icyclefar
NES Member
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Family Blames Gun Show For Boy's Death
- Thread starter Wolf99
- Start date
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
If this excerpt from the lawsuit is accurate, I think the suit has some merit.
“Charles Bizilj was ordered to stay clear of the area and was required to stand behind restraining ropes,” the lawsuit says. “The 15-year-old ‘line officer’ ... backed away from the decedent after handing the child a loaded, fully automatic weapon.”
I still blame the parent because I would not allow my son to handle a weapon under those circumstances, but to let an 8 year old handle any firearem without closer supervision is negligent IMHO.
“Charles Bizilj was ordered to stay clear of the area and was required to stand behind restraining ropes,” the lawsuit says. “The 15-year-old ‘line officer’ ... backed away from the decedent after handing the child a loaded, fully automatic weapon.”
I still blame the parent because I would not allow my son to handle a weapon under those circumstances, but to let an 8 year old handle any firearem without closer supervision is negligent IMHO.
You know something about firearms. The father knew nothing. He trusted that the "instructors" at the shoot would keep his child safe.
This.
I don't understand the folks that say the father is to blame. Have you ever been to one of these shoots? The point of them is to try a weapon you've never tried before under expert supervision, so that you, supposedly, operate it safety. I'd never fired a full auto weapon before, but I brought my son to one several years ago and let him fire one.
I don't see anything about him arguing with the "line officer" or by-passing any safeties, so I call BS on that stuff.
George D
NES Member
I liken a micro uzi to a chainsaw. Even if you have never used a chainsaw before, you know that an 8 year old does not have the upper body strength to operate a chainsaw.
The same with that UZI. It was gross negligence of everyone involved.
The same with that UZI. It was gross negligence of everyone involved.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Pretty clear to me:
1) 15 year old in charge of the firing line?????? Obviously he was not a range safety officer, NRA certified instructor, etc! What the heck were they thinking at the gun club?
2) rubber band disabling safety?????
3) Full mag? Everyone knows a rookie start off with a 3 round max. to control the rise.
Someone is losing their house on this one, as they should.
1) 15 year old in charge of the firing line?????? Obviously he was not a range safety officer, NRA certified instructor, etc! What the heck were they thinking at the gun club?
2) rubber band disabling safety?????
3) Full mag? Everyone knows a rookie start off with a 3 round max. to control the rise.
Someone is losing their house on this one, as they should.
Last edited:
No, but I have been called to jury duty next week so....![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
I am going to jury duty in Lowell next week as well. This thing is not going to trial yet though is it? And where is the venue would it be Lowell?
I'm completely serious when I wrote this:
The father has said that he knew nothing about firearms. He mistakenly thought the smaller micro Uzi would be easier for his son to control. You and I know it is just the opposite, be he didn't.
The shoot was advertised as being run by instructors. There was an "instructor" at the position helping his son. The job of instructors at such an event is to keep participants safe. The father was, apparently, not physically on the line himself, as spectators were reportedly kept back.
Note that I've said nothing about the merits of the suit. My comment was in response to this:
blitzpackage wouldn't let his son handle a gun under those circumstances. I suspect that blitzpackage, being a poster here on NES, knows something about guns and knows something about the danger of handling a micro Uzi. The father doesn't know anything about guns. The father trusted that the "instructor" would keep his son safe.
No, I don't blame the father. I am an instructor. I have taught NRA Basic Pistol and supervised folks at Women on Target events and our club's Turkey Shoot. I take that responsibility seriously. I would not allow a 15-year-old to supervise an 8-year-old at such an event, not with a .22lr rifle, let alone an Uzi.
Last edited:
So, do you expect the 15-year-old "instructor" to take responsibility for his actions? How about the police chief running the event? Do they have no responsibility?
IIRC, he said that he did not.
I wonder if this was the same father whose then post-toddler son let a pellet fly off range into the open crowd at an indoor pellet range during a gun show a few years earlier? This, after insisting his son could handle the pellet range and then took it upon himself to let his son shoot when the attendant was otherwise busy...Hmmm...I wonder....No firearms experience....Hmmmm....
Gee whiz, I just don't know....
Gee whiz, I just don't know....
Link?
Go link yourself....One needn't link the wondering of the mind....
Again I say, the father is ultimately responsible. Thinking a machine gun - any machine gun, is safe in the hands of an 8-year-old - regardless of perceived, rumored, or lacking firearms experience is completely and totally insane. Putting your faith in a 15-year old boy, a rubber banded Micro Uzi and an ultimate stranger taking your $25.00 with the life of your child, shows so much incomprehensible negligence that I question you even questioning his culpability...
That stance just seems too troll-like, or completely lacking of any judgement yourself, to be taken seriously...
Sorry, you've completely lost me.
I'll be glad to discuss this with you if you'll stop the insults.
George D
NES Member
This is the article I remember when it first came out, his Dad said he ahd experience shooting.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/10/police_identify_6.html
Bill Nance
Banned
I'm supposed to go to Woburn
Hmmm. I didn't remember that article, but I do remember that picture.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,618
- Likes
- 33,741
I wonder if plaintiff's counsel will be able to use the fact that a potential juror has an LTC as the basis for a for-cause challenge, or if (s)he will have to use up peremptory challenges to keep such people off the jury?
But, realistically, chances are the various insurance carriers will settle so it's probably not going to be a relevant question.
But, realistically, chances are the various insurance carriers will settle so it's probably not going to be a relevant question.
Ya gotta love the "full mag" phrase. It works real well in the media. Much better than "full magazine" or (horrors) "full clip".
It seems a good rule for anyone to try a single shot ("single load"?) the first time on an unfamiliar gun -- particularly a hard to handle gun and especially with any child.
Does anyone know if the kid shot himself in the head with the last round in the fully loaded magazine? Or was it the second round?
If we don't know, what good is talk of the evil of "fully loaded mags"?
dixidawg
NES Member
How would counsel know whether or not the jurors have an LTC? Wouldn't that info need to be voluntarily given by the juror?
That was a pretty uncool thing to say, but maybe I'm misunderstanding your attempt at sarcasm.
The father is the MOST responsible for his son's death, followed by whoever was responsible for the gun at the range.
Counsel for both sides get to interview the jury before trial in front of the judge. They would be allowed to ask that question. Each side is allowed to recuse a set number of potential jurors for no reason or to ask the judge to recuse a juror for cause. The judge decides if there is cause in that case.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
When you give a kid (8 years old !?!?) any unfamiliar weapon with more than one round in the mag, you're endangering the kid and everyone else on or near the firing line. It doesn't really matter if it was 2 rounds or 32 - it was a dumb and irresponsible thing to do.
Now we have a dead 8 year old, a bunch of the 8 year old's friends and family who will associate guns with dead kids for the rest of their lives, tons of fodder for the antis, and probably some new and more restrictive legislation. All because the GUN OWNER couldn't be bothered to make sure that the kid really did know what he was doing (despite the alleged assurances of his asshat father.) All in all a great thing for our sport and a ringing endorsement of responsible gun ownership. Well done.
Flame me and call me un-American all you want. Leave all the negative feedback that you can. I'm still right - the gun owner screwed the pooch and in doing so screwed the rest of us who actually are responsible.
One of the guys who works for me has a brother who taught the older son. Both kids were talking about the shoot prior to the event. The assumption based on conversations we had at the time was that the father and both children were familiar with firearms. The article from the globe seems to support this and leads one to believe the father deliberately chose this weapon for his son to shoot.
He should not be held blameless for this, nor should the organizers of the event. I feel the parent is ultimately responsible since he is responsible for the child's safety.
