E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe 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.
Here's background on the case from Associated Press:
Jurors heard testimony over seven days during the trial of Edward Fleury, the former police chief in Pelham, Mass. His company co-sponsored the machine gun expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club where Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn., fired a 9 mm micro Uzi submachine gun that kicked back and shot him in the head. The boy's father, emergency room Dr. Charles Bizilj, recorded a graphic video of the accident that was shown to the jury.
Fleury had faced up to 20 years in prison on an involuntary manslaughter count, and up to 10 years in prison for each of three counts of furnishing machine guns to minors.
Fleury's lawyer, Rosemary Curran Scapicchio, asked the jury in her closing argument why Fleury was being made a scapecoat in the boy's death. She said Fleury was taking $5 from patrons at the gate and wasn't supervising the firing line or picking out weapons for children.
"Where is the reckless and wanton conduct? There is none," Scapicchio said.
She said Fleury thought everything at the event was legal and safe, and he had checked with the local police department beforehand. The event had run seven years without incident. Scapicchio noted that there were several police officers at the machine gun expo who saw children shooting machine guns and did nothing to stop them.
She also said there were several layers of protection at the fair, beginning with a waiver everyone at the event signed acknowledging the risks, including death, and absolving anyone of liability if something bad happened.
Scapicchio said there were safety discussions. She said there were safety officers on the firing lines. She said parents decided whether their children could shoot automatic weapons.
Scapicchio also said Charles Bizilj was responsible for allowing his son to shoot the Uzi.
"He's got some parental responsibility here," she said. "If you think it's a dangerous activity, don't go."
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.
Bennett also said it was Fleury who put an unlicensed, uncertified 15-year-old boy on the firing line as a safety officer who was helping Christopher when the accident happened.
"This was a land mine waiting to explode," Bennett said of the event.
The prosecutor also asked the jury to again watch the graphic video of the shooting in slow motion, saying it shows a lot of what went wrong that day.
"One thing you know from looking at that video ... you know that's one powerful weapon," Bennett said. "You know that's one dangerous weapon. You know that's one lethal weapon. ... You'll see that no amount of instruction could have saved Christopher Bizilj that day."
Bennett added, "Looking at the video you can understand why the law prohibits anyone from furnishing a machine gun to a child. It's just too dangerous."
A main issue of contention in the case is whether children can legally fire machine guns. Bennett says it's illegal in any circumstance, but Scapicchio says there's an exemption in state law that allows minors to shoot firearms if they're being supervised by a firearms license holder. Scapicchio argued that some machine guns fit the definition of firearms under state law, if their barrels are less than 16 inches long, which is the case with micro Uzis.
The jury sent a question to Judge Peter Velis late Thursday asking about the exemption and about the state law on possessing firearms. Velis, over an objection by Scapicchio, told the 12 jurors that the exemption was not an issue before them.
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.
Leave a Comment:
What a shame the parent acted so irresponsible. This man is an ER Doctor??I would not want him treating me. He lacks common sense.
when I was 6, I whinned enough to get to shoot my dads hunting rifle. he was right there helping me all the way, and when i touched it off, he grabbed the rifle and i hit the ground on my back side, learned a lesson there
So what's your point? You haven't been the same since the accident?
otimus, if I was your dad then, you would've whined only once. End of matter.
Dog-
Certainly, that could be made as a partial reason- but the main cause of the 2nd amendment was to ensure OUR rights as citizens of a new nation were preserved despite our new government- in other words- we protect our rights against the very government that wrote the constitution.
There were some- the Federalists that believed the Constitution had enough restrictions and protections to ensure rights were preserved. A standing army would protect the nation in any event that threatened the citizens, from within or without. The Antifederalists did not buy it and wanted a guarantee. The Federalists relented and we now celebrate the 2nd amendment.
This was a tragic accident- and the father takes the hit here. You don't video your kid while he shoots himself. An uzi is not a toy!! The founding fathers couldn't ever have seen this as a part of the equation- but it is still a good law- though stupid people still continue to do stupid things.
Funny how we don't have these kind of arguements over knives- there are more knife wounds every year than gunshot wounds...
It's because the government isn't worried about a militia armed with knives when their army is armed with rifles, etc. They only want to take our guns away so there are no articles demonizing knives. There you have it, have a nice day! Nice article by the way.
Once again a bad parent is trying to blame someone else for his lack of judgement. I'm sorry for the kid, but the dad is the guilty party here. Make him pay for his negligence.
Where was the mother for that matter? Did she know where her son was going? The father is serving his life sentence as we type.
True, everyone knows the question has surfaced in his mind, "Could I have prevented this?" and we all know he knows the answer to it. In the end he may avoid the blame, but not the shame. Hate to be in his shoes, poor guy. Dumb move on his part and you know he didn't will this. He will suffer for life. I say it was just another tragic accident for no human being is perfect all the time. Could've happened to almost any parent. I don't think any court could dole out the pain he feels.
Just because it was legal doesn't make it morally correct to allow a child to shoot an automatic waepon that is designed for an adult shooter. But this isn't about morales, it was about the law.
The father is an idiot for allowing his son to shoot the weapon, and the safety officer is libel for allowing him to shoot a short barrelled weapon which has a rise from the force of the rounds exiting the barrell.
Firearms aren't toys. They are designed for specific task to kill or to shoot paper targets. They are not for kids to get a thrill. Teach the children on single shot 22s at a range, with an adult standing right there, just like my Dad taught me. Machine guns are not sport weapons, they are military weapons.
What in the world were these shoot organizers thinking? Money, thats what,...money in their pocket.
Apparently, the machine gun was leagal in that state because its barrel was under 16 in. so ultimately, the blame is on the father for letting him shoot it without assisting him. It wasn't planned, no one wanted it to happen, it was an accident. They do still happen, no matter how advanced we are. Why does someone always have to go to jail, more money for the courts and prisons? That man is in his own prison for the rest of his life for the decision he made.
Hallelujan! Maybe there is some hope for the American legal system, if they are able to come to a decision which any reasonable person could have made in half an hour, given the facts.
Sorry for the father, a complete tragedy for the son. But when you sign acceptance of the risks, you should be able to understand that there ARE risks. I would not let my child handle a heavy caliber gun, and absolutely not a full automatic. Until you are on the business end of one of these, you don't appreciate the noise and recoil. No way a child with their body weight and musculature could be adequately prepared.
I agree the father is an IDIOT for letting the CHILD become involved in this absurd activity! However the real blame is the organizer for letting a 15 year old supervise and even more so for letting an 8 year old participate! SHAME on him. I hope he sees this boy in dreams for the rest of his life!
floryralph
If it wasn't illegal to let a 15 yr. old supervise and the waivers everyone had to sign made the parents responsible, then you are wrong to state what you did. Besides, the man could have stepped up and said, no fifteen year old should be making this kind of decision and not let him supervise his son. At what point in your mind is a parent not responsible for their children, when they're asleep?
This was a sad and unnecessary death of a young boy. To be sure, the father made a poor decision in allowing his son to take part in the firing of this weapon. I also believe that there was some gross negligence on the part of the organizer (Chief Fleury) with regard to the way he conducted his business at the show. To rely on the judgment of shooters of unknown experience to determine the ability to safely control an automatic weapon is questionable, even more so when the intended shooter is a child. It is also of interest that the Chief would employ the services of a 15 year old boy as a firing line range instructor. As a police officer of many years, the Chief cannot claim ignorance regarding the potential for accidents at a firing range. Rookie police officers are given classroom instruction before stepping up to the firing line for practical instruction and they are not firing fully automatic weapons when qualifying to use their service sidearms. I fully support the 2nd amendment and recreational shooting, hunting, competitive shooting sports, etc., but I feel the courts got this one wrong. Both the father and the organizer of the event shared responsibility for this tragedy, the father will forever be haunted, the Chief was absolved by a technicality of law, but that does not make his actions right.
The first time I shot a fully-automatic M-16 rifle was when I was six years old. The reason I was able to do it was because I was carefully monitored and coached by my father, who stood by me, bracing the gun against any kind of unexpected recoil. The M-16 is a much more powerful weapon that a little Uzi. Clearly, proper supervision and instruction could have made this event have a much better outcome, but the father was more interested in taking a video than he was in properly supervising his child. Responsibility clearly lies with the father, whose neglect led to his son shooing himself, and now he doesn't want to take the blame. This is an example of the American public's lack of personal responsibility and love of blaming others for their problems.
I agree with you. I've shot many a guns, and nothing has ever happened. But in the end you can never change the mind of those who have been brained washed by everything they see on TV. They will always think otherwise, I've come to terms with that.
I am familiar with weapons myself having been raised shooting them and shot the fully automatic M16 frequently in the Army. I agree that the M16 is powerful but it also has the recoil buffer which the uzi does not and the barrel of the M16 is heavier which helps keep it from rising as fast. Besides, it is a given that a short barreled hand gun will usually kick more than a rifle, if you know weapons.
In the end, the right people are being sent to prison. So, that's just how it should have gone, and it did. I say good riddance. I hope this is something that continues to happen; the people who are guilty go to prison, and the innocent don't.
besides the fact the father had to sign waiver for himself, he would of had to sign / release waivers for both minor childern he brought into the event. perhaps he did not notice the line that stated "we are not responsible for possible death" there was no need to briing a 8 and 11 year old to that gun expo in the first place. it is totally the fathers fault. im sure the guilt he lives with everyday is eatting him up inside, for that i feel sorry for him. surely he has stopped taking his surviving child to gun expos.
It was the organizer's responsibility to see to it that no children were allowed to fire machine guns or even enter the facility. This act in itself is breaking the law. The organizer even had off-duty policeman assists the boy.
This jury trial was a pure joke. Look at the make-up of the jury: 2/3rds were high school dropouts, members of the NRA and licesened to carry fire-arms. The rest were suzy homemakers married to individuals just like them.
The District Attorney should have charged the father as a co-defendent in this case. He is just as responsible as the organizer. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but there has to be a common sense stop-gap measure. These types of weapons should be banned.
Regardless of the release wavers for his kids, by law he is responsible for his children when they are at that age.
A former chief of police publicly breaking the law, with off-duty policemen assisting.....c'mon....and no matter what their status in life the jury used the common sense they were born with and voted such.
The father was warned the recoil of the gun was strong---twice---& let him shoot anyway. I wouldn't have had a teenager as safety officer on the firing line, if I had been organizing the event, but he did warn the father about the recoil. Did Dr. Bizilj discount the warning because it came from someone younger? I wonder if the father isn't trying to sooth a guilty conscience ( over letting his son do something too dangerous for his size & strength ) by trying to blame someone, anyone, else for this. He also would've signed a waiver regarding the risks before entering the grounds. Mr. Fleury is not responsible for the doctor's bad judgement. As an ER doctor, he should have been very well aware of the damage gunshots can do, & should have heeded the warnings about the force of the recoil.
man, he woulda been the first parent to have their 8 year old boy shoot a 9mm uzi, what a proud moment that would have been.
is there such a thing as taking something too far. we all just learned a lesson.
It was a tragic thing to have happen to your child, as a parent it is my responsibility to look after and judge what my child's abilities are. The court ruling was correct in my opinion, people need to step up and take responsibility for their own actions.
After the recent events in Arizona ,i'm sorry buts way past time we look at the gun laws in the country but no matter how tough a law we have we're still going to have acident's and madmen,toriests,or other mentaly ill person getting acese to these weapon's... But parent's should know better than to take thier young child to a gun show,sorry but thats a known aldult activety that children don't need to attend....
Why do we need to tougher gun laws at all thought? As, you said this will still happen. People are just dumb. Laws do absolutely nothing to stop a damn thing. Drugs, underage smoking/drinking are all illegal yet I know from personal experience I could easily get a hold of ANY of these in a matter of minutes. That just goes to show you that even if we had tougher gun laws, this would still happen. So, the people trying to make that argument...they have no basis.
As a side note for those of you not from MA/CT area where this tragedy occurred, the parents already received a $700,000 settlement for wrongful death in this case. This was a true miscarriage of justice for the former chief to go on trial. I live in northeastern CT on the MA border, only a couple towns away from where the boy lives.
This information was posted on the Hartford Courant's website courant.com last week, in case anyone wanted to verify.
the poor child died because his father thought it would be cool for his young son to fire an uzi; and went so far as to make sure the event was on videotape. the portion of tape which i saw indicated that there was a problem with the gun, it seemed as tho the firing-range supervisor had repeatedly taken the weapon from the child to clear it. this should have been seen as a big red flag! but the boy's father is sitting there like he's filming a war documentary... how can a person be so smart one hand? [he's a doctor] and such a complete moron on the other?
Brokinarrow:
The questions you ask are not for you, nor anyone else to decide. Why do you need to birdhunt? Why do you need a truck? Why do you need such a big house? Why anything?
Needless to say, your NRA membership is not missed. We don't need members like you. You should know better than to ask stupid questions like that. I know, let's let the liberal left answer it for you, and you know what they would say...
........ how can a father of an 8 year old boy even let his son get near this weapon ?? And a DR no less ? Someone who is suppose to have some intelligence ? I feel sorry for the boy and his mother ..... it should never have happened.
Wondering how many commenters here have fired Uzi's? I have. I used to teach them when I was a military training instructor. I'd like to see the video, because I found the Uzi a very simple gun to control. It can be fired single handed. It operates from an open bolt, meaning there is no round in the chamber when the trigger is pulled. When the trigger is pulled, the bolt moves forward, strips the round from the magazine and chambers it. It fires immediately upon chambering, which means the initial action is weight from a large block of steel (the bolt) being thrown forward. The recoil of the firing round throws the bolt back into position to start the action over again. it is not difficult for a shooter to put all 32 rounds from the magazine into the target. That said - any machinegun at an open event should be chained down so that it cannot be either lifted above a reasonable height, or swung around toward spectators (yes, I have run this type of event as a Rangemaster, and safety is always foremost). I started my children shooting at the ripe age of eight. Kids grew up around guns, and today they are available but generally ignored in the house.
Personally, I've fired a MAC, an M-3 "grease gun", and a STEN. The MAC had a suppressor, but if it hadn't, I could see how a weapon with that shape could take you by surprise if you hadn't been trained/warned.
Personally, I've fired an Uzi 9mm, a "grease gun" 45 ACP, M2 carbine, M14, BAR 30'06, a full-auto version of the Ruger Mini-14, & a Glock 18. Yes, I found the Uzi a little "bouncy" but controllable, w/ a firm grip, & it probably helped that I'd shot a lot of 9mm & had an idea of what kind of recoil to expect. That, plus I'm an adult of normal strength & common sense. The 'common sense' part was what I think was most lacking in this tragedy.
the prosecutor said it best "No amount of instruction s could have saved " like letting a 9 year old drive
The first thing that came to my mind was if the parent were so concerned with the boys safety, he should have asked himself the question, can my boy handle that weapon? If it were a .50 caliber weapon that question would have arose immediately. But being that even a .22 cal can kick some and kill just as well, the decision is ultimately the parents. When i was about 7 yrs. of age I was allowed to shoot a Colt .45 but the adult wrapped their hands around mine, knowing about the kick and let me fire it. that man should have known that barrel would rise up on that little boy. What a shame he let someone else think for him. Whos fault is it he made THAT decision?
I'm going to let you Fire an UZI' than go skydiving and scuba diving than let you drive home what a day for a 9 year old
There is good evidence that the 2nd Amendment was crafted to ensure that militias in the slave states could continue to exist for the purpose of guarding against insurrection
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There is nothing in there about individuals defending their property. "...the right of the people..." not the right of the individual. "...security of a free state..." not the security of an individual's home.
Everybody involved in this was idiotic. A former police chief (!*!) A fifteen year-old kid supervising (!*!) An ER doctor permitting and filming an 8 year-old (!*!) An urban myth couldn't be this absurd. Nobody needs to go to jail. They all need to go to a psychiatric hospital.
Sad. Sigh.
I agree. They all need their heads examined!
"the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arm"
People are individuals...did you even read this before you posted it?
I do agree there are all to blame but in the end it simple comes down to the father. The blood is on his hands...no one else. Again, the father had to sign a wavier(look up a definition if your not sure what that big word means). In that waiver there was probably something about not being responsible. That's all that matters...morals don't matter in a court of law...