Family Blames Gun Show For Boy's Death

[dixidawg]

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.

I have been a juror 3 times and have never been, nor have I ever seen the other jurors interviewed by counsel.

 

[jasons]

The assumption based on conversations we had at the time was that the father and both children were familiar with firearms.

You know what they say about assuming. In any case, even if the kid was familiar with firearms (.22 rifles?) he obviously wasn't familiar with the operation of a micro-uzi.

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.

By all accounts dad was an idiot who made an idiotic judgment call. Clearly he didn't know any better. There was at least one person there that day who should have - the owner of the freaking weapon.

 

[Bill Nance]

I have been a juror 3 times and have never been, nor have I ever seen the other jurors interviewed by counsel.

I've been through it for a DUI trial and a personal injury trial.

 

[M1911]

I have been a juror 3 times and have never been, nor have I ever seen the other jurors interviewed by counsel.

The questioning of prospective jurors is called voir dire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection

 

[M1911]

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.

Thanks for the info. I did not know that.

 

[TomH]

Because most 8 year olds will hold an apple in their hand at 100 yards while you take a shot at it if you told them it was safe to do.

Exactly, if anyone is at fault it was the father. The supervising kid should have refused to let it happen also. I forget all the details of this now but the family suing is BS. The father needs to take responsibility for his actions.

Edit: reading some more and remembering some of the details, I think some responsibility falls on whoever put the 15 year old in charge. No matter how instructed and informed a 15 year old may be, he/she is still not equipped to say no to a pushy father like another adult would be. Kids see adults as authority figures in general. Putting a KID in charge of telling ADULTS what to do doesn't make much sense. I'm sure whoever did this is feeling some serious guilt for it. As for criminal or civil charges/convictions, I don't necessarily think either is valid. Especially coming from the father. As a parent you are ultimately responsible for what your kid does. It's just too bad he was pushy enough and the RSO kid gave in. An experienced adult who knows MGs would be more likely to tell the father to go screw.

 

[TomH]

That may be the case, but who takes solace in destroying other people's lives to make theirs better?

Democrats?

Something I'm wondering about with respect to the grip safety. Is it similar to a 1911 grip safety? If so, unless the gun went off as soon as the kid gripped it, or kept going if the kid released it from his hand, the grip safety has ZERO to do with this accident. Once you hold it, the safety is deactivated anyway. Now its up to trigger control. It may have happened so fast no one even saw the exact way it happened. But if he held it and didn't let go as the gun was firing the safety wouldn't have helped anyway.

Either way the gun manufacturer and the ammo manufacturer have nothing to do with this.

 

[drgrant]

Something I'm wondering about with respect to the grip safety. Is it similar to a 1911 grip safety? If so, unless the gun went off as soon as the kid gripped it, or kept going if the kid released it from his hand, the grip safety has ZERO to do with this accident

If releasing the grip safety stops the gun from firing, then the gun -may- have stopped firing before the muzzle got to a dangerous angle, depending on how bad his grip was at the time. One problem is there really hasn't been an accurate, detailed technical description of how the whole thing happened- Lacking an eyewitness account of seeing the whole thing, we can only guess as to whether or not the safety being disabled was a contributing factor. My gut says while it obviously didn't cause the problem, that safety
being disabled probably didn't help things much... For example, if a hard and fast rule was in place saying that if a person was not physically able to operate the firearm as it was
intended, then the kid would have never been allowed to fire it to begin with.

-Mike

 

[Bob P]

I have been a juror 3 times and have never been, nor have I ever seen the other jurors interviewed by counsel.

That's nice. I've been Voired twice and recused twice because I work for an insurance company.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I have been a juror 3 times and have never been, nor have I ever seen the other jurors interviewed by counsel.

I have been called three times, and made it to voir dire in two of those cases. In one case I was excused because one of the involved attorneys was a neighbor, and in the other, I was excused because one of the wittnesses in a malpractice case was someone I knew to be my father in law's doctor. The former involved questions directed at the pool by counsel from both sides. In the later case, I was excused based on questions asked by the judge before counsel got to question jurors.

[

 

[richc]

Last time I was called to jury duty they marched us in for review by the attorneys. They asked if we knew any of the parties. Turns out I had been at a high school dinner two nights before and had a couple drinks with the judge while he told stories of being G Gordon Liddy's attorney at Watergate (I think).

Fail... I was dismissed.

 

[Will Brink]

They also claim the Uzi was "unreasonably dangerous"

For an 8 year old boy being supervised by a 15 year old, it was. Had it been a chain saw and the kid cut his arm off, they wouldn't sue the producer of the chain saw however. News flash: full auto mini Uzi is dangerous. I'm with others, I think all parties (expect Uzi...) have responsibility in this one. There's plenty of stupid to go around on this one.

 

[Titan]

Whatever we all feel personally about who bears the brunt of the responsibility, the court will use what it ALWAYS uses, and that is the concept of contributory negiligence.

As I said, way back in this thread, they'll fix partial blame with the father, partial blame with the person responsible for the 15 yr old, partial blame with whoever disabled the safety, and (perhaps) partial blame with the sponsor of the event.


They will fix the largest damages (IMHO) on the person responsible for the 15 yr old and the person who disabled the safety (if not the same person).

The suit will be brought by the parents, and they will be judged to have 'suffered enough'. Damages will be assessed on others.


As dads we should never forget where responsibility REALLY lies regardless of what courts decide.

.

 

[Coyote33]

Trial to begin in boy's death at Mass. gun expo

 

[rudiewhitebwoy]

I wasn't there, but from what I understand that transpired I'd blame the father and the guy that let a fifteen year old supervise. Not the gun or the gun manufacturer. I'd let an eight year old fire an AR or any long rifle with adult supervision. The only way I'd let an eight year old fire an Uzi is if I had my hand on it as well. I'm sure the kid would've been just as thrilled to shoot an AR or some other long rifle that wouldn't kick back up at him because it was so short. It's a sad situation caused by stupidity.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Had it been a chain saw and the kid cut his arm off, they wouldn't sue the producer of the chain saw however.

They most certainly would, and they would have a strong case as any reasonable person would know that an 8 year old is not likely to be competent and chainsaw jitsu.

The only real difference is that the argument can be made that the providing of the Mini Uzi was a violation of MGL; something which is not specifically prohibited with chainsaws.

 

[Fixxah]

There's going to be a whole lot of ugly on display in that courtroom and in the papers.

 

[M1911]

There's going to be a whole lot of ugly on display in that courtroom and in the papers.

Yes, it is going to get ugly, and there will be wall-to-wall press coverage.

 

[Coyote33]

There's going to be a whole lot of ugly on display in that courtroom and in the papers.

Yes, it is going to get ugly, and there will be wall-to-wall press coverage.

I'm sure someone is going to ask GOAL to weigh in on this. I hope they are all ready for this.

 

[TheRoland]

I'm sure someone is going to ask GOAL to weigh in on this. I hope they are all ready for this.

Sure, but this is really a liability case now, not a gun case. The fact that it involves firearms is going to color our reaction to it, but won't actually change the liabilities involved.

 

[Emoto]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/12/06/first_trial_to_start_in_gun_expo_shooting/?p1=Local_Links

No option to leave comments.

"Massachusetts law says it is legal for children to fire a rifle or shotgun if they have parental consent and are supervised by a certified instructor. But it is illegal in Massachusetts to furnish a child with a machine gun under any circumstances."

I do not believe there is actually a law that says this, is there?

 

[M1911]

I'm sure someone is going to ask GOAL to weigh in on this. I hope they are all ready for this.

Sometimes it is better to not comment. In this case, the main argument of Bizilj's attorney is likely to be what we expected:

Bennett has said Charles Bizilj chose the compact Uzi for his son after he was assured it was safer than a larger weapon. He said the small size of the gun, along with its rapid rate of fire, actually made it more likely that the third-grader from Ashford, Conn., would lose control of the weapon and the muzzle would come close to his face.

Bennett said Charles Bizilj was not charged because he was a layman and based his decision to allow his sons to fire the gun on information from others who should have known it was too dangerous.

Full text here: http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...06/first_trial_to_start_in_gun_expo_shooting/

GOAL would have a hard time countering that argument without looking heartless towards the child's parents, and the last thing that GOAL wants to do is get painted as being in the corner of Fleury, et. al. I understand the arguments for the father's responsibility, but I think that GOAL will have a hard time winning that argument in the court of public opinion. So I suspect GOAL will do what they did during the initial aftermath -- not comment.

 

[jasons]

Apparently it's all on video.... I would hate to have to watch it, but it might answer a lot of questions about what happened leading up to the incident. (Was there a rubber band and if so who put it on? Did the father really "force" the 14 year old "RSO" to let his kid use the Uzi?)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...ds_video_key_evidence_in_boys_gun_show_death/

 

[TheRoland]

Snip

That actually sounds like a plausible liability argument, but I'm genuine unsure if it meets the standard for manslaughter, or what standard they must use.

 

[Len-2A Training]

M1911,

That allegation by the father is an out and out lie, according to the report I was given by someone who was working that shooting line when it happened.

I was told that the father argued with the kid running the line that because it was small that it WAS SAFER for his kid to shoot. The kid running the line allegedly told the father NO but finally backed down when the father got all arrogant and threw his weight around.

I hope that all that were on that line and heard any of the banter before the incident are subpoenaed to testify and put this case where it belongs!

The father should rot in hell for killing his own kid and win nothing in the suit!

 

[Lugnut]

All I can say and I have often wondered this... why the F is everyone so willing to Sue the shit out of people these days??? I can probably understand trying to get medical bills covered- IMO there was negligence.. but WTF- the boy is dead! WTF is money going to do now??? This is what really pisses me off...

 

[M1911]

That allegation by the father is an out and out lie, according to the report I was given by someone who was working that shooting line when it happened.

I was told that the father argued with the kid running the line that because it was small that it WAS SAFER for his kid to shoot. The kid running the line allegedly told the father NO but finally backed down when the father got all arrogant and threw his weight around.

Len:

I understand your points. That said, I don't think it will help GOAL to get in the middle of this, because they would end up being painted as defending the indefensible -- Fleury, et. al., decision to have a 15-year-old supervising shooters.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len:

I understand your points. That said, I don't think it will help GOAL to get in the middle of this, because they would end up being painted as defending the indefensible -- Fleury, et. al., decision to have a 15-year-old supervising shooters.

You and I agree on this point.

 

[pdm]

All I can say and I have often wondered this... why the F is everyone so willing to Sue the shit out of people these days??? I can probably understand trying to get medical bills covered- IMO there was negligence.. but WTF- the boy is dead! WTF is money going to do now??? This is what really pisses me off...

Four words:

"It's not my fault"

 

[Len-2A Training]

All I can say and I have often wondered this... why the F is everyone so willing to Sue the shit out of people these days??? I can probably understand trying to get medical bills covered- IMO there was negligence.. but WTF- the boy is dead! WTF is money going to do now??? This is what really pisses me off...

Simple, there is MONEY TO BE MADE! The lawyers will make out like bandits and the father will get a payday he doesn't deserve. >80% of these kind of cases get settled out of court with a payoff, that's what they are betting on.

The outcome I'd like to see happen (to make an example of this jerk) is to get witness testimony that proves that the father perjured himself and a judge with balls big enough to then convict the father on perjury charges. It'll never happen, but I can dream, can't I?