Minors playing paintball
You found the blog, probably through either word of mouth or you read the headline and came here looking to be pissed off. But I want to put this out there and, hopefully, get people to think. But, more often than not, people make a lot of noise to hear themselves talk.
We're talking about minors in paintball this time. I like playing paintball with the younger generation. When they're open to learn, they learn fast. And I like to do what I wish someone would have done with me the first time playing. "Oh, you're new and you want to know what to do? Lemme show ya."
But lately, I'm really hesitant to play with minors. I mean I'll do it. But I'm doing so while playing with the proverbial "kid gloves" on. And let me explain why.
My E-Mag is capable of shooting 20+ balls per second. I don't shoot that fast, but I could. I know a lot of people who can shoot, assisted or not, at 20+ BPS. Many people set their gun to ramp at 15 per second. This sets up my main problem here.
I looked up the law in Illinois for "child abuse", and Here's the result:
That's the wording of the law. Nonaccidental physical injury. This means that if an adult injures a minor with an intentional act, it could be criminal behavior.
Ok, so let's focus in on that idea. Paintball is sold as a "non-contact sport", but in reality is a contact sport in a different light. We don't physically hit each other, but we do shoot paintballs at each other. We all know they hurt. We all know the "fun" of being hit in a vital or soft spot.
We also all know about the latest trend of "extra love" or "bonus balls". We also all know that it's not all accidental. This is where we start to get into trouble, and where people start to backpedal. "You can't tell me what my intent was." Or "You don't know what they meant to do!" Ok, fine. But let's run a scenario by you.
Older player is playing paintball with a minor. The minor is the last on the field. The older player runs up on them, puts 20 paintballs into the minor form point blank range, and screams "GET OFF THE FUCKING FIELD ASSHOLE!" Then when the kid doesn't move, the older player pumps another 5 into him. "THAT will teach you!"
No, I can't tell you what's going on in either of their heads. But I can tell you that through the actions taken, the older player would certainly be held to task about his actions. Or at least should be.
Now the scary part of all this. For many years I've watched kids play paintball. Some fields will let someone as young ass 12 or 10 play paintball. This is not only dangerous but is also potentially a disaster legally. Ok, sure, you get the wunder-kids who get the point of the game and understand how to play. But more often than not I see these kids all do the same things. They huddle together, they take goggles off because they're too uncomfortable, and they're too scared to move. And I've seen young kids cry when they get hammered too.
A lot of the younger crowd is going to hate me for saying this, but I don't think it's healthy for paintball as a sport to allow younger kids to play. Target shoot, fine. Put goggles on and let it go. But play? No. If I had my way the age limit would be 18. Not a popular opinion, sure. But legally speaking its the most workable. Either that or let the minors play in their own games, and the adults in another.
I don't put things like this out there to win popularity contests. I'm thinking ahead. You don't see NHL players going hardcore at the pee-wee league kids. And yet, a pro paintball player can jump into a walk on game and light up a 14 year old kid. Paintball needs to understand that what they allow right now is more than a little dangerous.
Before people start to get high-and-mighty, let me give you a dose of reality. You may remember that article I posted about the 12 year old girl being charged with battery for playing dodge ball in school. I also like to mention the Bertuzzi incident (video here, follow up news here), and how the police stepped in after the game. Give me time, and I'll find more incidents like these. In all these incidents, people started saying how it was full of bullshit, and how it's just a game, and how you can't let the law step in to arrest people for playing a game.
But in the eyes of the law, what happens on the field is still subject to legal proceedings. Athletes, indeed everyone who's into sports, seems to think that "what happens on the field just happens." And to an extent, they're right. Within the confines of a game, Rugby is a sport. On the street, it's called a brawl. But tossing a ball into a street fight does not make it a game nor the street an arena.
So you put a minor on the field of play, and they may or may not know the acceptable level of violence. They may or may not expect to get hit 3-5 times from one person. And even more fun, their MOM may not expect it either. I can easily see a scenario where some kid is shot in a bunkering run 4-5 times in the head, and the kid goes down unconscious or just hurt. Mom goes after the attacker, whose defense is "It happens." Mom calls the cops and presses charges, and suddenly paintball is on a whole new level of legal wrangling.
And since there is no player's union, or advocacy group, or industry group, or even a unified league the player is on his own when it comes to court. So he'd have to hire a lawyer out of his own pocket. And I've said it before, any hack lawyer will rip a field waiver apart in court AND use paintball's own DVD's to attack the sport. "This player acted in a violent way, just as he'd read about and seen on the media that paintball puts out. He viciously went after a child on the field of play. Get this monster off the streets and into a jail cell." Paintball isn't ready to fight "Mothers against Paintball".
And, while I'm on field waivers, the field waiver covers the FIELD. NOT the opponents. So if you go after the field, they'll claim the waiver saves them. It doesn't, but that's not my point. A waiver ONLY protects the field. NOT the person you play against. So yes, you CAN be held accountable in a court of law for being a jackass on the field of play.
Because of this, I'm really disliking the concept of playing paintball with minors. If I shoot a string off the break and shoot my lane, and get insanely lucky and hit a kid with 7 shots by some miracle, is that child abuse? In the context of the game, it only takes "one ball" to eliminate someone, and anything over that can be legally construed as above and beyond the scope of the game. So hitting a kid 6 more times than is needed could be legal grounds to haul my carcass to jail.
I've said it before. It's not a matter of "if", but "when" these things happen. And when they do, I'm not looking forward to it.
We're talking about minors in paintball this time. I like playing paintball with the younger generation. When they're open to learn, they learn fast. And I like to do what I wish someone would have done with me the first time playing. "Oh, you're new and you want to know what to do? Lemme show ya."
But lately, I'm really hesitant to play with minors. I mean I'll do it. But I'm doing so while playing with the proverbial "kid gloves" on. And let me explain why.
My E-Mag is capable of shooting 20+ balls per second. I don't shoot that fast, but I could. I know a lot of people who can shoot, assisted or not, at 20+ BPS. Many people set their gun to ramp at 15 per second. This sets up my main problem here.
I looked up the law in Illinois for "child abuse", and Here's the result:
Physical Abuse
All States and territories provide definitions for physical abuse. The term is generally defined as any nonaccidental physical injury to the child, and can include striking, kicking, burning, or biting the child, or any action that results in a physical impairment of the child.
That's the wording of the law. Nonaccidental physical injury. This means that if an adult injures a minor with an intentional act, it could be criminal behavior.
Ok, so let's focus in on that idea. Paintball is sold as a "non-contact sport", but in reality is a contact sport in a different light. We don't physically hit each other, but we do shoot paintballs at each other. We all know they hurt. We all know the "fun" of being hit in a vital or soft spot.
We also all know about the latest trend of "extra love" or "bonus balls". We also all know that it's not all accidental. This is where we start to get into trouble, and where people start to backpedal. "You can't tell me what my intent was." Or "You don't know what they meant to do!" Ok, fine. But let's run a scenario by you.
Older player is playing paintball with a minor. The minor is the last on the field. The older player runs up on them, puts 20 paintballs into the minor form point blank range, and screams "GET OFF THE FUCKING FIELD ASSHOLE!" Then when the kid doesn't move, the older player pumps another 5 into him. "THAT will teach you!"
No, I can't tell you what's going on in either of their heads. But I can tell you that through the actions taken, the older player would certainly be held to task about his actions. Or at least should be.
Now the scary part of all this. For many years I've watched kids play paintball. Some fields will let someone as young ass 12 or 10 play paintball. This is not only dangerous but is also potentially a disaster legally. Ok, sure, you get the wunder-kids who get the point of the game and understand how to play. But more often than not I see these kids all do the same things. They huddle together, they take goggles off because they're too uncomfortable, and they're too scared to move. And I've seen young kids cry when they get hammered too.
A lot of the younger crowd is going to hate me for saying this, but I don't think it's healthy for paintball as a sport to allow younger kids to play. Target shoot, fine. Put goggles on and let it go. But play? No. If I had my way the age limit would be 18. Not a popular opinion, sure. But legally speaking its the most workable. Either that or let the minors play in their own games, and the adults in another.
I don't put things like this out there to win popularity contests. I'm thinking ahead. You don't see NHL players going hardcore at the pee-wee league kids. And yet, a pro paintball player can jump into a walk on game and light up a 14 year old kid. Paintball needs to understand that what they allow right now is more than a little dangerous.
Before people start to get high-and-mighty, let me give you a dose of reality. You may remember that article I posted about the 12 year old girl being charged with battery for playing dodge ball in school. I also like to mention the Bertuzzi incident (video here, follow up news here), and how the police stepped in after the game. Give me time, and I'll find more incidents like these. In all these incidents, people started saying how it was full of bullshit, and how it's just a game, and how you can't let the law step in to arrest people for playing a game.
But in the eyes of the law, what happens on the field is still subject to legal proceedings. Athletes, indeed everyone who's into sports, seems to think that "what happens on the field just happens." And to an extent, they're right. Within the confines of a game, Rugby is a sport. On the street, it's called a brawl. But tossing a ball into a street fight does not make it a game nor the street an arena.
So you put a minor on the field of play, and they may or may not know the acceptable level of violence. They may or may not expect to get hit 3-5 times from one person. And even more fun, their MOM may not expect it either. I can easily see a scenario where some kid is shot in a bunkering run 4-5 times in the head, and the kid goes down unconscious or just hurt. Mom goes after the attacker, whose defense is "It happens." Mom calls the cops and presses charges, and suddenly paintball is on a whole new level of legal wrangling.
And since there is no player's union, or advocacy group, or industry group, or even a unified league the player is on his own when it comes to court. So he'd have to hire a lawyer out of his own pocket. And I've said it before, any hack lawyer will rip a field waiver apart in court AND use paintball's own DVD's to attack the sport. "This player acted in a violent way, just as he'd read about and seen on the media that paintball puts out. He viciously went after a child on the field of play. Get this monster off the streets and into a jail cell." Paintball isn't ready to fight "Mothers against Paintball".
And, while I'm on field waivers, the field waiver covers the FIELD. NOT the opponents. So if you go after the field, they'll claim the waiver saves them. It doesn't, but that's not my point. A waiver ONLY protects the field. NOT the person you play against. So yes, you CAN be held accountable in a court of law for being a jackass on the field of play.
Because of this, I'm really disliking the concept of playing paintball with minors. If I shoot a string off the break and shoot my lane, and get insanely lucky and hit a kid with 7 shots by some miracle, is that child abuse? In the context of the game, it only takes "one ball" to eliminate someone, and anything over that can be legally construed as above and beyond the scope of the game. So hitting a kid 6 more times than is needed could be legal grounds to haul my carcass to jail.
I've said it before. It's not a matter of "if", but "when" these things happen. And when they do, I'm not looking forward to it.
posted by Rob "Tyger" Rubin at
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
5 Comments:
Good Morning, Rob. Interesting thoughts, but your argument is negligent of another legal consideration: Adults committing violent acts on other adults are also subject to the criminal code's jurisdiction. If Player A and Player B are both adults and Player A overshoots Player B, knocking him unconcious or causing other considerable injury, the case for felony assault against Player A is virtually synonymous with your child abuse argument. The only disparity is the likeliness for injury, assuming that younger children are more easily inured than adults. (That is to say, a ten-year-old is generally more fragile than a thirty-year-old and may sustain injuries from actions that would harm the former and not the latter.) However, I'd argue that shooting a sixteen-year-old in the head six times and shooting a forty-year-old in the head six times are no different in their potential for physical harm. One may be viewed with more leniency or severity by the legal system than the other--we're more prone to endeavor to protect children and issue punitive judgments to that effect--but as far as the potential for legal trouble and personal liability is concerned, the situations are mated in their potential for trouble.
To take it a devil-advocated step further, consider this: What would restricting paintball to legal adults do to the legal potential in cases like this? If minors are prevented from playing because paintball acknowledges that it is dangerous and unsafe for everyone, then the argument against assault is not weakened but strengthened. The assaulter has gone from acting on hype (your given courtroom scenario) or aggression, perhaps ignorant of his potential for violence or damage, to "knowingly" using dangerous equipment to inflict serious physical harm. Manslaughter to murder, so to speak. Will that make players use their equipment more judiciously or provide a safer environment? I don't know the answer. (NFL players don't seem to hit any softer after each tragic spinal injury.) But I do know that if a player dropped dead after I shot him in the head, whether it be from shock or an unrelated condition or something else as unlikely, I'd rather have shot him in a "game that is more violent than the victim--and also the shooter--suspected" than in one where I "knowingly used dangerous equipment in a controlled sport to inflict an injury to the victim's head resulting in physical trauma and eventually, death."
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:29:00 AM
No, I agree whole heartedly. Adults committing acts against adults is just as bad, if not worse. My initial problem is with minors, which amps up the legal problems. PLUS I've seen a lot of parents at fields too. So Mom sees an adult (who should know better, just as Mom) light up her child, do you really think that she'll let it slide? Especially when it's an adult who does it to HER child.
As far as what's to stop adults from trying it, nothing. That's the joke of it all. When does the game end and violence begin? As far as I see, the sport wants to be "xtreme" so the lines are blurred. 1 used to be enough, then 3, then 10, then 20 isn't abnormal. There are so many people who play now that don't know any other way to play than aggressive, and almost violent. And a lot of people who do not respect the equipment they use, and in fact a lot of people abuse it becasue they don't know better. Ignorance, however, is not an adequate defense.
It's a matter of time.
By
Rob "Tyger" Rubin, at Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:04:00 PM
Would there not be some issue over the "nonaccidental" part of the law? A player could intentionally over shoot someone, a then try to argue that it was not his intention to do so and through circumstances beyond his or her control it happened. The player probably wouldn't be able to prove it, but it couldn't be proven otherwise either. Or, if serious physical harm was caused, they could say it was not their intention to cause such harm, just to eliminate the player and therefore it was an accident that such harm was caused. What do you guys think? I am not a lawyer, so I am just shooting in the dark here.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:24:00 PM
I know this comment is a little late, but I've just read the entry above. I'm not completely sure how things go there in the US. Here in Canada you are not allowed to sign away any legal rights you may have regarding criminal matters. ie: I cannot sign anything that says it's ok for you to assault me under the defn of assault in our criminal code. I can give up my civil right to sue to a point. (the point of waivers)
Anyway, I would check that out before you get people you play with to sign something and then think you are safe.
I suspect that the 'states would have a similar rule. One use is to prevent you forcing me to sign something saying you are not responsible for a)making me sign this b)doing whatever bad thing you'll do.
My thoughts,
-Ryan
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:22:00 AM
Here's another late one...
My personal opinion is that there should be some rule, that if more than 3 breaks are counted on a player, the person that did the shooting is out.
I don't know about you guys, but the refs at my field have started telling me to be more aggressive. I'm a front player, if you can say that for woodsball, so I've gotten in situations where I surrender the opponent or give 'em a shot to the pod pack. Recently though, I got in a particular episode that might make me rethink this...
I had just snuck around the castle at my field (E-Jam Paintball) and had already gotten one or two of the opponents in the castle out, and I was still unknown to the opponents. I wait for a second at one of the openings and hear a player talking with another, and then see him turn into my view, something like 5 feet away. I shoot of course, and I see a clear break on his hopper. He pops behind cover, and I yell "Check your hopper, you're out!"
Evidently, he didn't check his hopper, because his next action is to pop up and shoot me while my gun is down, because I was confident he'd call himself out. I got a nice clear goggle shot, and when I call out for him to check his hopper, he apologizes and everything is fine, except for the rule that I'm out...
Also, I'm one of the fourteen year old players you talk about Tyger, but I'm on a team, and I hope, a responsible player. I've gotten lit up a couple times, and the most I've done afterwards is asked the player "What, it takes you 5 balls to bunker me?"
Also, there are 3 other boys and a girl who are fourteen on my team, another who is fifteen, and more who are just a couple years older. All of us have been playing for at least a year beforehand, and all are responsible players. Your statement still stands, but any of our older teammates would vouch for us, I'm sure. Your statement definitely has a large group of exceptions...
By
David, at Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:03:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home