Dad's video key evidence for trial of ex-police chief in US boy's gun show death

[RamboLiberal]

BOSTON - As a former police chief heads to trial on manslaughter charges in the accidental shooting death of an 8-year-old boy at a gun fair, prosecutors and defence attorneys are wrangling over a horrific piece of evidence: a videotape of the shooting taken by the boy's father.

Former Pelham, Massachusetts police chief Edward Fleury is scheduled to go on trial next week in the 2008 death of Christopher Bizilj. The boy was killed when he lost control of an Uzi submachine gun at a gun fair and shot himself in the head.

Fleury's attorneys say the videotape is gruesome and is likely to elicit an emotional reaction from jurors and prejudice them against their client. They are asking the judge to keep the videotape out of the trial or, if not, then to bar prosecutors from playing the audio portion of the tape, which includes the father's anguished reaction to the death of his son.

Dr. Charles Bizilj brought his two sons to an annual gun show at the Westfield Sportsman's Club on Oct. 26, 2008, and was standing nearby as Christopher fired a 9mm micro Uzi submachine gun at a pumpkin. The boy lost control of the gun as it recoiled.

One of Fleury's lawyer, Rosemary Curran Scapicchio, said the videotape is graphic and could evoke bias against her client. Fleury, who owned the company that organized the event, has pleaded not guilty.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/breakingnews/dads-video-key-evidence-for-trial-of-ex-police-chief-in-us-boys-gun-show-death-111211859.html

It's evidence - let it in. The boy suffered a gruesome death because of the idiocy of those running the gun show like Fleury.

[boppers]

1. Heck, even if they just showed a still frame from the video, it's pretty damning.

8 year old.

With an Uzi.

Really, what more needs to be said?

That being said, is the father on trial, too?

[RamboLiberal]

2. No he is not

Though in my opinion he bears some blame.

[Euromutt]

17. Stills can be way more misleading than film/video footage

By way of example, take a look at the way "9/11 Truthers" present stills of the Twin Towers collapsing. They'll point to the dust trails of the debris seemingly going up an out from the towers, and how could that happen unless there were explosives planted in the Towers beforehand?



When you watch the video, you see that what actually happens is not that the debris flies upward, but that the roots of the dust trails are dragged down with the collapsing tower, leaving the outer bits of dust cloud suspended at their original altitude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFz9TZUyIZk

[RandySF]

3. But, 2nd Amendment!!!

Right to bear arms!!! Freedom!!!!

[Euromutt]

4. Thanks for that constructive contribution to the discussion

Now that you've got your knee-jerk and irrelevant caricature of pro-RKBA types out of the way, would you care to comment on the actual topic under discussion?

[jazzhound]

7. Thanks for doing your part to sink gun "control".

Fair minded folks contrast your content-free emotion-based post with post #5 and realize that the "controllers" have no game.

[cleanhippie]

9. What utter nonsense.

Do you talk like an imbecile too?

[oneshooter]

10. The Second Amendment helps protect your right....

to sound like an idiot.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

19. Bar-ROOM went the elephant in the barroom.

[Euromutt]

5. I think Fleury's counsel needs to look up what "prejudice" means

The prefix "pre-" in "prejudice" is a bit of a giveaway; it means making up your mind before you've examined the evidence. It's hardly "prejudice" when you lean towards a certain side after seeing the evidence, now, is it?

[boppers]

8. Well, you're not supposed to make up your mind until seeing all the evidence.

The concern about evidence which would involve prejudice is that the jurors would make up their mind after seeing the video, regardless of any other evidence presented.

[TheWraith]

11. Any piece of evidence could theoretically cause someone to make a decision.

The only thing that's different about this video is that it graphically demonstrates the reckless disregard for safety that was present in this case.

This motion is a transparent attempt to insure that the clearest and most damning evidence isn't shown to the jury, since they know they have nothing to counter it with.

[Euromutt]

16. In theory, I see your point

The problem is that, all too often, the claim of "prejudicial" is made, for all-too-obvious reasons, when the piece of evidence in question really is all the court reasonably needs to make up its mind.

By way of example, let me cite a case I was tangentially involved in, namely the trial of Bosnian Serb Major General Radislav Krstic before the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Krstic stood accused, as the acting commanding officer of the VRS's (Bosnian Serb army) Drina Corps, of having supervised the overrunning of the Srebrenica "Safe Area" and the subsequent massacre of some 8,000 Bosniak (Bosnian muslim) men of military age captured in and attempting to escape the enclave. I was involved in processing a lot of documentary evidence related to the Drina Corps' operation, but what did Krstic in was a recorded intercept of a radio conversation held in the clear between Krstic and the deputy commander of one his subordinate brigades, Dragan Obrenovic, on July 19th 1995, several days after the fall of the enclave:

RK: Are you working down there?
DO: Of course we're working.
RK: Good.
DO: We've managed to catch a few more, either by gunpoint or in mines.
RK: Kill them all, God damn it.
DO: Everything, everything is going according to plan. Yes.
RK: Not a single one must be left alive.
DO: Everything is going according to plan. Everything.
RK: Way to go, Chief <of Staff of the brigade>. The Turks <i.e. Bosnian Muslims> are probably listening to us. Let them listen, the motherfuckers.
DO: Yeah, let them.

Emphasis mine.
The evidence I processed corroborated the case the prosecution made, but that tape recording by itself was really enough to convince the court. I have no doubt any defense counsel worth his paycheck would argue that that tape recording was "prejudicial" (and as I recall, Krstic counsel did just that, though their claim was rather weakened by the fact that they'd said that of every piece of evidence the prosecution had introduced), but sometimes, as in this case, "prejudicial" simply means "utterly damning by itself."

Yes, in this case, the sight of an 8 year-old child having his head perforated by one or two 9mm FMJs might "prejudice" the jury, but without the video, how is the jury supposed to see the circumstances, such as the level of supervision (or lack thereof) that allowed Christopher Bizilj to lose control of the Micro-Uzi, causing it to discharge into his head?

[AtheistCrusader]

6. This thread is useless without video.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RamboLiberal]

13. Trial to Begin in Boy's Death at Mass. Gun Expo

Monday Dec 6th

(DA) Bennett has said Charles Bizilj chose the compact Uzi for his son after he was assured it was safer than a larger weapon. He said the small size of the gun, along with its rapid rate of fire, actually made it more likely that the third-grader from Ashford, Conn., would lose control of the weapon and the muzzle would come close to his face.

Bennett said Charles Bizilj was not charged because he was a layman and based his decision to allow his sons to fire the gun on information from others who should have known it was too dangerous.

Massachusetts law says it is legal for children to fire a rifle or shotgun if they have parental consent and are supervised by a certified instructor. But it is illegal in Massachusetts to furnish a child with a machine gun under any circumstances.

Spano's 15-year-old son, who was acting as a safety instructor that day, was not certified, Bennett said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=12317439

[Vinnie From Indy]

14. 8yr. olds firing hand held, fully automatic weapons - let's see someone defend that!

Is there a limit to the 2nd amendment madness? Please explain why it is OK for an EIGHT year old child to be given a fully automatic, micro-UZI to shoot.

[Euromutt]

15. In different circumstances than these, it doesn't have to be a huge issue

It very much depends on what you mean by "it is OK." OK from which perspective?

I've fired a full-size Uzi (my personal weapon during my Dutch military service) on automatic, and it's quite controllable. That does have a thing or two to do with the fact that it's more than twice as heavy (3.7 kg vs. 1.5 kg), and has less than half the rate of fire (600 rpm cyclic vs. 1,250 rpm cyclic), as a Micro-Uzi.

With a competent, experienced instructor taking a hands-on role (as opposed to some 15 year-old), and with a weapon that's easier to keep under control than a Micro-Uzi, there's no reason letting even a 66-pound eight year-old fire an automatic weapon shouldn't be perfectly safe. Note: an automatic weapon, not (I reiterate) this particular automatic weapon.

Now, let me state, as a parent and a former soldier (technically inactive reserve, but I'll seriously surprised if they ever try to call me up again), that I'm not particularly supportive of the idea that firing an automatic weapon is appropriate entertainment for an 8 year-old. But that's from a pedagogic aspect; purely from a physical safety aspect, this can be done perfectly safely.

Then there is apparently the legal aspect, namely that (according to the ABC piece linked to by RamboLiberal) it's illegal to "furnish a machine gun to a minor" in Massachusetts under Massachusetts General Law Section 130 (http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section130), but the law does not define what "furnish" means. The section also seems to apply primarily to licensed dealers in firearms, and contains a bunch of exceptions for parents "furnishing" their children with firearms and instructors "furnishing" students with firearms, which would lead me to think that "furnish," in this context, means "to grant control over while the recipient is not under immediate supervision." (To compare, here in Washington state, my state of residence, state law makes the distinction between "having in one's possession" and "having in one's control" a firearm; the distinction being the absence or presence, respectively, of a supervising individual eligible to own a firearm. For example, if my 16 year-old niece from California or a friend from Europe comes to visit, I can't lend them one or more of my guns and let them take the guns to the range without me present; I can take them, and my guns, to the range and let them handle and fire the guns under my supervision. Or I could lend the guns to one of my niece's parents, and let them take her to the range and supervise her while she shoots.) But the legal aspect, like the pedagogic aspect, does not reflect on the physical safety aspect.

[RamboLiberal]

18. Video can be shown at Uzi death trial

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) - As the jury is being selected in the involuntary manslaughter trial of former Pelham Police Chief Edward Fleury, a Hampden Superior Court Judge has ruled that the jury will be allowed to see gun show video taken before eight year-old Christopher Bizilj accidentally shot himself to death.

Judge Peter C. Velis decided Tuesday that video taken at the show will be allowed to be shown to jurors up to the point when Bizilj accidentally shot himself in the head with an Uzi submachine gun. He ruled that jurors would only be allowed to hear certain pieces of audio following the shooting. There is no video following the shooting, as the camera was dropped.

http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/local/hampden/Video-can-be-shown-at-Uzi-death-trial

[RamboLiberal]

20. Illness postpones Mass. ex-chief's Uzi death trial

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. -- The manslaughter trial of a former Massachusetts police chief charged in the death of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself with an Uzi submachine gun at a fair has been postponed indefinitely after the defendant fell ill.

Edward Fleury's lawyer, Rosemary Curran Scapiccio, said Wednesday that he is hospitalized with an illness she did not have permission to publicly disclose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120803265.html

[RamboLiberal]

21. Judge: Jury can see, not hear, boy's Uzi death

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. -- A judge ruled Friday that jurors in the manslaughter trial of a former western Massachusetts police chief won't hear audio from the most graphic part of a video that shows an 8-year-old boy accidentally shooting himself to death with an Uzi submachine gun.

Hampden Superior Court Judge Peter Velis' ruling came as jury selection resumed in the case of former Pelham Police Chief Edward Fleury, whose company co-sponsored a 2008 gun fair where Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn., shot himself in the head.

Velis earlier ruled that jurors will see the video, but said Friday that they will not hear the audio portion of the shooting and afterward because it would be too prejudicial against Fleury. Velis said last week that the video and sound "would shock the conscience of any reasonable human being."

The video was taken by Christopher's father, Dr. Charles Bizilj, and shows the boy losing control of the 9 mm micro Uzi, shooting himself, and Dr. Bizilj dropping the camera amid screams and praying aloud that Christopher is all right, officials say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121703094.html

Wow, that is splitting hairs. IMHO the audio should be allowed.