Edward Fleury Found Not Guilty In Uzi Child Death!

[B Strong]

When this came up, I had mixed feelings.

I shot MG's as a kid quite a bit, and it seems counter-intuitive, but the weapons I was first exposed to were mounted on tripods (Browning 1917's & 19's) or bipods (BAR, 1919A6's MG35-42's)

The reason for this is that with a mounted weapon, there is far less chance of a problem such as this occuring (Neil Smith and the multi-mini-gun mount Knob Creek incident excluded)

With this deal, the child should have had dad or another adult with their hand on the piece to preclude an accident - that's what went on with me with SMG's at that age - my Dad had his hand over mine on the front stock of a 1928 TSMG holding on.

The adults in this case were negligent, but I don't believe that criminal charges were warranted.

[magsnubby]

The father demanded that his 9 year old son be capable of using the gun, the responsibility ends with the father.

And Fleury was the promoter. His event. His responsibility. He should have told the father no deal or leave. Anyone with an ouch of common sense should know that a shoulder mounted full auto is to much for an eight year old to handle.

[CALI-gula]

This is important - from the article:

Throughout the trial Scappiccio emphasized that Fleury did nothing illegal. She argued that Massachusetts state law has an exception that allows children to shoot firearms as long as a person with a license is supervising.

It was an accident, due to mishandling, but not negligence. There was no illegal activity, and he did not negligently leave a firearm where a kid could get hold of it without supervision. There was supervision, just merely an accident happened - it's quite possible nothing could have happened accident-wise and the gun could have had a "kaboom" and killed the kid - what then? Still an accident. More so, Fleury only held the event - how was he responsible?

With that in mind, I personally as early as 6 years old DID have access to such firearms and DID shoot such weapons, wherein my family had a guns store with multiple collectors in the family. We receive many various firearms as trade-ins that were used, back in the 1970's up until the late 1980's, many of which we would take out and shoot before putting them in the cabinet-display for sale (since they had already been shot).

I DID shoot an Uzi on full auto at that age, along with numerous F/A AKs and ARs, wherein no accident ever occurred. I WOULD let my own child of 8 shoot an Uzi on automatic - albeit with a close-watch, on-hands guidance, and the proper training prior to shooting it, just as I had received.

But after reading the story, did anyone else notice this part which is even MORE ridiculous?

Carl Guiffre of Hartford, Conn, and Domenico Spano of New Milford, Conn., supplied the guns for the expo. Both men are charged with involuntary manslaughter for their role in Christopher's death and they await trial.

More idiotic and stupid than holding Fleury responsible - why not go after IMI too?

.

[Remus]

And Fleury was the promoter. His event. His responsibility. He should have told the father no deal or leave. Anyone with an ouch of common sense should know that a shoulder mounted full auto is to much for an eight year old to handle.

So to recap your story so far, Fleury is the one that handed the rifle over to the child to fire it. He is also the promoter (sponsor) of the event; and was personally present at the demonstration table where he ignored common sense (and the two warnings provided by the booth operator to the father regarding the potential safety issue) and had the child shoot the gun uncontested.

These are very interesting facts that with one exception are not true at all. Fortunately, a jury of 12 was there to properly evaluate the (real) facts and found that the event sponsor should not be held criminally accountable.

I truly enjoy your comment "Anyone with an ouch [sic] of common sense should know that a shoulder mounted full auto is to [sic] much for an eight year old to handle". That anyone is the father, the man that is legally responsible for the actions of his children until they are 18. The figure that most shooters will recall standing by their sides the first time they were permitted, by their father, to fire a semi-automatic weapon; just to ensure it didn't get away from them. What did the father do in this instance? He stepped back to make a video.

Edit Addition: Just to add, there are three persons being charged with manslaughter from this event. Not one of them is the father.
Removed "Youtube video"

[magsnubby]

So to recap your story so far, Fleury is the one that handed the rifle over to the child to fire it. He is also the promoter (sponsor) of the event; and was personally present at the demonstration table where he ignored common sense (and the two warnings provided by the booth operator to the father regarding the potential safety issue) and had the child shoot the gun uncontested.

It was my understanding that Fleury gave the okay for the boy to shoot the uzi. Seems i was wrong on that part.

I truly enjoy your comment "Anyone with an ouch [sic] of common sense should know that a shoulder mounted full auto is to [sic] much for an eight year old to handle". That anyone is the father, the man that is legally responsible for the actions of his children until they are 18.

And if you read my earlier post you will see i also said the father should be held responsible for the child's death. Along with whom ever gave the okay for the boy to shoot the uzi. And yes, anyone with even an ounce of sense should know an average eight year old doesn't have enough strength or experience to fire a full auto without the support of an adult.

The figure that most shooters will recall standing by their sides the first time they were permitted, by their father, to fire a semi-automatic weapon; just to ensure it didn't get away from them. What did the father do in this instance? He stepped back to make a video.

I started my son shooting when he was six years old. But you can bet your life that i had control of the weapon. In this instance the father was more interested in getting a video than the safety of his son.

[Stormfeather]

So to recap your story so far, Fleury is the one that handed the rifle over to the child to fire it. He is also the promoter (sponsor) of the event; and was personally present at the demonstration table where he ignored common sense (and the two warnings provided by the booth operator to the father regarding the potential safety issue) and had the child shoot the gun uncontested.

These are very interesting facts that with one exception are not true at all. Fortunately, a jury of 12 was there to properly evaluate the (real) facts and found that the event sponsor should not be held criminally accountable.

I truly enjoy your comment "Anyone with an ouch [sic] of common sense should know that a shoulder mounted full auto is to [sic] much for an eight year old to handle". That anyone is the father, the man that is legally responsible for the actions of his children until they are 18. The figure that most shooters will recall standing by their sides the first time they were permitted, by their father, to fire a semi-automatic weapon; just to ensure it didn't get away from them. What did the father do in this instance? He stepped back to make a video.

Edit Addition: Just to add, there are three persons being charged with manslaughter from this event. Not one of them is the father.
Removed "Youtube video"

actually, it was a 15 year old kid who handed the weapon to the little kid. The father was filming at the time.

[JBird33]

albeit with a close-watch, on-hands guidance, and the proper training prior to shooting it, just as I had received.

Well this kid DIDN'T have those things that you did, and is now dead because of it - just as you very well could be had you not received the correct supervision. As far as I am concerned, this is akin to handing a child the keys to a pickup truck. Did a lot of us start "driving" when we were under ten? Yes, but it was on dad's lap when he had his hands on the wheel; not with dad in the backseat yelling "GO SON!" with a camera rolling.

[tonelar]

The father demanded that his 9 year old son be capable of using the gun, the responsibility ends with the father.

definitely

[CALI-gula]

Well this kid DIDN'T have those things that you did, and is now dead because of it - just as you very well could be had you not received the correct supervision. As far as I am concerned, this is akin to handing a child the keys to a pickup truck. Did a lot of us start "driving" when we were under ten? Yes, but it was on dad's lap when he had his hands on the wheel; not with dad in the backseat yelling "GO SON!" with a camera rolling.

And you only have reiterated my point - Fleury should not have been held responsible, nor the guys supplying the firearms for the vent, nor IMI, nor the range owners, nor the company that made the kid's tennis-shoes, nor the company that made the video camera that shot the footage, etc.

Only one responsibility lies here and that is with the father; and it was an accident, not intentional - stupid, but not intentional. He didn't mis-handle a gun, he simply underestimated his kid's ability to handle that gun. yes, it could have been better done, no doubt. However, putting the guy in prison for 10 years serves no purpose other than to cost a lot of money in taxes and ruin the father's and the rest of the family's lives, which are already ruined.

What debt to society must he pay now for an accident that killed his own son as the result of his stupidity? Does he owe YOU anything? Will his sitting in prison help you in some way? Is he a violent criminal and repeat offender that needs to be removed from the streets?

It's over, the kid is dead - the "do-gooders" need to stop trying to find third-parties to blame. The out come of this is that people saw the video and will hopefully be a good deal wiser than this idiot.

.