Police chief, gun club indicted in boy’s Uzi death

Status
Not open for further replies.
rwl1955 said:
This is not good. Involuntary manslaughter? For what? What a bullshit charge.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index....cted_i.html?category=Crime&category=Westfield
Click to expand...

And so it begins....[sad]

In case you can't get the link:

By BUFFY SPENCER
[email protected]

SPRINGFIELD - Pelham Police Chief Edward Fleury was indicted for involuntary manslaughter Thursday for his role in the death of an 8-year-old Connecticut boy who shot himself accidentally at a Westfield gun show in October.

Also indicted for involuntary manslaughter was the Westfield Sportsman's Club, where the death occurred, and two other individuals, identified in court records as Carl Giuffre and Domenico Spano.

Fleury and the sportsman's club were each also indicted on four counts of furnishing a machine gun to a person under 18.

COP Firearms & Training, a private company owned by Fleury, co-sponsored the gun show.

Hampden District Attorney William M. Bennett said Giuffre and Spano supplied the machine guns used at the sportman's club, but he said Fleury had assured them the action was legal.

Bennett conducted a press conference on the incident late Thursday morning.

A Hampden Superior Court grand jury has been weighing whether to issue criminal charges in the case.

Christopher K. Bizilj of Ashford, Conn., died from a head wound after he lost control of a Micro UZI submachine gun as he fired it during the gun show on Oct. 26.
See more in Crime, Westfield
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Fleury and the sportsman's club were each also indicted on four counts of furnishing a machine gun to a person under 18.

anyne have MGL for this??
 
Police chief, gun club indicted in boy's Uzi death
13 minutes ago

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) — A police chief and a gun club in western Massachusetts have been indicted on charges of involuntary manslaughter in the death of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun at a gun fair.

Pelham Police Chief Edward Fleury owns the COP Firearms & Training, which sponsored the gun show last month in Westfield.

Christopher Bizilj (bah-SEAL') of Ashford, Conn., shot himself in the head when he lost control of the 9mm micro submachine gun as it recoiled while he was firing at a pumpkin.

The Westfield Sportsman's Club and two other men also were indicted on involuntary manslaughter charges.

Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett said Fleury and the club also face four charges of furnishing a machine gun to a minor.

Fleury and the club did not immediately return calls for comment.
 
SORRY TO POST IN ALL CAPS BUT SINCE THE FATHER ALLOWED HIS SON TO SHOOT IS HE BEING CHARGED WITH MANSLAUGHTER TOO!
 
SORRY TO POST IN ALL CAPS BUT SINCE THE FATHER ALLOWED HIS SON TO SHOOT IS HE BEING CHARGED WITH MANSLAUGHTER TOO!


Bennett said no indictments were sought against Charles Bizilj, Christopher's father, who selected the gun that caused the fatality for his son.

Bennett said, "The father will be punished every day of the rest of his life."
Click to expand...
 
Considering the number of MG shoots and activities that have happened in MA through the years I am very surprised that any MGL prohibiting the furnishing of a MG to a person under 18 has not been the source of someone crying foul before.

I await the response from one of our lawyer brethren on this.

-R
 
evan9201 said:
that makes no sense, the police chief hand nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...

Not true. The police chief owns the company that was running the event.

Involuntary manslaughter? For what? What a bullshit charge.
Click to expand...
I disagree. This is what the charge of involuntary manslaughter is for -- for when someone is guilty of wanton disregard of the dangers of a situation that leads to a death. That's what happened here. The people running the event never should have let the 8-year-old shoot a micro-Uzi.

There was no way a child that small could be expected to control that gun.
 
He said there is no exception to the law allowing the furnishing of the guns with parental consent.

Bennett said that it has become clear that there is a widespread misunderstanding about what is allowed.

He said he has been in touch with Kevin M. Burke, Secretary of Public Safety, and he expects additional guidelines will be issued to prevent such events happening again.
Click to expand...

I agree this is a total witch hunt and they want someone to pay for this.

But, and it's a weak but, the only silver lining I can see here is the above quote. Widespread Misunderstanding. That's an understatement. May force our lawmakers to come up with "understandable" laws. I know, doubtful. Something GOAL can use to push proper legislation though.
 
Firearms are dangerous TOOLS. This is a known fact to ANYONE. If you let YOUR kid use a dangerous TOOL, then YOU are responsible for their safety and actions. I feel bad for the family but WTF ... take some responsibility and don't sue everyone and their brother because YOU f**ked up.
 
M1911 said:
Not true. The police chief owns the company that was running the event.

I disagree. This is what the charge of involuntary manslaughter is for -- for when someone is guilty of wanton disregard of the dangers of a situation that leads to a death. That's what happened here. The people running the event never should have let the 8-year-old shoot a micro-Uzi.

There was no way a child that small could be expected to control that gun.
Click to expand...

I don't know how big this kid was but some 8 year olds are pretty big. There would not have been any serious danger if the person supervising had been in contact with the firearm along with this child unfortunatly someone was negligent.
 
scouter-rick said:
Considering the number of MG shoots and activities that have happened in MA through the years I am very surprised that any MGL prohibiting the furnishing of a MG to a person under 18 has not been the source of someone crying foul before.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the MGL is very confusing on this issue. I am aware of three sections in the law concerning minors and shooting, and those three sections conflict.

Chapter 140 S130 says it is legal to provide a minor with a rifle or shotgun for instruction, but it forbids letting a minor shoot a machine gun (among other things):

Chapter 140: Section 130. Sale or furnishing weapons or ammunition to aliens or minors; penalty; exceptions

Section 130. Whoever sells or furnishes a rifle, shotgun or ammunition to any alien eighteen years of age or older who does not hold a permit card issued to him under section one hundred and thirty-one H or, except as provided in this section or section one hundred and thirty-one E, whoever sells or furnishes any alien or any person under eighteen years of age a rifle, shotgun, machine gun or ammunition, or whoever sells or furnishes to any person under 21 years of age a firearm or large capacity rifle or shotgun or ammunition therefor shall have his license to sell firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns and or ammunition revoked and shall not be entitled to apply for such license for ten years from the date of such revocation and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, or by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than ten years or by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this section or section one hundred and thirty-one E shall be construed to prohibit a parent or guardian from allowing his child or ward, who has not attained age fifteen, the supervised use of a rifle or shotgun or ammunition therefor, according to the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-nine C, nor from furnishing such child or ward, who has attained age fifteen, with a rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon or ammunition; provided, however, that said child or ward, being fifteen years of age or older, has been issued a valid firearm identification card or alien permit to possess a rifle or shotgun which is in his possession. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an instructor from furnishing rifles or shotguns or ammunition therefor to pupils; provided, however, that said instructor has the consent of a parent or guardian of a pupil under the age of eighteen years.
Click to expand...

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-130.htm

In contrast, MGL Ch140 S129c Paragraph m suggests it is legal provide a handgun, rifle, or shotgun during instruction:

(m) The temporary holding, handling or firing of a firearm for examination, trial or instruction in the presence of a holder of a license to carry firearms, or the temporary holding, handling or firing of a rifle or shotgun for examination, trial or instruction in the presence of a holder of a firearm identification card, or where such holding, handling or firing is for a lawful purpose;
Click to expand...

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-129c.htm

Furthermore, MGL Ch131 S14 appears to approve target practice by minors when supervised by a licensed individual:

Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prohibit any minor from participating in target practice on any skeet trap or target range; nor prohibit a minor twelve to fourteen years of age, inclusive, from participating in the hunting of birds and mammals when accompanied by a duly licensed adult; provided, however, that the bag limit established by law or regulation for one person shall not be exceeded; and, provided further, that only one firearm shall be used. Not more than one such minor shall at any time accompany one adult, and such minors shall not be required to be licensed.
Click to expand...

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/131-14.htm

I am not a lawyer, and frankly I'm out of my depth here. The laws appear to me to conflict. I believe that the conservative course of action for a shooter and club is to only allow minors to shoot low capacity rifles and shotguns until this is clarified (probably by case law). Yes, that does suck.
 
MichaelJ said:
Firearms are dangerous TOOLS. This is a known fact to ANYONE. If you let YOUR kid use a dangerous TOOL, then YOU are responsible for their safety and actions. I feel bad for the family but WTF ... take some responsibility and don't sue everyone and their brother because YOU f**ked up.
Click to expand...
The family was assured that licensed instructors would be supervising the shooters. I think it is a reasonable for the father to assume that the instructors would ensure safety.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect the father to understand that it would be almost impossible for an 8-year-old to control the recoil of a micro-Uzi. He saw that the gun was small and thought that would be easier for his son to handle than a larger gun, not knowing that the smaller gun would be difficult to control.
 
wahsben said:
There would not have been any serious danger if the person supervising had been in contact with the firearm along with this child unfortunatly someone was negligent.
Click to expand...

I agree that the instructor should have had his hands on the gun at all times. Not doing so was negligent.
 
M1911 said:
The family was assured that licensed instructors would be supervising the shooters. I think it is a reasonable for the father to assume that the instructors would ensure safety.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect the father to understand that it would be almost impossible for an 8-year-old to control the recoil of a micro-Uzi. He saw that the gun was small and thought that would be easier for his son to handle than a larger gun, not knowing that the smaller gun would be difficult to control.
Click to expand...


I also heard a rumor that because his hand wasn't large enough for the grip safety...does this firearm have one? That they used a rubber band.

As I've never seen a Micro-Uzi...I can't validate that...nor can I say that it's true as I wasn't at the shoot. And this could be just that...rumor. And I hope that it was...
 
M1911 said:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an instructor from furnishing rifles or shotguns or ammunition therefor to pupils; provided, however, that said instructor has the consent of a parent or guardian of a pupil under the age of eighteen years.
Click to expand...

This one won't apply because regardless if the owner was certified or not, he was not supervising, the indictment says someone else was. So contradiction in law could likely be a defense if the contradiction was in play, but here it appears not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

not indicted.......2yrs later, indicted
Replies
5
Views
507
LakeTrout
L
Up Next - Going after Police Trade-In guns.
2
Replies
34
Views
805
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
New Orleans Police Chief Pushes More Gun-Free Zones — Where Tourists Can’t Be Armed for Self-Defense
Replies
21
Views
365
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The new NES stud club member badge - the blue envelope from state police!
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
headednorth
headednorth
Modifying preban uzi mags for AR9 colt lower
Replies
20
Views
433
maritz01
maritz01
Back
Top Bottom