Paintball legal question

[KRAKMT]

I just did a search of lexis (legal database) for the term "paintball". The database covers both federal and state cases but only cases appealed from the underlying district court. The search returned 130 cases. Some examples were officers shooting a person who pointed a "gun" the headnotes referenced bb gun and paintball. Just read the two sentence blirb. Another was the smart parts micro processor case. BLah Blah Blah.


As for who charges- it depends.

If it is a misdemeanor/ traffic the charging document is the ticket or citation. Officer charges DA prosecutes.

Felony is a different story. Here we have two ways to charge either a information/affidavit produced by the DA(County Attorney) or a grand jury(never used but in statute.

I watch too much TV myself

[KRAKMT]

An interesting case
Appellant challenged the Polk County District Court (Minnesota), which convicted him of drive-by shooting, two counts of felon in possession of a firearm, and second-degree assault.


OVERVIEW: Appellant was convicted in trial court of drive-by shooting, two counts of felon in possession of a firearm, and second-degree assault. Appellant challenged, claiming trial court error in determining that the paintball gun used to commit the alleged offenses qualified as a firearm and a dangerous weapon. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of drive-by shooting, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and in finding appellant guilty of second-degree assault because the paintball gun was not inherently a dangerous weapon as it was not designed as a weapon calculated or likely to harm, and it was not used by appellant in a manner that transformed it into a dangerous weapon.


OUTCOME: Appellant's conviction reversed because the paintball gun used to commit the alleged offenses was not inherently a dangerous weapon as it was not designed as a weapon calculated or likely to harm, and it was not used by appellant in a manner that transformed it into a dangerous weapon.

[Lohman446]

An interesting case
Appellant challenged the Polk County District Court (Minnesota), which convicted him of drive-by shooting, two counts of felon in possession of a firearm, and second-degree assault.


OVERVIEW: Appellant was convicted in trial court of drive-by shooting, two counts of felon in possession of a firearm, and second-degree assault. Appellant challenged, claiming trial court error in determining that the paintball gun used to commit the alleged offenses qualified as a firearm and a dangerous weapon. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of drive-by shooting, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and in finding appellant guilty of second-degree assault because the paintball gun was not inherently a dangerous weapon as it was not designed as a weapon calculated or likely to harm, and it was not used by appellant in a manner that transformed it into a dangerous weapon.


OUTCOME: Appellant's conviction reversed because the paintball gun used to commit the alleged offenses was not inherently a dangerous weapon as it was not designed as a weapon calculated or likely to harm, and it was not used by appellant in a manner that transformed it into a dangerous weapon.

Wow... I would not have guessed that one, obviously every state / situation is different but that is a nice factoid to know. Thanks

[KRAKMT]

[11 Bravo]

[QUOTE=thefuzz]
The DAs aren't out there choosing when to arrest people and when not too.QUOTE]

I am also a former police officer, and DAs can and do direct the arrest of individuals. Not in every instance, but you can bet if the DA tells an officer to arrest someone, that officers is going to do it.

[KRAKMT]

[KRAKMT]

[Lohman446]

Another that shows nagitive history(meaning the court or another court disagreed). So it is not good law(yes judges make law all the time- that is how our system works- anyone that believes judges should not make laws has a political ax to grind and does not understand the constitution... sorry.) but a fact example.

Far too general - I think there is a distinct issue with federal appointed judges making laws on the spot that violates the seperation of powers - especially judges that enjoy lifelong appointments. I have an issue with activist judges. However, I also do not have to deal with a system that would be gridlocked if they did not on a day to day basis.

Interestingly enough on a state level, especially with elected judges, I see far less of a problem with it.

I can go into an interesting discussion here, but its way off topic.

[KRAKMT]

I can go into an interesting discussion here, but its way off topic.

I agree and will only say that "activist judges" is a political mantra with an agenda!
As for violating separation of powers is wrong. The Courts have made laws throughout history. Common law is judge made law. It was specifically incorporated into our system. It is true that the legislature is given the obligation to make law but every time a court decides a case it is "making law". That is the system that is being attacked. That is the difference between Civil law (Napoleonic code) and common law (English chancery/church law). To attack 'activist judges' is to ignore the very constitution that people are so vehemently claiming to protect.
ok I will stop.

[Marchborne]

Far too general - I think there is a distinct issue with federal appointed judges making laws on the spot that violates the seperation of powers - especially judges that enjoy lifelong appointments. I have an issue with activist judges. However, I also do not have to deal with a system that would be gridlocked if they did not on a day to day basis.

Interestingly enough on a state level, especially with elected judges, I see far less of a problem with it.

I can go into an interesting discussion here, but its way off topic.

KRAKMT -- be careful with using Lexis or Westlaw that have "negative" flags on them. Sometimes, a "negative history" just means another judge disagreed with them, so the precedent set by the first court is still good law. In other cases, an appeals court directly overruled the trial court, which means that yes, the lower court's precedent is no longer good law.

Lohman -- the "activist" judge issue is only RARELY a separation of powers issue. Judicial law is either based on a judge's interpretation of a statute (set by the legislature), or is an issue of common-law, where there is no legislative command (such as a statute). in the latter case, the judges are free to develop the law as they see fit, because the law was judicially made in the first place. For example, in Virginia, the Virginia Supreme Court has held that there is no such cause of action as "promissory estoppel," a doctrine that many other states recognize. Because this doctrine originally developed out of English common law, the supreme courts of the various states can develop it as they see fit, at least until the legislature decides to step in a pass a statute recognizing that sort of action. Then the judges switch to their other role of interpreting what the legislature has set down as law. Happens all the time.

(bias alert: yes, I am a lawyer, and yes, my father is also a federal judge).

Sorry to hijack, back to our regularly scheduled debate of paintball and assault/ battery.

[KRAKMT]

KRAKMT -- be careful with using Lexis or Westlaw that have "negative" flags on them. Sometimes, a "negative history" just means another judge disagreed with them, so the precedent set by the first court is still good law. In other cases, an appeals court directly overruled the trial court, which means that yes, the lower court's precedent is no longer good law.

Looks like the New Jersey case was reversed by their appellate court- i just skimmed the cases as I had Lexis up. I would not profess that anyone should commit a tort based on what appears to be the law in the few cases posted. They are only posted for the specific purpose of showing how paintball has been discussed by a few courts. I repeate do not point a paintball marker at a cop or shoot your friend in the eye based on what these cases say- they are not a thorough analysis of the law in your area.

[Marchborne]

Looks like the New Jersey case was reversed by their appellate court- i just skimmed the cases as I had Lexis up. I would not profess that anyone should commit a tort based on what appears to be the law in the few cases posted. They are only posted for the specific purpose of showing how paintball has been discussed by a few courts. I repeate do not point a paintball marker at a cop or shoot your friend in the eye based on what these cases say- they are not a thorough analysis of the law in your area.

I think you're right about the NJ case, and I completely agree with what you say about folks needing to look at the law in their areas, my friend. Courts can be all over the map on these things, depending on what the state and local laws say. NEVER a good idea to point a marker at anybody, cop or not, unless you're in an active game.

As these EXAMPLE cases show, you can still possibly be liable for shooting someone with a paintball marker (if you're not in a game), even if that marker is not necessarily a "weapon" under local laws. Battery is battery, no matter what you use to "hit" someone with. You could still possibly be civilly liable to someone you hit with a pillow, if you actually managed to damage them with it (say, damaged an eye), even though the pillow would not qualify for a criminal charge of aggravated battery, as a weapon (again, a hypothetical, subject to whast your local laws are).

[thefuzz]

Well in my state Aggravated Assault is basically the intent to cause serious bodily harm or injury by any means (ie. guns, knives, cars, fists, etc.). A paintball gun can be used to, hate to be clique, "shoot your eye out." Shooting an eye out with a paintball gun is considered (atleast to me) a serious bodily injury. I really haven't run into many paintballers out there doing stuff like that, its mostly the airsoft crowd in my area.

[wanna-b-ballin']

i'm sure it can happen. hell, i could have sued before through playing paintball. in game, i was thrown to the ground by someone i had shot out; my mask flew off into some bush, and my feedneck snapped off my gun. was i pissed? hell yeah. was i hurt? not really. i just had him kicked out of the place, and i got a free feedneck from the field. i just missed a few games because of it, and got some douchebag kicked out.