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

[lopxtc]

Hence the need for a clear definition (spelling?) of overshooting ... and then declearing overshooting an "offense" that will being on an in game penalty. Be it a 1 for 1, 2 for 1 ... what ever.

Again we are stuck with players wanting a faster game, faster guns, but no desire to figure out what to happen when this gets abused.

Truthfully I believe the speedball aspect of the sport has put itself into a place that the people running have no idea how to manage it safety wise and are only treading water hoping that the sharks swimming around them dont strike. I have said it before and I will say it again ... someone is going to die on the field, or on the way to hospital from the field. It can happen in any venue of the sport; but the chances get greater the more you shoot, the faster you shoot, and honestly the more immature your surroundings are.

I hope this never happens, but with the increase of incidents like this going on ... you never know anymore.

Aaron

I think the point that Bill is trying to make that everyone is missing is how can shooting a properly protected person with paintballs (any amount) cause injury? If it can/does, then the game as we know it causes injury.

Since "we" don't consider it dangerous (does not cause injury) to shoot another properly protected person with paintballs (any amount), their intent was not to cause injury. Rather, it was to cause anger (i.e. piss them off).

Shooting in a crowd of unprotected persons is reckless...

[Muzikman]

I understand what Bill is trying to say, but I don't find that to be the case. Even properly protected, too many shots can cause the safety equipment to fail. Also, paintball is dangerous just as is any sport. The fact that we are shooting eachother with .68 cal balls at 200mph makes it that much more dangerous.

[hitech]

Again, I think this point is being missed. If shooting ANY reasonable amount (I'm not talking about thousands) of paintballs at someone can cause injury then we have a serious problem.

[Skoad]

I see it like the Todd Bertuzzi incident in the NHL, you know the one where he just skated up behind Steve Moore and just punched him in the back of the head. Of course theres checking and hockey is expected to be very physical, but not like that - punched from behind when your nowhere near the puck then pushed down and breaking your neck. Same with paintball...you know your going to get shot but not 200 times.

I believe Bertuzzi was charged with assault, but it was a while ago...may be wrong.

[lopxtc]

Yes but the only required piece of safety gear is a full front face mask, and lenses. Its quite easy to hurt someone in the neck, back of the head, or groin.

It doesnt take very many shots in any of those three areas to cause a significant injury, even at speeds under 300 fps, and shooting only as fast as a pump can shoot.

I love the sport, but lets not fool ourselves any time we go out to play (wearing only the "required" protective gear) we risk serious injury ... why do you think we all sign a waiver that says if we are killed while playing its not the fault of the field.

Aaron

Again, I think this point is being missed. If shooting ANY reasonable amount (I'm not talking about thousands) of paintballs at someone can cause injury then we have a serious problem.

[Lohman446]

Again, I think this point is being missed. If shooting ANY reasonable amount (I'm not talking about thousands) of paintballs at someone can cause injury then we have a serious problem.

Bumping at above highways speeds is allowed in NASCAR - do it on the road intentionally and it is assault with a deadly weapon...

[hitech]

Bumping at above highways speeds is allowed in NASCAR - do it on the road intentionally and it is assault with a deadly weapon...

Certainly. Shooting someone with paintballs during a paintball game is allowed. Shoot someone with paintballs "on the road" and you will be arrested...

[Lohman446]

Certainly. Shooting someone with paintballs during a paintball game is allowed. Shoot someone with paintballs "on the road" and you will be arrested...

And the question becomes where is the line - in legal ideas I think it would be active participant of the game. There is bound to be incidental shooting of the refs that is an obvious hazard, but intentional shooting of the refs is neither obvious nor forseeable.

[KRAKMT]

Intent is the key issue- Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other;

It will be a fact based decision like everything in the law. If you are a spitter when you talk doesn't mean you intentionally assaulted someone when you spit on them. When you hack a lung oyster on someone because you are pissed then it is a crime.

Or the pitcher that tries to bean an ump because he is pissed. They may all reach the level of battery. But many decisions go into deciding to try a case.

The facts given were that because they had gotten screwed in the last game on the field that if they were loosing instead of going to the dead box they were going to shoot the refs. They planned to film there stunt. Two players proceeded to open up on the refs and one was reported to have taken the time to pod. They were then chased out and proceeded to shoot?

The law does not work the way you guys are trying to make it out. The world and the law is not black and white it is gray and depends on fact specifics, political bent, hech what you had for breakfast.

If you shoot a player with a paintball it is not agaist there will- If you stand and shoot me multiple times and reload, and plot your actions and brag about what you are going to do with your friends then that is over the line.

Ps Lohman you made my skin crawl when you used reasonable/forseeable that is tort negligent talk not criminal. Just the damn lawyer speak.

[Tyger]

Again we are stuck with players wanting a faster game, faster guns, but no desire to figure out what to happen when this gets abused.

It's a matter of they don't care. They wanna shoot their guns and watch somoene else twitch in pain. "If you cant' take it, stop playing." That is 'till they get lit up. "REF! He's OVERSHOOTING! PULL HIM! PULL HIM!"

Someone's gonna have to be put in a hospital before the players, and the "powers that be", are forced to do give a damn. Psycho Circus could have serously injured someone with their little act of revenge. Lucky for us, that didn't happen, or we'd be having a completely different discussion on this forum. Nobody really cares about the game of paintball as a whole, it's all about themselves, and what they can get out of the game of paintball before they leave and go on to the next cool thing. Revenge is a selfish act, and more often than not it gains you nothing more than temporary satisfaction.

But I'm willing to put dollars to donuts that this incident will be buried, ignored, and forgotten as all the other incidents have been. So for now, we'll have more "stunts" like this one, and Salm, and the other fistfights that have happened at 'Cup over the years.

-Tyger

[Lohman446]

Ps Lohman you made my skin crawl when you used reasonable/forseeable that is tort negligent talk not criminal. Just the damn lawyer speak.

I'm sure you are aware of my opinion of the possibility of criminal penalties around paintball. I am also fairly certain that you consider civil penalties and a case pushed by a victim through the civil courts as far more likely than a criminal case pushed by a DA.

[KRAKMT]

In this case criminal punishment is more likely. I am aware of your opinions regarding liability as we have discussed it a bit. But know that it will be case specific. With these facts I think the police/DA would be very justified in bringing charges(if not somewhat obligated). From the facts these people intentionally caused bodily injury or harm. Well beyond acceptable behavior.

As for civil penalties- it is the rule of the pocket. It would come down to who is injured and who done the injuring. To bring a civil suit agaist a couple of psycho circus guys would probably be a waste of effort. Unless they are famous movie or music stars. And from the facts it would be hard to say that PSP is responsible. That would get into the reasonable forseeable acts and whether they were negligent. Generally, there are some rules against negligence for others intentional torts.

This is a different issue than the full auto- field owner insurance case.

I'm sure you are aware of my opinion of the possibility of criminal penalties around paintball. I am also fairly certain that you consider civil penalties and a case pushed by a victim through the civil courts as far more likely than a criminal case pushed by a DA.

[Lohman446]

In this case criminal punishment is more likely. I am aware of your opinions regarding liability as we have discussed it a bit. But know that it will be case specific. With these facts I think the police/DA would be very justified in bringing charges(if not somewhat obligated). From the facts these people intentionally caused bodily injury or harm. Well beyond acceptable behavior.

As for civil penalties- it is the rule of the pocket. It would come down to who is injured and who done the injuring. To bring a civil suit agaist a couple of psycho circus guys would probably be a waste of effort. Unless they are famous movie or music stars. And from the facts it would be hard to say that PSP is responsible. That would get into the reasonable forseeable acts and whether they were negligent. Generally, there are some rules against negligence for others intentional torts.

This is a different issue than the full auto- field owner insurance case.

Obviously not knowing all of the financials - at one point (and I no longer know if this is true) it was possible to sue someone's sponsors for there actions during an event in civil court. When one considers that some of these fields adn stores are not well hidden behind corporations as happens in other businesses, I think it might be possible to find some reasonably deep pockets - not major deep, but not as poor as some might think.

[scrumpy]

Great, more morons to ruin the sport.

Maybe I'm weird but I'm not as excited as you sound.

[KRAKMT]

It would revert back to the 1st year law school mantra- it depends.
Just for discussion you would have to sue the players for common law battery(intentional harmful or offensive touching). And also the sponsors for negligence- failure to control or some kind of agency relationship. Like I mentioned the sponsors are generally, not responsible for the intentional torts of others- just as your employer is generally not responsible if you punch someone on the street. (unless they new or should have known your proclivity to do harm).
So in order to get to the pockets (sponsors) the underlying behavior must be a negligence case- the players failed to act in a reasonable prudent behavior and the sponsors were negligent in training or overseeing the players.

Now lets take a dynasty player that unintentionally shoots someone 30 times in the head- the way to get there would be to argue marker malfunction- product liability, or possibly player negligence (maybe personal trigger job) then based on an agency relationship between smart parts and dynasty it might be possible. Then you would have a pocket to target.

We had a case where a lady was tossed out of a voting place (private hotel) for asking for signatures on a voter initiative (anti elk farming I think). She brought a case against the hotel owner for battery. The jury found in her favor and gave her a dollar. Great she won then because she did she was entitled to attorneys fees. $70,000.

There are many creative lawyers out there that might be able to make a case but only if it was worth the time- they have to live and eat also.

Obviously not knowing all of the financials - at one point (and I no longer know if this is true) it was possible to sue someone's sponsors for there actions during an event in civil court. When one considers that some of these fields adn stores are not well hidden behind corporations as happens in other businesses, I think it might be possible to find some reasonably deep pockets - not major deep, but not as poor as some might think.