Former Pelham Police Chief Edward Fleury Found Not Guilty For Gun Show Uzi Death Of 8 Year-Old Christopher Bizilj

Twenty years sounds like a bit much, but he was ultimately responsible for what went on there. To me, this is a travesty of justice. It sounds more like what a Louisiana jury would do than one in The Bay State.

Yet, he does seem to have the right attitude about it.

The 53-year-old Fleury cried and hugged his attorney and his family after the verdicts were read, while several of Christopher’s relatives walked quickly out of the courtroom without commenting.He has vowed never to hold a machine gun shoot ever again, and regrets having held them in the past, due to the death of the child.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Edward Fleury Found Not Guilty

I wasn't going to post about this particular travesty of justice, but the picture of the former police chief convinced me.

Gun rights people like Zorro are happy because individual responsibility has been maintained. The boy was 8, for crying out loud.

I say everyone involved should go to jail, not for 10 or 20 years, that would be excessive, but for long enough to get their attention. After that they should never be allowed near guns.

Do you think the adult participants in this sick incident demonstrated the kind of responsibility necessary for exercising the right of gun ownership safely?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Edward Fleury Trial Continues

As a big believer in shared responsibility, as apparently the courts in MA are, I'm enjoying the arguments in the trial of Edward Fleury.  He's been charged with manslaughter because he sponsored the event and is considered by some to be ultimately responsible for the safety.  The two guys who owned the machine guns have been charged.  The teenager who supervised the actual shooting and proved to be unfit for that very important job, has not been charged but is a witness at trial.  And finally there's Mr. Charles Bizilj, father of the dead boy, who's not been charged either.

[Fleury's lawyer Rosemary] Scapicchio has repeatedly argued that some of the responsibility for Christopher's death falls on his father. Prosecutors have said that Charles Bizilj was not charged because he based his decision to allow his sons to fire the gun on information from others who should have known it was too dangerous.

Bizilj testified Thursday he thought the event would be safe and well-supervised. When asked by prosecutor William Bennett if he had thought about safety, Bizilj said, "You can imagine this has gone through my head a thousand times."

Bizilj acknowledged under cross-examination that he signed a liability waiver before the shooting and told reporters shortly afterward he believed it was a tragic accident. Bizilj later filed a lawsuit for negligence against the Westfield Sportsman's Club, Fleury and two others. It was settled last month for about $700,000, but Fleury wasn't part of the settlement, Scapicchio said.

Michael Spano also said under cross-examination Thursday that several police officers saw children shooting machine guns at the event and never told anyone to stop or that it was illegal.

The boy was 8 years old. Surely, even the most stubborn individual-responsibility believer must admit someone else was responsible.  Wouldn't you say?

I say they're all to blame, even the ones who saw it and said nothing.  How long are we going to tolerate pro-gun folks who mind their own business and turn a blind eye to things or who insist it was the other guy's fault? 

What do you say? Where do you draw the responsibility line?

Please leave a comment.

The Bizilj Case Back in the News

The Boston Globe reports on the sanctions rendered against the gun club in which an 8-year-old accidentally killed himself with a machine gun. When we talked about this before the gun lovers basically said these events are just good clean fun and it rarely happens that something goes wrong anyway.

Seventeen months after an 8-year-old Connecticut boy fatally shot himself with a machine gun provided at a Massachusetts gun range, the Westfield Sportsman's Club pleaded no contest today to a manslaughter charge and to furnishing a machine gun to a child.

As part of a settlement in Springfield Superior Court, the club agreed to pay a $1,000 fine for the manslaughter charge and to pay $10,000 to two charities that work with children.

Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn., died on Oct. 26, 2008, after losing control of a high-powered Uzi machine gun, which recoiled and fatally shot him in the head. The boy's father had brought him to a gun shooting event at the club.

Besides Christopher's father who brought him to this sick event and was too far removed from the action to be of help, it came out later that the one responsible for supervising the boy was just a kid himself.

The mother asked how it could have happened that it was an unlicensed 15-year-old boy, the son of one of the gun dealers sponsoring the event, who was in charge of supervising her son.

"How could [the gun dealer] think his 15-year-old son could possibly be mature enough and skilled enough to put a powerful automatic weapon in the hands of an 8-year-old boy? How could gun club range officers allow non-certified instructors to be in control?" she asked, adding, "It is hard to comprehend the extent of negligence that went on that afternoon."

So, just so no one can say the gun club and all the dads involved got off light, there was another legal consequence.

"There will be no more automatic weapons at the Sportsman's Club. That's the condition I accept this plea," the judge said. "We cannot endure another case like this. This has shaken the conscience of the whole community."

To me this sounds almost like a cover-up, something you'd expect in Alabama or Indiana. What's the point of all those strict gun laws in the North East if they let people and gun clubs get away with stuff like this with a slap on the wrist?

What's your opinion? You know what I think. The dads involved in this case, and all the other gun-dads, should be ashamed of themselves. But, I'd like to hear what you think.

Please leave a comment.

8-Year-Old Killed in Uzi Accident

Boston.com reports on the tragic accident that resulted in the death of an 8-year-old.

As his father raised his camera, an 8-year-old boy aimed an Uzi at a pumpkin set up at a shooting event. Before his father could focus, the third-grader from Connecticut squeezed the trigger, and the high-powered weapon recoiled and fatally shot the boy in the head.

The tragic death of Christopher Bizilj has raised a furor in the gun blogging world. Bryan Miller, who you may remember was involved with the infiltrator Mary McFate, has written an article which describes the incident as "unconscionable, selfish, stupid." Not much to argue with there. But he goes on to question whether the real motivation for this "sport like any other" might not be psycho-sexual. I guess this is what gets people upset.

On the Snowflakes in Hell blog, which I like very much and often read, Sebastian says about Bryan, "He’s shown himself to be hysterical, and not interested in rational discussion." To me that doesn't seem like a fair criticism. Then Sebastian's commenters really go over the top, accusing Bryan of dancing in the blood of the little boy.

I say, it's perfectly reasonable to use a real life example to illustrate one's point. It's perfectly fair to ask questions like, what kind of sport is that? Is it really like any other, boating for example? Bryan's point seems to be that it isn't; that something's wrong with people who like guns. I can certainly understand why gun lovers would get defensive about this kind of questioning, but their anger and name-calling just obscures their answers.

Is there something to the theory that men who like to shoot guns are compensating for some kind of inadequacy in themselves? Is it so offensive to even ask the question? Isn't it possible that some gun enthusiasts are enthusiastic because of low self esteem, inordinate fear, feelings of inadequacy or paranoia? If so, how many, what percentage?

Another question arises in this case. A weapon like the Uzi seems to be outside the normal description of something needed for self defense or home protection. Or is it? Are these so-called assault weapons required for these purposes? If so, where do we draw the line? Should people be allowed surface to air missiles, hand grenades, land mines? For the very affluent gun enthusiast, the sky's the limit, I guess.

I say there should be some limits, but I honestly don't know where that line should be drawn. What do you think? What's your opinion.