Gun Show Death Verdict

[BigFish]

"Not Guilty" and rightly so in my opinion! That trial should never have happened. I thought from the beginning the Father should have been found equally culpable for the accidental death of his son based on the fact that he himself allowed his son to fire such a weapon. I am a Father and I would never have allowed my son at that age to fire such a weapon. I am not a gun owner but common sense would have told me that an automatic weapon of that type has quite a kick to it....too dangerous for a boy that age to handle. That Police Chief should never have been put on trial but at least the ending was just.

[Hookedagain]

I agree. My son is eight and he shoots, but I would NEVER let him shoot a weapon like that. Period! I din't even let him load more than one round at a time, every gun I let him shoot is treated like a single shot. This never give him the chance for an accidental pull of the trigger due to recoil, or the procussion of the first shot. I am with you on this, I don't think he should have been charged.

"Guns only have two enemies....Rust and Politicians!"

[BigFish]

Just a little common sense right?? Granted there was more than enough stupidity to go around that day but I felt it was wrong to heap all of the blame on that one person when the blame begins with poor judgment on the Fathers behalf. I do feel just terrible for the Father and his family however......just a terrible accident. My heart really goes out to them.

[nightfighter]

Agreed on the father being most responsible party in this tragedy.... But who brought this to trial? Was it the family? Or the state?And was the family pushing the state to prosecute? The father is an ER doc for crying out loud....

[BigFish]

Ross....another reason he should have had his thinking cap on. How about charging the Father with "Child Endangerment"???? He signed a liability waver??? Common sense tells me that nobody under 16 should even be allowed to handle a firearm unless it is under the direct supervision of a relation.....parent, Uncle, Grandfather. Then the responsibilty is all theirs. As far as a weapon of that magnitude.....there is no need of them in any capacity being held by private owners in my opinion!

[buckman]

IDK about this one.He should have been found guilty of something. It was stupid and the fact that he was a Police Chief I'm sure put the father at ease that his son was in good hands.

[BigFish]

Like I said....there was stupidity aplenty and no one person should pay the penalty for it! From the Father to the young unlicensed 15 year old assisting with the gun to the Police Chief himself......but not one of them more responsible than the other. The Father lacked good common sense.

[Backbeach Jake]

There is not a person on this Earth who could have convinced me that putting an automatic weapon in my young child's hands would be OK. A horrible tradgedy that could have been avoided. My heart goes out to all concerned..

[Swimmer]

Without a doubt the right verdict. Never should have been charged. The DA who tried the case said he didn't charge the father because he had been through enough, bullchit. Thats nothing but covering the fathers crimes. The father saw the advertisment, brought his kid there, signed the form, stood only a few feet away and first had his other son shoot, then the younger boy. Its not like the Fleury guy who organized it said to the father hey bring your kid to the gun shoot, I want to place him in danger, the father did that all by himself. Its class based prosecution. The da considers himself a proffessional equal with the doctor and looks down on the ex-chief. Either that the DA got phone calls at home about who to prosecute and who not to. That jury whould have only had lunch, taken a vote and went home. Short day, no doubt. Now maybe the other two people charged wont be prosecuted any further. And besdies, at a private range, where one has paid to attend and event, making himself a range member for the day, makes it perfectly legal for that person to shoot any GD weapon thats there. The DA was trying create new laws.

No one will ever be able to tell me that the DA didn't have open conversation with his staff and politicaL SUPPORTERS OVER WHETHER THERE WILL BE A STORM, HORNETS NEST, in the papers about not charging the father and whether or not he will survive the storm.

[Swimmer]

I wonder if the district attorney office filed the legally mandated 51A, immediately by phone, and then the written report, reporting potential child abuse within 24 hours. Would be interesting to know. If he didn't, then he himself can be prosecuted.

[BigFish]

Betting the family files a civil suit against the Chief.....which would be disappointing, classless and wrong!

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by BigFish

Common sense tells me that nobody under 16 should even be allowed to handle a firearm unless it is under the direct supervision of a relation.....parent, Uncle, Grandfather. Then the responsibilty is all theirs. As far as a weapon of that magnitude.....there is no need of them in any capacity being held by private owners in my opinion!

I think that may put a damper on Summer camp programs across the nation. Nothing wrong w/ a kid using a firearm under proper supervision...regardless if it’s a relative or not. There we countless violations of common sense in this story, by Everybody involved, but I don't think people need to go to the extreme.

Boy Scouts of America does a lot of work w/ Firearms and Firearm safety. In Cub Scouts, which are boys ages 6-11, they are allowed to use Pellet rifles. Doesn't mean we send them out to shoot cans all day. We teach them proper safety procedures, from entering the range to asking for assisance and more importantly, listening to the Range Instructor.

When they go into Boy Scouts, Which are boys ages 11-18, they are allowed to use 22 caliber rifles and Shotguns.....again under specific guidelines and adhering to the rules of the range. They also offer Merit Badges in Rifle Shooting and Shotgun Shooting which focus on safety as well as the ability to use the firearm, actually hitting what you are aiming at.

If the Scout decides to Go into Venturing, Boys and Girls ages 14-21, they may use Pistols. Always supervised by BSA certified instructors.

Last year we partnered with the Rod and Gun club in Georgetown and most of the kids in our troop got there Rifle Merit Badge....this year we are looking to do the same for the Shot Gun Merit Badge.

I had this argument with my wife, who is one of them paranoid anti-gun types, and told her that if my son ever comes across a gun that I would prefer he knows exactly what to do with it than have no clue what to do with it and just fumbles around with it. She couldn't argue that logic

I think lack of common sense is far more dangerous than fire-arms.......there is something they should have laws against.

[nightfighter]

While all weapons discussed above can inflict deadly force, we've got apples and oranges. The weapon in the accident was a micro uzi. This weapon is more inclined to "climb" when in fully automatic mode. An eight YO with the short stock, not in "firing position", could easily have lost control and had his finger freeze on the trigger, IMO. Tests showing the climb or spray from increasing distances magnify the effect of recoil with such a weapon fired in extended automatic mode. The weapon was designed for close action, such as clearing bunkers, in the hands of "elite" forces.... A totally different animal from a single shot .22 on a range with the BSA....

[BigFish]

Kevin this is an age of irresponsibility and litigation! Every little thing that happens and its someone elses fault and there is a lawsuit and life as we know it changes going forward because nobody wants to get sued. Wait until there is a Boyscout incident (God forbid) and the Scouts will be forced to change their rules, policies and beliefs because someone was irresponsible and could not simply own it! I agree with everything you say about the Scouts and that type of experience has great value in teaching young children to be responsible in so many ways.

[The Dad Fisherman]

I know this Ross, the statement was made that nobody under the age of 16 should handle a firearm w/ out family supervision. I was saying that that is a little extreme. Firearms can be used w/ common sense prevailing without taking it out of the hands of people that can show kids the Proper way.

If you notice BSA doesn't have a Micro Uzi Merit Badge...common sense dictates that a kid shouldn't be using this.....

[The Dad Fisherman]

Larry, BSA gets sued quite a bit....believe me. And they change rules as time goes by. If you compare BSA 50 years ago to today....a lot has changed.

We also shouldn't change everything that the kids enjoy doing and the basis of our program for consant fear of lawsuits.

[PaulS]

Wasn't one of the charges something like allowing someone under 12??? to fire a gun??? If so, he should have been guilty on that charge. On the main charge - innocent. Feel very sorry for the father and family.

[fishpoopoo]

i have two very good shooting buddies who were right behind the poor kid when it happened.

based on what i have heard, the father was (allegedly) being a gigantic tool and (allegedly) pushed his kid into risk-taking activities.

the father (allegedly) encouraged his son to specifically fire a full size uzi ... when the full size uzi was not available, the micro-uzi was (allegedly) selected.

for anyone who has fired full auto subguns, smg's with high cyclic rates creep up and need to be controlled. the kid apparently did not have the proper stance, grip, and placement of the stock on the shoulder required to manage what can be a difficult to control subgun.

i have also heard that the father (allegedly) had to be told to get off the damn berm in front of the firing line several times while attempting to photograph his son.

after he was shot in the head, the kid was out. his dad is a doc and was (reportedly) too freaked out to render aid. while waiting for an ambulance, the kid woke up and started crying.

ems arrived, but kid died at the hospital when inevitable brain swelling occurred.

as a father, this makes me so angry. a good deal of the responsibility for this lies with the father.

the so-called "range officer" supervising the kid was a teenager, but he was apparently an experienced shooter. nonetheless an adult should have been supervising the child.

irresponsible dad.

poor choice of subgun.

improper supervision.

bad outcome.

[fishpoopoo]

p.s. one criminal trial down, two to go.

[BigFish]

Again I do agree with you Kevin. Maybe my point should have been....."WTF is anyone doing with a weapon like that anyway???!!!!" Right to bear arms??? Sure I agree with that but for what purpose does anybody need a weapon like that mini uzi???

Fishpoopoo......don't get me going on what a friggin' moron I think the Father is as it stands allowing those young children to fire that weapon......nevermind what you just said that he was acting like a tool!!!! Again I ask.....why is the Father not being charged with "Child Endangerment"????? Possibly even being charged with involutary manslaughter????? Where is the justice????

If the others go to trial it will end the same way! I think the charges may wind up being dropped....at least they should be!

[fishpoopoo]

Larry,

The Commonwealth's prosecuter stated that "the father has suffered enough" as justifcation for not charging the father.

[BigFish]

Well the burden of the blame lies with him......its up to him to use common sense in these matters and he failed his son! I feel horribly for the Father I do but he should shoulder as much if not more of the blame than anyone else involved....not be exempt from it!

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by BigFish

Well the burden of the blame lies with him......its up to him to use common sense in these matters and he failed his son! I feel horribly for the Father I do but he should shoulder as much if not more of the blame than anyone else involved....not be exempt from it!

i think many share that sentiment.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Wasn't one of the charges something like allowing someone under 12??? to fire a gun??? If so, he should have been guilty on that charge. On the main charge - innocent. Feel very sorry for the father and family.

No such charge, when shooting at a gun club.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

Larry,

The Commonwealth's prosecuter stated that "the father has suffered enough" as justifcation for not charging the father.

Thats why things are the way they are in Massachusetts. That and VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

No such charge, when shooting at a gun club.

SPRINGFIELD — Massachusetts prosecutors have dropped involuntary manslaughter charges against two men in connection with the death of an 8-year-old boy who shot himself with an Uzi, after a third defendant was acquitted last week.

A clerk at Hampden Superior Court in Springfield says motions to drop the charges were filed Tuesday in the cases of Domenico Spano of New Milford, Conn., and Carl Giuffre of West Hartford, Conn.

Christopher Bizilj of Ashford died in October 2008 after an Uzi submachine gun he was firing kicked back and shot him in the head at a gun fair in Westfield. Authorities said Spano and Giuffre brought machine guns to the event.

A jury on Friday acquitted former Pelham, Mass., Police Chief Edward Fleury of involuntary manslaughter and furnishing machine guns to minors. Fleury organized the gun fair.

[Fly Rod]

Father one hundred per cent negligent. Regardless if the father should had been tried in court, remember that he has to live with himself being responsible for his sons death.There is also some liability on the gun club too. Absolutely no one should have allowed that kid to have pulled the trigger.

[BigFish]

Thats true FR he does have to live with it and that is a heavy enough load......and thats where it should have ended.

[fishpoopoo]

Breaking:

Remaining charges being dropped against two defendants.

My heart just aches looking at the photo of that boy.

Charges being dropped in Bizilj case | WWLP.com

Charges being dropped in Bizilj case
Decision comes after Fleury verdict
Updated: Tuesday, 18 Jan 2011, 12:34 PM EST
Published : Tuesday, 18 Jan 2011, 12:01 PM EST

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP-AP) - Prosecutors are dropping involuntary manslaughter charges against two men in connection with the accidental shooting death of eight year-old Christopher Bizilj, after a third defendant was acquitted last week.

The Hampden County District Attorney's office told 22News that they will not be pursuing involuntary manslaughter charges against Domenico Spano of New Milford, Connecticut, and Carl Giuffre of West Hartford, Connecticut.

Special Prosecutor and Former District Attorney William Bennett says in documents filed Tuesday in Hampden Superior Court he doesn't believe prosecuting Domenico Spano of New Milford, Conn., and Carl Giuffre of West Hartford, Conn., is "in the interests of justice."

Bizilj, of Ashford, Conn., died in October 2008 after an Uzi submachine gun he was firing kicked back and shot him in the head at a gun fair at the Westfield Sportsmen's Club. Authorities said that Spano and Giuffre brought machine guns to the event.

A jury on Friday acquitted former Pelham Police Chief Edward Fleury of involuntary manslaughter and furnishing machine guns to minors. Fleury's company co-sponsored the fair.

[Saltheart]

Its lucky others besides the kid didn't get hit. Things were out of control , that gun could have fired in any direction before and after the kid got hit.

I've seen Uzi's and Mack 10's many a time where they didn't belong. To me , that's something that should only come out when the most experienced guys are together. Maybe a demo with only a pro handling the weapon but never should it get put into a case where anybody who wants can just step up and fire it.

As was said , lots of stupid around that day. I think many people , not just the father , will have a lot of regrets about the part they played that day.

I was a few days shy of my 11th birthday the first time I fired a 22. It was a very organized session at the Boys Scout camp. I'll swear ther were more adults supervising the action than kids shooting . It was all formal "ready on the left"... "ready on the right" etc. Total respect for the weapons was being taught. This business of letting kids just walk up and try a few shots is not the way to do things.