Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/3/2002 5:10:09 AM EDT
LAKEWOOD -- A 21-year-old man who shot some teen-agers with a paintball gun was in serious condition Tuesday after they responded with a real gun, police said. Jeremiah Witherwax and two friends told police they were driving in the 800 block of Oak Street at about 8:45 p.m. Monday, firing paintballs at pedestrians, when two teen-age boys retaliated. One shot Witherwax in the head, police said. The boys fled as Witherwax's friends drove him to a fire station. He was taken to St. Anthony's Hospital-Central. Authorities were asking for the public's help in locating the suspects. Both were described as 15 to 16 years old. One was about 5-feet-5, 120 to 130 pounds, with short blond hair. He was last seen wearing baggy denim shorts and a white T-shirt. The second suspect was about 5-feet-7 and 130 to 140 pounds. He had on a hood. Police said the boys may have paint on their clothing and skin or other marks, such as welts, as a result of the paintball attack. Anyone with information is asked to call dispatch at (303) 987-7111. It is against the law to fire paintballs at people or property, but police said their priority Tuesday was determining who fired the real gun. "Right now we are focusing on the more serious incident of him being shot," police spokeswoman Stacie Oulton said. Lakewood police log about two dozen complaints a year about paintball guns being fired at property, Oulton said. But investigators could recall only one or two such incidents in which people were targeted in the past three years. ------------------------- This guy was just asking for trouble. Stupid is as stupid does............
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:11:39 AM EDT
Well, the lesson for this asshole is, don't do drive by paintball shootings.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:12:00 AM EDT
Never bring paintballs to a gunfight.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:13:37 AM EDT
That seems like justified self defense to me. Someone points a gun at me and fires, I would certainly shoot back.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:14:21 AM EDT
The kids responded in self defence to what appeared to them as an eminant threat to their well being and they are the ones being pursued. This is one take on the story...
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:17:18 AM EDT
A 21 year-old "man" playing with toy guns is shot by "teenagers" with real guns?!? BWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!! [:D]
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:20:54 AM EDT
...just thinning the herd.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:25:12 AM EDT
Lesson #1 ..... Nuts!
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:30:08 AM EDT
Those teenagers did exactly the same thing that any LEO would have done.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:32:27 AM EDT
21 year old punk meets teenaged criminals. The man should have known better than to do something stupid like shoot paintballs at teenagers, because we ALL KNOW that all New Jersey teenagers are packing heat! (Uh, FullRange,, this WAS New Jersey, right? You didn't exactly specify the state, but judging from what your listed location is...) The man is an idiot. The kids are scum that should be dealt with severely. CJ
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:32:55 AM EDT
Those paintballs hurt and could do a lot of damage to someone. Maybe this story will make some oother teenagers think before trying this.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:33:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Those teenagers did exactly the same thing that any LEO would have done.
View Quote
I concur
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:35:18 AM EDT
I don't blame them for shooting back at the guy, but I do blame them for running! They just screwed themselves by running! If you run, you must be GUILTY!! That's the way the jury is going to see it.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:35:31 AM EDT
Denver? [url]http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1065162,00.html[/url]
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:53:49 AM EDT
I'm sure they ran knowing that teenagers having a handgun is a felony... FWIW: Turn-about is fair play! [frag]
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 6:19:52 AM EDT
Ever been hit by a paint ball? How about a frozen one? Paybacks can be a bitch.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 6:24:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By FullRange: Denver? [url]http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1065162,00.html[/url]
View Quote
Lakewood (where I live) is just west of Denver. Juries are likely to be a bit more conservative here than in Denver, but I think the teens can forget any kind of a self-defense plea at this point. The 21 year old paintballer may be up for a Darwin award, though. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 6:51:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2002 6:54:30 AM EDT by thebeekeeper1]
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 6:55:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG: Well, the lesson for this asshole is, don't do drive by paintball shootings.
View Quote
couldnt have said it better myself! [pistol]
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 7:10:42 AM EDT
Exactly - Justice served. The 21 year old fool should have known better and got what he deserved for firing a gun (albeit a paintball gun) at innocent people just minding their own business. If he survives he should also have charges filed against him for shooting at these innocent people with his paintball gun as it is unlawful for him to have done so. Only one gun law should be on the books: use a gun in an unlawful manner and be severely punished.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 7:16:16 AM EDT
A gun is a gun, the particular projecticle is not important!
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 7:20:33 AM EDT
Legally, I don't think that the teens can claim self defense. Their lives were not in danger, after all. But sometimes, justice is served in ways different from the law. Who will bet that Mr. Witherwax and his two punk friends will give up their sport of shooting paintballs at innocent people minding their own business?
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 7:25:47 AM EDT
Most people here, including myself, would have shot this dumb ass in self defense. He had it coming.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 7:26:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2002 7:28:41 AM EDT by NOVA5]
IDIOTS on both sides of the fence. its fools like him that give paintballing a bad name, and idiots like the teens that give shooters a bad name. knowing what a paintball marker looks like i wouldnt shoot back at him with lead... i would get mine and the special paintballs... frozen. ;) teach him a thing or two about marksmanship plus i will have my mask on. mabey hes missing a cup.. OWWW i bet. -- EDIT -- Not to mention they should leave a few nice dents in the car and mabey a broken window or 2. scaled self defense... now if they got upset and came after me.. a louder thing will speak if needed.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 7:31:41 AM EDT
"Yeah, officer, I seen it. Lessee, one was 6'9" tall, with green hair in a mohawk, and the other was a 9 year old girl with one brown eye and one green. She had a pinball machine strapped to her back. The pinball machine was tilted. They went thataway!" Used to be that "He needed killin'" was considered a valid defense in a murder prosecution. In this case, I'd buy it if _I_ were on the jury.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 7:49:08 AM EDT
Hey guys these are the defense statutes in Arizona, basically they were justified in the use of physical force, technically not deadly force, however a good attorney could most likely get a not guilty verdict. I have been shot by paintballs while on the playing field. They hurt, however all the field in my area require protective gear, there is a reason for that, paintballs can cause grave bodily harm, I.E. loss of eyes or worse,if the paint is frozen possibly death. These "kids" responded as most of us would have. The cops need to be looking at the real cause of this problem, the two morons who found humor in shooting people walking down the road!!! 13-404. Justification; self-defense A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force. B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified: 1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or 2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or 3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless: (a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and (b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person. 13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another: 1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and 2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:09:14 AM EDT
If a car drove by and I heard a pop, pop, pop and felt a sharp pain and saw "possibly" red blood stain on my buddies shirt. (not to say that the paint was red) And saw something that looked like a barrel sticking out of the car window. I think that my fight or flight reaction might take over. Never been there. But if I chose to fight, I would fire til the treat was gone. I'm not a mind reader. So I don't know what either side was thinking. I wonder what kind neighborhood these guys were trolling for victims? My .02 as if you asked for it. If the guy dies I would nominate him for a Darwin award.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:16:48 AM EDT
Realizing that criminal statutes are different from state to state I looked up Colorado's: 18-1-704 - Use of physical force in defense of a person. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose. (2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and: (a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or (b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or (c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if: (a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or (b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. http://64.78.178.9/stat01/index.htm Based on the information given so far, I would be hard pressed to find the teens guilty of any thing other than a weapons violation. The more in know about them could change this. Please keep posted if they are caught, also advise as to what happened to the morons who initiated the incident.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:34:23 AM EDT
Being a paintball vet/ref/team captain, I can recall incidents where people have been knocked unconscious by a hit to the head. This is at a very high velocity, say 400 fps. This velocity is easily reached be most paintball guns and can break bones as well. I personally spoke with one man who had a rib cracked by just such an incident. The stats for losing an eye at even much lower velocities is 50/50. These things can do serious damage! At the field where I play, velocity is kept to 280 during the day, and 250 fps for night play where the contact is usually much closer. A hit from a gun at 300 fps is so painful as to be stunning. Yep...hard to breathe, can't talk, can't move...the whole stunning gig. Trust me. Even at 250-280, a hit in the neck or groin can drop people. I have seen this MANY times as well. Driving around and inflicting pain on unsuspecting citizens is stupid beyond words and my definition of malicious. Forgetting that some people (yes, even punk kids with good aim, luck, or both) may respond out of fear when experiencing sudden, unexpected pain is just plain stupid. Do people pay for stupidity on a daily basis? You betcha. With their lives? Sometimes. I wish I had a conclusion, but I don't. Just sadness. Any time someone takes a tool from a sport and uses it to victimize people, it is a tragedy. Peace. Out. -White Horse
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:42:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: A 21 year-old "man" playing with toy guns is shot by "teenagers" with real guns?!? BWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!! [:D]
View Quote
i agree, isn't real life a pisser!
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:45:41 AM EDT
NOVA5 WTF? Are you saying that while walking down the street or standing on a corner BSing with your bros you would;identify a threat, determine that it was nonleathal, know that it was a paintball gun, don a mask, draw your own paintball gun(with special paintballs), aim with pinpoint accuracy and get some, all in the the time it takes for a driveby shooting to take place? What if you determined that the threat was leathal? Do you have special ninja gear for that scenario too? Maybe I just misread your post?
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 9:31:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2002 9:33:47 AM EDT by NOVA5]
i think you may have misread. i didnt mention but suspected these guys would do multipule passes. after they were gone i would get my stuff. if they didnt come back.. ohwell. but like whitehorse said. paintballs in their normal condition (not frozen) can create considerable pain when they hit you if you dont have the proper gear. but a paintball marker is a very distict item, long barrel with what looks like a 30-40 Oz. cokebottle on top of it. and a airtank behind it(marker). (marker configurations vary but the hopper (ammo) is always on top, due to gravity feeding.) after hiding(wouldnt you hide from a unknown danger while you assessed it?) till he was gone i would look in the area of the hits and see paintsplatters. thats all. dont read to much Ninjaness into me ;) in not that good. --edit-- a buddy tested his marker on a headlight in his truck, cranked the pressure up to the 300fps point, and let rip 3 shots from 50ft. broke the headlight. never was the brightest chap, but atleast it was his own truck.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 10:16:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tulsacmpshooter: If a car drove by and I heard a pop, pop, pop and felt a sharp pain and saw "possibly" red blood stain on my buddies shirt. (not to say that the paint was red) And saw something that looked like a barrel sticking out of the car window. I think that my fight or flight reaction might take over. Never been there. But if I chose to fight, I would fire til the treat was gone. I'm not a mind reader. So I don't know what either side was thinking. I wonder what kind neighborhood these guys were trolling for victims? My .02 as if you asked for it. If the guy dies I would nominate him for a Darwin award.
View Quote
My take on the situation exactly.[:D]
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 10:37:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2002 10:57:42 AM EDT by Yankee1911]
Originally Posted By tulsacmpshooter: If a car drove by and I heard a pop, pop, pop and felt a sharp pain and saw "possibly" red blood stain on my buddies shirt. (not to say that the paint was red) And saw something that looked like a barrel sticking out of the car window. I think that my fight or flight reaction might take over. Never been there. But if I chose to fight, I would fire til the treat was gone. I'm not a mind reader. So I don't know what either side was thinking. I wonder what kind neighborhood these guys were trolling for victims? My .02 as if you asked for it. If the guy dies I would nominate him for a Darwin award.
View Quote
It's a typical suburban, single-family home neighborhood. Definitely not a hardcore crack block. If there is gang activity there, it's a bunch of wannabes. EDIT: eagle1911, Unfortunately, the fact that the teens didn't come forward and claim that they returned fire in self defense right away is going to imply guilt in the eyes of some jurors, regardless of what the law says. That and the fact that the teens were in possession of the gun in the first place means that the defense lawyer has his work cut out for him.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 11:16:04 AM EDT
You know, maybe the boys didn't know they were getting shot at with paintballs. I mean, first of all it's probably a crappy neighborhood to start out with, a car comes rolling by then a barrel sticks out of the window, are you going to wait around and see if paintballs come out? Or start shooting? You don't have much time, and if you hesitate too long and it just happens to be the barrel of an uzi you might get waxed. Also, as a detterent - do you think this will cause people in the future to think twice before shooting people with paintball guns? Heck, real drive by shootings would probably all but disappear if they got shot back at every time.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 11:23:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: That seems like justified self defense to me. Someone points a gun at me and fires, I would certainly shoot back.
View Quote
Ditto, but why the hell were 15 year olds packing? If this was an adult that responded with gunfire, I'd be less sympathetic, but who here HONESTLY believes that a 15 year old knows when the time is appropriate to respond with deadly force? Also have to see if the bullets were fired after the car passed and stopped firing or while they were shooting the paintballs, it makes a big difference.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 11:26:58 AM EDT
Another classic example of age dose not determines maturity. Just because your 21 doesn’t mean you’re a man/woman, it’s the way you hold your self in society that determines that. - Sulaco
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 11:28:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By eagle1911: (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
View Quote
So, duels are illegal in CO, unless you what, get permission from your local LEO?
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 11:31:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 12:24:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2002 12:26:27 PM EDT by ah1z]
[/quote]who here HONESTLY believes that a 15 year old knows when the time is appropriate to respond with deadly force[/quote] minman- I do. I am 16 and remember quite vividly being 15. you only used lethal force when you feel that either you or a person under your care is in danger of serious bodily harm or possibly death. the time to use deadly force is when someone demonstrates there willingness to kill you and present the ability to do so (gun, knife, etc). personally if some one walks into my home with a deadly weapon and threatens to use it on me or my family, I will do everything in my power to prevent that in the way of stopping them. the fastest way to stop them is to shoot them and if they die as a consequense ohh well. my goal is not to kill them it is to stop them but the later is somtimes a result of the former. if you attempt to take away my right to live than you forfeit yours. but this would not be a decission I would be happy about making in any way just what has to be done. personally I beleive that if a person demonstrates the ability to responsibly arm themselves the should be granted the right to gain a ccw at the age of 16. just because I am young I doesn't mean I don't have the right to defend my self. I do however believe in this situation that the shooter probably didn't feel truly threatened, but rather angered and shot as a result. but I might be wrong. the reason why I say this is because the ran. if I shot someone in self defense I would rather aim up to the possession charges than run and almost deffinately be charged with murder. sorry about the rant you guys I just had to get that off my chest.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 2:32:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jboze: I don't blame them for shooting back at the guy, but I do blame them for running! They just screwed themselves by running! If you run, you must be GUILTY!! That's the way the jury is going to see it.
View Quote
No, I don't see it that way. Having neutralized the immediate threat - the moron shooting at them, and seeing the moron's friends coming(and not knowing their intentions) those kids did the prudent thing and avoided confrontation - by running the hell away.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 2:59:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 3:31:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ah1z: I do. I am 16 and remember quite vividly being 15. SNIP personally I beleive that if a person demonstrates the ability to responsibly arm themselves the should be granted the right to gain a ccw at the age of 16. just because I am young I doesn't mean I don't have the right to defend my self.
View Quote
The frontal lobes of your brain are the last to complete formation, and unfortunatly it is usually late into the teenage years. The frontal lobes are the seat of impulse control and good judgement. While it is possible that some brains may be more mature and thus have their seretonin pathways completed, it wouldn't be very many. 15 or 16 is too young to be making any decisions that have life or death consequences. I don't even think most 16 year olds should drive. sorry, tony
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 3:39:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NOVA5: IDIOTS on both sides of the fence. its fools like him that give paintballing a bad name, and idiots like the teens that give shooters a bad name. knowing what a paintball marker looks like i wouldnt shoot back at him with lead... i would get mine and the special paintballs... frozen. ;) teach him a thing or two about marksmanship plus i will have my mask on. mabey hes missing a cup.. OWWW i bet. -- EDIT -- Not to mention they should leave a few nice dents in the car and mabey a broken window or 2. scaled self defense... now if they got upset and came after me.. a louder thing will speak if needed.
View Quote
How old are you?
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 3:42:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ckapsl: Legally, I don't think that the teens can claim self defense. Their lives were not in danger, after all. But sometimes, justice is served in ways different from the law. Who will bet that Mr. Witherwax and his two punk friends will give up their sport of shooting paintballs at innocent people minding their own business?
View Quote
i think there's room for negotiation on this point. in some states, depending on the statutes, they don't actually HAVE to be in imminent danger. they just have to honestly believe that they were. i'm pretty sure this is the case in IN.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 4:11:07 PM EDT
Randomly shooting pedestrians from a car is vicious and very cowardly, so it's gratifying to see one of those turkeys get a big helping of rich, creamy justice.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:51:02 PM EDT
Used to be that "He needed killin'" was considered a valid defense in a murder prosecution.
View Quote
At the very least, this guy "needed" several fresh bullet holes in his car. [i]An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.[/i] — novelist [b]Robert A. Heinlein[/b], as spoken by Mordan Claude in [u]Beyond This Horizon[/u], 1942
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 6:11:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARlady:
Originally Posted By ckapsl: Legally, I don't think that the teens can claim self defense. Their lives were not in danger, after all. But sometimes, justice is served in ways different from the law. Who will bet that Mr. Witherwax and his two punk friends will give up their sport of shooting paintballs at innocent people minding their own business?
View Quote
i think there's room for negotiation on this point. in some states, depending on the statutes, they don't actually HAVE to be in imminent danger. they just have to honestly believe that they were. i'm pretty sure this is the case in IN.
View Quote
ARLady, you are correct, I should have been more precise. Usually the shooter's "reasonable" viewpoint of events has to be used as the basis to determine whether the shooting was justified at that moment, even if the actual events subsequently turn out different. The teens who fired back may well have thought that they were under armed attack and that their lives were in imminent danger. I made the mistake of rushing to judgement with all the facts at my disposal. They didn't have that luxury. Anyway, I weep bitterly for Mr. Witherwax, whose fundamental right to assault pedestrians has been severely and unfairly curtailed. [>(] [:D]
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 6:58:12 PM EDT
ok, thier lives wernt acually in danger. but if teh dead guy had a blank pistol(like one of those beretta lookin ones) they wouldnt have been in danger either, but wouldnt have been able to tell a real threat from some asshole messin around. i play paintball alot. i can tell the diffrent of a real gun and a paintball gun when were at the range of feild. but even i cant be sure if it was some guy shooting out his window. if i had no experiance with paintball, i would have no idea. i have acually been shot at by a drive by paintballer. the diffrence was, i knew the guy, he shot at my lawnmower, and his car was covered with paint. it was pretty funny. and anyway, it is a fact the paintball guns can take out an eye easy, and cause serious damage. i think in iowa they can be considered a dangerous (maybe deadly) weapon if used in an assualt.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 7:51:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:09:34 PM EDT
If the 21 year old was using red paint balls ,as these kids sometimes do for effect,Then it is posible that the kid with the real gun might have thought he or his friend were shot,and there is a good defence right there.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top