Chief Uzi Acquitted

Either way, I'm not sure guilty or not guilty is a commentary on the RKBA.

But back when dad insisted and Jr popped himself , it sure seemed real important to whole BUNCH of people in a page wrappin ,multiple post, sorta way . It was reallly fucking important back then wasnt it ? Now ........ they could give two shits .

No more round the clock televised righteous indignation to remind them that they should be pissed off .


This incident has no more bearing on my rights than if a flag burning tea party* jack wagon were to shoot a very important Arizona Democrat " and some other people " . Pretty much none of the hyperbolic bullshit posted in here has any bearing on me , my customers , my friends and family . Ohhhhhh , but they want to make it my problem . I must bear some personal responsibility as I am one of "those people" . Some sort of a self defense version of The Travelers or something .

Once the grammar shooter falls off the "screen" I give it a week . Two tops . Haiti didn't take that long to drop off the boards .




*lol

Strike while the iron is hot to gain maximum results. Once it cools they got nothing. The truth is out there, but it is rather cynical and harsh. Self interest governs all.

I predict he looses everything either in legal fees or in civil losses. I am thinking his professional liability insurance company will run away claiming he was on his own time while at this shoot...I may be wrong.

I just finished reading something about the trial and a couple of things jumped out at me:

1. The father of the child killed, was given immunity so he could testify in the criminal case, that immunity will not be present at a civil suit.

2. That the father was specifically warned that the micro-Uzi was unsuitable for his children to use and that the father insisted.

3. That the father signed a waiver that essentially stated that the range, the gun show organizer, the firearms supplier and anyone else "officially" involved in the machine gun show/shoot was not liable for any injury, accident or death.


http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/01/trial_of_edward_fleury_for_uzi.html

in AZ. In my state the injured party (the parents) could sue. They would name everyone even remotely involved as respondents in the case. The courts or jury would first determine if there was negligence. Then they would determine the percent of negligence each party is responsible for. It happens often that the petitioners are determined to share in the responsibility too, a percentage is also determined for their responsibility. The petitioner's responsibility would be subtracted from the final award amount.

A waiver cannot be made to absolve negligence. It may have an impact if everything worked as it was supposed to but an accident still occurred, in this case it appears there was actual negligence. Also, those 'holding themselves out as experts' are generally held to a higher standard than non-experts. Experts are expected to use educated judgment. The fact that the experts warned that the Uzi was unsuitable for a child yet let the father talk them into allowing the child to shoot the gun is really worse for the organizers than the father IMHO. It would be like a roller coaster operator allowing a child who was too short onto the ride because the mother complained, then the child was injured. You could, in most cases complain until you are blue, if the child isn't tall enough he isn't getting on the roller coaster.

I believe the family does have a case. It certainly would be no fun. No civil case is fun unless you are an outsider looking in. Court proceedings, depositions, interrogatories, missed work, etc...been there, done that, I won, but it felt like I lost by the time it was over...

Although I do find it interesting that they needed to give immunity to the father of the child so he could testify.

And you're right, no one is going to enjoy a civil trial resulting from this tragic incident.

I am sure. Anyone who wouldn't lawyer up in such a case is risking a terrible outcome. I don't blame him for taking an immunity deal.

If they didn't know that Uzi was unsafe for a child that would be one thing but as you pointed out it appears that
a) they did know it was unsafe (due to the force of the kickback and potential to lose control)
b) they allowed father to talk them into an unsafe act
c) relied on the waiver to cover them from an act they knew was unsafe

The father is liable also but at least some liability rest on the shoulders of the organizer. They should have told the father "NO". They had the rule in place for a reason.

and I don't really know if the parents (particularly the father) deserve any restitution. There are certainly enough demons for everyone in this sad case.

"Christopher Bizilj’s parents could not be reached for comment. His mother, Suzanne, said when the club filed its plea that the negligence in the case was “hard to comprehend’’ and that her son’s death left her traumatized.

“The emotional trauma of Christopher’s death haunts me every day,’’ she said in a statement read by a prosecutor. “We trusted this event would be fun and safe, with trained safety officers present. . . . In my opinion, the event was poorly supervised, with dangerous weapons in the hands of inept instructors.’’

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/15/ex_police_chief_acquitted_in_uzi_shooting_death/?page=1


There was indeed negligence and poor supervision, on the part of the parents. Sustained full auto bursts of fire can get away from adults with larger hands and much more strength than Christopher Bizilj had. While I would fault Fleury for his choice of range instructors, the decision to allow him fire that weapon and the responsiblity for that decision rests with the parents.

It's a bit hard to say because it's less than clear to me who played precisely which role in this whole clusterfuck. As far as I can ascertain, Fleury was the organizer of the whole event, and as such bears some responsibility, but responsibility and culpability aren't quite the same thing. As the organizer, Fleury hired Guiffre and Spano Sr. to provide some of the guns at the shoot, but he may have assumed in good faith that Guiffre and Spano Sr. could run their part of the show competently, and not realized that Spano was using his 15 year-old son as an "instructor."

I do think it's more than a little disingenuous of Fleury's lawyer to argue:

I'm not wholly convinced that Bizilj Sr. insisted that Christopher be allowed to shoot that particular automatic weapon, but I can well imagine he insisted that Christopher should get to shoot an automatic weapon. Otherwise, what's the point of going to a machine gun shoot?


Look, I don't want to be overly harsh to Spano Jr., given that he was 15 at the time, but you can't reasonably try to pin the blame on Bizilj Sr. when you're the one first who "offered up" the Micro-Uzi and ultimately did not refuse to let the kid fire it.

Honestly, I don't really know that anyone should be subject to a criminal conviction for involuntary manslaughter in this case, much as certain people may be a baying for blood. Jeez, how many 8 year-olds have been killed since then in motor vehicle accidents? It is going be the civil trials that prove interesting, and from where I'm standing, it looks like Domenico Spano is the person w2ho bears the most responsibility.