Judge refuses to drop charge against former Pelham Police Chief Edward Fleury,

[kiver]

Sorry if a dupe. It's a few days old and I just saw this and did not see it anywhere else


http://www.masslive.com/news/index....tegory=Pioneer Valley Life&category=Westfield

Judge refuses to drop charge against former Pelham Police Chief Edward Fleury, Westfield Sportsman's Club, in death of 8-year-old boy


SPRINGFIELD - A Hampden Superior Court judge has ruled that former Pelham Police Chief Edward B. Fleury and the Westfield Sportsman's Club can be tried on the charge of supplying machine guns at a show where an 8-year-old boy was accidentally killed.

Lawyers for Fleury and the club did not contest manslaughter charges brought against their clients in connection with the death of Christopher K. Bizilj, of Ashford, Conn.

But they contested charges of furnishing machine guns to minors.

The boy died of a gunshot wound to the head after losing control of a Micro Uzi submachine gun he was firing during a show on Oct. 26.


Lawyers Thomas Drechsler, who represents the club, and David C. Kuzmeski, who represents Fleury, said their clients did not provide the guns used at the show.

They argued there was not enough evidence to support the grand jury's indictment of each party on four counts of furnishing a machine gun to a minor.

Carl Guiffre, of Hartford, and Domenico Spano, of New Milford, Conn., who supplied the guns, are also charged with involuntary manslaughter. However, they were not charged with providing a machine gun to a minor.

Judge Peter A. Velis did not agree with the position of Fleury and the club, which is that they only had peripheral involvement in furnishing the guns.

Velis said, the club did more than simply supply the premises for the show.

"Fleury's participation was even more direct," Velis wrote.

Velis said that Fleury ran the event jointly with the club and invited the participation of Spano and Giuffre.

A final pre-trial conference is set for Nov. 16 in the cases against the three men and the club, with the trial date of Dec. 7.



Categories: Crime, Deaths, Pioneer Valley Life, Westfield

 

[glide]

Whatever you do, don't blame the parents.

 

[Larry Legend]

I don't see how any good can possibly come from this.

1. The father is the one who let the kid shoot the gun.
2. The Officer said he DID NOT SUPPLY THE GUN.

Kid shoots himself in the head cause the muzzle rise is too much for him to handle. How is prosecuting a third party going to accomplish anything? I wouldn't charge the father (loss of a child is punishment enough). I wouldn't charge the officer (didn't supply the gun, and don't you have to sign a liability waiver whenever you step foot into a range anyway?)

Sh*t happens. Wipe your a$$ and move on.

 

[pdm]

But the guys who actually own the guns don't get the furnishing charge. WTF? I don't get it.

 

[Admin]

If anyone should be charged it should be the father. The buck should have stopped there.

 

[TomH]

The father is responsible. I think he has paid enough already.

 

[Admin]

The father is responsible. I think he has paid enough already.

Has the father asked the judge to drop the charges on the CLEO? I wouldn't want someone doing time for something I did.

 

[C-pher]

If anyone should be charged it should be the father. The buck should have stopped there.

Who was the person that put the rubber band around the grip safety? If the kid wasn't strong enough to hold that while shooting, then that person needs to be part of this. And, yes, the father should have said NO when that happened...as that shows the child couldn't handle the firearm.

 

[Len-2A Training]

If anyone should be charged it should be the father. The buck should have stopped there.

I fully agree. If one received info from those that were there instead of only what the media had to say, plus analyzed the father's behavior after the accident, they might just agree with us.

The father is responsible. I think he has paid enough already.

Sorry, no I don't think he's paid "enough". He was the dimwit that INSISTED and allegedly bullied the kid that was acting as RO to let his son shoot THIS PARTICULAR GUN!

If I threw a loaded gun in a sock drawer and if I had a child that found it and shot himself to death, wouldn't you think I should be held criminally responsible for the kid's death? I do! Same deal here.

Who was the person that put the rubber band around the grip safety? If the kid wasn't strong enough to hold that while shooting, then that person needs to be part of this. And, yes, the father should have said NO when that happened...as that shows the child couldn't handle the firearm.

I hadn't heard this. This would make me want to go after who ever did this . . . real hard with criminal charges!

All that I know here is that the father was INSISTING that his kid could handle THIS GUN!

 

[Gammon]

This was a supervised event; the father wasn't given the Uzi to go and play with on another range. Anyone with half a brain knows that a small child can't safely handle a a mini Uzi. All of the adults supervising that range deserve to be hung, alongside the idiot father.

 

[m4bushy]

This was a supervised event; the father wasn't given the Uzi to go and play with on another range. Anyone with half a brain knows that a small child can't safely handle a a mini Uzi. All of the adults supervising that range deserve to be hung, alongside the idiot father.

i agree what kind of range officer would think a child could control a sub gun in the first place. At our field day, the only firearm a minor can fire is a single shot 22. It was extremely poor judgement to have a young person acting as a range officer in the first place.As for the father, i don't know what he had for gun knowledge or what he might of said to the range officer. IMHO the range officer and the club should be held responsible for this horrific accident.

 

[Martlet]

If I threw a loaded gun in a sock drawer and if I had a child that found it and shot himself to death, wouldn't you think I should be held criminally responsible for the kid's death? I do!

Absolutely not.

 

[appraiser]

The gun charges should have been dropped, at the time of the event, they did nothing illegal by giving an unlicensed person a weapon, because the unlicensed person was being supervised, by the parent who brought them there, and by a licensed individual.

I think the lawyers are, and rightfully so, trying to get the gun charges dropped so they can concentrate on defending the individual and the club against the criminal charge of manslaughter.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The gun charges should have been dropped, at the time of the event, they did nothing illegal by giving an unlicensed person a weapon, because the unlicensed person was being supervised, by the parent who brought them there, and by a licensed individual.

I agree with you, BUT I can tell you that it is Chief Glidden and EOPS position that it is a CRIME for anyone to touch a F/A (or burst mode) gun if that person doesn't already possess a MA green card!!

Ergo, according to them, ALL of us that participated in a CMP Match in Reading back in 1978 would be criminals if this was repeated after 1998!! The Army Reserve ran that CMP Match and we fired real M16s (single-shot mode) as part of the match.

Again, according to them, if you so much as put your hand on a machine gun at a gun show (I recall a US Army unit at the Springfield gun show a few years ago, with all kinds of toys laid out for people to touch) or gun dealer and don't possess a MA green card, that you are an instant felon.

I honestly expect MA courts to uphold the EOPS position as well. Their position is based on a LACK of a disclaimer allowing "training" or "supervision" while shooting machine guns w/o a permit while in the presence of an instructor or properly licensed person. [i.e. if it is not allowed in law, then it must be illegal! An interesting legal concept, I must say.]

 

[MisterHappy]

I was there.

While we left before the accident, both my sons and I shot.

It was a busy, noisy event, but from all I saw, the "instructors" [placed in quotes as while they were acting in that capacity, I have no knowledge as to whether they were formally credentialled] kept in physical contact and control of the shooters, and firearms. (I'm a big guy, but when I was using the BAR, the instructor was in constant physical contact).

If the grip safety was disabled, that is a problem, but this thread is the first I've heard of it.

i agree what kind of range officer would think a child could control a sub gun in the first place. At our field day, the only firearm a minor can fire is a single shot 22. It was extremely poor judgement to have a young person acting as a range officer in the first place.As for the father, i don't know what he had for gun knowledge or what he might of said to the range officer. IMHO the range officer and the club should be held responsible for this horrific accident.

As for the age of a shooter, it may or may not be relevant - my 10-year-old is an excellent Trap shot with a 12-ga. But he's a big kid, and he can handle the shotgun. Other kids of his age have trouble with a light 20 ga. Age is not the only factor - it's a matter of mental and physical maturity, as well. There are young (under 18) shooters that I know that I would trust much more than many "adults".

As for people being held responsible, it was an accident. Even the father, who arguably has the best reason to sue, has not.

I find it surprising that on a forum such as this, instead of acknowedgnig the accident, and the family's loss, a game of pin-the-blame on the [insert target here] is going on. I can see it on the Glob's Op-Ed page, but here?

I had a similar discussion at my club just after the accident - one of the members was of the opinion that "Kids don't need to shoot machine guns!" [Does anyone "need" to?] Then, I asked him where the line should be drawn - single-shot .22s? How about a .22 semi-auto? Can a 12-year old be permitted to learn to handle a pistol? How about a shotgun? Can he load two rounds to shoot Skeet? Sputtering was the reply. Once a line is drawn, it can easily be moved (all Mass shooters should recognize this principle).

After all the recent Regulations that were proposed used the Westfield accident as a causus belli.

It sucks for the family, and all involved, but...accidents....happen. Snowmobiles crash, canoes tip over, skiers hit trees. Fatalities result. Many, many more in these sports, than occur at shooting ranges (full auto or not).

 

[Admin]

No charges should be sought period. However IMO if the judge feels he has to charge someone I think the one person ultimately responsible is the father.

 

[Rangerbuehler]

Hmmm... so I think the real loser in this situation is... wait for it... all of us (lawful gunowners)! This will become the rallying cry and 'anecdotal evidence' of the 'fact' that firearms are unsafe, even when in the supervision of licensed professionals and even high-ranking law enforcement officials. Is this actually true? Absolutely not, but when did truth ever stop the anti-gunners? They'll claim that NH has some of the laxest gun laws in New England (as opposed to most constitutionally sound). Let's face it; responsible gun ownership on our part is key to us maintaining our rights, and every time something like this happens, I feel our rights becoming eroded so much more.

Is this a horrible accident? Yes. Could this have been prevented? Without me being there, I say yes: it would have involved a licensed supervisor of that station being a gatekeeper and telling the parent that the child would not likely be able to handle the kick of the weapon, and certainly would have involved not allowing someone who physically couldn't operate the firearm to do so under modified conditions (if the grip safety was depressed with a rubber band). But ultimately, firearms safety is taught for a reason. If the father didn't understand basic safety, then he's to blame. If the supervisor did not act responsibly, then he's also to blame. But to blame the coordinator of the event, the club, and the Police Chief... I think that's a stretch to prove culpability. First, there were waivers I assume. Then there were licensed supervisors at each station, right (so the club took the necessary care within the law to ensure safety). Unless one of these charged people said "let everyone shoot, even if you have to modify the weapons", then I think the chief and company should be absolved of responsibility.

 

[appraiser]

Mr. Happy if you go back and search the forum posts on the day of and following this accident, you'll see there was a great deal of sympathy expressed for the family involved.

And unless you've ever seen your child's casket lowered into the ground you have no clue what that family is going through, trust me on that. Nobody expressed more sympathy than me.

 

[Len-2A Training]

A couple of salient points here:

- To obtain a MA "green card" one must be 21 yrs old minimum. The RO/Supervisor was underage himself and thus could not be properly licensed to supervise the use of these guns. This makes both him and whoever put him in that position culpable in the eyes of the law. [If a judge wants to dodge the "can't legally touch it w/o possession of a MA "green card" position of EOPS, he can focus on the above and not rule on EOPS position at all.]

- Ask a lawyer some time about the "waivers" and how much water they hold in a court of law! I've been told that they are a "scare tactic" only to avoid lawsuits, just like the signs in a parking lot that they aren't responsible for the damage to your car. [I can attest to that one, as I have copies of the checks from the Big Y for ~$1200 damage to my car from one of their shopping carts!] I've been told that you can NOT legally waive your rights to being killed/hurt (or those of another . . . the child in this case).

 

[drgrant]

The sad thing is in any normal state this would have just been considered a terrible accident, and nothing more, and remedies would be dealt with outside the scope of the criminal court system.

Instead, Mass has to bring out bogus "manslaughter" charges over an incident which would normally never qualify as such.

-Mike

 

[Garys]

- Ask a lawyer some time about the "waivers" and how much water they hold in a court of law! I've been told that they are a "scare tactic" only to avoid lawsuits, just like the signs in a parking lot that they aren't responsible for the damage to your car. [I can attest to that one, as I have copies of the checks from the Big Y for ~$1200 damage to my car from one of their shopping carts!] I've been told that you can NOT legally waive your rights to being killed/hurt (or those of another . . . the child in this case).

You can't waive your right to collect on negligence. At least that's what my daughter was told when she wanted to sue a place, but had signed a waiver.

 

[Garys]

The sad thing is in any normal state this would have just been considered a terrible accident, and nothing more, and remedies would be dealt with outside the scope of the criminal court system.

Instead, Mass has to bring out bogus "manslaughter" charges over an incident which would normally never qualify as such.

-Mike

Sadly, there aren't many, if any, normal places left. In a normal, responsible society, everyone would say "Sorry for your loss" to the parents and then we'd all move on. Only now someone has to pay criminally, civilly, or both. No one is ever responsible for their own actions.

+1 for you Mike.

 

[Admin]

Sadly, there aren't many, if any, normal places left. In a normal, responsible society, everyone would say "Sorry for your loss" to the parents and then we'd all move on. Only now someone has to pay criminally, civilly, or both. No one is ever responsible for their own actions.

+1 for you Mike.

It's the only way they can feed the system. If you press charges on everyone automatically you secure not only your job but the job of everyone in the system.

 

[John2]

I was on the next range over when it happened. The initial conclusion by both local and State police was that it was an accident. It wasn't until the "Violence Policy Center" smelled blood, contacted the DA, did manslaughter come up. If it weren't for underhanded politics, this would have been written off for what it was...an accident. But even with an accident there were things done, not done that lead to the accident. Unless you were standing behind watching the boy fire the uzi, you don't know what happened to cause this accident. Plus, I wouldn't believe the DA since he is the prosecutor and has likely been instructed to ruin the club. Politics. But then, this IS Massachusetts.

 

[Rangerbuehler]

Wait a minute... "I'm not from 'round here", but I thought this happened in NH, not MA. In that case, I'd like to revise my comments to say that the anti-gunners will say "Even with MA laws being some of the safest (read most restrictive), more needs to be done to ensure no one is ever harmed by a firearm in this state (read touches a firearm in this state)." Oh, I hate the elected officials in this state.

 

[MisterHappy]

Mr. Happy if you go back and search the forum posts on the day of and following this accident, you'll see there was a great deal of sympathy expressed for the family involved.

And unless you've ever seen your child's casket lowered into the ground you have no clue what that family is going through, trust me on that. Nobody expressed more sympathy than me.

If my statements were construed as being unsympathetic to the family, I apologize- that was not my intent.

My problem was with the finger-pointing and blame-fixing after the fact.

A "No Shooters Under 21" poilcy would have prevented it, by default. My point was that a "No shooting of anything if you're under 21" policy is the logical outgrowth of this.

After the accident, I remember the father being on TV, saying, essentially, "This was a terrible accident." As far as I'm concerned, if that was his feeling, that should have been it.

When shooters take aim [irony intended] at other shooters in the aftermath of an accident, it serves no purpose to our community, though, to others less sympathetic to our sport, it serves as excellent propaganda.

My salient point remains: It was an accident; it was a tragedy. But it is not the only fatality from youth sports. It's easy to blame the gun; the RO; the Club; the Cheif from Pelham. Even the dad (as has been done, here). But if this child were to have been killed playing baseball, there would be no hue and cry to ban that sport (from 1973 to 1995 there were 88 baseball realted child deaths - an average of 4/ year. Source: http://www.kidsource.com/CPSC/baseball.6.10.html).

If shooters are several separate communities, as opposed to one, we might as well turn them all in at the next toys-for-guns roundup. Our sport is a safe sport. THAT IS THE MESSAGE THAT WE NEED TO GET OUT!

 

[kurtb]

i agree what kind of range officer would think a child could control a sub gun in the first place.

I heard that the "range officer" for this particular tragedy was a 15 year old kid (or something like that) ..... ?

 

[cekim]

I heard that the "range officer" for this particular tragedy was a 15 year old kid (or something like that) ..... ?

Something like that, but from what I have heard, he did his job as best he could... Should not have been put in that situation...

This sort of tragedy points out the many flaws of our justice system that is less interested in making society safer and more interested in producing statistics that can be used to grand-stand at the next election...

I am far from a "soft on crime" guy, in fact, I generally think harsher penalties are in order for most violent crimes, but our justice system needs a whole-sale review from the perspective of "are we making ourselves safer by putting people who do X,Y, and Z" behind bars for decades at a time, while we let violent criminals walk...

 

[Bill Nance]

If my statements were construed as being unsympathetic to the family, I apologize- that was not my intent.

My problem was with the finger-pointing and blame-fixing after the fact.

A "No Shooters Under 21" poilcy would have prevented it, by default. My point was that a "No shooting of anything if you're under 21" policy is the logical outgrowth of this.

After the accident, I remember the father being on TV, saying, essentially, "This was a terrible accident." As far as I'm concerned, if that was his feeling, that should have been it.

When shooters take aim [irony intended] at other shooters in the aftermath of an accident, it serves no purpose to our community, though, to others less sympathetic to our sport, it serves as excellent propaganda.

My salient point remains: It was an accident; it was a tragedy. But it is not the only fatality from youth sports. It's easy to blame the gun; the RO; the Club; the Cheif from Pelham. Even the dad (as has been done, here). But if this child were to have been killed playing baseball, there would be no hue and cry to ban that sport (from 1973 to 1995 there were 88 baseball realted child deaths - an average of 4/ year. Source: http://www.kidsource.com/CPSC/baseball.6.10.html).

If shooters are several separate communities, as opposed to one, we might as well turn them all in at the next toys-for-guns roundup. Our sport is a safe sport. THAT IS THE MESSAGE THAT WE NEED TO GET OUT!

I have really mixed feelings on this one.

In general I agree with everything you said. But the "we need to gather round the flag no matter what" mentality doesn't serve us either.

I don't know if criminal charges should have been filed because I wasn't there and didn't take the reports. All I can say is that if I had been the range officer an eight-year-old would never have fired that weapon.

My concern wouldn't have been for HIS safety. I think what happened was a freak accident. I would have been afraid for the other shooter's safety if the gun got away from him. Bad judgement, absolutely. Criminal misconduct? probably not, but I don't think we're well served by an automatic reaction on the other side of the question either.

At eight years old, even in the "old days" kids were shooting shotguns and .22 rifles and maybe Dad's .45, not a mini-uzi, which is pretty notorious for being hard to manage by ADULTS.

All that being said, I figure any prosecution in Mass needs to be judged on a "guilty of antigunnery" until proven otherwise basis.

 

[troda]

Who the hell puts a 15yo as RO in he first place? Let alone at the MG range. The kid is to young to have been put in that situation. The person who gave him that responsibility is partly to blame. I hadn't heard that the father bullied the kid into allowing his son to shoot. But this just strengthens my argument.