Family Blames Gun Show For Boy's Death

[Admin]

It would be interesting to know when the safety was disabled. was it just for this kid, at the request or with the knowledge of the father so that his kid was able to shoot? who agreed to this and who knew?

+1

 

[efowke]

I think you're right. I was thinking more of the stress, and stigma, etc. That 15 year old kid should have never been put in that situation.

 

[DJMc]

Coupla points:

The father isn't the plaintif - the estate of the kid is.

Will not disagree about spreading responsibility. The father bears most, imo, but others also do.

If only the child's estate is the only plaintiff, then the case is small beans. IIRC, in a wrongful death case, the deceased's estate can only collect damages incurred before death. So, if he was shot and in pain, his estate could collect for his suffering for the time that he lived. The estate cannot collect for anything such as a loss of future earnings. Not sure this is the law of that jurisdiction, but I think it is the rule in most of the U.S.

 

[icyclefar]

Who on this forum would let an 8 year old kid fire THEIR machine gun, and not be thinking that they are 100% responsible for the outcome when the smoke clears?

Who on this forum would disable a safety on THEIR machine gun and then let an 8 year old kid fire it?

Who on this forum would listen to the opinion of some unknown ass-hat of a father who encouraged you to let his 8 year old fire YOUR machine gun?

Don't get me wrong, I blame the father plenty.

Perhaps I just live my life differently ............ MY GUNS = MY RESPONSIBILTY

 

[redrandy]

It's not about who is to blame... It's about $$$ (multi-million dollar lawsuit)

 

[richc]

Who on this forum would let an 8 year old kid fire THEIR machine gun, and not be thinking that they are 100% responsible for the outcome when the smoke clears?\

There is a difference that likely will be used in a legal scenario. Most on this forum uses firearms. Many have used firearms for decades with military training and service. Many would be considered experts.

This father will claim, as someone who has not been trained or experienced, that he relied on the expertise of the range officers and folks running the show.

That's what I figure anyway.

Rich

 

[richc]

It's not about who is to blame... It's about $$$ (multi-million dollar lawsuit)

For the lawyers I think it is about money. For the parents I believe it is a way for them to attempt to deflect guilt.

Let's assume they win a big settlement. Could any of you in a similar situation spend that money? Could you buy things or pay bills with money earned through the death of your son?

They are grasping at straws hoping to make the pain go away.

 

[Bob P]

MA Wrongful Death statute on damages

Chapter 229: Section 2. Wrongful death; damages


Section 2. A person who (1) by his negligence causes the death of a person, or (2) by willful, wanton or reckless act causes the death of a person under such circumstances that the deceased could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted, or (3) operates a common carrier of passengers and by his negligence causes the death of a passenger, or (4) operates a common carrier of passengers and by his willful, wanton or reckless act causes the death of a passenger under such circumstances that the deceased could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted, or (5) is responsible for a breach of warranty arising under Article 2 of chapter one hundred and six which results in injury to a person that causes death, shall be liable in damages in the amount of: (1) the fair monetary value of the decedent to the persons entitled to receive the damages recovered, as provided in section one, including but not limited to compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel, and advice of the decedent to the persons entitled to the damages recovered; (2) the reasonable funeral and burial expenses of the decedent; (3) punitive damages in an amount of not less than five thousand dollars in such case as the decedent’s death was caused by the malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct of the defendant or by the gross negligence of the defendant; except that (1) the liability of an employer to a person in his employment shall not be governed by this section, (2) a person operating a railroad shall not be liable for negligence in causing the death of a person while walking or being upon such railroad contrary to law or to the reasonable rules and regulations of the carrier and (3) a person operating a street railway or electric railroad shall not be liable for negligence for causing the death of a person while walking or being upon that part of the street railway or electric railroad not within the limits of a highway. A person shall be liable for the negligence or the willful, wanton or reckless act of his agents or servants while engaged in his business to the same extent and subject to the same limits as he would be liable under this section for his own act. Damages under this section shall be recovered in an action of tort by the executor or administrator of the deceased. An action to recover damages under this section shall be commenced within three years from the date of death, or within three years from the date when the deceased’s executor or administrator knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the factual basis for a cause of action, or within such time thereafter as is provided by section four, four B, nine or ten of chapter two hundred and sixty.

 

[RI_John]

I used to believe were I at the event in question, I might have intervened to stop it or at least say something. However, after being at the Pumpkin Shoot this weekend, I realized I wouldn't have. When parents were with their children shooting, it never would have occurred to me to say a word. I made the assumption that the parent knows the child better than I do and it is the parent's job to parent.

Ultimately, it is the father's fault. It is a tragedy, but to blame anyone but the father to me seems absurd. If I had brought my child to the Pumpkin shoot, just to watch, and I left him unattended and he ran out on a hot range and was killed, should my wife sue NES? The gun club? The ROs? The person who shot him? Or is would it be solely my fault for not parenting him properly in a potentially dangerous situation?

 

[Admin]

I used to believe were I at the event in question, I might have intervened to stop it or at least say something. However, after being at the Pumpkin Shoot this weekend, I realized I wouldn't have. When parents were with their children shooting, it never would have occurred to me to say a word. I made the assumption that the parent knows the child better than I do and it is the parent's job to parent.

Ultimately, it is the father's fault. It is a tragedy, but to blame anyone but the father to me seems absurd. If I had brought my child to the Pumpkin shoot, just to watch, and I left him unattended and he ran out on a hot range and was killed, should my wife sue NES? The gun club? The ROs? The person who shot him? Or is would it be solely my fault for not parenting him properly in a potentially dangerous situation?

Sadly this is the new America. We have shifted from parental responsibility to "it takes a village to raise a child" Many of the posts in this thread agree with Hilary Clinton... It baffles my f-ing mind.

 

[Half Cocked]

This isn't rocket science.

If you're running a firearms event that's open to the entire public and furnishing arms, you're responsible to see that reasonable safety precautions are taken.

Bingo!...... it doesn't matter what the event is. If someone is running an event that is open to the public they carry any and all responsibilty for what happens. Period.

look at amusement parks.. or water parks... or go kart tracks.... they all take it upon themselves to make height/age/size requirements for use of their facilities. They do this to protect themselves knowing that there are parents who will allow kids who are not mature enough to use the rides etc..

Sure there are kids who may be younger who are mature enough or big enough to use the facilities but the establishment is not going to take any risks as they are responsible.

If there is an employee that allows a kid on the ferris wheel without being buckled and the kid falls.... who do you think gets sued?

This goes beyond being a firearms issue.

 

[MetalgodZ]

Of course - the father is a tool. No argument there. Still - if someone gets hurt with one of my guns it's my fault. If some toolbag father tells me that it's perfectly fine for his young kid to fire my weapon I know better than to just take his word for it. As a responsible gun owner, it's on me to take the appropriate safety precautions whenever anyone handles my guns. To me this is the definition of personal responsibility.

put it this way - the kid with the toolbag father would still be alive today if the "expert" who owned the Uzi had taken some basic safety precautions.

I cannot find the post, but a previous post, IIRC by an attorney who was at a GOAL event running a table, stated that "dad" was told no and then picked up a bb/pellet gun and handed it to "son," resulting in a ND.

Anyone else remember this post?

If I'm remembering this correctly, it seems to me "dad" did a great job of repeatedly putting his son in bad situations regardless of the supervision.

If I'm NOT remembering this correctly, or the OP I'm thinking of was removed, toss me a PM.

 

[richc]

Agree or disagree... I have to say this is a meaningful, interesting, and respectful conversation. The different points of view all have validity, and it is a great discourse that ranges from events at the machine gun shoot to responsibility today in society.

And there has not been any name calling... WOOHOO!!!

Thanks all,

Rich

 

[Half Cocked]

Agree or disagree... I have to say this is a meaningful, interesting, and respectful conversation. The different points of view all have validity, and it is a great discourse that ranges from events at the machine gun shoot to responsibility today in society.

And there has not been any name calling... WOOHOO!!!

Thanks all,

Rich

F-You!!!

 

[richc]

F-You!!!

I knew that was coming... just sent youa +1!!!

))

 

[icyclefar]

Agree or disagree... I have to say this is a meaningful, interesting, and respectful conversation. The different points of view all have validity, and it is a great discourse that ranges from events at the machine gun shoot to responsibility today in society.

And there has not been any name calling... WOOHOO!!!

Thanks all,

Rich

Rich, your a Mench!

There, the name calling has begun.

 

[Bob P]

Sadly this is the new America. We have shifted from parental responsibility to "it takes a village to raise a child" Many of the posts in this thread agree with Hilary Clinton... It baffles my f-ing mind.

Holding the guy responsible that enabled this to happen by disabling the safety for his part of the liability is a far cry from Hilary's crap about a village being responsible for the raising of a child.

Hilary was trying to make the argument that government and society as a whole have a moral duty to take an ACTIVE role in the raising of everyone's kids - which is pure bull. I am the parent and am responsible for shaping the character of my child and am therefore responsible if that kid turns into a hood or some form of waste product.

The arguments I've been making here is that in ADDITION to the dad, the guy that owned the gun has some responsibilty as well. If I lend my car to an 8 year old am I blame free if he runs someone down with it? Even IF his father tells me 'it's OK, he's a really good driver'?

The argument about these other people having a SHARE of the responsibility actually SUPPORTS the idea of personal responsibility in that we're holding them responsible for their actions. Dumping it all on the dad is just as bad as him trying to dump it on the event organizers or the gun itself.

Adults man up and take responsibility for their actions.

 

[jasons]

Who on this forum would let an 8 year old kid fire THEIR machine gun, and not be thinking that they are 100% responsible for the outcome when the smoke clears?

Who on this forum would disable a safety on THEIR machine gun and then let an 8 year old kid fire it?

Who on this forum would listen to the opinion of some unknown ass-hat of a father who encouraged you to let his 8 year old fire YOUR machine gun?

Don't get me wrong, I blame the father plenty.

Perhaps I just live my life differently ............ MY GUNS = MY RESPONSIBILTY

Yes!

 

[Half Cocked]

The arguments I've been making here is that in ADDITION to the dad, the guy that owned the gun has some responsibilty as well. If I lend my car to an 8 year old am I blame free if he runs someone down with it? Even IF his father tells me 'it's OK, he's a really good driver'?

What if the owner of the gun was not even there? What if he lent his micr-Uzi to a properly licensed friend who wanted to use it for the event?

Don't make up responsibility. Place responsibility on those who were there at that time who were in a position to prevent it.

Primarily... the father, whoever disabled the safety, and whoever placed the fifteen year old range officer in the position he was in.

 

[Admin]

Holding the guy responsible that enabled this to happen by disabling the safety for his part of the liability is a far cry from Hilary's crap about a village being responsible for the raising of a child.

Hilary was trying to make the argument that government and society as a whole have a moral duty to take an ACTIVE role in the raising of everyone's kids - which is pure bull. I am the parent and am responsible for shaping the character of my child and am therefore responsible if that kid turns into a hood or some form of waste product.

The arguments I've been making here is that in ADDITION to the dad, the guy that owned the gun has some responsibilty as well. If I lend my car to an 8 year old am I blame free if he runs someone down with it? Even IF his father tells me 'it's OK, he's a really good driver'?

The argument about these other people having a SHARE of the responsibility actually SUPPORTS the idea of personal responsibility in that we're holding them responsible for their actions. Dumping it all on the dad is just as bad as him trying to dump it on the event organizers or the gun itself.

Adults man up and take responsibility for their actions.

If you hand me a automatic pistol with the grip safety strapped down with a rubber band I'm not giving it to my 8 year old son. The dad made the decision to take the gun in that condition. That would be like you handing me a live grenade with the lever pin removed and me handing it to my son while saying "Becareful..." It's total horse shit that the father let this go down. Period.

Seriously this witch hunt is asinine. Blame the father, you don't need to charge him with anything he's already been punished enough.

 

[Half Cocked]

If you hand me a automatic pistol with the grip safety strapped down with a rubber band I'm not giving it to my 8 year old son. The dad made the decision to take the gun in that condition.

I am not defending dad...but you are assuming that dad recognized that and new it to be what it was.

 

[Admin]

I am not defending dad...but you are assuming that dad recognized that and new it to be what it was.

Well if he didn't know enough to know then he shouldn't have put his son on the line shooting something he knows nothing about. Again it's all on him.

 

[terraformer]

I suspect what this will hinge upon who should be responsible for knowing this (micro-uzi in a kid's hands) would be a bad thing. Driving is common knowledge. Full auto firearms are (unfortunately) not. If you buy that common knowledge of FA firearm safety does not exist and therefore knowledge of their dangers (beyond the obvious) is not common knowledge (that would be barrel rise folks, not the inherent danger in the muzzle end alone), then the next step is the "professionals" at the event. Who I feel bad for in this liability mess is the 15 yro who got caught in the middle. He is the liability link between the dead kid and everyone else. His "guilt" (aka; liability) is really important to both cases. Ie; the parents can't have him be too liable, or they lose the link further up the chain and the "professional" supervision wants him to be 100% liable to protect themselves. It basically means no one will settle with him. He will be thrown under the bus by everyone on both sides and he is as much a victim of adult stupidity as is the dead kid.

I am not defending dad...but you are assuming that dad recognized that and new it to be what it was.

Correct. There is a level of expertise that was possessed by the organizers that the general public doesn't have and isn't expected to have. As such, [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] liability falls onto the organizers.

 

[Half Cocked]

Well if he didn't know enough to know then he shouldn't have put his son on the line shooting something he knows nothing about. Again it's all on him.

If you go to an amusement park and there is a cool ride there and there are "safety" people there and they are letting kids on do you not put a leap of faith in the company running it that it is safe?

Do you know how the ride works? Would you know if there was a safety feature disable?

Again.. not defending dad... he should have known better but let's blame him for the right reasons and not ignore the fact that there was more blame to pass around

 

[Bob P]

If you hand me a automatic pistol with the grip safety strapped down with a rubber band I'm not giving it to my 8 year old son. The dad made the decision to take the gun in that condition. That would be like you handing me a live grenade with the lever pin removed and me handing it to my son while saying "Becareful..." It's total horse shit that the father let this go down. Period.

Seriously this witch hunt is asinine. Blame the father, you don't need to charge him with anything he's already been punished enough.

I'm not letting the dad off the hook at all, I'm just saying that in addition to the dad, I've got some responsibility as well. It's my call as the guy in possession of the gun whether or not to hand it to the father to let his son shoot it. The guy on the spot made a judgement call and it came up wrong. Now he's being held responsible for the call. How's that wrong? You make choices and you're responsible for the outcome of those choices.

The dad chose to let his kid shoot the gun - responsibility

The keeper of the gun chose to lend the gun to the dad, knowing the dad was having the kid fire it - responsibility

YES the dad has way more, but the other guy isn't scott free either.

 

[Bob P]

What if the owner of the gun was not even there? What if he lent his micr-Uzi to a properly licensed friend who wanted to use it for the event?

Don't make up responsibility. Place responsibility on those who were there at that time who were in a position to prevent it.

Primarily... the father, whoever disabled the safety, and whoever placed the fifteen year old range officer in the position he was in.

When I say 'owner' I mean whoever was in charge of the gun at the time. I should have said 'keeper'.

 

[Admin]

If you go to an amusement park and there is a cool ride there and there are "safety" people there and they are letting kids on do you not put a leap of faith in the company running it that it is safe?

Do you know how the ride works? Would you know if there was a safety feature disable?

Again.. not defending dad... he should have known better but let's blame him for the right reasons and not ignore the fact that there was more blame to pass around

I know you're not defending the dad, I know nobody in here is. Rides at parks are inspected per law. This was a shoot. If the father doesn't know about guns he better educate himself before letting his son shoot auto.

Would I let my son operate an amusement park ride if I didn't know what the hell I was doing? He would probably kills someone.

 

[Admin]

The keeper of the gun chose to lend the gun to the dad, knowing the dad was having the kid fire it - responsibility

YES the dad has way more, but the other guy isn't scott free either.

THE BOTTOM LINE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO LET YOUR CHILDREN PLAY WITH GUNS YOU BETTER KNOW WTF YOU'RE DOING.

IT'S THE FATHERS FAULT.

 

[Half Cocked]

This was a shoot. If the father doesn't know about guns he better educate himself before letting his son shoot auto.

Isn't that what the shoot was for? Demonstration of full-auto firearms?

To demonstrate to the general public that they are legal, safe and not evil?

If you put on an event like this you need to expect (and want) some non-gun people to show up. You need to be in a position to educate them and to prove just how safe your sport is.

 

[jasons]

THE BOTTOM LINE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO LET YOUR CHILDREN PLAY WITH GUNS YOU BETTER KNOW WTF YOU'RE DOING.

IT'S THE FATHERS FAULT.

THE BOTTOM LINE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO LET RANDOM ASSHAT FATHERS PLAY WITH YOUR GUNS YOU BETTER KNOW WTF THEY'RE DOING.

IT'S PARTLY THE FATHERS FAULT, BUT MOSTLY THE OWNER'S FAULT.