LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 1,307
0 members and 1,307 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 10-16-2006, 12:07 PM   #4391
patentparanyc
Registered User
 
patentparanyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: on an elliptical
Posts: 5,364
Back in the Hood

Quote:
Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I suspect you already know why someone who goes around shooting paintballs (which, although they hurt like hell, are in fact designed to be shot at people without causing permanent injury) is less reprehensible than someone who goes around shooting real bullets (which have a different purpose and effect). But if you do not, there is a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision that touches on these issues:

State v. Coauette, 601 N.W.2d 443 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)
Although paintballs are perhaps not designed to be lethal, there is an example of a similar projectile not designed to be lethal [pepper spray projectile] that the Boston Police used during the World Series for crowd control, that killed a young Emerson student. Any technology like that has potential to go awry if mishandled.

Although, I note in such situations when faced with lethal, or non lethal paintball guns or real guns I highly suggest *not* taking Nicole DuFresne's approach by saying "So what are you going to do, shoot us?" She I note was from Minnesota.
patentparanyc is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:58 AM.