Video of tragic accident

[Aguila Blanca]

All I know is that I personallyknow a machine gun guy who regularly attends such shows or meets or shoots or whatever they are called. He was slated for that one but somebody pulled some shenanigans and bumped him from his slot. I talked to him after the event. Having been bumped, he didn't attend but he had spoken with several friends who did. I believe the description he gave (based on their reports) was that the whole thing was a fustercluck, and the only surprise was that a few more people weren't killed.

In short, he was retroactively VERY happy that he had been gyped out of his reservation. Apparently, there was plenty of blame to spread around.

[rattletrap1970]

I would not want to be on that jury. I'm not sure watching an 8 year old get his head blown off wouldn't damage me to some degree.

[Slamfire]

Children are too small to control a machine gun. This may not be obvious at the start, but it should be obvious now.

I know of one gun club where a machine gunner let a 9 year old girl shoot a MAC-10 in 45 ACP. The girl was unable to control the recoil and the machine gun shot over the backstop. That range was in a very old gravel pit/mine.

Some poor guy, 1500 yards downrange is working on his roof. He gets hit with a 45ACP slug that luckily stays between his skin and inner body.

The Police came to the gun club and confiscated everyone's weapons for analysis.

I don't know the resolution, but their insurance was jacked up and they had to install $100,000 worth of baffles.

Kids are cute and all, but don't give them machine guns to shoot.

[markj]

My son is 8, he has shot his 410 and 22. Would I let him shoot an ouzi? heck no, he wouldnt want to either. I notice he will pick up a larger gun, hold it, then say no I am not ready. He then goes to the 22. Knows his limits. If I let him shoot and he died, I couldnt live with myself. Why would any parent put his kid in jepardy?

I feel for the kid, who knows what he could have done in life.

[woodguru]

...to who's at fault.

Hopefully I'm wrong here but I'd be surprised if the whole showing the grizzly sad shooting itself is about money, not fault, because once again nothing in the video shows fault unless it shows the argument and pressure applied to a
kid trying to say the 8 year old can't shoot a machine gun.

That's the only relevant video is one that showed events that led up to the incident. as one poster pointed out here, nobody needs to have a memory of a kid getting needlessly shot on their memory for the rest of their life.

My guess is that there will be one person on a jury with a clear enough head to place the blame where it belongs before other's lives get damaged. It's a cheap shot on the prosecutor to go after the chief of police and you can bet there's politics behind that one. It's too easy for a prosecutor to have jurists who want someone to pay for a graphically violent incident involving a young kid. Sympathy can be spun toward the father who lost his kid but I have a rather harsh attitude toward that idiot. The only sympathy in me is for a kid who had the misfortune to be born to an idiot. That's what the father needs to be reminded of.

My cousin had her son hit a tree on an ATV that turned him into a comotose vegetable before he died after several months. I was in the unfortunate position of reading her the riot act about how stupid it was of her to let him have one in the first place. She drummed up a veritable array of defenses about how and why she couldn't keep her underaged son from doing what he wanted. My argument was that it was 100% her say as long as he lived in her house. I did the best I could to tell her if he killed himself on it it was on her watch and consequently going to be her fault. She understands that well enough that she's suicidal at times. I wish I'd have gone a bit softer but she knows how I feel about it and I hold her directly responsible, not to mention she didn't set hard rules on a helmet.

[MLeake]

... if the chief of police left a 15 year old in charge of the machine gun firing range, I'd say that would make him criminally liable for a few charges, including negligent homicide or manslaughter, but starting with allowing a minor unsupervised access to an NFA weapon.

Was the father an idiot? Yes, but again, for all we know the guy knows nothing about firearms.

If I put on a static display at an airport, and let some kid supervise my airplane, and that kid lets somebody else's kid flip a starter switch, and kill somebody else with a propeller, guess who'd be in trouble. Not the kid who hits the switch, since he's a kid; not the kid's father, because he'd have no reason to expect anything unsafe to be allowed to happen (IE battery disconnected, no power source for a start - if he even thinks that far.) Not even the kid left to supervise the aircraft, as a 15 year old has no business doing that, and no real ability (in the vast majority of cases) to do it.

The ultimate responsiblity would be on the person who was supposed to provide a safe and secure display.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I've got to go with MLeake on this one. At first I figured that father had to be responsible but the argument of knowledge level makes good sense. Makes me think that the father is as much (maybe more) of a victim than the kid. At least the kid is "just" dead. The father has to LIVE with what happened.

[Al Norris]

I agree that the Promoter (The Chief of Police) is at fault.

So is the father (last I heard, he was up on separate charges). No reasonable man would allow a child to fire a full auto weapon. Full Stop.

[Mr. James]

Well done, markj,

My eight-year-old liked his .410 and even firing an SKS, although that one was a bit heavy for him. Of course, he was supervised like a hawk. He'd done well. He's 15 now, and shoots whatever we have.

[LordTio3]

Where I live, if there's a gun show, you can have guns; and you can have ammo. To put them together while on the premises is illegal. And there definitely isn't any shooting.

8 year old shooting a fully automatic 9mm Uzi sub-machine gun?
This rates as high up on the "Great Idea Scale" as "Substance Addict School Bus Drag Racer".

I don't know how I feel about videos being shown to jury's. I believe it would definitely clear up discrepancies between testimonies regarding "what really happened". But at the same time, a video will only show limited angle, audio, perspective; while I feel all too many people would try and slap the title of "Completely Definitive Evidence" on any footage of a criminal act.

Slippery, those slopes.

~LT

[Edward429451]

I would have to say that the father may be more culpable than the police chief guy. Even if the father were ignorant of guns, the father knows that and would logically have a higher level of alertness and caution in the very dangerous enviroment of a machinegun shoot. A good parent does not acquiesce thier kids safety to someone else ever and especially to a public servant or at a very dangerous place.

Humans would do well to look after thier cubs (sic) with the same tenacity as Grizzly Bears Sows do.

[DT Guy]

I disagree with those who give the father a pass because he wasn't a 'gun expert.'

I don't let my kids do things I'm not convinced are safe. If I don't know about them, I learn about them until I can judge if they are safe. That's it-

Has it ****** my kids off when I wouldn't let them go to local carnivals, because I wasn't convinced the rides were correctly maintained? Sure. Same for going boating with friends whose parents I didn't think were responsible enough, or vacationing with same.

Ultimately, I am the ONLY one responsible for my children. If they're doing something I let them do, it's on me--and only me--to ensure it's safe.

Having said that, I was allowed to shoot a Mac 11 at a young age, race motorcycles and do all sorts of 'dangerous' stuff, because my dad knew me, knew what I was doing and knew that, for us, it was safe. Anyone who lets their kid do something because a flyer on a wall said it was safe deserves full responsibility for what follows, IMHO.


Larry

[Doc Intrepid]

I must agree with woodguru.

In this specific instance I don't see how the video of the event establishes relative 'fault' or responsibility.

If the purpose of the court case is to establish "who is at fault", or relative negligence or culpability, the video of the event itself occurring is unlikely to be explanitive - because the event is not being debated. No one questions what occurred, or even particularly how it occurred.

What I understand is at issue is why it was allowed to occur - and whose decisions or lack thereof were directly or indirectly negligent in allowing it to occur - and these pre-event decisions are unlikely to be revealed by the video (unless of course the video captures the pre-event reluctance of the instructor to allow the child to shoot, and any insistence by the father than he do so against his better judgement, etc).

So unless video of the event itself reveals pre-event causality or negligence, showing it would appear to be more emotionally provocative than anything more constructive to the case.

JMHO. YMMV.

[TheGoldenState]

QUESTION.

The article states that the law says a machine gun cannot be furnished to the child (duh), however, it also says that the father chose that small uzi because he thought it better suited his small son (wow). SO, my question is, unless the 8 year old walked up and got the gun himself, the gun would have to have been furnished to the FATHER, who then and went and made the decision to pass it along to his kid to try out. In which case the blame would be placed on the father, be it legally or morally, correct? I know the whole story isnt in that one article, so this would be pure speculation based on the little info. we have.


Not an immediate death, either. That audio must be absolutely horrifying. I do not think either should be played for the Jury. They know the child shot and killed himself. The video and aftermath with the screaming and praying is to evoke emotion- which it undoubtedly will, as opposed to the laws and procedures that were broken.


Also, not simply referring to this case, but an accident is sometimes an accident, how horrible it may be, but jailtime isnt always the justice.

[Musketeer]

A good parent does not acquiesce thier kids safety to someone else ever and especially to a public servant or at a very dangerous place.

I got news for you, good parents do that every day. Your kids are at school where their safety is now the responsibility of the school. They go to the doctor. My son was less than 4 moths old when he was hospitalized for borderline pneumonia and I wasn't even allowed in the hospital near him because of my own health issues which laid me up.

There are NRA sponsored shooting clinics for children run near me where you entrust your child to the instructor.

This was the chief of police taking responsibility for assuring a safe environment for a child to handle a gun. He had the defacto title of expert and 99% of the public, most of which never handle guns, legitimately accept that.

You cannot ALWAYS be solely responsible for your child's safety. It scares the hell out of every parent but it is a fact.

[MLeake]

... between MORAL responsibility (which parents almost always have, unless they had no possible control over an outcome) and LEGAL responsibility, which does concern itself with things like knowledge, training, etc.

The father bears moral culpability, and used very poor judgment.

But how many posters here have wanted to get their wife or mother a snubby .38, because the little gun would be the right size for her?

Most of us realize snubbies kick more, and are harder to shoot, and don't make good beginner's guns. Joe Public out there has no clue.

So it's no surprise to me that the father would think the smallest Uzi would be most controllable. That in itself tells me he was NOT a gun guy, and did not really have a clue.

[sixgun67]

Simply another case of an 'unknowing' parent, who fails to pull his head out of his dark side to use what is becoming uncommon sense, because he 'knows that someone else is in charge and responsible' if something bad should happen. Always somebody else's fault. This is the America that we live in today.
sixgun

[Brian Pfleuger]

I would equate this to putting your kid on an amusement park ride.

Do you KNOW that it's safe? Unless you're an inspector, you don't KNOW. You TRUST that both the ride inspector and the person in charge (likely a teenager making minimum wage) both know what's safe and not and what to do and not to do.

When children get hurt and killed on an amusement ride, is it their parents fault? No, it's not, unless their parents are knowledgeable about the rides and no what makes them safe and not safe.

If you're a parent that knows NOTHING about firearms, and there are far, far more of "them" than there are "us", you have the EXACT same situation. They don't know. They have to assume that the experts and those in charge DO know.

That makes those in charge responsible.

[sixgun67]

Haven't we all been taught to never 'assume'? If in doubt, any doubt, use your head and ask questions. I do not assume. In many cases, those with limited or no knowledge of guns, fear them. With that said, if dad has a lack of knowledge and/or fears it, his first response is to hand a loaded gun to an 8 year old? In my head it boils down to dad's responsibility. He is the one who could've said no for any reason whatsoever. If dad was dealing with a 15yo at the booth, just what little voice in dad's head said that he could trust another KID?
As an aside, whenever there are people that bring loaded weapons or have ND's during a show, do they immediately blame the show officials? I'm sure some will immediately go for the throat, but I've not seen that, I've seen only the party involved being held accountable.
I just wish that the majority of citizens didn't feel all warm and fuzzy that wherever they go or whatever they do, somebody else will be there to protect them from their own decisions and actions.

If you've never used/had knowledge of a scalpel, would you assume that someone else has made it safe for you, so that you can hand it to your 8 year old?
sixgun

[Edward429451]

I got news for you, good parents do that every day. Your kids are at school where their safety is now the responsibility of the school.

True that but even in this day and age there is less gunfire at schools than at gun ranges so yours is kind of a moot point. Were talking about the kid at a machine gun shoot, an 8 yr old. WHat kind of dad hands an 8 yr old a MG and walks away?

SOme things are more dangerous than others so parents make decisions based on perceived potentials. Sorry, but dad gets no free ride on this one. Why was he out of reach of the boy? He could have been there, he was not standing there waiting while his boy rode a roller coaster...

[MLeake]

... and the articles I read about the incident last year never said how far the father was from the child when this happened.

For that matter, they didn't indicate how the lanes were being run. It's possible the father wouldn't have been allowed to stand over his son. Then again, it's possible he was standing there. Or that the instructor was standing right there.

How long would it take for the recoil and the child's reaction to rotate that muzzle? How fast would the person standing there have to be?

(Which is why I think a tether or mechanical limiter would have been a good idea, if somebody wanted to set up the display for newbies, especially smaller ones.)

Note: The DA opted to charge the exhibitor, the father didn't.

Note: This could have been any number of other situations. A biplane ride, but the rear safety harness didn't snug down enough; a SCUBA lesson, but the instructor lost track of a kid; a ski lesson, but the kid went off a ledge; etc.

IE, there are all sorts of comparable scenarios where the father would expect the pilot, SCUBA instructor, or ski instructor to be able to provide and assure a safe environment. I suspect some of the TFLers calling for the father's head now, because we know it was stupid to hand the kid that Uzi, might be a bit less prone to yell at the father who let a pilot strap his child into a Stearman, or who let his kid ride the chairlift with the ski class.

[woodguru]

I don't think this was "set up" for a kid to shoot a full auto under any circumstances, this slipped through the crack when the father was able to override and intimidate the young range supervisor. My guess is that any adult would have stuck to the original refusal to let an 8 year old shoot and not been impressed with the father's wish to have a little kid shoot.

It's really unfortunate when the intended mechanism is flawed by an authority figure who wasn't old enough to pull off the intended safeguard.

My nephew got killed because my cousin lost the ability to exert parental control of her own kid, as far as I'm concerned she facilitated his death because it wouldn't have happened on my watch.

If that were my kid same deal, that kid would be alive. And I have a very difficult time drumming up any sympathy for the father, my heart goes out to the rest of the boy's family though that they are saddled with an alive idiot.

In a position of public exposure to anything it can be very hard to idiot proof everything. People will find a way to do something so unbelievably stupid that it defies belief.

I do agree with MLeake as to the overall responsibility issues of the event organizer, but that is who I sympathize with, the guy's life gets turned upside down because of a momentary lapse created by a guy who can't use common sense.

[sixgun67]

If that were my kid same deal, that kid would be alive. And I have a very difficult time drumming up any sympathy for the father, my heart goes out to the rest of the boy's family though that they are saddled with an alive idiot.

In a position of public exposure to anything it can be very hard to idiot proof everything. People will find a way to do something so unbelievably stupid that it defies belief.

I do agree with MLeake as to the overall responsibility issues of the event organizer, but that is who I sympathize with, the guy's life gets turned upside down because of a momentary lapse created by a guy who can't use common sense.

These are my thoughts also, with my own emphasis added.
sixgun

[DT Guy]

I got news for you, good parents do that every day. Your kids are at school where their safety is now the responsibility of the school. They go to the doctor. My son was less than 4 moths old when he was hospitalized for borderline pneumonia and I wasn't even allowed in the hospital near him because of my own health issues which laid me up.

There are NRA sponsored shooting clinics for children run near me where you entrust your child to the instructor.

This was the chief of police taking responsibility for assuring a safe environment for a child to handle a gun. He had the defacto title of expert and 99% of the public, most of which never handle guns, legitimately accept that.

You cannot ALWAYS be solely responsible for your child's safety. It scares the hell out of every parent but it is a fact.

Would you send your kid to a school without visiting it? Would you let your son go on a diving excursion with a guide you know nothing about?

I'm drawing that line a lot closer to home. I don't easily cede responsibility to 'experts', and if I don't know enough about something, my kids don't do it.

As I mentioned, I never let my kids go on carnival rides if I didn't approve of the staff running them, or the equipment looked poorly maintained. I don't let them drive with friends who have really decrepit cars for the same reason.

In the end, crying 'but he was supposed to be an EXPERT' is going to be poor comfort to me if my kid gets hurt. And I can absolutely state that, if I didn't know anything about automatic weapons, there's no one on earth that would have been given permission to help my kid fire one.


Larry

[Musketeer]

Sorry, but I can't find any legal culpability for the father with the limited facts present. We have a society which is widely ignorant regarding the actual use of firearms. Most people know what they do from Hollywood. Even on these forums we are constantly batting myths which new visitors sometimes bring along as fact. For the majority of the population which is ignorant the chief of police is a defacto firearms safety expert. After all, he is empowerred to carry a gun as part of his job and is in charge of many others who do the same. For somebody who knows nothing on the subject that person is an justified expert.

The father will still carry guilt with him for the rest of his life.