Gun fair organizer acquitted in boy's death

[sinkingfeeling]

Source: MSNBC.com

The organizer of a gun fair in which an 8-year-old boy accidently killed himself with an Uzi submachine gun was acquitted by a jury in Springfield, Mass., on Friday.

She noted the testimony of Michael Spano, the 15-year-old who supervised Christopher at the time of the accident. Spano said he told Charles Bizilj twice that he didn't think it was a good idea for Christopher and his then-11-year-old brother, Colin, to fire the guns because of their strong kickback and rapid fire.

But prosecutor William Bennett said it was Fleury who made it possible for Christopher to fire the Uzi that day. Bennett said Fleury recklessly organized the event, had others bring machine guns to it and wrongly advertised to the public that there was no age limit and no permits were needed.

Michael Spano's father, Domenico Spano of New Milford, Conn., and Carl Giuffre of Hartford, Conn., were also charged with involuntary manslaughter and await trial after pleading not guilty. The two men, who had machine gun licenses, brought the automatic weapons to the expo.


Read more: http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/14/5841219-gun-fair-organizer-acquitted-in-boys-death

---

I have no comment.

[brendan120678]

1. The whole story is tragic, but this verdict...

is the proper one.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. so sad but a fair verdict

[Atypical Liberal]

3. Fair verdict.

This was the right decision. The father brought his 11 and 8-year-old sons to the event, signed the release waivers, and picked out the weapon they wanted to shoot.

The father brought his children to this event, signed the paperwork for them to participate, and helped them participate. It's sad, but it's all on the father.

Tragic thing to live with.

[TheMadMonk]

7. Should not have permitted the father to sign waivers for his children.

There is such a thing as using common sense, uncommon as it truly may be.

[Atypical Liberal]

11. They told him at least twice...

According to testimony, they told the father at least twice that it probably was not a good idea.

[TheMadMonk]

14. "Probably not a good idea." Not good enough. Pontius Pilate...

...eat your bloody heart out.

It's not a good idea to stand by and watch children poke forks into toasters, even if the house IS fitted with saftey switches.

A lot of things are damned foolish things to do and you don't absolve yourself from blame as an event organiser with a bloody waiver. If yours is the power, you forbid foolish/potentially dangerous actions outright.

[Atypical Liberal]

25. Straw man - no one is talking about children.

It's not a good idea to stand by and watch children poke forks into toasters, even if the house IS fitted with saftey switches.

A lot of things are damned foolish things to do and you don't absolve yourself from blame as an event organiser with a bloody waiver. If yours is the power, you forbid foolish/potentially dangerous actions outright

This is a straw man argument. No one is talking about letting children make uninformed decisions.

We are talking about an adult. An adult who chose to take his children to a gun range for a machine-gun shoot. An adult who chose which machine gun he wanted his children to shoot, an adult to signed waivers to allow his children to shoot machine guns, and an adult who ignored warnings that the firearm might not be appropriate for his 8-year-old son to shoot, and an adult who had seen other shooters shoot the same weapon prior to the tragedy with his son.

Additionally, this boy's father was an emergency room doctor. One would assume he's rather a bright fellow.

Also, this event has been going on for seven years without incident.

This is about as far away from a child poking forks into a toaster as you can get.

But don't fret. This was just the criminal suit. Next up will probably be the civil suit.

[TheMadMonk]

26. No it's alowing idiots to make demonstrably harmful decisions...

...on behalf of children and absolving youself of blame with a signature on a piece of paper.

It is exactly about children poking forks into toasters. If I am in YOUR house and I observe YOUR child poking one of YOUR forks into YOUR toaster, and I further observe that YOU are failing to intervene then I bloody well WILL and should.

You can replace any one (or all) of those "you"s and "I"s with "someone" and the argument remains 100% valid.

By your arguments carnival operators could save themselves a hell of a lot of grief simply by printing a total waiver of responsibility on the back of ride tokens/tickets. If daddy wants to take his three year old on the "Slingshot" no problems, they bought the tickets. Whoops. Well it IS called "The Slingshot".

Exactly what has the profession of the child's parent got to do with this matter? "Should know better" is a fucking common theme when it comes to all sorts of preventable accidents. (The "preventable" in there is a bit of a giveaway.) Yes you would think he was a smart guy. Real fucking smart when he thinks "my kid can fire a 9mm" (even as the kid has to bring the muzzle down 10 inches between shots) is equivalent to their holding the gun rock steady whilst it fires 15 times per second.

This is why event organisers are expected to put in place rules that prevent dickheads who think they know everything/better from pulling stupid stunts like handing a fully atomatic weapon to a child. This is why we don't let daddies decide that it's all right for a their 10 year olds to drive NASCAR.

The uninformed decisions of the child are irrelevant. It is the informed decisions of the adults PRESENT (even if that decision is to not act at all) which I am speaking of. I know how strong the average (or even above average) eight year old is. I will accept the expert opinion that a mini-uzi is not an easy thing to control, for even a strong adult who KNOWS what to expect. I also know that the natural reaction, when losing control of something in one's grasp, is to grip tighter, including on the bloody trigger when that something happens to be a gun. A. B. S. O. L. O. U. T. L. Y.__G. U. A. R. A. N. T. E. E. D. to result in a wild spray of bullets.

What gets hit might not be within the ken of foresight. That bullets would fly in directions other than that of the intended target when an fully automatic weapon gets placed in the hands of an eight year old was 100% predictable.

But, the law says he got his bit of paper signed, so the bloke who made it possible for this kid to kill himself gets off scott free. And presuming Daddy's trial follows the organisers, the Americal Legal System will actually allow him to put the blame back on the organiser, (who under double jepoardy is safe) and collect restitution from the organisers insurer. Who will of course then pass on costs to its other customers.

It's a wonderful fucking system of constitutional freedom that allows ALL responsible parties to a use those freedoms to absolve themselves of all blame for the predictable (and predicted) direct/indirect results of their actions and share the price of making good on the consequences of those actions only amonst those who DON'T CONTRIBUTE to the original harm.

[LisaL]

20. The father works as an emergency room doctor.

Thus, one would think he should have had plenty of common sense.

[JI7]

9. but they should not have allowed that in the first place or advertised it as no age limits

[Atypical Liberal]

10. Ultimately, it was the father's choice.

It was the father's choice to allow his children to shoot an Uzi. He watched is 11-year-old do it first, he should have known what he was getting in to.

[MH1]

17. You don't give a known alcoholic a 'choice' of vodka or selter water

There are choices that shouldn't be given to people.

'Yeah this gun could kick and kill your kid but do you want to have him try it?'

[LisaL]

19. There is no law that an alcoholic can not buy alcohol. So I fail

to see your point.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. Alcoholics have that choice every day.

You don't give a known alcoholic a 'choice' of vodka or selter water

Alcoholics have to make that choice every day, and moreover, they are responsible for their choices, too.

There are choices that shouldn't be given to people.

If I had to summarize the destruction of liberty in a sentence, that would be in my top ten. Liberty is about having choices.

[pnorman]

4. "strong kickback and rapid fire."

Poorly supervised --- "deplorable", but NO culpability whatsoever?

[forty6]

5. No one said "NO" culpability... a jury said no criminal record or jail time....

we all know who is "culpable", and those who are "culpable" know it, too!

[boppers]

6. When will Charles Bizilj be charged?

How is it that he's not on trial, when he basically set up the circumstances for his son to kill himself, *and* was warned about it.

[Lurks Often]

13. He won't be

because the DA Attorney feels he has suffered enough and because they had to grant him immunity so he could testify at the trial.

[LisaL]

8. I am not at all surprised. After all 15 year old testified

that it was twice suggested to the father of the dead child that an 8 year old using an Uzi might not be the best idea.

[Pancho Sanza]

12. Some people apparently think the father hasn't suffered enough, losing his son

they want him to be punished more.

[MH1]

15. people who abuse their kids and the kids die are routinely sent to jail

I'm on the fence on this one because I don't think it was deliberate abuse in this case - but I have to wonder how a doctor could be so f***ing dumb.

Handing a machine gun to a kid that is out of that kid's ability to handle is abuse, I think. But the 15 year old wasn't in a position to stop it and didn't have the maturity (couldn't be expected to have!) to buck what he thought he was supposed to be doing, even though he sensed it was wrong.

[Pancho Sanza]

22. I don't believe stupidity rises to the level of abuse. If it did, someone in the District Attorney

office would have thought up some way to claim it was. What about the man who lets his young kid drive a 4-wheeler and he wrecks and dies?...is that abuse too? (It happens FAR more often than this kind of gun accident and certainly poses the same potential danger to bystanders)

[Aristus]

18. The father put other lives than just that of his son in jeopardy.

If the gun kicks back, and the child loses control of it while it is firing, it could have killed someone else, too. That's criminal negligence on the part of the father. I could spare a moment to think of his suffering if I wasn't thinking of the possible suffering his idiocy could have inflicted on some other family...

[MH1]

16. "furnishing machine guns to minors" - if that's illegal why could this show go on for several years?

I think the gun show organizer IS culpable, very culpable, BUT to punish him and not the police officers who have condoned the activity for years, and who were standing there watching machine guns being handed to minors - I think that would be scapegoating. I don't think I'd be upset if they came down with a guilty verdict though. Life isn't fair, and maybe it would stop some of this shit in the future.

[The Straight Story]

21. Is that like suing a car dealer after your get in a wreck? (nt)

[forty6]

23. Sorry, your post FAILS on several levels: Here's a couple....

Number one, no one buys a car and gives it their 8 year old to drive at a killing speed down the highway.

Number two, the gun was not faulty, and worked as it should, doing the job it is intended to do, killing people. The gun, unlike the car, has only one purpose and it was used for the purpose intended, even by an 8 year old.

NO, in my opinion. judgement that makes flippant posts like yours is similar to judgement that gives machine guns to 8 year olds and thinks they are being cute doing so. I don't buy your flippancy and lack of logic, and I don't buy giving ANY HUMAN BEING a killing machine to use for "FUN!"