Family Of Boy Killed By Uzi Sues Gun Show

[onehandle]

Source: AP

SPRINGFIELD (AP) The family of an 8-year-old boy who fatally shot himself at a gun show in western Massachusetts say the Uzi submachine gun jammed twice before he lost control of the weapon and fired into his head.

The family of Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn. says in a civil lawsuit filed Friday that a 15-year-old instructor who cleared the gun and handed it back to the victim failed to provide proper guidance.

The lawsuit targets owners of a gun club where the fair was held, promoters of the event and those who supplied the weapon and ammunition. They could not be reached for comment after business hours Monday.

Bizilj shot himself at the Westfield Sportsman's Club in October 2008.

Read more: http://wbztv.com/local/Christopher.Bizilj.death.2.1302267.html

[tekisui]

1. I would throw that out of court. The family let a 15 year old

give an 8 year old an uzi.

[KansDem]

10. The parents are suing based on the gun's defectiveness...

...not the age of the "instructor" although I don't know how any 15-year-old would be seriously considered as an "instructor" on the handling of an Uzi.

I mean, he's not even old enough to obtain a driver's license!

What are you're plans today?
I'm teaching a class on how to handle an Uzi
Oh, well, that interesting. Anything I can do to help?
Sure, Mom, you can give me a ride to the class!

[slackmaster]

16. They're blaming the owner, for not properly maintaining the weapon

Not the manufacturer.

I hope that is not the only tack they are taking.

...not the age of the "instructor" although I don't know how any 15-year-old would be seriously considered as an "instructor" on the handling of an Uzi.

I haven't yet met a 15-year-old that I would trust to teach gun safety to someone else. There is no way someone that age has enough experience, or a brain that is sufficiently developed.

[KansDem]

18. I sit corrected

Thanks for the clarification...:hi:

...and I wasn't being flippant with the "sit corrected" comment as I do not stand when I use my computer...

[slackmaster]

20. Federal law prohibits suing a gun manufacturer for a defect unless the weapon is actually defective

i.e. it blows up when the specified ammunition is fired in it.

Manufacturers cannot be sued for injuries or deaths caused by negligent handling, criminal misuse, improper maintenance, etc.

[brendan120678]

22. And that's exactly as it should be.

The owners/organizers of the gun show should be held liable, however. They are the ones who permitted a 15 year old to instruct an 8 year old in how to fire an Uzi. The gun manufacturer had no part in the boy's death.

[Gman2]

27. Not true. This toy, is a bad design.

When it was shrunk, it has a far shorter barrel. That makes the roll coupling short. The heft of the weapon, is reduced. Likely, the shells per minute is high. All these things, add to the tendency of the weapon to spin around.

[slackmaster]

28. It's not a toy. It's a highly regulated weapon designed for very special situations.

It's designed to be carried concealed by trained bodyguards.

It's certainly not an appropriate weapon to allow a beginner of any age to handle without literal hands-on supervision.

[Th1onein]

36. Yes, a bad design.

It's amazing that the father let this kid shoot that gun. Oh my God, he must feel terrible.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. I'm certain 'use by an 8 year old' wasn't in the design specs.

It's meant to be held by an adult, and is perfectly useful by police and military, in such a fashion. There's nothing wrong with it. Even the misfeeds don't point to a malfunction that contributed to the child's death.

It's POSSIBLE there was a runaway, but more likely, the kid was just trying to hang onto it, and hence, kept the trigger pulled tight, as the recoil overpowered him.

[northernlights]

49. whereas the father had no role?

:eyes:

The whole thing stinks. I hope the parents spend a bundle and the gun show spends a bundle and they're found equally culpable.

[-..__...]

37. Either this is another example of poor reporting...

or the article has been redacted...

From an earlier article...

The family of Christopher Bazilj is also going after the owners of the gun club where the show was held, the promoters of the event and the companies that made the weapon and the ammo.

http://pod08.prospero.com/n/blogs/blog.aspx?webtag=WBZ_Morning

[RamboLiberal]

53. Reading the stories the accident had nothing to do with the gun

jamming.

It was a multiple fail on the part of the father who let an 8 year old sign up to fire this gun. The idiot who put on the show & the club who allowed children to participate. The 15 year old who should've never been in charge as a range officer. And the fact that the 8 year old who I do not blame but who had his finger on the trigger as the stock slipped from his shoulder and the 15 year old RO wasn't close enough to the kid to prevent the accident. An RO should've had a hand on the weapon at all times as the kid shot it. Better yet a kid of that age should've never been shooting that gun.

I've done some RO work as an adult and hell I wouldn't have wanted to be supervising new adult shooters on this type of weapon with multiple shooters and full auto guns on that firing line.

From what I've seen of these types of machine gun shoots on TV I've always expected they were an accident waiting to happen.

[Ruby the Liberal]

34. A LOADED uzi no less...

[snagglepuss]

39. +1

[slackmaster]

2. It sounds like they have a good case

I have a lot of experiences teaching newbies how to safely handle and shoot firearms. What happened at that show was an epic failure on the part of the range safety officers and instructors.

[liberalhistorian]

47. It was also a massive epic failure on the

part of the FATHER. He shares a huge part of the blame here.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Oh for the love of God. These people better not reap a profit over

their negligence and irresponsible parenting.

[slackmaster]

5. If they are like most parents, they're not qualified to teach firearm safety to their own kids

The parents may have had a reasonable expectation that the people who were responsible for maintaning safety at the show were competent instructors. Clearly they were not.

[TwilightGardener]

8. Any parents who hand, or watch someone hand, their 8 year old a loaded weapon

have very little recourse when things go wrong, at least in my opinion. Dad should be in jail for child endangerment.

[Gman2]

9. That's BULLSHIT, you saw that carny didnt have any teeth, before you let your child ride the tilt o

Tilt o Whirl! You should have known that those people cant be trusted.

[tekisui]

11. And, stretch....

[geckosfeet]

21. Right. But it's ok for every gun owner to teach their kids about guns as soon

as they are old enough to walk. "Not that there is anything wrong with that." (See Seinfeld episode "The Outing")

People brag about learning to shoot when they were 5 all the time. "Not that there is anything wrong with that."

But this bang bang shoot'em up event was billed as a pumpkin shoot, safe for all ages, bring the kids, range officers on duty it's safe etc. etc. "Not that there is anything wrong with that."

But the organization that sponsored the event failed to properly supervise and regulate the event. The parent was told that is was safe, probably despite his better judgment.

I totally blame the sponsoring organization for allowing an eight year old to shoot a micro-uzi - but I don't write the laws. Whether or not the parents have a strong legal case is another issue.

[slackmaster]

30. I co-hosted a pumpkin shoot on Sunday

It was a lot of fun.

We used bolt-action military rifles and a couple of M1 Garands.

[TheWraith]

85. First off, not everybody teaches their kids about guns at that age. Few do, actually.

Second, usually when a child IS taught about guns, it's for the purposes of basic gun safety, and they're using something safe such as a single shot .22. Definitely NOT a fully automatic pistol which is notoriously difficult to control for a full-grown adult. Any rational person should have recognized that that was not an appropriate thing for a young child to be using.

[barbtries]

26. i feel the same way

do they want to sue themselves for taking their young child to a gun show and allowing a loaded UZI to be put in his hands? would they have let him drive an Indy car at the race track at that age? with a 15-year-old as his driving instructor?

i've lost a child. i feel for these people, but they made choices that led directly to this tragedy. i don't see how that fact can be overlooked. he was 8 years old for chrissake.

[Jamastiene]

57. Bingo! n/t

[redwitch]

4. A 15 year old and an 8 year old with a loaded Uzi

Who would have thought that would turn out badly?

Were the parents WITH the 8 year old when this happened? No way I would have let my sons handle an Uzi.
Ditto the 15 year old to have such responsibility. Not old enough to buy a lottery ticket but ok to handle an Uzi and let an 8 year old play with it.

Such a shame.

[NeoConsSuck]

72. So true

add up both their ages, divide by two, and the average age of both of them was 11 1/2.

What were the 'adults' thinking?

[Bonobo]

6. This happened here in my neck of the woods. Ask me anything.

Disgusting story.

The police chief, Fleury, is a stupid, incompetent piece of shit gun-nut.

[janet118]

40. Wasn't it the father who took the kid to the gun show?

If my husband did that, I would be purchasing an Uzi myself.

[Bonobo]

56. Yes, it was. nt

[Gman2]

67. Ok, how cum you use the same avatar? Bonobo?

[Coventina]

7. Um, the responsibility is the FATHER'S, who thought it was OK

for a 15 year-old to instruct his 8 year old on how to handle an uzi.

FAIL!!!!!

I hope they don't get a dime.

[Deep13]

13. What about the mother?

Was she there? Should she be denied compensation just because the father is an idiot?

[Coventina]

14. If she divorced him, I'd be fine with her suing. But not the father.

No way.

[Kolesar]

23. "this sucks"

"I told you we should have gone bowling!"

[Deep13]

24. Wait a minute.

You think there is a duty to divorce before recovering for a loss? She must wreck what's left of her familiy life to recover?

What youa re really saying is that since she is married to the tortfeasor, it is assumed anything she gets will be his. First, that's kind of sexist because it implicitly assumes she is subservient to the father. Second, once she recovers, she may do with the settlement as she sees fit. In tort law, spouses are allowed to sue each other and the settlement or verdict for one spouse is not assumed to belong to the other one. Think of this: A husband is driving his wife and he runs a stop sign resulting in injury to both of them. She is allowed to sue the husband for a settlement from the insurance carrier. His negligence is not imputed on her.

[Stargazer09]

35. Wait a minute!

I was in the car when my husband pulled out in front of another car. I was seriously injured and had to be airlifted to a hospital. Our insurance carrier said that I was not allowed to collect any money, because we are one and the same due to being married. Did I get lied to, or is that something that varies state to state?

[msanthrope]

71. You should not take legal advice from a person who may owe you

money. Your insurance carrier is not your lawyer.

Get a lawyer to look at the particulars of your case.

[Coventina]

76. I think there is a duty to divorce before recovering this loss, yes.

On edit:

My reasoning is this: The FATHER took the child to an even with guns - danger #1.
The father allowed the child to fire a gun - danger #2.
The father allowed the child to fire a gun that is known to be hard to handle, even for adults - danger #3.
The father allowed the child to fire an especially dangerous gun under the instruction/supervision of another child - danger #4.

Absolutely defies any sense of prudent behavior.

Since I don't know anything about the wife's role in this, I am going to assume, for the sake of argument, that she knew nothing about the outing.

For her to think that the father deserves any compensation, she has to believe that somehow the father is innocent of stupidly endangering their son's life. If that is the case, she deserves nothing, her punishment & compensation both come from continuing her relationship with her husband.

If she was horrified by his actions (which I would be) she should recognize that he was responsible for what happened. At that point she can either a) acknowledge that he was responsible, and recognize that they have no grounds for a lawsuit and just try to move on with their lives or b) decide that his crime was unforgiveable, and declare that she had no part in it, divorce him, and sue both him and the gun show.

[lanlady]

82. Her criminally negligent spouse took her child's life

How about that for grounds to divorce?

[masshole]

51. Not the Fathers fault - there was an expectation of safety

The ads for the event said "Safe for all ages, with Certified Range Instructors to supervise"

From the actual lawsuit:

“Charles Bizilj was ordered to stay clear of the area and was required to stand behind restraining ropes,” the lawsuit says. “The 15-year-old ‘line officer’ ... backed away from the decedent after handing the child a loaded, fully automatic weapon.”
The gun stuck twice when Christopher Bizilj attempted to fire it, the complaint says. The teen went back to clear a jammed round of ammunition. The boy put his finger on the trigger a third time.
“Without further instruction or guidance from the line officer, the decedent placed his fingers on the trigger mechanism of the weapon and attempted to raise the Micro Uzi to his shoulder. The stock of the weapon slipped down from the decedent’s shoulder and the barrel of same spun upward. The decedent attempted to prevent the weapon from falling, and in doing so, the gun spun upward,”

If the father is at fault it's for bad judgement in BELIEVING the ads that said the event was "safe" and there would be "Certified Instructors". Instead he got a 15 year old boy who let an 8 year old fire a gun that had already jammed twice.

I live in Westfield. I know many members of the Westfield Sportsman's Club, and have heard many stories about what happened. The wording in the lawsuit seems to match what some members have said in private.

[RamboLiberal]

59. The father is an ER doctor

I bet he's treated some gunshot wounds & seen accidents from activities that were supposedly "safe". I would expect he should have figured out himself that maybe a fully automatic gun with real ammunition is not a safe activity for an 8 year old no matter what the dumbasses running the shoot advertised.

IMHO the father was first in line in culpability.

[Coventina]

77. There is no expectation of safety when a child is firing a gun.

Especially a gun that adults find difficult to handle.

The father is completely responsible for his son's death.

[lanlady]

81. The father is a DOCTOR

How could he not know the physical and reflexive limits of a child? He is completely, solely responsible for the senseless loss of his child's life. If I were the mother, I'd have divorced him and made it my mission in life to get his medical license yanked, amongst other acts of revenge.

[bowens43]

12. Good!!

I hope everyone who helped make this tragedy possible loses everything they have.....BTW, I also think the father should be put in jail for a very long time.

[rrneck]

15. If the 15 year old

was there as a representative of the venue, the venue is liable for damages.

[MineralMan]

19. Yup.

[jgraz]

38. The sponsor of the gun show has been charged with involuntary manslaughter

Fark: He's also the chief of police.

http://wbztv.com/local/Christopher.Bizilj.death.2.918692.html

[rrneck]

63. He's busted. Fuck him. nt

[ensho]

17. what parent lets an 8 yr. old handle a Uzi! and

what gun show organizer lets a 15 yr. old be in charge of a uzi!

insanity.

[WinkyDink]

25. Okay, HERE is where I saw red: UZI. UZI, FGS. THIS is what we protect with the 2nd A.??

[slackmaster]

32. Like all other fully automatic weapons, the micro Uzi is strictly regulated

Buying one requires a federal background check, a $200 federal tax, and whatever your state requires. They are all tracked in the National Firearms Act registry.

[texanshatingbush]

29. I've never been to a gun show.....have a question for those who have.....

Is it customary for guns at a gun show to be loaded?

If the answer is YES, then why would anyone in their right mind be willing to trust their lives to the assumption that all of the gun vendors and show-goers make decisions 100% of the time which will never endanger anyone at the gun show?

[slackmaster]

33. It is customary for all weapons at gun shows to be unloaded

Except for ones being carried lawfully by people who are on guard duty.

Most gun shows don't include live-fire gun shoots. I've never been to one in California that involved shooting. All firearms that are carried in by customers are inspected at the door, where they get zip ties put through the action (if the owner hasn't already done so).

[uncle ray]

43. it is at a maching gun shoot.

this was more than a "show".

[Javaman]

31. I need to know something...

where were the parents when the 15 year old handed the uzi to the 8 year old?

there is plenty of stupid to pass around on this one.

[BennyD]

41. Why does a family with an 8-yr old have an Uzi? That's my ??? n/t

[RamboLiberal]

52. The family didn't have an Uzi

This was a machine gun shoot where visitors could rent time on a gun.

[salguine]

42. What about the parents who put a SUBMACHINE GUN into the hands of an 8-YEAR-OLD!? Do I

still have to keep asking if we've lost out fucking minds!?

[Jamastiene]

58. No, you don't have to keep asking.

I think the answer to your question is painfully obvious at this point, unfortunately. :banghead:

[uncle ray]

44. question for those who know UZIs.

what's the scoop on the jamming? do they jam while firing, meaning bullets keep coming out even if you release the trigger? if that's the case, yes there is a big problem with how the gun is maintained. i don't know how that negligence stands compared to that of the parents who thought they were letting their kid fire a "safe" well maintained gun.

[Crabby Appleton]

45. When it jams it stops firing

[AtheistCrusader]

55. No, but there is another condition known as a runaway

where the weapon is either broken, or so hot that rounds cook off in the chamber, causing continiuous fire until all ammo is expended, and the chamber is left empty.

However, that doesn't appear to be the case here. The weapon was firing because the trigger was pulled. It likely remained pulled because the kid was struggling to hang onto it.

[Bonobo]

62. I think the short muzzle of the uzi allowed it to 'spin' and then fire upside down.

Press trigger once. Fires 3 rounds. End of story.

[Pavulon]

73. Not really. Lots of stupid involved on this case. by all parties.

Machine pistols are difficult to control and DO NOT fire three round bursts. Some m16 variants have a burst trigger, as do some sub guns. The uzi variants will fire the entire magazine with one trigger pull, by design. IE the weapon cycles at 1200 rpm or so until it is empty or the trigger is released. Meaning if it gets away from you and you try to grab it, you can kill yourself. Sadly the child probably lost control and rode the trigger until he was shot or tried to catch it and shot himself.

Most people are not instructed that when firing submachine guns (because most people are never really trained) that if you loose grip or balance DO NOT try to catch your weapon. Let it hit the deck.

This is a sad case because it is preventable by common sense. NO child should be firing a machine pistol. This goes against every safe handling and common sense rule in existence.

[Euromutt]

84. Especially since Uzis have grip safeties

Unless the grip safety is squeezed, the bolt is locked in its present position, and the gun cannot be cocked or fired. Release the grip safety and the gun will stop firing.

[Howzit]

83. "or so hot that rounds cook off in the chamber"

The Uzi fires from an open bolt, so it cannot cook off even when over heated.

Firing under powered ammo that is unable to cycle the bolt far enough back to catch when the trigger is released, but just powerful enough to eject the empty and feed the next round could cause a run-away theatrically.

[happyslug]

65. Remember this is a "Mini-Uzi" NOT a real Uzi

The real Uzi is a tough old bird, but quite heavy. The Mini-Uzi (never adopted by any military branch through some special forces unit did buy it) is a downsized version of the Uzi almost to true "Machine pistol" size (i.e. the size of a large pistol, a little bigger then a 45 automatic for example). The reports I have real about the Mini-Uzi refers to it as the "Phone booth gun" for you have to be in the same phone both to hit anything with it (This is NOT true of the full size Uzi which has an effective range of up to 100 yards). When it first came out some special forces did buy it, and promptly saw it was unfit for what they needed and dropped it (Going to the much larger and effective MP-5 for example).

One of the problems with "Machine pistols" is the tendency for the whole class of weapons to be uncontrollable when fired in the automatic mode (i.e. the round is to powerful for even grown men to keep on target in such a light gun in automatic mode let along a child). That the weapon malfunctioned is secondary to anyone being able to control such a weapon let alone an eight year old child. Machine pistols (as opposes to the larger sub-machine guns) are useless and worse, dangerous, all of them should be outlawed as being unsafe to the user of such weapons.

[liberalhistorian]

46. The father should sue himself for complete

stupidity and gross child endangerment. Why in the hell would any sane parent allow their EIGHT-year-old to be anywhere near a fucking machine gun, let alone actually fire the damned thing is beyond my comprehension. Seems to me that he's about 90% at fault here, he just refuses to recognize it.

[struggle4progress]

70. Nov 08: "The father said he and the boy's mother 'have no regrets.'"

11/02/08 · 1:01 am :: posted by CCToday
Christopher Bizilj is laid to rest privately in Eastham on Saturday
http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2008/11/02/he-loved-the-cape-and-he-ll-be-with-us-f?blog=53

[liberalhistorian]

74. Oh, my ,that's even more sickening. If that's what he needs

to tell himself to be able to deal with such a horrible loss, then so be it. But if he actually believes that shit, then he's sick. Really sick.

[dairydog91]

79. Responsibility? What's that?

[pattmarty]

48. Just a quick observation and comment: A 15 yo should NOT.............

.............be showing an 8 yo how to shoot an AUTOMATIC WEAPON with live ammunition. This is just a fucking COMMON SENSE issue, not necessarily a gun issue.

[robo50]

66. I have to agree. It's strange that the kid would even be allowed to

touch the gun!

Where are the parents of these two boys? Out to lunch, I guess.

[RamboLiberal]

50. I hope the dingbats that ran this show get convicted

But I also blame the father who is an emergency room physician(I think he was head of the ER) for allowing his 8 year old to fire this gun. He should have known better. I really hope he doesn't get one red cent. From what I'm reading the accident had nothing to do with the guns jams.

I always thought there was going to be an accident at one of these machine gun shoots. Too me they seem to loosely run.

According to the 32-page lawsuit, on Oct. 28, 2008, Charles Bizilj purchased the opportunity for his son, Christopher, to fire a Micro Uzi 9 mm that was owned by Giuffre and brought to the exposition by Spano. Giuffre and Spano were reportedly designated as "renters" at the expo, hired and solicited by Fleury to provide the weapons used by patrons.

When Christopher reportedly stepped to the line to fire the weapon, the suit alleges that Spano's son, 15-year-old Michael Spano, was the line officer charged with loading the weapon, handing it to the participant and providing instructions on its use. While Christopher was firing, Charles Bizilj was reportedly ordered to stay clear of the area and was required to stand behind restraining ropes.

On the first and second firing attempt, the suit alleges the weapon jammed and that Spano retrieved it, cleared what he believed was a jammed round of ammunition, and handed it back to Christopher. On the third try, when the boy attempted to raise the weapon to his shoulder, the stock slid down his shoulder, causing the barrel to spin upward and discharge as Christopher tried to prevent it from falling, according to the suit.

Shortly after the incident, Hampden District Attorney William M. Bennett initiated a probe into the boy's death aimed at determining whether it was illegal or reckless for children to possess or fire a machine gun. State law prohibits furnishing a machine gun to any person under the age of 18.

But others have asserted that the state's gun laws are so poorly written that even experts have trouble deciphering them.

http://www.gazettenet.com/2009/11/10/family-sues-over

Spano set the boy up at a firing line, where Spano's 15-year-old-son acted as "line officer," the complaint states. The teen loaded the weapon and handed it to Christopher Bizilj, providing instructions for handling it.

"Charles Bizilj was ordered to stay clear of the area and was required to stand behind restraining ropes," the lawsuit says. "The 15-year-old 'line officer' ... backed away from the decedent after handing the child a loaded, fully automatic weapon."

The gun stuck twice when Christopher Bizilj attempted to fire it, the complaint says. The teen went back to clear a jammed round of ammunition. The boy put his finger on the trigger a third time.

"Without further instruction or guidance from the line officer, the decedent placed his fingers on the trigger mechanism of the weapon and attempted to raise the Micro Uzi to his shoulder. The stock of the weapon slipped down from the decedent's shoulder and the barrel of same spun upward. The decedent attempted to prevent the weapon from falling, and in doing so, the gun spun upward," according to the complaint.

http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-25/1257845078235640.xml&coll=1&thispage=2


In this photo taken Oct. 29, 2005, Dominic Spano, front, of New Milford, Conn., and his son, Michael Spano, 12, load an MG-42 machine gun during the Westfield Sportsman's Club's annual Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the club ground in Westfield, Mass. It was announced Thursday, Dec. 4, 2008, that Dominic Spano and two other men were indicted on charges of involuntary manslaughter in the death of 8-year-old Christopher Bizilj, who accidentally shot himself in the head with an Uzi during a gun show at the Westfield club in October 2008. (AP Photo/The Republican, Christopher Evans)

[SlingBlade]

60. What a total waste and for what ?

Gun Nut Ex-Police Chief


Micro Uzi


A Wasted Life, 8 year old Christopher Bizilj


This is too sad, So much irresponsibility and blame to go around, But none of it
will bring Christopher back

How bout a little common sense folks, Guns such as this are for killing, Period
Why would any sane person even want their child around such a violent and deadly machine ?

It just amazes and saddens me

[Endangered Specie]

78. "who would want their child around such a deadly machine"...

The IDF

[NoodleyAppendage]

61. Boy hands baby a rattlesnake. Parents sue snake farm. Parents are dumbasses. n/t

J

[happyslug]

68. If snake falrm NEW it has poisonous snake and STILL permitted it to happen, yes they should be sued

Worse, because the snake farm is in the business of raising snakes, they know (or should have known) the dangers of such snakes and take precautions (i.e. signs saying NO handling of snakes, cages as snake proof as possible etc). Yes it would be irresponsible of the parents to permit their kid to handle a snake, but if the snake farm not only permits such handling BUT participate is such handing (as in this case the people holding the shoot permitted people to shoot AND helped them shoot) then the snake farm assumed the responsibility of the dangers of handling snakes (i.e the parents not only can sue the farm, but win).

Remember the problem here is NOT the gun themselves (As Is said above, the mini-Uza is inherently dangerous, like any poisonous snakes, the key is that some snakes are quicker to bite then others and in this case it is like giving a kid the quickest to bite snake on the farm) BUT the structure of the event to make it safe. While the problem with this type of weapon (a Machine Pistol as opposes to a true sub-machine gun) added to the problem, the problem was leaving such a young child handle such a dangerous weapon with such minimal supervision. It is like giving a child a high poisonous snake and bites quicker then any other snakes and expect him NOT to be bitten WHILE saying such handling is perfectly safe. When the snake bites it is the problem of the farm not the family and a lawsuit will determine how much the event holder has to pay for their negligence.

[Endangered Specie]

64. ahhhh, lawsuit... its the American way isn't it

[samsingh]

69. i hope they win handily

[RamboLiberal]

75. They don't deserve the money

I hope they lose. The father IMHO was a fool. While I hope those responsible are found criminally guilty.

[dairydog91]

80. If the gun was defective and jamming, the kid wouldn't have shot himself in the head.

Seems like it was working in good order when the chucklehead father allowed his son to shoot it.