Family Blames Gun Show For Boy's Death

[Emoto]

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!

Well, if that is all true, then certainly the father deserves nothing.

I am of the opinion that no child (minor) should ever be a range safety officer, so, to me it looks like there is some responsibility there. Nobody should be getting any money, though.

 

[jasons]

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.

Obviously I'm no lawyer, but from a strictly legal perspective is that even relevant? I mean if the "expert" who was there to make sure that everyone was safe (as was advertised on the flyer,) got talked into letting something obviously unsafe happen isn't that prima facie evidence that he wasn't an expert after all? And if that's the case then whoever put that person in charge must have been negligent, right?


FWIW I agree that I don't want GOAL going anywhere near this. There is no upside.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well, if that is all true, then certainly the father deserves nothing.

I am of the opinion that no child (minor) should ever be a range safety officer, so, to me it looks like there is some responsibility there. Nobody should be getting any money, though.

I was more than a little upset when I learned that a kid was the "RO".

It was irresponsible to put him in charge, period. Here are a few reasons why:

- In MA you need to be 21 yo to get a LTC or MG permit, so a minor can't be in possession (responsible) unless being DIRECTLY SUPERVISED by an adult permit-holder. Here HE was "in charge" . . . breaking that law.

- Although I'm an NRA Certified RO, I do not know the minimum age for such certification. I do believe that it is likely to be the same as for the NRA Instructor Certs, which is 18 yo. The kid in charge thus can't be a NRA Certified Instructor in any discipline and I'd guess can't be a NRA Certified RO either (although I'm not 100% on that). [NOTE: It was advertised that the lines would be run by Certified Instructors and this obviously was NOT the case. False advertising!]

- Age has it's benefits. Whereas a doctor who is 30-40 yo and throwing his weight around is enough to intimidate almost all 15-16 yos, try that with a few of us who have more years under our belt and the guy (and his son) would have been sent packing (and no tragedy would have occurred)!!

 

[Mike-Mike]

Considering he gave his 8 year old son a loaded micro uzi and let him shoot it, maybe he should be.

At least he shouldn't be at the court house sewing other people.

 

[jasons]

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.

Unless I'm mistaken it appears that this is a criminal trial, not a civil trial. I'd guess that if someone is found negligent here the boy's estate probably will sue in civil court but we're not there yet.

 

[Emoto]

At least he shouldn't be at the court house sewing other people.

This comment caused me to knit my brow.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Obviously I'm no lawyer, but from a strictly legal perspective is that even relevant? I mean if the "expert" who was there to make sure that everyone was safe (as was advertised on the flyer,) got talked into letting something obviously unsafe happen isn't that prima facie evidence that he wasn't an expert after all? And if that's the case then whoever put that person in charge must have been negligent, right?

I agree here. There was definitely a lot negligence in the operation of this event.

I just think that the alleged brow-beating by the father (I heard it was a lengthy "argument") and possible perjury of same (if it can be proven) should nullify his ability to collect the pot of gold due to his actions.

 

[jasons]

At least he shouldn't be at the court house sewing other people.

The father isn't suing anyone, at least not yet. This is a criminal trial.

 

[jasons]

I just think that the alleged brow-beating by the father (I heard it was a lengthy "argument") and possible perjury of same (if it can be proven) should nullify his ability to collect the pot of gold due to his actions.

When it comes time for a civil suit I would hope so too. I wonder if any of that made it onto the video. (I sort of doubt it.)

 

[Len-2A Training]

Unless I'm mistaken it appears that this is a criminal trial, not a civil trial. I'd guess that if someone is found negligent here the boy's estate probably will sue in civil court but we're not there yet.

I know that there is a civil action in play.

If this is indeed the criminal action, the promoter and RO are toast due to some of what I posted above.

I have no problem convicting them of the law wrt unlicensed person being responsible for the mgs. I wouldn't convict on manslaughter however due to the other circumstances, as I understand it.

 

[jasons]

I know that there is a civil action in play.

If this is indeed the criminal action, the promoter and RO are toast due to some of what I posted above.

I have no problem convicting them of the law wrt unlicensed person being responsible for the mgs. I wouldn't convict on manslaughter however due to the other circumstances, as I understand it.

From the article it appears that this is a criminal trail of Edward Fleury, the owner of the company that promoted the event. The charge is manslaughter.

 

[Len-2A Training]

My bad. I just went and read the links posted today/yesterday. Yup, it's the criminal action this time.

That father's video is going to make them toast in court.

Too bad the father didn't video his alleged argument with the "kid RO"!! Seeing/hearing testimony on what really happened would definitely effect any decision to convict/not in this case. Thus, I hope the defense is successful in subpoenaing all that were present and heard/saw what led up to the tragedy.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

- In MA you need to be 21 yo to get a LTC or MG permit, so a minor can't be in possession (responsible) unless being DIRECTLY SUPERVISED by an adult permit-holder. Here HE was "in charge" . . . breaking that law.

The current position of MA appears to be that NO "transfer", including the momentary holding while in the presence of the MG permit holder, is legal unless the person possessing the gun, no matter how briefly, also has a MG permit.

WTF is money going to do now???

Extract revenge.

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.

If the court upholds the states position that the temporary holding is an unlawful transfer, it could very well impact the finding of liability as the death would the consequence of a criminal act.

 

[Lugnut]

The father isn't suing anyone, at least not yet. This is a criminal trial.

This is the problem with the Internet I guess... the OP quoted this on the opening post:

"Now his family has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit blaming, among others, a 15 year old instructor who handed the boy the gun."

 

[Emoto]

The current position of MA appears to be that NO "transfer", including the momentary holding while in the presence of the MG permit holder, is legal unless the person possessing the gun, no matter how briefly, also has a MG permit...

If the court upholds the states position that the temporary holding is an unlawful transfer, it could very well impact the finding of liability as the death would the consequence of a criminal act.

It is my (perhaps flawed) understanding that this is in fact what the state of MA now contends. None of us know what is going to happen at this trial, but it sure would be nice if the court found against this idea of momentary possession being illegal, because if it were illegal for someone to hold/use a MG even with a MG permit holder supervising, then how could there ever be another such event as a MG shoot? It is my understanding that such is not explicitly covered in MGL, but IANAL...

 

[Engineer]

Here we go...

Yeah, blame the gun... but don't blame the father that made the idiotic decision to allow an 8 year old to shoot a micro uzi.

Or the Lawyers who play on the emotions of all involved because they think they can make some Big $$$ taking anyone with deep pockets to court.

 

[Len-2A Training]

It is my (perhaps flawed) understanding that this is in fact what the state of MA now contends. None of us know what is going to happen at this trial, but it sure would be nice if the court found against this idea of momentary possession being illegal. It is my understanding that such is not explicitly covered in MGL, but IANAL...

The problem is as follows:

- They can dodge the issue simply by stating that NO Licensed Adult was supervising the "kid RO", thus convict on illegal "possession" of the smg w/o ever addressing the momentary touching issue that GCAB/EOPS now contends to be the case.

- "Legislating from the bench" by an activist judge, especially after viewing the gruesome tape, could lead the judge to agree with GCAB/EOPS. Whatever GCAB/EOPS states carries a lot of weight in MA, whether they are right or wrong. I don't expect anyone to challenge their "wisdom" at anything less than an SJC or Federal Appellate action, sadly.

 

[Emoto]

The problem is as follows:

- They can dodge the issue simply by stating that NO Licensed Adult was supervising the "kid RO", thus convict on illegal "possession" of the smg w/o ever addressing the momentary touching issue that GCAB/EOPS now contends to be the case.

- "Legislating from the bench" by an activist judge, especially after viewing the gruesome tape, could lead the judge to agree with GCAB/EOPS. Whatever GCAB/EOPS states carries a lot of weight in MA, whether they are right or wrong. I don't expect anyone to challenge their "wisdom" at anything less than an SJC or Federal Appellate action, sadly.

Sadly, I cannot really argue with any of that.

 

[jobowker]

It was the father's fault. Period. I feel he has suffered enough for his insanely stupid actions, therefore I wouldn't do anything against the father. However, just because I feel bad for the dumbshit dad doesn't mean others should be liable for his stupidity.

If, when my daughter is 16, I take her to a car dealership to test drive a new car, and she runs over & kills a person, I should be able to sue the car manufacturer and the dealership, right? Or should I be responsible for knowing what a minor under my guardianship is capable or incapable of doing?

I was on a case where a mother left a 2 year old unattended in a kitchen with a deep fat fryer going full blast, complete with cord hanging over the edge of the counter. Picture the worst possible outcome and that's what happened. He was horribly disfigured, and I saw what it looked like in person, even after two years of cosmetic surgery and skin grafts. The mother of course sued the manufacturer and settled, rewarding her for her stupidity and her child's suffering. Most of the jury agreed it wasn't the manuf's fault, but were still ok with a big monetary settlement "for the child".

I think it's a parent's responsibility to determine what their kid can and cannot do, and unless the equipment was defective as a result of negligence, then keep the blame where it belongs. I don't let my 6 year old run across a parking lot but if I did and she got hit, can I sue the driver, the car maker, and the tire manufacturer?

 

[scouter-rick]

I was more than a little upset when I learned that a kid was the "RO".

It was irresponsible to put him in charge, period. Here are a few reasons why:

- In MA you need to be 21 yo to get a LTC or MG permit, so a minor can't be in possession (responsible) unless being DIRECTLY SUPERVISED by an adult permit-holder. Here HE was "in charge" . . . breaking that law.

- Although I'm an NRA Certified RO, I do not know the minimum age for such certification. (Minimum age is 21YO).I do believe that it is likely to be the same as for the NRA Instructor Certs, which is 18 yo. (NRA Instructor certs are as follows: 13-17= Apprentice Instructor, 18-20 = Assistant Instructor and 21+= Certified Instructor) The kid in charge thus can't be a NRA Certified Instructor in any discipline and I'd guess can't be a NRA Certified RO either (although I'm not 100% on that). [NOTE: It was advertised that the lines would be run by Certified Instructors and this obviously was NOT the case. False advertising!]

- Age has it's benefits. Whereas a doctor who is 30-40 yo and throwing his weight around is enough to intimidate almost all 15-16 yos, try that with a few of us who have more years under our belt and the guy (and his son) would have been sent packing (and no tragedy would have occurred)!!

My Comments in RED above

 

[Len-2A Training]

Thanks Rick. I know that you'd know those answers.

 

[Business]

everybody is at fault in my opinion of this one. the 15 year old instructor regardless of the age of the person who he handed the weapon to should have cleared the weapon first. and the S*%T falls down hill from there. yes the club has a level of responsibility for not making sure that the people selling or showing were not loading their weapons. I dont believe the promoters have any responsibility, thats would be like holding sears responsible for advertising a commercial for a stove that leaked gas and blew up their house... just pointless. If i was in the fathers shoes, and was bringing my son to a gun show to teach him about guns, I probably probably would have taught him the number one cardinal rule of firearms, dont point it at what you dont want to shoot, including yourself. its an unfortunate event for sure and one more idiotic mistake to make the responsible gun owners look like the bad guys.

 

[M1911]

I probably probably would have taught him the number one cardinal rule of firearms, dont point it at what you dont want to shoot, including yourself. its an unfortunate event for sure and one more idiotic mistake to make the responsible gun owners look like the bad guys.

It is my understanding that the kid did not intentionally point the gun at himself. He had it pointed downrange, pulled trigger, could not control the recoil, and the gun rotated until it was pointing at his head.

The cardinal rule of firearm safety wouldn't have helped him -- he simply could not physically control the gun.

 

[TheRoland]

This case isn't about who's at fault, it's about manslaughter. There's some set of criminal elements that must be proved (which I didn't immediately find).

 

[jasons]

If, when my daughter is 16, I take her to a car dealership to test drive a new car, and she runs over & kills a person, I should be able to sue the car manufacturer and the dealership, right? Or should I be responsible for knowing what a minor under my guardianship is capable or incapable of doing?

What happened here was closer to you hiring "ACME Driving Instruction" to teach your daughter to drive but instead of putting her in the car with a properly trained and experienced instructor the company used some kid that wasn't even old enough to drive himself. Not only that but they (allegedly) disabled a key safety feature.

 

[Len-2A Training]

This case isn't about who's at fault, it's about manslaughter. There's some set of criminal elements that must be proved (which I didn't immediately find).

From 1999 Edition of MCJTC "Criminal Law Reference Handbook":

Manslaughter​

Definition:
Unlawful killing of another human being without malice aforethought (F) MGL C. 265 S 13

Elements:

1. Death of another person
2. Criminal conduct of the defendant resulting in the unjustified death of another

Manslaughter, Involuntary​

Definition:
Unlawful killing of another human being caused by an act which constitutes such disregard of probable harmful consequences to another as to constitute wanton or reckless conduct. (F) MGL C 265 S 13

Elements:

1. Death of another person
2. By an act which constitutes such a disregard of probable harmful consequences to another as to constitute wanton or reckless conduct although not committed with the intention of causing death.

 

[jasons]

From http://www.massmurderdefense.com/pages/manslaughter-in.html:

Involuntary Manslaughter

As with voluntary manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define involuntary manslaughter. Rather, Massachusetts common law, as pronounced by the courts, provides the definition for involuntary manslaughter:
One can commit involuntary manslaughter through:
(1) an unintentional killing occasioned by an act which constitutes such a disregard of the probable harmful consequences to another as to be wanton or reckless; or
(2) an unintentional killing resulting from a battery.

The first theory under which a person may face conviction for involuntary manslaughter requires an unintentional, yet unlawful killing resulting from the wanton or reckless conduct of the defendant. This theory of involuntary manslaughter is sometimes called "Welansky manslaughter," after the 1944 case in which the owner of a nightclub was convicted of involuntary manslaughter when a fire in his club caused the death of over 400 patrons. That case also established that wanton or reckless conduct includes both affirmative acts and failures to act where a duty to act exists. Such acts or omissions must embody a disregard for the probable harmful consequences to another. The conduct must involve a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another. The law requires that the defendant have knowledge of the circumstances and the intent to do the act that caused the death, and also requires that the circumstances presented a danger of serious harm such that a reasonable man would have recognized the nature and degree of danger. Wanton and reckless conduct is distinct from negligence or gross negligence for which, in the common law of Massachusetts, there is no criminal liability.

The second theory on which a defendant may face conviction for involuntary manslaughter requires that the defendant commit a battery, not amounting to a felony, which causes death. A person who uses a level of force against another that is likely to cause harm and which produces death is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The law requires that the prosecution establish that the defendant knew, or should have known that his conduct created a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would result to another. This means that the same standards of proof apply to both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

The punishment for both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, as set by statute, is the same. The maximum sentence for an involuntary manslaughter conviction is imprisonment for twenty years, except in circumstances where the voluntary manslaughter involves explosives or infernal machines, in which cases the maximum punishment is life imprisonment.

 

[dwarven1]

if it were illegal for someone to hold/use a MG even with a MG permit holder supervising, then how could there ever be another such event as a MG shoot?

Only now, at the end, do you understand, my young apprentice.

Do you really think that there are many in the MA government who think that this would be a bad thing?

 

[M1911]

Fleury's lawyer is trying to have the video excluded: http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...s_uzi_death_barred_1291666717/?p1=Local_Links

 

[jobowker]

What happened here was closer to you hiring "ACME Driving Instruction" to teach your daughter to drive but instead of putting her in the car with a properly trained and experienced instructor the company used some kid that wasn't even old enough to drive himself. Not only that but they (allegedly) disabled a key safety feature.

Good point. I need a better example.