[No Mercy Ever]

thiswonthurt, on 31 January 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

So reading this line makes me wonder if a public firing range is included? Would we had a blind person a 12 gauge and let them trap shoot? It needs to be recognized that while we strive for equality that we are not all equal in what we can do. What about a legally blind person who has a 20 degree or less degree of acuity? They may well have 20/20 vision, just can't see to either side as well as the rest of us. So they would have no problem with shooting at paper targets, but trap shooting might more of an issue unless they have assistance, such as being told that the the pigeons are going to shoot from the right, then the left, then back to the right.

Also what about some one who is mentally retarded? They wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand the rules. Do we have to let them play even though they would be an increased safety risk (the fact they can't sign a waiver being ignored for this instance. Just looking at the equality argument for the sake of discussion )?

Point is where do we draw the line on what is reasonable at a given time. If we can't trust the ability of a Professional Paintball Player (an expert in his field) about what should be deemed safe on the field who do we trust? A lawyer with no experience? A blind man who played once? Has Tom ever proven his judgement is poor when it comes to safety?

Actually, there is no mention that the Professional Paintball Player who is the owner, or part owner in the case of a partnership (In this case I am referring to the fact that his wife was there), was present to make said judgement call. On top of that, not all Pro players have that kind of judgement. They understand how to play the game, and have honed their abilities to play at such a high level, but that does not mean that they automatically have an understanding of who should, and who should not play paintball.

Interestingly enough, I have reffed where I had a group of individuals in a private group that did not understand English very well. Out of ten people, three or four of them didn't understand the language, and when I did orientation, I had to wait every so often so that a person could translate what I said. My concern was that during a game, they would not understand me when I was giving out instructions like about them trying to take their mask off when on the field. I told the others that did speak English well enough that if this was a problem, meaning that they did accidentally take off their mask, and didn't put them on when I told them to, they would not be able to play due to the safety concern that they represented to themselves and others.

Funny enough, we enforce the mask rule because we know that they danger exists for someone to lose their vision if they are hit by a paintball in the eye, but what of those that already have lost enough vision to be legally blind? I mean, should they be required to wear the mask?

[UV Halo]

thiswonthurt, on 31 January 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

...Point is where do we draw the line on what is reasonable at a given time. If we can't trust the ability of a Professional Paintball Player (an expert in his field) about what should be deemed safe on the field who do we trust? A lawyer with no experience? A blind man who played once? Has Tom ever proven his judgement is poor when it comes to safety?

To address your broader point, in all of these cases, it will be up to a judge and jury to decide if the business owner/operator was behaving with the benefits of public safety. But, you run a slippery slope when you throw out broad categories like "Mentally Retarded". For example here's another quote from Wikipedia:

Quote

People with mild MR are capable of learning reading and mathematics skills to approximately the level of a typical child aged 9 to 12.[5] They can learn self-care and practical skills, such as cooking or using the local mass transit system.[5] As individuals with mild mental retardation reach adulthood, many learn to live independently and maintain gainful employment.

In my own opinion, yes, Tom has demonstrated poor judgement in regards to safety. When I went there, he was working the register and registration in the trailer/building. Not once did any of his staff ask to see my or any of my groups tanks (for date of expiration, damage, etc), and nobody was attending the fill station- I was initially confused as to whether I was supposed to wait for a ref, until I noticed most of the local players walk straight up and fill their own tanks. Additionally, he still allows barrel plugs even though these have been demonstrated (by Tyger and others) as unsafe for today's equipment. Now granted, he wasn't the one actually making the call on each of these issues but, as the owner, and onsite manager, he is responsible. He did personally take the time to explain why they were field paint only (not that I cared as I hadn't brought any paint, and I was already aware of monsterball).

[kiriyama9000]

UV Halo, on 31 January 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

In my own opinion, yes, Tom has demonstrated poor judgement in regards to safety. When I went there, he was working the register and registration in the trailer/building. Not once did any of his staff ask to see my or any of my groups tanks (for date of expiration, damage, etc), and nobody was attending the fill station- I was initially confused as to whether I was supposed to wait for a ref, until I noticed most of the local players walk straight up and fill their own tanks. Additionally, he still allows barrel plugs even though these have been demonstrated (by Tyger and others) as unsafe for today's equipment. Now granted, he wasn't the one actually making the call on each of these issues but, as the owner, and onsite manager, he is responsible. He did personally take the time to explain why they were field paint only (not that I cared as I hadn't brought any paint, and I was already aware of monsterball).

That's what I remember when I was there. No one was monitoring the chrono station or doing spot checks either.
This was years ago though.

[thiswonthurt]

UV Halo, on 31 January 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

Obviously I wouldn't want those at the "light perception alone" group but, I'm guessing that at the other end of the range, folks are well able to identify a human being at 75 ft and tell if he/she has their paintball gun up in the air. I wouldn't even expect them to be able to make out the presence of a barrel bag because I get often get shot by perfectly sighted folks even though I have a bright red barrel bag on my gun, in the air (not talking about walking into a firefight- just newbs who shooting whatever moves).

I wear glasses and with out them I can't identify much past about 15 feet. With them I have 20/20 vision.

This post has been edited by thiswonthurt: 31 January 2012 - 02:53 PM

[AmateurBaller]

UV Halo, on 30 January 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

AmateurBaller, on 30 January 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Route 40 has changed a lot since you last played then. They have 2 Hyperball fields resembled after a speedball field, one "Spool" field and a small woodsball field. Since I have been playing there; A. Players with their own guns are required to chrono, B. The refs are interactive with PARTY groups a lot more than walk-ons. I play with the advanced walk-ons so there isn't really a need for a ref besides starting the game and checking players for breaks. C. 90% of the time I go to fill up air there is a ref who does it for anybody that needs it (even though I know how) and D. You literally cannot walk anywhere off the field without getting told to put your barrel plug in. Route 40 is my favorite place to play at just because of the atmosphere and their safety.

I have talked with a couple of refs about this and they seemed pretty confident that the Blind people would not win. That being said, it IS a pretty big safety issue because before anyone can play, the players are given an orientation and they specifically state that there is NO BLINDFIRING. This is for the safety of people on other fields/the cars. Nobody wants to finish a day of paintball and head back to their car to see it covered in paint from a renter who wasn't looking where they were aiming.

Thanks for the update- it's good to hear that they've made some improvements. Still surprising that they allow barrel plugs vice covers. I'm guessing they don't have netting around some of the fields anymore?

They have netting up around all of the fields facing the road/set-up are. They only don't have netting facing that little creek, since nothing is over there. I just love playing there simply because of the atmosphere. Everybody who plays there is pretty awesome and just looking to have a great time playing. Win or loose. Plus, Tom doesn't really work there as often now. Out of the past 6 times I have been there he has only been there once. Usually its his wife (who is VERY safety conscious) or his son Julian who knows what he's doing. But as for the fill up thing, now its like I said, they rarely let me fill up my tank and I know what I'm doing.

[thiswonthurt]

No Mercy Ever, on 31 January 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

thiswonthurt, on 31 January 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

So reading this line makes me wonder if a public firing range is included? Would we had a blind person a 12 gauge and let them trap shoot? It needs to be recognized that while we strive for equality that we are not all equal in what we can do. What about a legally blind person who has a 20 degree or less degree of acuity? They may well have 20/20 vision, just can't see to either side as well as the rest of us. So they would have no problem with shooting at paper targets, but trap shooting might more of an issue unless they have assistance, such as being told that the the pigeons are going to shoot from the right, then the left, then back to the right.

Also what about some one who is mentally retarded? They wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand the rules. Do we have to let them play even though they would be an increased safety risk (the fact they can't sign a waiver being ignored for this instance. Just looking at the equality argument for the sake of discussion )?

Point is where do we draw the line on what is reasonable at a given time. If we can't trust the ability of a Professional Paintball Player (an expert in his field) about what should be deemed safe on the field who do we trust? A lawyer with no experience? A blind man who played once? Has Tom ever proven his judgement is poor when it comes to safety?

Actually, there is no mention that the Professional Paintball Player who is the owner, or part owner in the case of a partnership (In this case I am referring to the fact that his wife was there), was present to make said judgement call. On top of that, not all Pro players have that kind of judgement. They understand how to play the game, and have honed their abilities to play at such a high level, but that does not mean that they automatically have an understanding of who should, and who should not play paintball.

Interestingly enough, I have reffed where I had a group of individuals in a private group that did not understand English very well. Out of ten people, three or four of them didn't understand the language, and when I did orientation, I had to wait every so often so that a person could translate what I said. My concern was that during a game, they would not understand me when I was giving out instructions like about them trying to take their mask off when on the field. I told the others that did speak English well enough that if this was a problem, meaning that they did accidentally take off their mask, and didn't put them on when I told them to, they would not be able to play due to the safety concern that they represented to themselves and others.

Funny enough, we enforce the mask rule because we know that they danger exists for someone to lose their vision if they are hit by a paintball in the eye, but what of those that already have lost enough vision to be legally blind? I mean, should they be required to wear the mask?

One of the articals I read made mention of him being and ex pro.

Next if players don't understand ME as a ref they pose a substantial risk to other players so they don't play

UV Halo, on 31 January 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

thiswonthurt, on 31 January 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

...Point is where do we draw the line on what is reasonable at a given time. If we can't trust the ability of a Professional Paintball Player (an expert in his field) about what should be deemed safe on the field who do we trust? A lawyer with no experience? A blind man who played once? Has Tom ever proven his judgement is poor when it comes to safety?

To address your broader point, in all of these cases, it will be up to a judge and jury to decide if the business owner/operator was behaving with the benefits of public safety. But, you run a slippery slope when you throw out broad categories like "Mentally Retarded". For example here's another quote from Wikipedia:

Quote

People with mild MR are capable of learning reading and mathematics skills to approximately the level of a typical child aged 9 to 12.[5] They can learn self-care and practical skills, such as cooking or using the local mass transit system.[5] As individuals with mild mental retardation reach adulthood, many learn to live independently and maintain gainful employment.

In my own opinion, yes, Tom has demonstrated poor judgement in regards to safety. When I went there, he was working the register and registration in the trailer/building. Not once did any of his staff ask to see my or any of my groups tanks (for date of expiration, damage, etc), and nobody was attending the fill station- I was initially confused as to whether I was supposed to wait for a ref, until I noticed most of the local players walk straight up and fill their own tanks. Additionally, he still allows barrel plugs even though these have been demonstrated (by Tyger and others) as unsafe for today's equipment. Now granted, he wasn't the one actually making the call on each of these issues but, as the owner, and onsite manager, he is responsible. He did personally take the time to explain why they were field paint only (not that I cared as I hadn't brought any paint, and I was already aware of monsterball).

MR is also defined as anyone with an IQ of under 70 (I work in a special ed department so I see a lot of this). Due to privacy issues I can not elaborate past that. All I can say is 70 is not sufficient to be on a paintball field in my opinion.

With the exclusion of barrel plugs every where I play has player self fill (you do have the option to have a field worker fill for you) and I've never had a tank checked when I walk onto a field except my old Co2 tank that looked like it was 10 years old.

Juries and Judges have proven time and time again to rule in the most illogical ways ie awarding damages to a bugler who broke his leg breaking into a guys house and sued the home owner.

kiriyama9000, on 31 January 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

UV Halo, on 31 January 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

In my own opinion, yes, Tom has demonstrated poor judgement in regards to safety. When I went there, he was working the register and registration in the trailer/building. Not once did any of his staff ask to see my or any of my groups tanks (for date of expiration, damage, etc), and nobody was attending the fill station- I was initially confused as to whether I was supposed to wait for a ref, until I noticed most of the local players walk straight up and fill their own tanks. Additionally, he still allows barrel plugs even though these have been demonstrated (by Tyger and others) as unsafe for today's equipment. Now granted, he wasn't the one actually making the call on each of these issues but, as the owner, and onsite manager, he is responsible. He did personally take the time to explain why they were field paint only (not that I cared as I hadn't brought any paint, and I was already aware of monsterball).

That's what I remember when I was there. No one was monitoring the chrono station or doing spot checks either.
This was years ago though.

Again I have never been at a field where the chrono station is monitored. Refs have the right to rechrono your gun at any point and on more than one occasion I have seen other player grab guns and check chrono speeds. To sight these as making a field unsafe is unjustified.

Personally I think he did the right thing in this case.

All the things you guys sight as poor judgement on Tom's part are common practice in Nebraska and we don't have any problems so I still say his judgement is sound.

[Demon]

tyler, tanks are checked and have a colored zip tie put on them and are supposed to be checked at every event. but they are only checked once a season because the zip tie can be seen. so yes we do check the tanks in nebraska.

also most other fields have a monitored chronograph station and do spot checks.

just because most of our fields don't have the amount of ref's needed to do it does not mean that it is not done at most other fields. and field's insurance policies differ from field to field. there is not one end all be all set of regulations for fields to follow.

but regardless the field owner/officials have every right to deny any person from use of the field for any reason at any time. this is posted in almost every sporting event's insurance policy and rules and on just about every single waiver. a field owner could tell you he doesn't want you using the field if you show up dressed in a clown suit and he doesn't like clowns. it is his field and his right to deny your entry and this extends to staff. the owner was in the clear no matter how butthurt anyone gets saying he hates the blind or w/e because it is a safety issue it has nothing to do with race/religion/descrimination. the choice is solely up to him who he wishes to allow use of his field and property.

[No Mercy Ever]

thiswonthurt, on 01 February 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

No Mercy Ever, on 31 January 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Actually, there is no mention that the Professional Paintball Player who is the owner, or part owner in the case of a partnership (In this case I am referring to the fact that his wife was there), was present to make said judgement call. On top of that, not all Pro players have that kind of judgement. They understand how to play the game, and have honed their abilities to play at such a high level, but that does not mean that they automatically have an understanding of who should, and who should not play paintball.

Interestingly enough, I have reffed where I had a group of individuals in a private group that did not understand English very well. Out of ten people, three or four of them didn't understand the language, and when I did orientation, I had to wait every so often so that a person could translate what I said. My concern was that during a game, they would not understand me when I was giving out instructions like about them trying to take their mask off when on the field. I told the others that did speak English well enough that if this was a problem, meaning that they did accidentally take off their mask, and didn't put them on when I told them to, they would not be able to play due to the safety concern that they represented to themselves and others.

Funny enough, we enforce the mask rule because we know that they danger exists for someone to lose their vision if they are hit by a paintball in the eye, but what of those that already have lost enough vision to be legally blind? I mean, should they be required to wear the mask?

One of the articals I read made mention of him being and ex pro.

Next if players don't understand ME as a ref they pose a substantial risk to other players so they don't play

I probably did not make myself clear here. I am not saying that Tom isn't a Pro paintball player, or even an ex Pro paintball player, only that he wasn't there, per what it says in the media reports, and in the lawsuit filing. There is mention of a woman, a Miriam, who is either Tom's wife (Most likely possibility), sister (Less likely), mother (Less likely), or even daughter (Lowest possibility). Said woman is not a Pro player, or ex Pro player. That was what I was saying at the time.

[Tusken Raider]

I knew that family that runs the place for many years, including when their son was born. If it was the mother, she is extremely safety conscious. I could tell you how much so when their son first started playing, and this was at their first field off carrol island rd near the bengies drive in.

i worked at that first field for years as a ref, then head ref. Things may have changed since I went my own way, but I doubt they would discriminate and in my experience with knowing them, they did not allow players that posed a safety risk to play.

[Osnare94]

lol

[PassivePB]

necro'd?

[braindead]

Silly blind people, fun stuff is for the sighted.

[Pepsi]

The Blind group doesn't have a case. You Can't play paintball SAFELY blind.

[StReaKeR]

JR007, on 19 December 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

So glad I don't live in the USA. You guys can't take a sh*t without someone being offended and sueing!

Can I get your info so I can have you served. Thanks

[ShadowZero]

This is honestly kind of stupid.

Blind people can't see, so it is considered Blind Fire, when they shoot at anything (No pun intended). I'm sure there's still stuff they can do to have fun in place of paintball, for example, go to comedy clubs and listen to audiobooks... There's nothing wrong with being blind, but when you have to sue a paintball field because apparently "No Blind Fire" offends you, that's just plain dumb.

[Dak-Attack]

Is there an update on the case?

[StReaKeR]

Yup, they won. They were allowed to play on the park, they got all their gear, ref explained the rules, and right after he blew the whistle he kicked them all out of the park for blind firing.......

[No Mercy Ever]

Pepsi, on 03 April 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

The Blind group doesn't have a case. You Can't play paintball SAFELY blind.

ShadowZero, on 03 April 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

This is honestly kind of stupid.

Blind people can't see, so it is considered Blind Fire, when they shoot at anything (No pun intended). I'm sure there's still stuff they can do to have fun in place of paintball, for example, go to comedy clubs and listen to audiobooks... There's nothing wrong with being blind, but when you have to sue a paintball field because apparently "No Blind Fire" offends you, that's just plain dumb.

Keep in mind, there are two basic versions of blindness, one involves what most people typically think of as a blind person, meaning that they loose the ability to see. Not all of these people are blind in that their world is black, and they can't see anything at all. Some have such bad visual acuity that they can't see things clearly but do still make out some light, and large amount of a single color. The other version of blindness is that a person looses most of their peripheral vision. The ultimate case of tunnel vision. They can see everything right in front of them with perfect 20/20 vision, but they can only go a couple of degrees to either side with what we take for granted. Like I am sitting here, at my desk, and can see the monitor easily enough, but in my periphery, I can see a window to my right, which is slightly more than 90 degrees from my head, and across the room to the other window, which is slightly closer to 90 degrees from my head.

Also, it wasn't the blind firing rule that got the people to go against the paintball park. It was that they booked a group, got there, were told that they could not play because they were blind, appealed to the people, still denied, stated that it was a law in Maryland, still denied, called the police, and were still denied a third time, even when the police told them that it was the law that they should be allowed to play.

[MinnesotaPaintballer]

JR007, on 19 December 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

So glad I don't live in the USA. You guys can't take a sh*t without someone being offended and sueing!

I hear that! The popular thing to do these days is sue people. I just find it hard to believe that a paintball field could be sued for safety. Can you seriously imagine a paintball match with blind people? There's no future in that!

[PREDATOR 47]

I hope this case gets thrown out. I do agree that blind people should be allowed to attempt to do whatever they want to lead a normal life, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. They are blind for crying out loud. Where in the world did somebody think that allowing them to run around with paintball guns was a safe idea for anybody involved?

I believe that if someone walks on the field and they pose a significant safety risk to either themselves or anyone within range, and the problem cannot be solved reasonably, they should not be allowed to play.

The field owner did the right thing in looking out for everyone's safety, and I hope that fact is realized.