So, took the family to Omaha NE last week for vacation. Beautiful City. Looks like it was made for walkers/walking. Sidewalks everywhere. My wife and daughter went for a walk one evening and the weather was beautiful. My soon to be son in law and I went out out in search of some flesh of a dead animal to char on the grill. I get a frantic call from my daughter. Her and my wife were shot, in a drive by, with paint balls. My SIL immediately flips a u-turn, safely runs a red light or two as we rush to them. When we get there, we hear the story, as the cops are showing up.

Apparently, on that particular day, teenagers were running around in a white car (Cops had make, model and plate number but wouldn't give it to us) shooting people out for an evening stroll. They were heading west and the spree had started about 45min before my wife and daughter got shot. My wife stated she thought she had been shot for real until she saw the yellow on her shirt. Both were visibly shaken. We took them back to my daughters house made sure everybody was okay and went back out for that previously mentioned flesh.

My SIL made the comment it was a shame I wasn't with them because I was armed. I realized, even though I hadn't thought it through before than, that would be a horrible thing for anybody to do.

My wife said the paint ball guns sounded similar to a suppressed firearm a friend brought over. She heard "pop, pop, pop" then felt the sting (both had nasty welts). I've never been around a paint ball gun so I don't know what they sound like.

I can't help but think that had I been there, and the adrenaline started flowing after the shots and sting, I would have drawn my weapon and returned fire...possibly killing a teenager with a paint ball gun.

My wife doesn't carry and after this event doesn't show any inclination of changing that. I'm okay with that.

My question is: Has anybody else been in a situation where you thought you were in danger but really weren't? To me, this is an example of why we need to train and be super aware and careful before we pull the trigger. I may be overthinking this. I never thought something like this would happen. It has opened my eyes.

Probably a good thing you weren't there. If the paintballs were red and you heard a pop and then saw your wife covered in red then you might have pulled and shot your gun. It could have been worse than it was for sure.
Getting hit with a paintball on bare skin is not fun either.

Your overthinking it. The next time it could be for real and you'll hesitate. You, your wife, daughter and others innocent people could be dead.

You would have been alright in my book to draw.
You don't know if the guns are real or not.
It would worry me, not one bit, if said perps
fired on my family and ended up in black plastic bags.
Identify where the fire is coming from and react.

They chose to play stupid games, they win stupid prizes.

Chuck

__________________
They hold no Quarter

Meh-again I say if someone is stupid it can hurt,sometimes in a very fatal fashion,if someone did that to me and I shot someone all I can say is "whoops"

__________________
Life's a grave,dig it!

Ditto Chuck, and Ozark brought up a very strong point. The idiots point and fire what could be a weapon, I don't think I would have taken time to make sure it was real or not. You can defend yourself and loved ones from an assault. Maybe they will be lucky enough for the police to catch them, and they aren't stupid enough to point even a paintball GUN at a cop with all the senseless stuff going on nowadays. Bad idea to depend on luck. Always be safe.

__________________
Just a shooter

For what it's worth, I agree - but it's not your opinion or mine that would matter in this case.

Lets' assume for a minute that the teenagers in question shot at an off duty Omaha police officer. The officer most likely would have returned fire, not waiting to find out or confirm that the "weapons" were paint ball guns. In this case had the officer hit one or more of the teenagers, it would probably have been regarded as a "mistake of fact" shooting where the officer reasonably believed the person was armed and that a threat existed.

The courts have traditionally given LEOs a great deal of latitude in mistake of fact shootings because if the daily threat they face. Despite all the negative press, aspersions that were cast, and claims that the incident was white washed, the Tamir Rice incident in Cleveland isn't in fact all that unusual. A 12 or 13 year old kid with what looks like a firearm pointing it at an officer in an area where gang violence is possible is a solid recipe to get shot, simply because most reasonable police officers would similarly believe a threat existed in that situation.

----

On the other hand, the same latitude in mistake of fact shootings usually does not extend to an armed citizen and avoiding criminal charges or a civlil suit is far less certain.

Whether you are charged will depend in large part on the local laws pertaining to the use of deadly force. For example, VA is an affirmative defense state where the use of deadly force by an armed citizen results in a charge of second degree murder, with the shooter being required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was justifiable due to a legitimate use of self defense. Remember that in an affirmative defense state, the burden of proof is on you.

It may also depend to some extent on whether the police make an arrest. If an arrest is made, it puts pressure on the prosecutor to charge the case rather than appear soft on crime, guns, etc. Worse, if you are white and shot a minority, the prosecutor may face public pressure to charge the case, and be accused of being racist if he or she doesn't.

If he or she is an elected official, the prosecutor, may also have an anti-gun agenda and may want to make an example or a political statement. If he or she is not elected but the person who appointed the prosecutor is elected (mayor, etc), the same problem may exist.

----

In this situation, the best defense after the shoot is still to make a very simple declarative statement that you were in fear for your life - then shut up, and lawyer up.

Your attorney can bring up the more subtle points such as paint balls can still put out an eye and thus still pose the threat of serious bodily injury. The last thing you'd want to do in making an initial statement is to imply in any way that at any time during the shoot, you started to understand they were shooting paintballs rather than bullets.

I pretty much agree with all of the previous responses. But one question that crossed my mind that might inform the appropriate response; you stated that it was a drive by shooting. Does that mean that the vehicle the teens were in kept moving down the road while they were shooting, or did they pull up and stop and open fire before moving on?
If they kept moving, I wonder how far down the road would they have been before I drew my gun and returned fire. And if that was the case would I be scrutinized for firing when the threat had moved on?
Splitting hairs I know, but curious.

I'm shocked with all these shootings anyone would shoot paintballs out of a car at people. Good way to get shot.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

I don't think that's splitting hairs. You aren't the police. My thought as well was that if it's a drive-by, and the car is gone down the road, then being prepared to fire if the car turns around and comes back is a prudent thing to do. Firing at it as it drives away is going to get you in serious hot water with the legal system, both criminal and civil. Even if you are cleared of criminal charges you can bet there'll be a lawsuit by the perps, and they'll win.

I thought I was in danger once, and may have been. I had a guy reach slowly inside his jacket (cross draw) while saying he was going to shoot me. My hand went to my holstered glock at 5:00. Seeing me do this, he didn't withdraw his hand, and thus I didn't draw my glock - just kept a firm firing grip. Eventually he backed off, while spouting expletives.

Your wifes situation was a sad testament to the state of youth today. From my perspective, had you been there and drawn and fired you would have been well within your rights...even if the car was driving away. Having fired on someone makes them STILL a threat. I wouldn't overthink it though. Having been fired on places you firmly in the position of defending yourself. If the shooter is using a paintball gun then THEY are the ones who have placed themselves in jeopardy, and any severe consequences is their burden - not yours.

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

I threw down on a cow at work one night. No shots were fired though

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

I'm not a gun owner that blindly supports gun use no matter what the circumstance, however, if I were on the jury in such a case my conscious would not allow me to convict. Nobody can be expected to know all the facts in the heat of the moment, and you shouldn't have to die trying to sort it all out in that moment. If all you could possibly know is that you are being shot at, then returning fire is the normal and appropriate response.

OP here, my point was mainly that, as I stated in my OP, I don't think I could sleep at night, regardless of how clean a kill it was, knowing I had shot somebody over a paint ball shooting. It has really put into perspective how important it is, for me, to make sure I am actually defending myself and not just in a fit...if that makes sense.

Some posters said they weren't "real". I beg to differ.

Other said they weren't in danger. Bullcrap again.

What if the paintball had hit the person in the eye? It could have changed their life forever. Or, even killed them. What if the person had a heart attack and died?

Thank God nobody got hurt. But, returning fire IMHO would have been justified.

Stop with the overthinking. None of us want to kill. But If I see my family or friend's falling to the deck or wincing in pain as if shot the punks driving or walking with a gun, are history. Won't loose any sleep over it. Hope it never happens, but this is a dangerous world. Be ready to protect those who can't fight back.

Thinking more about this just infuriates me.

We have kids going around shooting each other with paintball. We have video games encouraging the kids to shoot each other.

Last night Arnold Schwatzenager was in an ad on TV to join a wargame on TV to kill people.

Where does it end.

Then, some idiot goes and buys a gun and kills a whole lot of people for real, and we wonder why.

Kids are desensitized. We need to outlaw video games, paintball and TV. Its too easy to outlaw the gun and not the root cause of the problem

I was a young uniformed officer I confronted what I thought (radio transmissions) was an armed robber. I pointed my issued Model 15 at him and he put his hand inside his waistband, which was covered by a jacket. As I was pulling on the trigger, swearing at him in my loudest voice, he took out an empty hand and laughed at me. I told him I almost killed him and asked why he did this. He was a kid not much younger than me and said he was playing.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

First, I don't believe anyone will sleep at night after shooting and killing another person no matter how justified they were in doing so.

Second, where do you personally draw the line? In other words, what does someone have to do to you or your family to cause you to shoot to stop them? Note your answer here: ________________

How, in the heat of the moment, do you determine their motive and how far they intend to take their attack? Do you believe it will be so plainly obvious that you could tell the difference between an attacker who is bluffing with his weapon and has no intention of harming a hair on your head whether you cooperate or not, one that will kill you only if you don't cooperate, and one that intends to kill you regardless of your cooperation?

You cannot possibly know for sure, and sure is necessary since your death is irreversible. You must know, and you must know immediately-- That condition does not exist in this world.

That young man that's robbing your family might (a) let you go on your way once you hand over your wallet, keys, and wife's jewelry, or (b) he may shoot you. If you shoot him first and he dies you will never know if the answer was (a) or (b). That young man shooting at you from a moving car might be using a paintball gun, or it could be a suppressed 9mm and it's pure fantasy to believe you will know anything for sure in the moment. You need to consider whether carrying a weapon capable of deadly force is the best choice for you.

Playing video games and paintball don't cause kids to shoot people with guns. They know the difference. Outlawing video games, paintball and TV? Bhahaha!

I most respectfully disagree. go watch the movie the wild bunch. its tame, yet in its day it was the talk because of the violence it showed. we are being desensitized to violence more and more. no i dont want the gov. to do anything, the more the gov. stays out of my life the better. co. need to be self restraining and parent need to parent with out fear of the gov. looking over their shoulder waiting to swoop in and " SAVE THE CHILDREN"

So where did killers and all around bad people come from before paintball, video games and TV?

These kids are dumb but have you ever played paintball? It's a fun game!

Leopold and Loeb. Killed a 14 year old boy before paintball, video games and before tv was commonplace

Mary Bell strangled two kids and carved "M" into their chests. Long before paintball or video games or the type of violence on tv we see today

Jesse Pomeroy. Brutally killed 9 children before the invention of cars or electricity.






Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

So did you kill anyone after watching the wild bunch? Did anyone kill anyone when that movie was first released?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

In Florida "returning fire" would be "shooting into an occupied vehicle" and very serious. Since the gun was not a firearm and technically non-life threatening, State's Attorney would likely burn your house down. You were where you were supposed to be, elsewhere. Joe

__________________
Wisdom chases me; I'm faster

To the OP:

A similar incident happened to me years ago while a college student. I was driving through town one evening and the side of my car was sprayed with paint ball fire from another car. In this case, the paint balls were red in color and they hit glass only. Luckily, it was a hot summer evening so I had the windows up and the AC on, which prevented me from being hit. It was obvious they were trying to hit me as the red spots were on the driver side windows. I went to the police station and reported what happened, but never heard anything more about the incident. At the time, I didn't conceal carry and the shooting happened so fast that I couldn't have reacted fast enough to do anything before the other car sped away. So, I did fear for my life at the time, but luckily the encounter was a less than lethal drive by shooting. Thankfully, having the windows up kept me from taking several hits to the head and neck area, which would have been really bad.

Kids have always done stupid stuff and always will. Relativism has increased the level of stupid stuff they do, not games. Thanks to wealth redistribution both parents have to work in order to support their family and the families of those who don't work. Parents spending quality time with their kids is what's missing, not that those kids are filling that time with violent games or imagery.

When my son was little, he did not require spankings, drugs, or a village. He was well behaved because he wanted to please me, and he wanted to please me because he liked our time together. I was flying for a lot of that so I might be gone for a week or two but then I was home for a week or two; and we spent a LOT of time together when I was home.

Nowadays kids build bombs in their parents' garage, steal guns and hide them in the rooms, and their parents never find out, never seem to care. The problem is NOT games, it's poor parenting and lack of accountability (to parents and God).

A certain percentage of kids just engage in riskier (and often dumber) behavior than others do.It takes more to get their hearts beating.The crazier ones that I grew up with all died relatively young.When you get a little older,you can spot the ones that won't make it.Hell,we were building pipe bombs at 13.We did stop when a kid I knew of through my father was killed.

Not much to it.
One of my checks is a farm that's owned by the city in the foot hills West of town. Because there have been wildlife encounters on property the city wants an armed guard to do the checks.

So, one night I'm checking the barn and I walk around the back side of it and see something big and brown, who immediately jumps into the pond behind the barn.

To my knowledge cows don't swim so I'm thinking bear, so I draw and start backing away.

About that time my partner walks around the side of the barn and tells me "The cow's not in its pen smoke."

Every time I see that damn cow I throw a rock at it.

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

(1) By the reasonable person standard, if it looks like a gun and sounds like a gun and hurts like a gun, it doesn't matter that it's a paintball gun. You can't feel sorry for the actors, they don't feel sorry for you.

(2) In most jurisdictions, lethal force is justified if there's an immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Even if you knew the person shooting at you was using a paintball gun, a reasonable person familiar with paintball guns could conclude that they were at risk of being blinded, which more than satisfies the requirements. Remember, when used by the police, paintball guns are categorized as less-lethal force. It doesn't matter that the actor is ignorant or indifferent to the dangerous you face.

To my mind, there are only three ethical considerations at play, and only two of them are any good.

(1) Can you avoid using lethal force by fleeing and taking cover? Kinda ******, because you have no guarantee that fleeing or seeking cover will end the attack or provide safety.

(2) Is there sufficient risk to outweigh the danger to bystanders you create by firing at a moving vehicle? In other words, I can reasonably conclude that there's a substantial risk of ricochets and missed shots. Am I in enough danger to warrant putting a bunch of uncontrolled lead in the air?

(3) Is there sufficient risk to justify potentially burdening my family with the possibility of my criminal prosecution, loss of a breadwinner, and/or civil liability? Very simple, does the justification for lethal force outweigh the potential legal consequences for the people you're ultimately responsible to? Not many people talk about this in shoot/don't-shoot, but I think it's a critical consideration.

Would the OP have been justified in shooting those with the paint ball guns? In my opinion, yes, but that's a question for the jury.

Then there would likely be a civil suit. Of course we can't know that one would be brought, but it could be. There is no way to know.

Anytime a gun is used, the outcome is not easy to determine. This is something we have to consider every time we put on a gun. It's not fair to the defender, but it is the world we live in.

I'm sorry you had this happen to your family Trons. I understand the fears and concerns you and your family are going through. I hope everyone can get past this.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I think there may be some confusion as to my post. The act of defending my family wouldn't bother me. It would only be after the fact finding out that it was over a paintball gun that would bother me. How stupid would it be for a teen to lose his life over a stupid game, ect.

In my mind, given how the event was described, there is no doubt I would have drawn. Given a clean shot (car not too far away, ect) I would have fired. Scaring the **** out of the teens, they get arrested and nobody is dead is a fun scenario to play out in my head. Getting a clean headshot on a 17yo with a paintball gun seems like the kind of thing that would haunt me for life.

This event has made me realize how important it is that we not only carry, but that we practice situational awareness. My wife said she had thought she had actually been shot till she looked down and saw the yellow. She's not that familiar with guns so would somebody (myself) who does have more experience been able to tell the difference between the pop of a paintball gun and the bang of a real gun? I'd like to think I could.

I don't know. I hate that it happened to us while we were on vacation and I hope they catch the teens. I really wish I would have been there because, tbh, I doubt teens would have shot had there been a man close by and, this is mean, but I would have loved to seen their face had they shot and I drew down with a real gun. I can almost hear the "oh ****" while the tires squeal, and there's a certain pleasure in that thought.

I will say that I hope I'm never in a situation where I feel it's necessary to fire on an assailant only to find out that my life (or somebody I love's life) wasn't really in danger.

It's no different than any other lethal force scenario. Lots of forum warriors and magazine commandos like to think that such a thing is clear cut--the bad guy is The Bad Guy and that's all there is to it. Read a few case studies and you'll quickly find that it rarely is.

Doubtful. In any case, my idea of situational awareness would revolve more around what the nearest piece of cover was, and less about categorizing the incoming projectiles.

Why do you think they'd have cared? Hate to break it to you, but these sorts of crimes aren't exactly uncommon.

Besides, if someone is shooting at me and mine, the last option I'd select is to stand still on open ground and duke it out. Sounds like a great way to lose a gunfight.

You're letting emotion get the better of you. Which is understandable--those things leave a hell of a bruise, don't they?--but inadvisable. If you really want to go the armchair quarterback route and replay if-I-had-been-there scenarios, readjust your victory conditions.

You don't win a gunfight by shooting the other guy. You win a gunfight by not getting shot. Start from there, work your way back, figure out how to achieve that basic goal.

In the past I worked a similar incident where the teenagers had frozen the paint balls. This folks were DEALTHY MISSLES. Several vehicles that were struck with these frozen paintballs had serious dents in the metal. These would have caused serious injuries or death to a person struck.

Anyone who says that they're going to think through whether or not they are being shot at with a real gun or a fake one is just asking to get killed if the situation arises. If you think you are in danger then you are - the law doesn't require you to make the determination of "Oh, it's a toy".

Anyone who overthinks this probably doesn't need to be carrying a gun. When the shooting starts you're supposed to react, not stand around and check for yellow paint, huge plastic toys, etc.

Now, if you ACTUALLY DO see yellow paint and actually discern huge, plastic toys then you quickly understand that firing your real weapon is an over reaction. But until and unless you are lucky enough and ARE ABLE to make that determination before you fire your shooting is justified.

You cannot train nor enable yourself to be super aware of these situations. When the guns start popping and people start screeching your training should be to defend yourself and others, not stop and determine if you are being attacked by idiot children with toys or gangsters with real weapons.

On another note:

I am unaware of the Virginia rule in re affirmative defense in a shooting but what was posted above cannot be the law in Virginia or anywhere else. Only the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of a crime. Never the defense. No state in this country has such a rule.

Moreover, I looked up the Virginia rules on self defense, and I could not find a single instance of the so-called affirmative defense requirement. Virginia is somewhat less protective of citizens using weapons than Texas is, for instance, and there is quite a balancing act that a defendant has to go through to prove that he used reasonable force. But being charged with second degree murder is not, as far as I can tell, an automatic response to a self defense shooting.

As a final note:

I'll lose little to no sleep if I am forced to shoot someone in self defense and if the idiot was using a toy then he's an idiot - I'm trained to do what it takes to survive and if it turns out that I wasn't in deadly danger as long as I thought I was my shooting the perpetrator is justifiable.

Let me be really clear here as you are gravely misleading readers with your "unawareness".

Affirmative defense means exactly that. The issue before the court in an affirmative defense state like VA is that you are charged with commission of a homicide and the prosecution presents evidence that you did in fact commit said homicide.

Once you are charged, an affirmative defense will be required ("Yes, I committed the homicide, but it was a justifiable use of self defense"). In that regard it will be incumbent on you as the defendant to present evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder just "justifiable" in self defense through no fault of your own.

In the event you instigated the event leading to the shoot, an affirmative defense can still be used to present evidence that while you were at fault in instigating events, your subsequent actions resulted in self defense that was "excusable". That will not get you off the hook entirely, but if successful it will result in a finding of guilt for voluntary manslaughter - a lesser offense than second degree murder.

You really do need to look up the legal definition of self defense and then follow up with some examples of VA case law - but that probably won't convince you that this happens in every day self defense cases any better than this brief news article. It's an example, of a case of self defense being charged as second degree murder, with the charges ultimately being dropped once the investigation was completed and the prosecutor determined the evidence was not sufficient to proceed to trial. Note however that this happened seven months after the shooting - 3 days before the expiration of a deadline for a speedy trial - and the prosecution clearly would have proceeded if the prosecutor had any reason to believe the defendant would have been unable to demonstrate the homicide was justifiable.

At best that would have been seven months of stress for the defendant on top of substantial legal fees. In this case, the defendant was not able to make bail, so it was seven months in jail for a legitimate use of self defense. You need to think about that really, really hard before you decide to carry a concealed handgun in VA.

Charges dropped in Norfolk murder case | WTKR.com

You obviously have not sat through a class on the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force in VA - which is required for a resident concealed carry permit in VA. If you had, you would not be making the statement you've made.

Given that your TX resident concealed carry permit is honored in VA you also need to be aware that if you shoot someone in self defense in VA, you will be held accountable under VA law not TX law - and as such you'll come to clearly understand EXACTLY what I'm trying to explain to you. My advice to either stay in TX, or do a very careful and through search of not only specific state laws pertaining to the use of deadly force in state you plan to travel to but also develop a thorough understanding of what the underlying laws in those states really mean - affirmative defense, castle doctrine, limited castle doctrine, duty to retreat, defense of property, etc.