Posted: 7/22/2009 2:45:03 PM EDT
|
Would someone throwing eggs or shooting a paintball gun from a vehicle at a pedestrian after dark qualify as malicious mischief at night?
Purely academic question. |
|
Quoted: <I am not a lawyer>If someone punched me unprovoked I'd call it assault. I'd say the same about paint-ball guns they as can hurt.<\I am not a lawyer> Eggs, not so much. There is some mischief going on up in Kingwood Tx right now. Hope it isn't you. Actually I believe you can be charged with assault for anything like that. |
|
Quoted:
Would someone throwing eggs or shooting a paintball gun from a vehicle at a pedestrian after dark qualify as malicious mischief at night? Purely academic question. We do not have malicious mischief in Texas. You are thinking about Criminal Mischief at night, part of the justification in chapter 9 of the penal code for using deadly force to protect PROPERTY. So you cannot use deadly force against a person throwing eggs at you night, and under THAT section even against a person using a paintball gun. Also remember that section makes a justification, when and to the degree you reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of criminal mischief during the nighttime. It would be a VERY tough sell to use deadly force against a person simply throwing eggs. Now to discuss the paintball gun....Depending upon the circumstances I believe that you might be justified under deadly force to protect persons. At night a paintgun being shot rapidly at you from surprise, especially if you are being hit, could easily (and reasonably) be confused for someone using deadly force against you (that being a real gun). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would someone throwing eggs or shooting a paintball gun from a vehicle at a pedestrian after dark qualify as malicious mischief at night? Purely academic question. We do not have malicious mischief in Texas. You are thinking about Criminal Mischief at night, part of the justification in chapter 9 of the penal code for using deadly force to protect PROPERTY. So you cannot use deadly force against a person throwing eggs at you night, and under THAT section even against a person using a paintball gun. Also remember that section makes a justification, when and to the degree you reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of criminal mischief during the nighttime. It would be a VERY tough sell to use deadly force against a person simply throwing eggs. Now to discuss the paintball gun....Depending upon the circumstances I believe that you might be justified under deadly force to protect persons. At night a paintgun being shot rapidly at you from surprise, especially if you are being hit, could easily (and reasonably) be confused for someone using deadly force against you (that being a real gun). This is strictly hearsay, but I've heard shooting someone with a paintball gun carries the same penalty as a firearm. Not sure about that though, never googled it to try to research it. But at night time, I would agree with your second statement. I was watching the show a 1000 ways to die and two fuck tard teenagers were doing driveby paint ball shootings and the guy driving was going slowly while the passenger was steering for him, the Co2 canister came loose and hit the passenger in the neck and broke his neck killing him. Darwin at work there. 
|
I done stupid stuff as a teenager...Im lucky I am still alive to remember it. Could have got shot. Guess it runs in the family - my grandpa made a bad habit out of pushing over outhouses...until one old farmer set up on halloween night and caught him and another on the run with birdshot...he carried some of the shot in one of his legs until the day he died.
|
| The big thing for the homecoming bonfires where I grew up was outhouse theft/borrowing. Someone made off with my cousin's outhouse and it was on the pile at school. My cousin saw the outhouse on the pile and said he thought about saying something but the only way the persons taking the outhouse could have made off with it was by falling into their pond several times. Since they had to have fallen into the pond he did not have the heart to make the school return the outhouse. |
|
Quoted:
Shooting someone with a gun can carry one of several penalties, depending on the charge against the shooter. But it is always deadly force. You could be charged with aggravated assault up to murder. With a paintball gun it would depend on the circumstances. The type of weapon used is not defined in those laws.
This is strictly hearsay, but I've heard shooting someone with a paintball gun carries the same penalty as a firearm. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would someone throwing eggs or shooting a paintball gun from a vehicle at a pedestrian after dark qualify as malicious mischief at night? Purely academic question. We do not have malicious mischief in Texas. You are thinking about Criminal Mischief at night, part of the justification in chapter 9 of the penal code for using deadly force to protect PROPERTY. So you cannot use deadly force against a person throwing eggs at you night, and under THAT section even against a person using a paintball gun. Also remember that section makes a justification, when and to the degree you reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of criminal mischief during the nighttime. It would be a VERY tough sell to use deadly force against a person simply throwing eggs. Now to discuss the paintball gun....Depending upon the circumstances I believe that you might be justified under deadly force to protect persons. At night a paintgun being shot rapidly at you from surprise, especially if you are being hit, could easily (and reasonably) be confused for someone using deadly force against you (that being a real gun). Had a similar case. I drove home at night with my wife as a passenger. Stopped at traffic light. A van stopped next, paralleled with my car. Within 5 secs, the sliding door opened, here came a 20 something yr olds female pointed something at me. I was startled with a "WTF look..." and about to pull my handgun. Turned out it was a cell phone. She laughed and closed the sliding door, then the van took off. To me, at night, a person pointing anything at me is interpreted as a serious possible threat. |
|
Quoted:
IN before someone actually posts the statutes in the thread! 
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Sec. 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner: (1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner; (2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or (3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings, including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the tangible property of the owner. |
| I'd say paintball guns used to assault people could be considered deadly weapons. They can kill if you overpressure them and you aim for the head. Take a paintball to the unprotected eye and it'll penetrate into your skull. Rare chance you say? Well, name one person who likes to be rarely manslaughtered without their consent? |
|
Quoted:
Had a similar case. I drove home at night with my wife as a passenger. Stopped at traffic light. A van stopped next, paralleled with my car. Within 5 secs, the sliding door opened, here came a 20 something yr olds female pointed something at me. I was startled with a "WTF look..." and about to pull my handgun. Turned out it was a cell phone. She laughed and closed the sliding door, then the van took off. To me, at night, a person pointing anything at me is interpreted as a serious possible threat. A definite aspiring Darwin Award candidate. |
|
Quoted: I'd say paintball guns used to assault people could be considered deadly weapons. They can kill if you overpressure them and you aim for the head. Take a paintball to the unprotected eye and it'll penetrate into your skull. Rare chance you say? Well, name one person who likes to be rarely manslaughtered without their consent? They can't. And I seriously doubt you'd ever see a case of that. Its assault with a non-lethal weapon, what ever that would be legally called. |
|
I got hit by a drive by egging in college (and no I was just walking down the sidewalk to the quickie mart for a coke). Left a pretty good bruise on the back of back of my arm that took about a week to go away. In that case, I considered it an assault, not mischief.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd say paintball guns used to assault people could be considered deadly weapons. They can kill if you overpressure them and you aim for the head. Take a paintball to the unprotected eye and it'll penetrate into your skull. Rare chance you say? Well, name one person who likes to be rarely manslaughtered without their consent? They can't. And I seriously doubt you'd ever see a case of that. Its assault with a non-lethal weapon, what ever that would be legally called. Deadly force is force that does or can, in the manner of its use or intended use, cause death OR serious bodily injury. A paintball gun can certainly cause serious bodily injury. Using a paintball gun could easily get you an aggravated assault charge. |
|
Quoted:
I got hit by a drive by egging in college (and no I was just walking down the sidewalk to the quickie mart for a coke). Left a pretty good bruise on the back of back of my arm that took about a week to go away. In that case, I considered it an assault, not mischief. It was an assault. |
|
...in the spirit of "curiosity," and purely academic answers: since I have tried to still get the stinking egg-white and egg yolk stains off my car and house siding....
I would deal out a double-dose of whup-ass to the egg-tossers.... I wouldn't worry about no laws. just my .02 |
|
Quoted:
Am I wrong? Let's call it an unfounded conclusion. Just about anything "can cause serious bodily injury", depending on how it is wielded. Someone could do serious damage to you using a toothpick if they really wanted to. Hell, I might be able to strangle you with some really good dental floss. But assault with a dental hygeine instrument as justification for deadly force is going to be a pretty shaky defense. What law...statutory and/or case...are you basing your assertion on? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Am I wrong? Let's call it an unfounded conclusion. Just about anything "can cause serious bodily injury", depending on how it is wielded. Someone could do serious damage to you using a toothpick if they really wanted to. Hell, I might be able to strangle you with some really good dental floss. But assault with a dental hygeine instrument as justification for deadly force is going to be a pretty shaky defense. What law...statutory and/or case...are you basing your assertion on? My assertion was as stated. I always thought an assault that caused serious bodily injury was a justification for the use of deadly force. I'm no expert on the law. If I am wrong I will retract my statement. You definetely have a point about "Just about anything "can cause serious bodily injury", " |
|
Quoted:
My assertion was as stated. I always thought an assault that caused serious bodily injury was a justification for the use of deadly force. That's actually significantly different from your previous statement, which claimed justification because a paintball "can" cause serious injury. I'm no expert on the law. If I am wrong I will retract my statement.
§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. I don't think being shot with a paint ball satifies either of the requirements in red. |
|
[/quote] Had a similar case. I drove home at night with my wife as a passenger. Stopped at traffic light. A van stopped next, paralleled with my car. Within 5 secs, the sliding door opened, here came a 20 something yr olds female pointed something at me. I was startled with a "WTF look..." and about to pull my handgun. Turned out it was a cell phone. She laughed and closed the sliding door, then the van took off. To me, at night, a person pointing anything at me is interpreted as a serious possible threat.[/quote] Fifteen years ago, my wife was driving from Seguin to Houston. She was in the right hand lane and driving the speed limit when an Isuzu Rodeo with four college age girls inside pulled up close behind her, honking and flashing their lights at her. They pulled up beside her, flipped her off and drove on. In just a few minutes, the slowed down and got behind her agin, doing the same thing. This time, just as they pulled up next to her, she rested her S&W 3913 on the window ledge. They all got the WTF, you don't play fair look on the faces, and that was the last she saw of them. |
| For all of you saying that a paintball gun shouldn't be considered to be able to cause serious bodily injury, have you ever played? I use to play paintball all the time. When played with your gun set at normal velocity limits and using distance rules, it's no big deal as long as you have proper face/head protection. But if shot up close or with velocities higher than normal those balls can really do some damage. A really deep bruise or broken skin isn't really anything I would be too worried about, but being shot up close or at high velocities in the face can really cause some serious damage, and can easily leave you blind or worse if shot in the eye. Also if you are using paintballs that are a little old and not bought recently they can become really hard and won't even break a lot of the time on contact. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd say paintball guns used to assault people could be considered deadly weapons. They can kill if you overpressure them and you aim for the head. Take a paintball to the unprotected eye and it'll penetrate into your skull. Rare chance you say? Well, name one person who likes to be rarely manslaughtered without their consent? They can't. And I seriously doubt you'd ever see a case of that. Its assault with a non-lethal weapon, what ever that would be legally called. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Snelgrove |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
My assertion was as stated. I always thought an assault that caused serious bodily injury was a justification for the use of deadly force. That's actually significantly different from your previous statement, which claimed justification because a paintball "can" cause serious injury. I'm no expert on the law. If I am wrong I will retract my statement.
§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. I don't think being shot with a paint ball satifies either of the requirements in red. Deadly force includes force that is capable, in the manner of its use or intended use, to cause serious bodily injury. A paintball gun can certainly cause serious bodily injury. However, and this is where we agree, the statement that deadly force is justified against someone using a paintball gun is not necessarily true. A better statement would be; you MAY be justified. BTW, you are quoting an old law. 9.32 (a)(2) (retreating) is no longer in the code. |
|
The device that fires Paintballs are called Paintball MARKERs for a reason
They changed what they where called just to avoid this type of discussion I have seen the Vid of some kids taping themselves as they road around and shoot people with Paintball markers The police hammered them with several charges Darwin is at work with those that play with fire......................... At night if it has a barrel and it points at me you got problems I don't care if its called a marker or not I only have a second to decided if I am alive later Carried by 6 or judged by 12................... |
|
Quoted:
Deadly force includes force that is capable, in the manner of its use or intended use, to cause serious bodily injury. A paintball gun can certainly cause serious bodily injury. However, and this is where we agree, the statement that deadly force is justified against someone using a paintball gun is not necessarily true. A better statement would be; you MAY be justified. I never disputed a paintball's ability to do that, or the meaning of "deadly force". What I did point out is that just about anything "can" cause serious bodily injury. So for a jury I suspect the case would come down to whether or not the defender's fear of such injury was reasonable. Although it may be based on the technical facts, I'd bet that convincing a jury that being shot with a ball of paint justified such a fear is going to e difficult...especially when people intentionally get together and pay for the opportunity to shoot them at one another and be shot by them. BTW, you are quoting an old law. 9.32 (a)(2) (retreating) is no longer in the code.
Yeah, I realized that the site I copied it from was out of date...but not until too late. |
|
Quoted:
So for a jury I suspect the case would come down to whether or not the defender's fear of such injury was reasonable. Although it may be based on the technical facts, I'd bet that convincing a jury that being shot with a ball of paint justified such a fear is going to e difficult...especially when people intentionally get together and pay for the opportunity to shoot them at one another and be shot by them. Ask one of the jury to volunteer as a target for a paintball. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So for a jury I suspect the case would come down to whether or not the defender's fear of such injury was reasonable. Although it may be based on the technical facts, I'd bet that convincing a jury that being shot with a ball of paint justified such a fear is going to e difficult...especially when people intentionally get together and pay for the opportunity to shoot them at one another and be shot by them. Ask one of the jury to volunteer as a target for a paintball. I wouldn't stake my freedom on the outcome of that. I've been hit by MANY paintballs (damned sharp-shooting kids)...often at close range, and with nothing but a thin T-shirt protecting me. It stings like hell and raises a small welt. I don't think subjecting a juror to the same experience would convince them that they'd just suffered "serious bodily injury". |
|
Quoted:
I don't think what others do is a factor. If I am walking at night and someone points a gun at me, fires, and I began to feel hits, the questions is; is it reasonable for me to believe that I am haivng deadly force used against me.
Quoted:
Deadly force includes force that is capable, in the manner of its use or intended use, to cause serious bodily injury. A paintball gun can certainly cause serious bodily injury. However, and this is where we agree, the statement that deadly force is justified against someone using a paintball gun is not necessarily true. A better statement would be; you MAY be justified. I never disputed a paintball's ability to do that, or the meaning of "deadly force". What I did point out is that just about anything "can" cause serious bodily injury. So for a jury I suspect the case would come down to whether or not the defender's fear of such injury was reasonable. Although it may be based on the technical facts, I'd bet that convincing a jury that being shot with a ball of paint justified such a fear is going to e difficult...especially when people intentionally get together and pay for the opportunity to shoot them at one another and be shot by them. I don't think I would have a problem convincing a jury of that, if, and thats a big if, it even got that far. ;) BTW, you are quoting an old law. 9.32 (a)(2) (retreating) is no longer in the code.
Yeah, I realized that the site I copied it from was out of date...but not until too late. Sure you did!
Just teasing you Dan. ;) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So for a jury I suspect the case would come down to whether or not the defender's fear of such injury was reasonable. Although it may be based on the technical facts, I'd bet that convincing a jury that being shot with a ball of paint justified such a fear is going to e difficult...especially when people intentionally get together and pay for the opportunity to shoot them at one another and be shot by them. Ask one of the jury to volunteer as a target for a paintball. I wouldn't stake my freedom on the outcome of that. I've been hit by MANY paintballs (damned sharp-shooting kids)...often at close range, and with nothing but a thin T-shirt protecting me. It stings like hell and raises a small welt. I don't think subjecting a juror to the same experience would convince them that they'd just suffered "serious bodily injury". Shoot him in the face with it. 
See, it matters not if it CAUSED serious bodily injury, it only matters that in the manner of its use was capable of causing serious bodily. |
|
Quoted: See, it matters not if it CAUSED serious bodily injury, it only matters that in the manner of its use was capable of causing serious bodily. +1 Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury. |
|
Quoted:
Shoot him in the face with it.
See, it matters not if it CAUSED serious bodily injury, it only matters that in the manner of its use was capable of causing serious bodily. Yes, I think I've acknowledged that several times now. I've also pointed out...just as many times...that you can make that argument for nearly any object. I'm not now nor have I ever been disputing the letter of the law. I'm talking about the practical realities should you end up in court over it. I could put your eyes out with a popsicle stick...even accidentally. But if I come at you with one you're going to have a hard time selling "deadly force". |
|
Quoted:
I could put your eyes out with a popsicle stick...even accidentally. But if I come at you with one you're going to have a hard time selling "deadly force". Not if you try to jab it in my eye, I block it and then defend myself as you come at me again. ;) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I could put your eyes out with a popsicle stick...even accidentally. But if I come at you with one you're going to have a hard time selling "deadly force". Not if you try to jab it in my eye, I block it and then defend myself as you come at me again. ;) I'll concede that. So let's apply our conclusions to the original question that we've been trying to address all along: "Would someone throwing eggs or shooting a paintball gun from a vehicle at a pedestrian after dark qualify as malicious mischief at night? " I don't see anything there about the hypothetical assailant intentionally shooting the hypothetical defender in the eyes, or even the face...or the intent to cause serious injury. So we're left only with the question of being shot at with a paintball gun in general. The act being conducted from a vehicle suggests a stupid prank rather than an assault with intent to cause serious bodily injury. Again, a hard sell, I'd say. |
|
In this hypothetical situation, I think you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that you felt your life was threatened.
By the time a moving vehicle is close enough to the pedestrian, the ped gets hit with the paintball(s), asseses the situation, then begins to react, the moving vehicle would be down the road, getting farther away. Even if they stopped, popped a couple on you, then took off, they would still be retreating before you could draw and shoot. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I could put your eyes out with a popsicle stick...even accidentally. But if I come at you with one you're going to have a hard time selling "deadly force". Not if you try to jab it in my eye, I block it and then defend myself as you come at me again. ;) I'll concede that. So let's apply our conclusions to the original question that we've been trying to address all along: "Would someone throwing eggs or shooting a paintball gun from a vehicle at a pedestrian after dark qualify as malicious mischief at night? " I don't see anything there about the hypothetical assailant intentionally shooting the hypothetical defender in the eyes, or even the face...or the intent to cause serious injury. So we're left only with the question of being shot at with a paintball gun in general. The act being conducted from a vehicle suggests a stupid prank rather than an assault with intent to cause serious bodily injury. Again, a hard sell, I'd say. Now we are just repeating ourselves; As I already wrote, the question will be; if I am walking along at night and I come under fire of what turns out to be a paintball gun would it be reasonable for me to believe that the person is using or attempting to use deadly force against me? I see a gun appear from the car window; I began to feel hits. I don't think I would have a hard time convincing a jury my IMMEDIATE belief was reasonable. You are assuming the person assaulted KNOWS it is a paintball gun being fired at him. I don't assume that. |
|
Quoted:
My life being threatened is not a justification for using deadly force. The justification is "was it reasonable to believe that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect myself from the others use or attempted us of unlawful deadly force. Deadly force includes force that causes, or in the manner of its intened use, is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death.
In this hypothetical situation, I think you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that you felt your life was threatened. If you will read my other responses you will see I have already explained this. By the time a moving vehicle is close enough to the pedestrian, the ped gets hit with the paintball(s), asseses the situation, then begins to react, the moving vehicle would be down the road, getting farther away. Interesting ASSUMPTION, and IF that were true, if the vehicle is fleeing then DF would not be justified as you would not be protecting yourself at that point. But you ASSUMPTION is just that.
Even if they stopped, popped a couple on you, then took off, they would still be retreating before you could draw and shoot.
Maybe, maybe not. Again, that is an assumption. |
|
Quoted:
Now we are just repeating ourselves; What you mean "we", White Man? I didn't repeat anything. I just brought the conclusions reached to this point back around to bear on the OP's original question. As I already wrote, the question will be; if I am walking along at night and I come under fire of what turns out to be a paintball gun would it be reasonable for me to believe that the person is using or attempting to use deadly force against me?
I see a gun appear from the car window; I began to feel hits. I don't think I would have a hard time convincing a jury my IMMEDIATE belief was reasonable. That's a completely different argument from the one you were making before, and that I was responding to. You were claiming that being shot with paintball gun could be construed as use of deadly force because it has the ability to cause serious bodily injury. I said that the latter is technically true, but would be a hard sell to a jury. Now you're completely shifting gears and talking about whether or not the defender knows what it is he's being shot with. One set of goal posts at a time, please. You are assuming the person assaulted KNOWS it is a paintball gun being fired at him. I don't assume that.
Then going on about the type of damage a paintball can potentially do was pretty irrelevant, wasn't it? |
|
At night some asshole shoots at you with a paintball gun (you don't know it is a paintball gun) I would say deadly force is justified.
The only thing you can tell is you have been shot at. How could you know what you are being shot at with? What would you do if someone shot at you with an air rifle or pointed a BB pistol at you? Your perception of the force being directed against you is what you base your response on. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now we are just repeating ourselves; What you mean "we", White Man? I didn't repeat anything. I just brought the conclusions reached to this point back around to bear on the OP's original question. As I already wrote, the question will be; if I am walking along at night and I come under fire of what turns out to be a paintball gun would it be reasonable for me to believe that the person is using or attempting to use deadly force against me?
I see a gun appear from the car window; I began to feel hits. I don't think I would have a hard time convincing a jury my IMMEDIATE belief was reasonable. That's a completely different argument from the one you were making before, and that I was responding to. You were claiming that being shot with paintball gun could be construed as use of deadly force because it has the ability to cause serious bodily injury. I said that the latter is technically true, but would be a hard sell to a jury. Now you're completely shifting gears and talking about whether or not the defender knows what it is he's being shot with. One set of goal posts at a time, please. You are assuming the person assaulted KNOWS it is a paintball gun being fired at him. I don't assume that.
Then going on about the type of damage a paintball can potentially do was pretty irrelevant, wasn't it? I have concluded you just want to argue, as you are saying the same things. I'll jump back in when something new or relevant is posted. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now we are just repeating ourselves; What you mean "we", White Man? I didn't repeat anything. I just brought the conclusions reached to this point back around to bear on the OP's original question. As I already wrote, the question will be; if I am walking along at night and I come under fire of what turns out to be a paintball gun would it be reasonable for me to believe that the person is using or attempting to use deadly force against me?
I see a gun appear from the car window; I began to feel hits. I don't think I would have a hard time convincing a jury my IMMEDIATE belief was reasonable. That's a completely different argument from the one you were making before, and that I was responding to. You were claiming that being shot with paintball gun could be construed as use of deadly force because it has the ability to cause serious bodily injury. I said that the latter is technically true, but would be a hard sell to a jury. Now you're completely shifting gears and talking about whether or not the defender knows what it is he's being shot with. One set of goal posts at a time, please. You are assuming the person assaulted KNOWS it is a paintball gun being fired at him. I don't assume that.
Then going on about the type of damage a paintball can potentially do was pretty irrelevant, wasn't it? I have concluded you just want to argue... Of course you have. Doing otherwise would require that you acknowledge the fact that you've switched arguments mid-stream, as demonstrated above. , as you are saying the same things.
So now you're trying to claim that "Paintballs have the potential to cause serious bodily injury, and so 'deadly force' applies" is the same as "If I don't know I'm being shot with paintballs I'll assume that 'deadly force' is being used"? In what language? I'll jump back in when something new or relevant is posted.
On which of your two arguments? |