Video of tragic accident

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/08uzi.html?ref=us

Judge Will Allow Jurors to See Video of 8-Year-Old Being Killed by Uzi at Gun Show

-- This interesting to me because of my interest in legal issues. There's strong evidence that exposure to weapons during trials primes negative ideation. Also, strong evidence that video evidence is esp. compelling.

The article suggest two different effects - one would be shock at allowing what seems to be such a dangerous action. The second would be sympathy for the father at his loss. The latter being the suggestion he suffered enough and no further punishment is needed. That is countered by the view that legal sanction serve as a lesson for others.

There was also a recent case where a suspect with Nazi tatoos was allowed to cover them up at trial to avoid prejudicing a jury. The counter argument being that the tatoos are indicative of the kind of person he is and that should be available to the jury.

Sometimes, when I mention such - we just get the old cliche of it's a good shoot, blah, blah. But my interests are past that. You are on trial and then what?

[CWKahrFan]

What I got from reading the article is that the former Chief of Police who organized the event is charged with manslaughter... It doesn't seem that the father is being charged with anything in this case anyhow... (I haven't researched the case!). What a tragedy the whole chain of events is...

“There is no exception that would allow a machine gun to be furnished to an 8-year-old, with or without parental consent,”

Well, yeah..... sad.... What were they thinking?... "they" being BOTH the father and ANYONE IN PROXIMITY SEEING THE WHOLE THING UNFOLD... Who is going to put an Uzi in the hands of an 8-yr. old?... Obviously someone in that particular moment in time... How quickly things can go so wrong whenever firearms are involved, eh?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by CWKahrFan

Well, yeah..... sad.... What were they thinking?... "they" being BOTH the father and ANYONE IN PROXIMITY SEEING THE WHOLE THING UNFOLD... Who is going to put an Uzi in the hands of an 8-yr. old?... Obviously someone in that particular moment in time... How quickly things can go so wrong whenever firearms are involved, eh?

Some people's brains simply lack the ability, or propensity, to automatically run through the possible scenarios/implications of their actions and decisions.

That's how these things happen.

Sobbing parent: "I would never have thought!...."

Well, obviously. That's why it happened.

If your brain isn't CONSTANTLY running through scenarios and implications whenever there is something potentially hazardous in your vicinity, you probably shouldn't be around anything hazardous.

[CWKahrFan]

Yeah... another element that comes in my mind is how the current cultural landscape blurs difference between the IMAGE of guns (that fire blanks or video pixels in cartoons, TV shows, movies, video games, etc.) and the REALITY of actual guns (that spew actual lead which can enter and alter actual flesh and bones)...

[44 AMP]

The Nazi tattoo thing is I think a bit different. According to what was in the paper, the defendant didn't have the tattoos at the time of the crime, he got them later, in prison.

That being the case, I can understand the argument that they should be allowed to be covered up.

Didn't say I agreed, just that I understood.

[Sefner]

I'll go one step further that 44 AMP and say that I agree that the swastika tattoos should be covered up unless they are evidence in the crime (was the victim Jewish and had a swastika carved in them at the scene, had racial threats been made towards the victim, etc etc). The video should also not be shown unless it contains evidence in the case. I also sometimes take issue with "impact statements" of family members during trials. These are letters that family or friends of the victim write (that are read to the jury) that talk about how the crime effected them. They are not evidence and only serve to jerk tears. And as cold as this may sound, emotions and tears play no part in whether or not a person is innocent or guilty. They either committed a crime or they didn't. The sadness of the victim or the victim's family has nothing to do with whether or not a person committed a crime.

Glenn can hopefully comment on this more, but emotions can create extremely strong opinions in people. How many times have we talked to an anti-gun rights person who has said something like "well you're right but..." or "I agree with what you're saying but..."? Emotions can tie someone down to an opinion with such force that they will even admit that they are logically wrong but still hold their opinion. My Intro to Psych class pegged this on the fact that emotions can trigger chemical responses in the brain that logic and reason cannot. This makes emotions extremely powerful persuaders and thus very potent but easily-misused weapons in the courtroom.

[woodguru]

I'm not sure what is missing that the organizer is being charged but not the responsible father who was the one ultimately responsible for what his kid does?

[dec41971]

He is more in trouble because he was a Police Chief should have known better. And also because a Mass, gun law was broken. Its just like if you drive a car, accidentally jump a red light and it result in a death of someone, you are going to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. As for the father, being an emergency room doctor doesn't mean he knows squat about guns. He can make the same stupid mistake joe schmoe would. Its not medicine, its guns. Would I let my 8y/o shoot any gun? Actually maybe a pellet gun, not a real one. But I do know 10y/o who have their own rifles. I don't agree with it, but it isn't my place or my kid to say. Im going to get flamed, but I'll say it anyway; Sorry he can wait till 18, its not a necessity.

[MLeake]

... one of the families that had kids at my school lived out on a farm. Nice family, tough but nice kids. They each got their first 20ga shotgun at age 4. Learned to shoot them by resting the guns on fence rails. That was in Maine, not Massachusetts, but there are (or were) parts of New England where guns and kids mixed pretty often.

Would I let an 8 year old fire an Uzi? Probably not, especially not the full-auto pistol version (which is what I think was involved, IIRC). Would I have let him try a longer barreled version? Maybe, but I think I'd have wanted some sort of angle limiter (brace or cable) like the military uses to limit range of barrel traverse and elevation on M2's and M249's at the training range.

I can see why the organizer is in trouble. I feel badly for him, but also think he was criminally negligent. I also think the father was negligent, but not criminally so. Besides, what more can the state do to the father, that he won't do to himself every day for the rest of his life?

[boredom]

i feel for the family, but im lost as to how the father isnt being charged with anything? negligence times a million on his part for allowing his son to hold a weapon without his hands being right there, at the bare minimum. im also lost at why there was a loaded fully automatic uzi on display at a public event?

[sixgun67]

I try not to be cold hearted, but I call it like I see it. I do not understand how a person can say something to the effect of 'why punish the parent, they have to live with this horrible thing'. This very thought is being/has been brought to the forefront in a minimum of 3 cases that I am familiar with. Just because it is YOUR child, YOU didn't commit a crime? If a hypothetical parent is driving 30mph over the speed limit, wrecks and kills their hypothetical child, would they also not be charged in the killing? Very similar circumstances in my opinion, law of speeding broken resulting in a crash that kills, versus a law that was broken

“There is no exception that would allow a machine gun to be furnished to an 8-year-old, with or without parental consent,” Mr. Bennett said in 2008.

that resulted in a death. This same logic doesn't seem to work when applied elsewhere. I already know of two people, a grandmother and a father(two seperate cases) that have been considered 'punished enough by the tragedy, so we won't charge them with the actual crime'. Why have the laws, if we're not gonna enforce them?
sixgun

[MLeake]

... it's illegal to drive 30mph over the speed limit. I'd have a lot less sympathy for your theoretical parent, or a theoretical DUI, etc.

Is it illegal to allow a minor to handle a firearm, at a supervised venue, with a parent present? I know it isn't where I live. Not sure about MA.

The weapon wasn't left around. This was a dedicated shooting area, as I understood it in the original article. People were paying to shoot an SMG. Laws about leaving a weapon unattended don't apply to this situation.

As far as why I agree with the charging decisions in this case: A firearms expert should have been expected to anticipate the problems an 8yo would have with recoil control with a short barrel SMG; a doctor with unknown firearm background, not as much.

Liability should go hand in hand with the ability to interpret and control the situation. An uninformed parent could very easily think that, if the experts are allowing it, then it must be safe; also, if the chief of police is allowing it, then it must be legal.

[sixgun67]

MLeake, I've revised my post, added a quote from the story about MA rules
sixgun

I don't have any additional sympathy towards a parent who has contributed in some way or fashion towards the outcome. I sympathize greatly for the death of the child, though.
Where I live, the gunshops and such will not allow my daughter of 14 years to handle firearms, don't know if that is law or policy.

[MLeake]

... I revised mine as well.

Adding the caveat that the operator of the booth was the local chief of police. A person unaware of MA law, but recognizing his neighbor running the booth, would naturally assume it was legal.

While ignorance of the law is no excuse, on the one hand, most of us would probably assume that things sanctioned by the city/county and run by the chief of police would comply with local/state law.

I don't know enough about the father to assume he should have had any more gun sense than the average Joe; based on what happened, I expect he did not.

Note also, in my earlier post, I grew up in a place where 4 year olds were learning to shoot, and third graders went deer hunting. If you look at "The Hunt" forum, you'll see threads about 8yo hunters.

Letting minors handle guns isn't illegal, nor even unusual, in some locales, depending on circumstances.

[Jimmy10mm]

Reminds me of the grandmother down here in FL last summer who left her infant granddaughter in an automobile (back seat) while she went shopping. The baby died of heat prostration, the grandmother was charged and convicted of negligent homicide or some such.

Whether prosecuted or not the father, like the grandmother fore mentioned, have to live with the consequences of their actions for the rest of their lives. As we all do. I'd hate to be either of them trying to get to sleep at night.

[sixgun67]

While ignorance of the law is no excuse, on the one hand, most of us would probably assume that things sanctioned by the city/county and run by the chief of police would comply with local/state law.

Point well taken. However maybe I am sorta in my own little world, but I feel that a person should not take everything, automatically, at full face value(possibly not wording this correctly). Look at the county fair. Must be safe, right?--permits, inspections and such--yet many are injured and once in a while killed from some sort of negligence, whether innocent or purposeful.

I must add also that I myself grew up with access to guns and all my buddies did too, at 8yo or so, maybe earlier. Sadly and unfortunately, this is a whole new world we live in today

[RichC]

I'm from Massachusetts. Gun owners here are following this case closely. I am a gun owner, and shoot at least once a week, often with my own kids.

There are a couple of interesting angles on this case. I suspect there's lots of blame to go around.

- The instrutor assigned to help this young man shoot the Uzi was 15 years old.

- There has been some mention of a disabled safety on the Uzi via rubber band.

- There has been some mention of the 15 year old instructor not being willing to let the boy shoot, but he was bullied by the Dad into letting it happen. I wonder if that is on video.

- Show promoters published advertising flyer saying "You are accompanied at all times by a licensed instructor"

FYI you can see the flyer here:

http://static.cbslocal.com/station/w...ober/Flyer.pdf

I'm sure there's lots more that will come out. I am passing along things I've heard, but things I've heard second hand. I am very interested in hearing the facts presented in the case. I just don't think we know enough to make a final judgment... yet.

I do know a child has died and that just makes me sad.

[woodguru]

As said, there was plenty of blame to go around.

That said there is only one ultimate authority over the 8 year old kid and that is the father. It doesn't matter what was being observed in terms of laws or latitude, the father has the last word in using common sense as pertains to his own kid.

Without knowing the exact facts as to extenuating circumstances it sounds like a 15 year old may have been pressured by the father to let the kid shoot the gun in spite of the fact that the 15 year old had enough common sense to try to keep too small a kid from shooting.

That goes back to the father having the ultimate responsibility for drawing a common sense line. As also brought up, there are states where very young kids are allowed to have and shoot guns. No it's not anyone's place to dictate what each parent deems sensible, but when accidents occur it is the responsibility of that parent and nobody else.

Father had his head buried deeply where the sun doesn't shine, end of story and nothing else would have made any difference had he had he not had the sense god gave a duck. How many of us when letting a younger child shoot a gun like a .22 stand behind and have our hands on either side of the kid's hands to make sure the shot doesn't surprise them? This kids dad was an idiot and you can't protect anything against the idiot factor.

It sounds like the father was paying to shoot the Uzi, and that is likely why a loaded firearm was involved. He then wanted the boy to have a chance to fire it. All this fits the probable scenario, not as some have concluded whereby the boy was able to pick up a loaded Uzi that was just sitting there. Chances are this event was conducted in a reasobly sensible manner until an idiot enters the picture who wants too young a boy to shoot a fully automatic weapon.

[dec41971]

I have a few guns of all sorts and have shot thousands of rounds in the last year alone. When I go to shoot a new type of gun I haven't shot before, I am always nervous and super attentive because you don't always know what to expect and you dont want to get hurt. That coming from a 39y/o. El doctor there wasn't worried about his 8y/o shooting automatic Uzi. That tells me he is very clueless about guns, and also different people react differently to different situations.

[Musketeer]

Aside from the video at trial angle this is an old story. My positions are as follows:

1. The organizer who oversaw this child operating a full auto Uzi should be convicted of manslaughter/ negligent homicide or whatever the applicable charge is for an idiot who's thoughtless actions ar the direct cause of another's death.

2. I do not hold the father guilty at all based on the information present. You and I know how stupid this was but the event was supposedly EDUCATIONAL. This father did not need to know one thing about firearms because he was assure by professionals that this was a safe environment in which to learn and expose his child. I wish the local police here could do a "remove the curiosity" type event in the classroom regarding firearms but we all know the outrage which would be expressed in many areas. Here was a similar such opportunity where the parent was assured of his child's safety by those who should have absolutely known better.

3. If the video shows the accident it should be shown. All that should be shown is anything leading up to the accident and no more than a second or two after the accident. There are enough emotions at play here already.

4. I think every juror should be given the opportunity to fire the same weapon, this time without a moron overseeing the event.

[Frank Ettin]

I don't want to get into a debate about whether the CoP or the father or anyone else may have criminal culpability, but I do see a real issue with allowing the video to be seen.

It's well established that relevant evidence may nonetheless be excluded if the potential of prejudice is greater than the probative value of the proposed evidence. For example, Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:

"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."

Allowing the video is the sort of trial court evidentiary ruling that is likely to become one of the issues for the court of appeal if there's a conviction.

[Musketeer]

I agree that the emotional impact of evidence may prejudice a jury. At the same time if the events that lead to the death are clearly recorded and I as a juror was prevented from seeing them I would have a hard time convicting with the knowledge that pertinent evidence was withheld.

The video should be shown. Nothing is going to remove the impact of seeing that death but cutting the video to show only up to the instant of the accident and no further will provide the information needed without the post accident emotional nightmare. They are not on trial for what happenned after the shooting, only what happened up to it.

[tet4]

Show it all - it's evidence and what happens after the accident is just as important as what happened before. Part of being on a jury is seeing all the evidence - as horrific as it may be.

[Mr. James]

Sefner,

I may well be mistaken, but I believe in most jurisdictions, victim impact statements are solicited at the sentencing stage of the proceedings, not at trial. In other words, a guilty verdict has already been rendered. I agree it would be irrelevant and prejudicial to the defense to introduce such emotional statements during the trial proper.

[Musketeer]

How does showing the aftermath of the incident provide any relavent information? It show emotional impact and loss but nothing regarding the build up to the accident.

Showing a hysterical parent in tears as his child dies will provide no evidence I can see regarding the build up to the event. It would prejudice the jury and provide grounds for appeal.