having been hit X-1 times, etc.) is negligence.

And it begs the question, what is the value of X? How do we determine it?

[Muzikman]

Bill, you would probably know this, but what was deemed as the number of times a lens could safely be hit with a paintball before it would fail. If memory serves me right I think it was 15 times. So if that is the number then 15 hits should be considered assault as that is the point at which the required safety gear can fail. Now, all 15 hits more than likely would not all be on the lens, but there is also that chance that it could.

[shartley]

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

Thank you.

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?

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?

Again, no. Read my above comments.

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.

By taking that stance you have just removed Referees from being officials of the game to being active players IN the game. Again, it does not matter what the Refs are wearing, but their roll in the 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.

And many times they are not. Every argument you bring now can be countered by simply reversing the positions, and still be correct.

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.

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.

I think you know this to be a weak attempt to twist what was said. My response to it is contained within all my other responses above.

And with that I will try to let it go. I know the truth about matters and how the law works. Almost every argument above seemed to be simply for the sake of argument and not for the sake of truly clarifying an issue. I know you to be a well educated man (as well as quite bright) and find it hard to believe that your responses were not typed out with a huge Cheshire Cat grin on your face.

[billmi]

Bill, you would probably know this, but was was deemed as the number of times a lens could safely be hit with a paintball before it would fail. If memory serves me right I think it was 15 times. So if that is the number then 15 hits should be concided assult as that is the point at which the required safety gear can fail. Now, all 15 hits more than likely would not all be on the lens, but there is also that chance that it could.

So if I play 15 points of X-Ball and shoot a person one time during each point that's assault if they don't change their goggle lens? And if I accidentally put three shots on them I've committed 1/3 assault?

And no, I'm not really seeing either of those issues as assault, just extending the logic to the absurd to discuss the point.

[Muzikman]

It would be up to the player to make sure his safety gear is in working order. I have been told many times over the 13 years I have been playing that if you take a direct hit in the lens you "should" change it. So, one would have to assume that since it's the players responability to maintain his safety gear, that yes, he changed the lens.

[phantomhitman]

ok guys, stop

group hug , now lets play paintball

[SummaryJudgement]

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.......

[phantomhitman]

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.......

If you are refering to me then I am sorry. I tried my best to live up to your internet forum expectations but I have failed. Woe is me.....what am I ever going to do.

If you are not refering to me then ignore me, live long and prosper.

[mobsterboy]

everyone stop arguing. This is just what a jackass stunt like that is suppose to do, create a riot and havoc among the paintball community. Play paintball, by the rules you know are right. If something happens, apologize, and if you are gonna do something stupid, dont do it. No one cares about legalities, just play, have fun and enjoy the sport while it lasts

[Muzikman]

I have known Bill Mills online since about 93 or so. Not that we are friends, but we have talked in chat, forums and even in person at events over the years. I hope he knows that I respect his thoughts and ideas. This goes for most people online, unless they have given me reason otherwise. So what we are doing here is having a discussion, and if you notice unlike some people and forums, we are not calling each other names.

For those out there watching, this thread is a perfect example of an online "discussion".