Westfield Gun Club pleads "no contest"

[jasons]

If the dad throws his kid on a 900cc crotch rocket, you bet I do.

ETA: I'm not saying the dad should suffer any more i.e. criminal charges, however going after the organizers or the club is wrong IMO.

We disagree on one point: If the organizers specifically advertised this event to "random Joe's off the street," then don't they have an obligation to assume that those people are not experienced enough to handle NFA guns (or any guns for that matter) on their own? And if so, are they not obligated, at least morally if not legally, to provide the appropriate instruction and supervision?

I agree that if this wasn't a club-sponsored event then it wasn't the club's fault. I also agree that the father owns a huge part of the blame. I just don't see how those of us who are responsible can hold blameless the organizers who (it seems) screwed the pooch on so many levels.... (And in doing so screwed us at the same time.)

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Mark my words, lots of MA gun clubs will jump on that bandwagon and prohibit all F/A guns as well as kids under age <TBD> on their ranges.

This is the real threat to the shooting sports. The range rules that went into effect at the Westfield club after this tragedy restricted handguns to 21+ and long guns to 18+ unless the person had an FID card. The family membership is no more. That is the reason I left the Westfield club and joined the Chicopee Sportsmans club only to find out that the Chicopee club is in the process of instituting the same rules.

The death was tragic and never should have happened and as usual the people in the shooting sports are going to pay a high price because of the stupidity of a few.

Bob

 

[George D]

If the dad throws his kid on a 900cc crotch rocket, you bet I do..

Serious.
A father's job is to protect his son, that guy failed. Giving that kid a micro UZI was no different than giving him a chainsaw to play with.
The child lacked the physical ability to control the firearm just like he would lack the physical ability to prevent a saw kickback.
There are parties to blame here but not the hosting club.

 

[M1911]

A father's job is to protect his son, that guy failed. Giving that kid a micro UZI was no different than giving him a chainsaw to play with.

You know a lot about firearms. You know that a micro Uzi is a difficult gun to control. I know that too. But the average Joe Schmo off the street probably thinks that smaller is easier.

Normally, I would place the blame on the instructor supervising the person on the line. But in this case, that "instructor" was apparently a 15-year-old kid. IMNSHO, the majority of the blame lies in the idiot who put the 15-year-old in charge of that position on the line.

When I bought a chainsaw, it came with an instruction manual. If I failed to read that manual or gave that to someone without instructing them on safe operation of it, then I would be responsible.

But that is not what happened in this case. In this case, the event was advertised as being supervised by trained instructors. I've been an instructor at such events. They are open to novices. We use NRA certified instructors at every position. It is the job of the instructors to ensure that safety rules are followed, and to remain within arms reach so they can intervene immediately if the participant does not follow our instruction.

 

[George D]

I am going to have to go with 50/50 on this between "event organizer/instructor" and parent, but not the hosting range.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Certainly not all. My range was the only one who was willing to host a troup of scouts a month or so ago after they got turned away from several other clubs so the kids could get their rifle badge or something. Honestly if clubs start restricting kids from shooting on their ranges how are we going to teach the future generation about the value of the second amendment and how to enjoy the sporting aspect of it?

That's the whole idea of those in power. Pass legislation or threaten same to push clubs to forbid training the next generation. Then gun ownership need not be banned, it will die out on its own in a generation.

Excoriating the "stupid" dad when he was one of MANY who brought minors to the shoot serves our "side" no good purpose.

That statement shows that you don't know what led up to this tragedy.

The kid (according to earlier stories) was not unfamilliar with shooting, but it may have been his first time shooting FA.

The range controls were adequate prior to the accident, as far as I could see. Each shooter was under the direct, physical control of event staff, and, generally, the gun, as well.

It was a tragic, horrific, accident that draws unfavorable light on a subset of a minority group in this state. Guns are Icky. Machine guns are Ickier. This is the ultimate "if it bleeds, it leads." story.

The kid is dead. The dad will have to live with that. but [ducking for having an unpopular view....] accidents happen.

BTW: I was there, but left before the accident, so while not an eye witness to the accident, I can give a first person report of how things were being run.

The kid never shot F/A before, according to reports.

I totally disagree. I wasn't there but did speak with someone who was there when this happened.

15 yo kids ("in charge") don't have the maturity to stand down an adult who picks an argument with them. Reports that I got from witnesses who saw the "lead up" to the event were that the father ARGUED with the 15 yo that since the kid was small, the small gun was "perfect for him". It sure seems that the 15 yo folded under pressure and gave in to the father, and therefore I hold the father as MOST RESPONSIBLE. I also hold the person who put the 15 yo "in charge" responsible/negligent for not putting an adult (someone with a green card) in charge of the rental gun.

Serious.
A father's job is to protect his son, that guy failed. Giving that kid a micro UZI was no different than giving him a chainsaw to play with.
The child lacked the physical ability to control the firearm just like he would lack the physical ability to prevent a saw kickback.
There are parties to blame here but not the hosting club.

Fully agree, see my comments on this above.

Normally, I would place the blame on the instructor supervising the person on the line. But in this case, that "instructor" was apparently a 15-year-old kid. IMNSHO, the majority of the blame lies in the idiot who put the 15-year-old in charge of that position on the line.

But that is not what happened in this case. In this case, the event was advertised as being supervised by trained instructors. I've been an instructor at such events. They are open to novices. We use NRA certified instructors at every position. It is the job of the instructors to ensure that safety rules are followed, and to remain within arms reach so they can intervene immediately if the participant does not follow our instruction.

I agree about the 15 yo "in charge", see above. Also reported was that the 15 yo handed the gun to the kid and then turned around for something . . . and that is when the tragedy occurred. Another negligent act.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I believe the maximum penalty against a corporation for a homicide is a $1000 fine. Westfield pleaded no-constest, and agreed to a penalty 11 times the maximum. I wonder what "incentive" was offered to pressure them into this deal rather than just pleading guilty and accepting the maximum sentence.

 

[M1911]

15 yo kids ("in charge") don't have the maturity to stand down an adult who picks an argument with them. Reports that I got from witnesses who saw the "lead up" to the event were that the father ARGUED with the 15 yo that since the kid was small, the small gun was "perfect for him". It sure seems that the 15 yo folded under pressure and gave in to the father, and therefore I hold the father as MOST RESPONSIBLE.

Like many here, you are letting your knowledge of firearms cloud your judgment. You (and I and others here) know that because the gun was small, it was exactly the wrong gun for the kid. But you and I have a lot of firearms knowledge. Someone who is not a gun geek would not necessarily know that a smaller gun is harder to control than a larger gun. Nor should they be expected to at such an event where people who have never shot a firearm (let alone a machine gun) are welcomed.

At such an event, it is the duty of the instructors to make a judgment and stand up for that judgment. When I have worked such events (not class III, mind you), as the instructor I'm the guy who asks the person who comes to my position what experience they have with firearms. I'm the one who starts them with a .22 (most likely a .22 rifle), and then, based on how they do, slowly works them up to something with more recoil and report. That is my job.

The parents aren't even ON the firing line. They are 10 feet behind the firing line on the other side of a string of "caution tape". I'm the one standing next to the novice on the firing line. I'm the one within arms reach. I'm the one who is the certified firearms instructor with the "expert" knowledge. I'm responsible.

I also hold the person who put the 15 yo "in charge" responsible/negligent for not putting an adult (someone with a green card) in charge of the rental gun.

I agree with that.

 

[Len-2A Training]

M1911, I was told that the 15 yo told the father that the micro Uzi was totally inappropriate. The father argued with the 15 yo until the kid gave in . . . something that you or I would not have done!

 

[Scrivener]

I believe the maximum penalty against a corporation for a homicide is a $1000 fine. Westfield pleaded no-constest, and agreed to a penalty 11 times the maximum. I wonder what "incentive" was offered to pressure them into this deal rather than just pleading guilty and accepting the maximum sentence.

NOT having a conviction used as evidence in the CIVIL suit.

 

[MisterHappy]

M1911, I was told that the 15 yo told the father that the micro Uzi was totally inappropriate. The father argued with the 15 yo until the kid gave in . . . something that you or I would not have done!

If the dad browbeat the "15 yo" until he gave in, then I concede that point.

In one of my posts, I mention that we shot nothing smaller that an MP5 - I did not reason out conciously, "Gee, that's too small, and will climb too much," it just felt wrong.

I don't understand LenS' comment that " don't understand what led up to this tragedy." - not trying to be argumentative, but what doyou mean?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

NOT having a conviction used as evidence in the CIVIL suit.

Bingo, we have a winner. I take it from this response that the courts are under no obligation to accept a no contest plea?

 

[jasons]

M1911, I was told that the 15 yo told the father that the micro Uzi was totally inappropriate. The father argued with the 15 yo until the kid gave in . . . something that you or I would not have done!

That's the whole point. It was absurd that whoever it was put the 15 year old kid in charge in the first place.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Originally Posted by MisterHappy
Excoriating the "stupid" dad when he was one of MANY who brought minors to the shoot serves our "side" no good purpose.

That statement shows that you don't know what led up to this tragedy.

OK, I had to go back to get your comment and mine in context here.

I interpreted your comment to mean that since many parents brought their children, that this case (father bringing son) was no different and therefore we shouldn't pick on it.

My comment:

That statement shows that you don't know what led up to this tragedy.

I was further commenting that you were obviously unaware that the father allegedly browbeat the 15 yo into doing what that 15 yo knew was WRONG in this particular case. That's why I am beating up on the father (and whoever left the 15 yo "in charge"). I consider this to be a very important allegation that shifts majority blame on the father IMNSHO.

 

[ateamrob]

Sucks that they have to ban MGs, even for non event use. Basically, a few idiots (the kid's dad included) ruined it for everyone.

-Mike

yeah its really too bad. Because as a MG shooter myself its already hard to find places to responsibly shoot full auto. Living out in the country certainly lessens the blow a little but its too bad. There is nothing wrong with MGs or shooting them responsibly. Its the carelessness that causes the problems and my 2 cents is that it could happen with any weapon not just a MG. Too bad us MG owners / shooters have to pay the price.

I was at Smith & Wesson back in October for my recertification for "patrol rifle instructor" and Smith goes to the Westfield range for most of their outside training as they have a contract with them. I was talking with the S&W training coordinator one day at a break and he told me that even THEY cant test or shoot full auto at Westfield whether it be for weapons testing purposes or for LE training. Unfreakinreal I tell you. Unreal. It sets a bad example for other clubs as well.

Even though I 100% dont agree with the decision I suppose I can understand why Westfield decided to ban full auto at their club but its just a shame when we all know that full auto was not the problem in this case. Carelessness was.


Rob

 

[Len-2A Training]

Rob, it's always easier to blame/punish the object rather than the person(s) responsible.

Sounds like the DA/judge forced that action on the club in this case . . . but I'm sure that the club would have "knee jerked" to the same conclusion anyway.

On the other hand . . .

At a club I used to belong to a long time ago, the outdoor ranges were shut down by the PD and Selectmen after a skip-shot hit the arm of a young lady 1/2 mile away (didn't break the skin and the shooter was proven, bullet matched his gun by MSP Ballistics Lab) . . . BUT it came from another club!

My former club wasn't allowed to re-open outdoor ranges until extensive expense in installing baffles, eyebrow, etc.

Then my chief begged me to again allow the PD to use said club for practice/qualifications (I was a Reserve PO and BOD Members of said club) . . . at no cost (they never paid and had used it for an eternity before the incident) and with no liability on the PD if an incident ever happened (houses are on the edge of the backstop and more behind the berm) . . . they refused to sign the indemnification contract that Atty Ed George had drawn up and told the club to use for any outside group. AND the PD would be shooting from in front of the baffles (defeating the purpose) that they mandated to be installed prior to re-opening the ranges!!!

 

[MisterHappy]

LenS,

THanks for clarifying your point.

The dad was wrong if he overruled the "event staffer" and bowbeat him into letting the kid shoot.

The "event staffer" was wrong to cave

When my kids pull / score a round of Trap, I've told them that as far as I'm concerned, they're Range Officers (not Range Saftey Officers): they are to be obeyed, and they will be backed....

Looks like the chain of command broke....

It is too bad that this single incident is having such wide-ranging repercussions....

On the topic of the PD using the range that they closed down.....I'm sure that they thought you were being unfair....they're cops, after all!

 

[Len-2A Training]

MH, I was happy to clarify my point.

Yes, the chief was none too happy with me or the club. I was also not real happy before the shutdown when I was there qualifying (and breaking all the club range rules by doing so), realizing what the repercussions could be if one round left the range . . . most especially since I was both PO and BOD Member at that time. Although no longer a member, at the invite of one of the PD Firearms Instructors I dropped by a few years ago when they were qualifying. He offered to let me shoot their M4s, but I declined . . . no way that the range or the houses behind the berm are safe for shooting M4s at close-up distances there, even in the hands of a blue suit.

 

[bob68]

Mark my words, lots of MA gun clubs will jump on that bandwagon and prohibit all F/A guns as well as kids under age <TBD> on their ranges.

i believe that it is already happening.....see the thread about chicopee sportsmans club in the clubs threads.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

they refused to sign the indemnification contract

If you want to drive a PD away, insist on an indemnificatin contract - those will scare just about anyone.

If you really want the PD there, but want protection, insist on the club being listed as an "additional insured" for the duration of the even on the town's insurance policy. Insurance companies are very used to this concept, and it is often no big deal.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I've already seen some negative results of Westfield at a club I visited: restricted to 6 rds max loaded (handgun outdoors) or 5 rds max loaded (handgun indoors) and single-load only on rifle thru concrete tube. When I questioned the club president about the signs he told me it was their pre-emptive response to Westfield . . . this was last Spring.

MF&G posted some rules changes wrt F/A also (I was told) due to Westfield. This was done probably 1 year ago.

 

[Emoto]

The thing I wonder about is: now that w'field has capitulated (albeit for good reason) how does this affect the state's "new" positions about MG possession and shooting. In other words, without those positions being adjudicated, how do they affect other clubs?

 

[kurtb]

I noticed that the article refers to the " high-powered Uzi machine gun" and "powerful automatic weapon" that the kid had. I feel bad for the kid, the family, and the club - but I am not really sure if those the wrote the article have any idea what kind of "power" the uzi has besides its power to fire off many rounds in succession. More "spin" for the sake of presenting the news..

 

[Big Duke Six]

Do they ever have a clue about what they're talking about?

 

[Scrivener]

Do they ever have a clue about what they're talking about?

As if they would let the facts interfere with their agenda.......

 

[M1911]

Do they ever have a clue about what they're talking about?

This is the press that we are talking about. The answer would be 1) no and 2) even if they did, they wouldn't let the facts get in the way of the story they want to sell.

I was once interviewed at length by a senior reporter from the New York Times for large article. This wasn't a quickie write it one day, run it the next kind of thing. It wasn't that the quotes attributed to me were paraphrased or slanted. Nope, they were made up out of whole cloth.

 

[Kalahari]

I had heard (not first-hand) that even HSC is no longer allowing non-Green-Card-holding members to shoot full-auto anymore. Not as bad as an outright ban, certainly, but another preventative measure...

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

People can sue clubs of which they are a member for failure to provide a safe envrionment; failure to properly supervise; not having the one range rule that would allegedly have prevented the accident; etc. This is one reason the NRA insurance is close to worthless - suits brought by club members are specifically excluded.

Suits are not about "making sense" but about money.

People sue their own clubs all of the time. People who own condominiums often sue their own condo associations, of which they are a member. So, in effect, they sue themselves and their neighbors, because the association has to use condo fee funds to defend against the lawsuit. Does it make sense? No, of course not. But then again, this is Massachusetts. Not much seems to make sense here. Welcome to the twilight zone!

 

[HooVooLoo]

I have a low-powered Uzi for sale. Meet on the Brooklyn Bridge, where you will also receive the deed to it...