OLAK
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***
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, prosecutors have said.
Read more: http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/breakingnews/ci_16800046#ixzz17X53tJd5
Un-frigging-believable...So based upon this if I allow my kids to jump off a cliff because someone told me they could fly, I'd be covered? WTF is wrong with society?
you know which way the judge wants this to go by his decision.
The father is the only one who should be charged in my opinion.
you know which way the judge wants this to go by his decision.
The father is the only one who should be charged in my opinion.
So the genius who put a 15-year-old on the line as an "instructor" gets off with no punishment?
you know which way the judge wants this to go by his decision.
The father is the only one who should be charged in my opinion.
you know which way the judge wants this to go by his decision.
The father is the only one who should be charged in my opinion.
read the other posts on this. The 15 yo wouldn't give the kid the gun until the father bullied him to do it.
Which wouldn't have happened if he'd put an adult at that position rather than a kid who could be bullied!
The 15-year-old kid was not qualified to be in the position that they put him in.
Fleury, et al, have some responsibility here.
So the genius who put a 15-year-old on the line as an "instructor" gets off with no punishment?
You just don't get it. If you are going to organize such an event, you have to do so with reasonable care. Putting someone who is not qualified to instruct shooters in that position is not reasonable care. Putting a 15-year-old kid in that position is not reasonable care.We get it, you're an instructor.
Huh? The kid wasn't an instructor. Becoming a certified instructor or certified range safety officer is not a magical standard, nor is it an unset one. You, too, can become one quite easily: http://www.nrahq.org/education/training/instructor.aspWe get it, you feel all instructors should live up to some magical and unset standard.
You are obviously unable to realize that more than one person is at fault here. Fleury, et al, made a serious mistake, one that contributed to the boy's death. Yes, the father's behavior contributed as well, but that doesn't absolve Fleury from exercising reasonable caution when running such an event.You're obviously letting this bias you against who is ultimately responsible here.
As the organizer of this event that doesn't absolve him of his responsibility to ensure adequate supervision of the line.The 15 YO kid is the son of one of the CT guys who brought the hardware. Fleury wasn't on the line and may not have known the kid was acting as an RO - the Spfld. paper said he was selling tickets and collecting waivers at the gate.
Which may be useful during the civil trial that will follow, but this is a criminal trial.So Dr. B. and everyone else signed a waiver.
No argument there.The three "furnishing a machine gun to a minor" charges on top of the involuntary manslaughter charge are BS.
And that advertising also said that everyone would be accompanied to the firing line by a "certified instructor."That event had been going on for six or seven years, and it was heavily advertised on the radio and newspaper, including a prominent line about "no age limit - bring your kids."