View Full Version : 8yo Dies During Machinegun Shoot
CBS 3 Springfield (http://www.cbs3springfield.com/news/local/33336444.html)
I'm sorry, but putting a loaded fully automatic weapon in the hands of an 8yo is prima facie negligence.
edited to add: Here's the story as it's written up on their website.
A child dies after being rushed to the hospital after accidentally shooting himself in the head at a local sportsman's club.
The accident happened during a manhine-gun shoot at the Westfield Sportsman's Club around 2pm on Sunday.
That's off Montgomery Road in the north end of the city, near the high school.
Police say the 8-year-old accidentally shot himself in the right side of his head on the club's firing range.
Westfield paramedics responded and raced the child to Baystate Medical Center for treatment.
Police stopped traffic along the entire route from Westfield to the Baystate E-R, hoping to give the child the best chance of survival.
According to police, when they arrived at the scene, the boy was lying on the ground with a gunshot wound to the right side of his head.
Witnesses say the boy was shooting a fully automatic Uzi down range when the force of the weapon made it travel back toward his head.
The Westfield Sportsman's Club was holding its annual Great New England Pumpkin Shoot when it happened.
RogerinTPA
10-26-08, 21:20
So where was the supervising adult/parent? In jail I hope. You need a coat hanger for this abortion...:mad:
First and foremost, the tragedy is the death of this child. Secondarily, however, is the sort of mileage that an incident like this will give the antigunners.
Please, everyone exercise their 2nd amendment wisely.
SeriousStudent
10-26-08, 21:52
Prayers sent for the small boy, and all the innocents involved.
We've been discussing this at length over at Northeastshooters and the sentiments are much the same as expressed here. What a complete and total tragedy for everyone involved. The Westfield MG Shoot has been an iconic event here in normally restrictive Massachusetts. This will certainly not do us much good here behind enemy lines....The tragic loss of this young boy and the sympathy for his family, is only overshadowed by the perplexed thoughts as to what on earth an 8-year old boy was doing with a Micro Uzi. For any of you who have never fired one - it is a handfull for even an experienced shooter. I have much trigger time behind a Micro Uzi, among many other C3's and the Micro is one of the few guns that made me nervous shooting it for the first time. It's a barrel of fast and has no place in the hands of an 8-year old boy under any circumstances....Just purely awful to think about what everyone must be going through right now and that bright light of a child - gone now...Sad.
MarshallDodge
10-26-08, 22:45
That's a huge tragedy. I have 10 and 13 year old boys that love to shoot and this definitely hits home.
jesus f....It's been a bad week for me and this doesn't make it any better. hug your children men... you never know when it's going to be over. my wifes niece died tonight after falling and hitting her head hard enough to cause a stroke and midline shift. she was 6 years old. I say again.. hug your children. :(
30 cal slut
10-27-08, 07:36
this is the second child fatality at a machine gun shoot, IIRC (first one was at knob creek).
RIP.
CarlosDJackal
10-27-08, 09:37
Isn't it a shame that for individuals to own a fully-automatic Uzi requires a Class III dealer, a fingerprint card, the approval of your CLEO, a criminal investigation, a form or two, and $200? Whereas to have a child only requires reproductive organs and a willing partner?
I don't understand why this poor child's so-called parents did not take the proper measures to prevent this. When a member of my club was letting some adults shoot his MAC-11 he made sure to only load 3 or 4 rounds at a time and he stood right next to them when they fired it. Just a little bit of common sense could have prevented this tragedy.
RIP.
I have a problem with criticizing parents after a child dies. In jail? You don't think living with the regret of allowing your child to die in front of you is enough?
This whole concept of "who's to blame" is exactly what causes over reaction and over-reactive laws that put basically innocent, good people in prison and cause bullshit like GUN CONTROL. "We need to make sure that this doesn't ever happen again! People can't be trusted with guns!"
Who's to blame? Who cares, a child is dead and nothings bringing him back. His death alone serves as the lesson for the rest of us. Nobody fears for their child's life because of a threat of jail- if they fear for their child is because they fear for THE CHILD.
This guy is gonna live with this grief for the rest of his life. Putting him in jail will not help anything. It won't "teach him a lesson." It won't somehow improve society. It won't make the world a safer place. It's not "justice." If he's in jail, the rest of his family is on Welfare.
I'm sorry, but putting a loaded fully automatic weapon in the hands of an 8yo is prima facie negligence.
That's the age of my son. I can't imagine letting him fire a machine pistol. :confused:
Carlos ditto that !!!!
I do think parents this idiotic should serve some time !!
yes he has the greatest loss !! but at the same time I would never put my 8 year old in that position !!!!
sadly this is the other side of the crowd that thinks its cool or funny to watch there little one shoot a shotgun and go flying back ! things like that you see on youtube
call me old fashioned but your kids dont need a buddy/friend/pal to raise them they need a PARENT !!!!!
and this kinda behavior to me is not parental at all !!!! its more something I would have done as a kid with my buddies when I look back
I really do think we have to many old kids raising young kids these days with no care
on Maui I used to see gross behavior all the time with parents putting their kids in danger
usually just so the parent did not have to pay attention or watch their kid or they could do what THEY wanted
sad sad tragedy for sure :(
wow .......just.......... wow
sadly this is the other side of the crowd that thinks its cool or funny to watch there little one shoot a shotgun and go flying back !
My 8 year old son's friend had his dad do that to him. The father told me about it. The little boy cried.... of course this kid crys over everthing.... still... a brainless way to approach kids and guns.
sadly this is the other side of the crowd that thinks its cool or funny to watch there little one shoot a shotgun and go flying back ! things like that you see on youtube
i doubt that. this was a controlled environment, at an actual gun range, with a range supervisor right there next to the child.
you have no idea what "kind" of person his father is.
I used to be a member of the Westfield Sportsmans Club, and lived only 1/2 mile away from the range.
The machine gun shoots that I attended were always very strict in regards to safety.
NRA held the insurance policy for the range when I was a member.
I bet this will be the last machine gun shoot ever held in Massachusetts.
Hope the range can remain open. They can't close the range completely I guess because Smith & Wesson uses that range range as a test facility.
The people from C.O.P Firearms and Training that I have shot with in the past have ALWAYS been professional and very safety minded.
30 cal slut
10-27-08, 15:00
there is some scuttlebutt over at subguns.com that it was a micro-uzi pistol, not a full-sized SMG.
there is some scuttlebutt over at subguns.com that it was a micro-uzi pistol, not a full-sized SMG.
Yeah, if you refer to my post above, I mentioned it was a Micro....Again, not sure of the experience of members with this gun, but it is an absolute hand full for most first time adults, let alone an 8-year old...
i doubt that. this was a controlled environment, at an actual gun range, with a range supervisor right there next to the child.
you have no idea what "kind" of person his father is.
sorry but I strongly disagree
well I dont know ? and you dont know ? :) so lets throw that out the window
but i am around my kids all the time especially at a gun range !!!
if it was a truly controlled environment then it would not have happened
otherwise it would be sorry my 8 year old is not ready to shoot such a gun !!!!
if a range supervisor ever approached my son to shoot without asking me I would make sure he would know you dont do anything to others children especially with firearms !!!!!
so if he was a upstanding supervisor he would have asked his parent and that parent that said SURE is a looser in my book
if he was not around then the parent is also a looser along with the range supervisor
thats my take on it :) I am sure some wont agree which is fine they have that right
It's very sad.. Bad enough it's happen to a young boy.. but as other said, it will add fuel to the fire on gun ownership.
Everyone go home and hug your kids.
Again, not sure of the experience of members with this gun, but it is an absolute hand full for most first time adults, let alone an 8-year old...
Totally agree. Horrible judgment was displayed. Also have to wonder exactly what the physical positioning of the supervisor was, and why he couldn't grab the weapon. No way they would have let the boy just stand there alone with that thing, would they?
Such a senseless tragedy, bless the child's soul. Someone older should have known better. They let him down in a big, bad way.
well apparently he wasn't paying attention, or didn't want to jump in and risk getting shot too, or it was just too fast to react. I'm guessing it's a combination of all.
They shouldn't have ever let that kid handle it without someone helping him since they should have known it has a powerful lift.
CarlosDJackal
10-27-08, 19:47
i doubt that. this was a controlled environment, at an actual gun range, with a range supervisor right there next to the child.
you have no idea what "kind" of person his father is.
Maybe the kid can give us a better idea what kind of parents he has? :rolleyes:
BTW, I never called for anyone going to jail. While neglect does carry some jail time, I personally think there isn't anything we can do to this poor child's parents that woul even come close to what they are actually experiencing.
Although, I personally think they should never be allowed to expose another child to this (unsupervised) situation.
anyone who's ever fired or seen an uzi or similar machine-pistol knows they splatter 30 rounds in about 1 1/2 second. I'm sure it happened so fast he was on the ground bleeding before anyone even noticed he was having trouble with control. there's no time to jump in when it happens that fast.
I do agree that he probably shouldnt have been allowed to fire it, in hindsight. but what if my 8 year old sister somehow had some kind of accident with the rifle I got her for her birthday? everyone would be calling me/us an idiot for giving a gun to an 8 year old girl... but nothing bad did ever happen, so instead, 8 years later, she's a responsible, knowledgable 16 year old sharpshooter.
obviously there are some disparities between my sister with her single-shot bolt action .22 rifle and the boy with the Uzi, but the point still stands- we can judge all we want, in hindsight, but how many 8 year old boys have fired similar weapons and been fine? I've seen a 3 year old fire an AR15. i considered giving MY 4 year old a single-shot bolt-action rifle for his birthday.
Blame is placed only when something bad happens. The only way we ever know for certain something is horribly wrong is when things GO horrobly wrong. Go easy on the stupid sonuvabitch, he's got all the regret he needs.
I freaken hate finger-pointing. Bad shit happens sometimes.
Also have to wonder exactly what the physical positioning of the supervisor was, and why he couldn't grab the weapon. No way they would have let the boy just stand there alone with that thing, would they?.
I imagine it was over 1 second or less after the first round was fired. Nobody can react that fast, and a gun that small there is no real way to hold it for him without risking getting your own hand shot off.
Yes, it would have happened too fast for anyone to react. If anything, to me, that exacerbates rather than ameliorates responsibility on the part of the adults. They knew how the gun would recoil. Yet they chose to let an 8yo child fire it.
You can feel sorry for the parents if you choose to. The only sympathies I have are for the dead child.
If "man, I feel really bad about what I did" was a defense, almost no one would go to jail. If I came home one night and told my wife I'd had an affair but felt really bad about it, I don't think she'd stab me in the head with a smaller knife because of it.
Yes, it would have happened too fast for anyone to react. If anything, to me, that exacerbates rather than ameliorates responsibility on the part of the adults. They knew how the gun would recoil. Yet they chose to let an 8yo child fire it.
You can feel sorry for the parents if you choose to. The only sympathies I have are for the dead child.
If "man, I feel really bad about what I did" was a defense, almost no one would go to jail. If I came home one night and told my wife I'd had an affair but felt really bad about it, I don't think she'd stab me in the head with a smaller knife because of it.
Why should he serve time? What will that accomplish, beside putting his wife/other children out on the street (if he has one/any)? Is it to punish him? Is it to deter him from doing it again? Is it to prove that it's bad to allow your kids to die horrible deaths before your eyes? Is it to deter others from killing their children?
When I keep my three boys from danger, it has absolutely nothing to do with preventing ME from getting into legal trouble. If I watched one of my boys die, and had to serve time because of it, the only thing that would serve as "punishment" would be having to watch my wife and other boys lose their sole provider. So yes, jail time really WOULD be additional punishment- for that reason alone.
Incarceration is intended to serve three purposes. For any given instance, it can serve one or more simultaneously:
1. punish the offender
2. prevent the offender and others from committing similar acts through deterence
3. protect the population at large from the offender
At least one and possibly all three would be served in this case.
Like I said, the mere fact that he's really, really sad it happened doesn't lessen the crime any more than it lessens the death he caused.
I'd also note that I've never identified the responsible person as the father, nor do I know if the father was present, involved in making the decision to allow the boy to shoot the gun, etc. The point is that there were adults nearby, they were responsible for what was going on, and that responsibility doesn't fade away as soon as they say they feel bad that someone died.
As tragic as the loss of this young light is to the earth, it's a blessing he didn't hose a packed firing line...There's a pic floating around shot during the shoot, of a young kid, (not much older), shooting an HK UMP. It looked as if folks were more interested in snapping photos...I'm sorry, I have mucho trigger time at machine gun shoots and on machine guns...A hand on the shoulder is not enough - especially for a child!!! This kid does not look in control of this weapon and the person behind him does not look in control of this situation one single iota...
http://blog.masslive.com/breakingnews/2008/10/large_AE%20fea%20guns.jpg
Incarceration is intended to serve three purposes. For any given instance, it can serve one or more simultaneously:
1. punish the offender
2. prevent the offender and others from committing similar acts through deterence
3. protect the population at large from the offender
At least one and possibly all three would be served in this case.
Like I said, the mere fact that he's really, really sad it happened doesn't lessen the crime any more than it lessens the death he caused.
I'd also note that I've never identified the responsible person as the father, nor do I know if the father was present, involved in making the decision to allow the boy to shoot the gun, etc. The point is that there were adults nearby, they were responsible for what was going on, and that responsibility doesn't fade away as soon as they say they feel bad that someone died.
1. You can't "punish" someone who's just allowed their child to die, nothing you can do to them is any worse than that.
2. The incident itself is far more deterance than jail, sending him to jail won't deter a single person from allowing their child to die.
3. The offender is not a danger to society because of one moment of possibly bad judgement.
The purpose it serves is to make all the finger-pointers feel better.
If you cheat on your wife, you intended to do something wrong. Did this guy intend for anything bad to happen? Did he even suspect anything bad would happen? Intent is a primary element in all crimes- even negligence. In my state, Criminal Negligence is defined as the willful commission of an act the perpetrator KNOWS has a high risk potential for harming another person. If either the staff member or father even SUSPECTED there was a risk for harm, let alone a HIGH risk, that boy wouldn't have been permitted on the range with that weapon, in my estimation.
Being stupid isn't a crime.
Being stupid isn't a crime.
But when your stupidity leads to someone else's death, it usually is.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I guess I still look at it like this
8 year old kid on a range needs supervision !
where are the parents or guardian ?
if a range master/supervisor is letting a 8 year old unsupervised kid shoot a mini uzi full auto its also his fault along with the parent or guardian of the child and the range master should have said sorry kid where are your parents so I can tell them this is not going to happen !
if he was supervised then the range master/supervisor should have said you know what this is not a good idea and not let it happen !!
sorry but maybe I have seen to many accidents in my day with bad parents or parents that dont supervise their kids
The simple fact, like it or not, is in this country people who are so negligent someone dies as a result, are often found to be breaking the law and people who break the law often go to jail. End of Story.
sorry but maybe I have seen to many accidents in my day with bad parents or parents that dont supervise their kids
no need to apologize- you're among allies. this country loves to point fingers, that's why it's so reactive. and thats why we have the biblically-long list of regulative, restrictive, enslaving laws that we have. every time something bad happens, everyone cries out for someone to blame and screams for a new law. 300,000,000 people in this country, and all it takes is one sad story, and BAM- the other 299,000,000 are further regulated, further restricted, more liberties eroded. it's all interconnected.
Where has anyone in this thread called for any new regulation or law?
Negligent homicide isn't exactly ground-breaking legal theory ...
Here is how FOX News is reporting it
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444180,00.html
Where has anyone in this thread called for any new regulation or law?
Negligent homicide isn't exactly ground-breaking legal theory ...
my point, with that comment, is that finger-pointing and new-law-calling-for go hand in hand. its the same mentality. its the same frame of thought- that we need to be up in people's shit all the time. everyone wants to point fingers, send someone to jail, as if it's their business. everyone wants to make new laws regarding activities other people are doing, as if it's their business.
"there should be a law against that!" translates into "i don't do that, so nobody else should either" - up in people's business.
"he should be locked up!" translates into "he's stupid, and i, for some reason, think i'm beyond stupidity, so i want to make his stupidity and my lack of stupidity public information by calling for his liberty" - up in people's business.
its all interconnected, as i said.
While I was not an RO, I did attend an RO training on FA weapons that the club I was in in NH had. We learned that the RO stands right to the side of the person firing with hand/arm right above the weapon/firing person's arm in order to immediately control the situation if it gets out of hand, or actually touching the person's arm when he shoots for the first time.
We also learned to have the people use a magazine with only a couple rounds in it first FA go around and to shoot a couple semi shots before some small bursts.
Anyone letting ANYONE, 8 years old or 25 years old or 50 years old, fire a FA without first some starting semi shots or at least a near empty magazine on the first go around, and without being RIGHT THERE touching the guys arm ready to control the situation, should not be letting people shoot FA at all.
I have fired a full size Uzi, several M/11, MP5 and MP5K, and some M16/M4 type FA. (And an M60 off the shoulder Rambo style :) ) All of them take some training to be able to control and none of them should be used "Rock and Roll" without working up to it.
The biggest negligence seems to be by the sponsoring group and the range safety officer or officers in charge of the firing line. They advertised this as a place to come and "Full Auto Rock & Roll" for the public and allowed the boy to go to the line. While the father is also probably negligent, he deferred to the "experts" who were running the joint and assumed that they knew what they were doing and had things under control. That is logical given the situation as explained in the news.
This situation really breaks my heart and I feel really really sad and really bad for the boy, his family, and all involved. However, as an objective observer, we also need to realize the damage this could cause to RKBA in Massachusetts and elsewhere as well. And that sucks. Big time. It makes me MAD that groups sponsor these things and do NOT have safety as high up on the pedestal as it should be. They get lax and then these terrible accidents happen. Not only did a boy die and a family lose a child and maybe some other people go to jail, but "guns" themselves come under indictment.
Chad
As tragic as the loss of this young light is to the earth, it's a blessing he didn't hose a packed firing line...There's a pic floating around shot during the shoot, of a young kid, (not much older), shooting an HK UMP. It looked as if folks were more interested in snapping photos...I'm sorry, I have mucho trigger time at machine gun shoots and on machine guns...A hand on the shoulder is not enough - especially for a child!!! This kid does not look in control of this weapon and the person behind him does not look in control of this situation one single iota...
http://blog.masslive.com/breakingnews/2008/10/large_AE%20fea%20guns.jpg
Actually, the kid does look like he is in control. The UMP is also a much more massive gun and probably a lot easier to control itself. There are 2 adults in the picture. The RO with the yellow glove has his hand on the kids shoulder. If this is the kids first time shooting he should, in my non-professional opinion, be standing more to the side and with his arm on the kids arm or right above it, especially if this is the kids first time. However, the RO does seem to be paying attention. The adult in the left foreground is probably the parent and is taking the picture.
The kid also seems to be a few years older though I cannot really tell kids ages anymore.
Heavy Metal
10-27-08, 23:30
I saw a guy let a pre-pubesent kid fire his mac-11 with a full mag.
I suggested he give him a three round mag instead of a full stick.
He ignored me and I quickly left the range.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQM4I6D-7QI&feature=related
The biggest negligence seems to be by the sponsoring group and the range safety officer or officers in charge of the firing line. They advertised this as a place to come and "Full Auto Rock & Roll" for the public and allowed the boy to go to the line. While the father is also probably negligent, he deferred to the "experts" who were running the joint and assumed that they knew what they were doing and had things under control. That is logical given the situation as explained in the news.
so so so well said !!!!
Just watched the U-tube video of the kid fire an AK-47 on full auto, near tragedy in the making. Start off with single shots only please!
have to say the youtube with the AK kid is why there are a lot of folks that say
Stupid dumb rednecks
and sadly these are the types that get the rest of us a bad name !!!
crowkiller
10-28-08, 06:55
When I was 8 years old I was only allowed to shoot .22 and 410 single shots and that was it. I was not even allowed to carry a gun for my first year squirrel hunting, I was to show myself worthy and responsible first. I do feel awfully bad for this boy and his family this is just terrible. I think this boys father made a mistake it was a grave mistake but I would not be so quick to yell prison until more info comes out as to what kind of father he was. My prayer is with the family.
CarlosDJackal
10-28-08, 13:10
There's a reason the Chipmunk is one of the best "first gun" for children (specially versus the Uzi). Not only is it the right size, it is a single-shot bolt-action that also has to be manually cocked before it can fire.
I agree, the so-called Experts who were supposed to be RSOs on that range deserve to get raked over the coals as well.
It doesn't get much worse than this. What a beautiful child he was.
My lads are grown and almost so now. 20 and 16. More than once I declined offers from well meaning friends who wanted to share some adventure sport with them at age 8, 9, 10 etc. No thanks I'd say. If he wants to go rappelling, the Army will be happy to oblige him when he's of age (20 year old now a grad of the US Army Airborne School). But what's with the drive to let little kids do the grown up stuff? Baseball, soccer, wrestling, swimming, football - jeez, plenty of fun to be had for a kid.
Why push seriously adult adrenaline thrills into their hands when they lack the physical skills to control themselves? I wish folks would lay off that. I've read of more than one such tragedy I can attribute to this tendancy to let the wee one experience the big "hit". Rappelling, rock climbing, para sail, sit on the thoroughbred (Plano TX: led to brain damage), pet the nice tiger etc
Let the pups be pups. So much shooting fun to be had by an 8 year old with a nice .22 lr closely supervised. I feel so sorry for all involved.
Very sad and did not need to happen. This is the type of shit that anti-gun nuts use as ammunition. Due to the negligence of others it makes all gun owners look bad.
So much shooting fun to be had by an 8 year old with a nice .22 lr closely supervised. I feel so sorry for all involved.
Indeed... I started all my 7 siblings (I'm the oldest living sibling by 11 years) on single-shot bolt action .22s, and will start my own three (so far) boys there as well. You walk before you run, and you don't sign up as a Sergeant. As soon as you've mastered basic marksmanship with a .22, you're rewarded with something bigger. and once you've mastered that, you're rewarded with semi-auto. Once you've mastered that, you're rewarded with handguns... etc., etc. By the time you're shooting full-auto, you've been shooting since you were 8, and are more competent at 15 years old than most people ever are.
sure, they see the adults blasting away with the black rifles and want to join in- there is no bigger incentive to learn MARKSMANSHIP than being told "as soon as you can bring me a 3" group at 100 meters with that .308, you can shoot the mini14." and progress it from there. Reward for accomplishments. Kids that get to blast away with the big guns just lose interest. They get bored after the first 100 rounds, and dont even want to go shooting anymore.
RogerinTPA
10-28-08, 21:00
This incident finally made national news tonight on the O'reilly Factor. Truly a sad situation. The DA is looking to see if they will press charges in this tragedy.
Incarceration is intended to serve three purposes. For any given instance, it can serve one or more simultaneously:
1. punish the offender
2. prevent the offender and others from committing similar acts through deterence
3. protect the population at large from the offender
At least one and possibly all three would be served in this case.
Like I said, the mere fact that he's really, really sad it happened doesn't lessen the crime any more than it lessens the death he caused.
I'd also note that I've never identified the responsible person as the father, nor do I know if the father was present, involved in making the decision to allow the boy to shoot the gun, etc. The point is that there were adults nearby, they were responsible for what was going on, and that responsibility doesn't fade away as soon as they say they feel bad that someone died.
We have not always seen eye to eye Tod, but i will have to back you up on this one.
we should hold the individual responsible for this, it is the fathers responsibility to safeguard his kid.
Even when training an adult with little experience you sometimes load just one round on a semi auto handgun to make sure that if the gun flies out their hands their is no chances for an accident, the more comfortable they are and the better they get the more you trow at them but always under close supervision.
The most important thing on a range should always be safety, not looking cool for a picture.
Rappelling, rock climbing,
I tend to agree about kids and the dangerous stuff, but once they reach scout age, there are good avenues for rappelling and rock climbing that are akin to starting with a 22 single shot.
I first went rappelling as a young man in boy scouts at the rappelling tower at Ft Devens in Mass under the tutelage of some 10 SFG guys. We took it nice and easy and slow and like a 22 single shot. Later we did milque toast type rock climbing and rappelling down the place we climbed. Still basic stuff. And that is where it stayed.
motorcyclemac
10-29-08, 00:53
Uh...damn. I cannot believe that someone could be so stupid.
I too fired centerfire weapons at the age of 8. My father let me shoot his S&W Mod 15 .38 Special at that age. He put 1 round in it...standing behind me with his hands wrapped over my little hands. I fired 10 rounds....one at a time this way. Then I fired another 10....one at at time...on my own....with him holding my shoulders from behind. He was in full control and he made that clearly known to me.
Why couldn't this childs father have been as diligent as my father? A little child is dead because his father is a dumb ass. Man...I have a 7 yr old daughter...I can't imagine the horror of a shooting accident involving her.
Mac.
TheActivePatriot
10-29-08, 06:07
I really want to see one of the earlier questions someone brought up answered by all the finger-pointers.
How do you intend for prison to be punishment to a man who's just lost his son through his own negligence? What more can be done to him than that?
Leave him to his own devices and he certainly isn't going to do it again - he may well kill himself out of guilt - either way solving the problem at much less expense to the taxpayers.
Deterrence is only an issue when the crime is intentional. Most people don't intend to let their kids accidentally shoot themselves. You can't deter someone from doing something they didn't think was going to happen in the first place.
Imprisoning this man would serve the same purpose as gun control laws - to make people "feel better" for "having done something about this tragedy".
So really, tell me - no canned responses about the historical purposes of punishment, please - what real effect does imprisoning this man have at all, aside from putting his surviving family members on welfare?
good point eguns. All you gotta say is 10th SFG. In N. GA a few years ago a Scout troop lost a boy off a cliff during a rapelling exercise. He wasn't "on rappel" when he fell however. As a Scout myself I participated in a reckless swim test once by a too casual asst Scout Master but my brother and I managed to survive it although my younger brother gave me a scare as we made it to the buoy to turn around and swim back to shore as darkness fell with no safety boat. So it comes down to the professionalism of the instructors.
Good on ya.
Without getting into a pissing contest about punishment, allowing children this young to fire SMG's, MG's or similar is irresponsible. I have seen grown up personnel who have had issues controlling full auto fire. Exercising the right to keep and bear arms also means exercising your brain and avoiding behavior that is stupid. Unfortunately this didn't pass the test. Sad, that this young person had to die.
Deterrence is only an issue when the crime is intentional.
That's absolutely untrue. Deterrence is probably at least as effective at preventing crimes of negligence. Criminalizing negligent acts which resort in serious injury to others has deterred everything from the aggressive driver to major corporations.
If you think about it, what you're suggesting is that if someone is so negligent that he is responsible for the death of a child there should be no legal action because, by golly gee the poor fellow already feels really, really bad.
"I feel really bad" is not a substitute for punishment.
Imprisoning this man would serve the same purpose as gun control laws - to make people "feel better" for "having done something about this tragedy".
"It's just like gun control" is the firearms-forum equivalent of "it's just like Hitler." You can make that connection between anything, but it doesn't make your comment true. This is not "like gun control." This is punishing someone for a crime. It's that simple.
The whole "think what it will do to his family" argument is also bogus touchy-feely bleeding heart crap. Are you suggesting that the breadwinner in a family should never be sent to prison?
This is simple. Let's suppose your 8yo kid goes to Scout Camp for a weekend. While he's there, the Scout leader puts a loaded fully automatic Micro Uzi in his hand, and your kid shoots himself in the head. This Scout leader is really really sorry and he's also the sole breadwinner for a family of five. Would you just accept his apology and drive on?
If your answer is yes, you're just far more forgiving than I, and more forgiving than our legal system.
if your answer is no, though, why should the outcome be different just because it was the boy's father, rather than a third person, whose negligence resulted in the death? Essentially, that's saying that a parent has a lesser duty of care than a third party when it comes to the safety and well being of his own children.
theJanitor
10-29-08, 12:30
Bottom line is: If he broke a law, which he most likely did (i assume, i'm not the attorney in this discussion ;) ), he should be jailed.
there's a huge can of worms to be opened if we let the prosecutors/state/fed "choose" who they'll apply our laws to. Let's not go down that road, we've been there way too many times.
Something needs to be fully clarified before anyone passes judgment. Obviously, the supervising RO was negligent, but don't be so hurried to damn the father. Nowhere in the article does it state that it was the father's Micro Uzi or that the father was familiar with a Micro Uzi. Someone for some reason thought it'd be cool and a good idea to give that kind of a weapon to a young child. That person should bear most of the blame, but that person is not necessarily the parent.
Bottom line is: If he broke a law, which he most likely did (i assume, i'm not the attorney in this discussion ;) ), he should be jailed.
Okay, while I don't personally think that any good is done for anyone by locking the guy up, I agree that the law should be allowed to determine what, if any, punishment is dealt out.
That said...what is the law being broken by letting a kid shoot a gun? Is it just a negligence thing, that only applies because of the incident?
I just hate to see any precedents set that could be construed to say kids with guns = criminal parents.
CarlosDJackal
10-29-08, 16:22
Something needs to be fully clarified before anyone passes judgment. Obviously, the supervising RO was negligent, but don't be so hurried to damn the father. Nowhere in the article does it state that it was the father's Micro Uzi or that the father was familiar with a Micro Uzi. Someone for some reason thought it'd be cool and a good idea to give that kind of a weapon to a young child. That person should bear most of the blame, but that person is not necessarily the parent.
I sincerely doubt that the decision to let the poor kid shoot that Uzi was not ultimately his parents'. Somewhere along the way his parent (or whoever was the legal guardian present) had to approve of the move.
IMHO, this is no different than a parent allowing their child to ride a bicycle without a helmet or the proper visibility equipment after dark. If that child gets run over (like that 10-year old who got hit and killed by an Officer who was responding to a possible armed home invasion recently), the parent or guardian who allowed the situation to develop should be held responsible.
Should they be given jail time? I don't think so - unless they discover a long-standing pattern that led to this situation. Maybe they should loose their right to own a firearm? I also think that the ROs responsible for the shoot should be held criminally negligent because they never should have allowed this to happen. JM2CW.
The responses in this thread truly shock me.
The responses in this thread truly shock me.
Perhaps you meant to say "Some of the responses...", as they are both for and against firm punishment for the instructor and/or parent.
Hope the mostly negative reactions to the complete and total ineptness of the folks at that range that sad day aren't what shocks you, that's for sure, as it was undeniable.
It's difficult to stay reasonable, and not say retarded shit, in the face of some of these remarks.
Let's drop the whole Father issue, he "didn't know any better" and will not be charged, and shouldn't be charged.
So we're left with the range instructor. The point was made, quite importantly, that calling this "criminal" will mean a change in legal perspective, if not outright case-law. Labelling him negligent for handing the kid an Uzi, which, to most people, is no different than any auto-loading EBR, full auto or not, will label ALL of US negligent for handing our kids guns. I attemped to make the legal connection earlier in this thread, but missed the bus.
Props to LOKNLOD for that one.
If the boy had stepped up to the firing line, fired, smiled, and stepped back- how criminal would the instructor be? Would you all be calling for his freedom then? No... you wouldn't. You'll say yes, but you wouldn't, because you've seen worse, and it's only in hindesight that this "mistake" on the instructor's part has been deemed "negligent" or "criminal." How many boys has this guy seen operate full auto firearms? 1? 10? 100? His perspective was that it was OK to hand this kid an Uzi. It turned out, IN ****ING HINDESIGHT, that it wasn't "ok" for this particular kid. We all probably would have said "that might not be a good idea..." but no one would ever expect, or even think it likely, that he'd SHOOT HIMSELF.
As far as him "feeling bad"- that has nothing to do with whether or not he's a criminal. He feels bad, I'm sure, but that's not why us dissenters are objecting to charges- we're objecting to charges because he didn't do anything criminal. But you sure love the opportunity to bring up feelings, and look so smart and tough on stupidity.
All this over-reaction is text book finger-pointing. I'm so dissapointed in my brother gun-lovers in here demonizing a guy for having a brain-fart that I'm not going to follow this thread anymore.
Well let me say this. As a certified military RO it is the responsibility of the RO to ensure that all safety procedures are followed. Additionally, the RO has the discretion to stop someone from shooting if they feel that it is unsafe.
I wasn't there and don't know the circumstances other than what was posted. However, I would have to really question the wisdom of someone who would allow an 8 year child to shoot a weapon which is difficult for even adult shooters to shoot. My son is 13 years old and when we shoot I give him instruction and stay with him to observe him to ensure that he knows what he is doing. I would also never force or prod him to shoot something that he felt uncomfortable with.
When I went shooting with demigod earlier this month I brought my 13 y/o with. He was somewhat uncomfortable with shooting the 12ga. Remington. After I fully explained to him how it works and showed him he decided to try it. I had him shoot the underarm technique so he could get a feel for it. I could tell he was uncomfortable with it so that was it.
Just because we have a 2nd Amendement it doesn't give people a carte blanche to act stupid with firearms and common sense still has to be applied. Apparently some people have a problem with this concept. Also, a "brain fart" when dealing with firearms can have devastating results as it did in this case. Just like having a "brain fart" with a weapon and having a negligent discharge can get someone killed.
It's difficult to stay reasonable, and not say retarded shit, in the face of some of these remarks.
Let's drop the whole Father issue, he "didn't know any better" and will not be charged, and shouldn't be charged.
So we're left with the range instructor. The point was made, quite importantly, that calling this "criminal" will mean a change in legal perspective, if not outright case-law. Labelling him negligent for handing the kid an Uzi, which, to most people, is no different than any auto-loading EBR, full auto or not, will label ALL of US negligent for handing our kids guns. I attemped to make the legal connection earlier in this thread, but missed the bus.
Props to LOKNLOD for that one.
If the boy had stepped up to the firing line, fired, smiled, and stepped back- how criminal would the instructor be? Would you all be calling for his freedom then? No... you wouldn't. You'll say yes, but you wouldn't, because you've seen worse, and it's only in hindesight that this "mistake" on the instructor's part has been deemed "negligent" or "criminal." How many boys has this guy seen operate full auto firearms? 1? 10? 100? His perspective was that it was OK to hand this kid an Uzi. It turned out, IN ****ING HINDESIGHT, that it wasn't "ok" for this particular kid. We all probably would have said "that might not be a good idea..." but no one would ever expect, or even think it likely, that he'd SHOOT HIMSELF.
As far as him "feeling bad"- that has nothing to do with whether or not he's a criminal. He feels bad, I'm sure, but that's not why us dissenters are objecting to charges- we're objecting to charges because he didn't do anything criminal. But you sure love the opportunity to bring up feelings, and look so smart and tough on stupidity.
All this over-reaction is text book finger-pointing. I'm so dissapointed in my brother gun-lovers in here demonizing a guy for having a brain-fart that I'm not going to follow this thread anymore.
If the boy had stepped up to the firing line, fired, smiled, and stepped back- how criminal would the instructor be? Would you all be calling for his freedom then? No... you wouldn't...
...I'm so dissapointed in my brother gun-lovers in here demonizing a guy for having a brain-fart...
You have yourself convinced that everyone here would be OK with an 8 year old running through a full clip with the difficult to control weapon if no one got hurt, but I would beg to disagree. I know I would not be at ease next to such a small child firing that particular weapon next to me, and that is a fact. I also would have serious reservations about the morons allowing it to happen. I also might think the parent is irresponsible, even if he wasn't directly responsible for controlling the weapon as the instructor was. And, I might also even be saying to myself "Is that even legal?"
The boy NEVER should have been put in that position at that age. Period. You are putting a spin on the simple, basic facts.
Also, I might add that "brain fart" is an extremely tasteless reference to this circumstance and it's result.
It's difficult to stay reasonable, and not say retarded shit, in the face of some of these remarks.
Apparently ...
So we're left with the range instructor. The point was made, quite importantly, that calling this "criminal" will mean a change in legal perspective, if not outright case-law. Labelling him negligent for handing the kid an Uzi, which, to most people, is no different than any auto-loading EBR, full auto or not, will label ALL of US negligent for handing our kids guns.
This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the legal concept of negligence. Negligence becomes a crime or tort only if specific elements are met:
The accused has a duty of care towards the injured party
The duty was breached
That breach resulted in harm to the injured party
So basically, negligence is only actionable after someone gets hurt, and a reasonable duty of care is breached.
If the boy had stepped up to the firing line, fired, smiled, and stepped back- how criminal would the instructor be? Would you all be calling for his freedom then?
See above.
How many boys has this guy seen operate full auto firearms? 1? 10? 100?
Unless you know the number, I'd suggest you not use it as support for your position. An awful lot of people in this thread who have extensive experience with these weapons have told you flat out that it was not a responsible thing to do. Furthermore, the result does a good job of demonstrating the circumstances.
Iraqgunz pointed it out clearly ... as the RO, you do have a responsibility. That responsibility doesn't retroactively go away when someone gets hurt.
It turned out, IN ****ING HINDESIGHT, that it wasn't "ok" for this particular kid. We all probably would have said "that might not be a good idea..." but no one would ever expect, or even think it likely, that he'd SHOOT HIMSELF.
You're clearly only reading what you want to see. Quite a few people here have already explained that yes, they would expect that he might shoot himself.
As far as him "feeling bad"- that has nothing to do with whether or not he's a criminal.
Couldn't agree with you more. You're the one who said he shouldn't go to jail because his life was already horrible now that his kid was dead.
All this over-reaction is text book finger-pointing. I'm so dissapointed in my brother gun-lovers in here demonizing a guy for having a brain-fart that I'm not going to follow this thread anymore.
I guess I still fail to understand what all this "finger-pointing" whining is about. Are you saying that we should never blame anyone for anything? Someone(s) made horrible decisions that resulted in a child's death. You can pretend otherwise, but the law already exists to deal with such horrible decisions.
And I agree with Safetyhit, it was in ridiculously bad taste to refer to this as a mere "brain fart."
CarlosDJackal
10-30-08, 11:45
...If the boy had stepped up to the firing line, fired, smiled, and stepped back- how criminal would the instructor be? Would you all be calling for his freedom then? No... you wouldn't. You'll say yes, but you wouldn't, because you've seen worse, and it's only in hindesight that this "mistake" on the instructor's part has been deemed "negligent" or "criminal." How many boys has this guy seen operate full auto firearms? 1? 10? 100? His perspective was that it was OK to hand this kid an Uzi. It turned out, IN ****ING HINDSIGHT, that it wasn't "ok" for this particular kid. We all probably would have said "that might not be a good idea..." but no one would ever expect, or even think it likely, that he'd SHOOT HIMSELF...
I'm sorry, but this is an ignorant argument that just doesn't hold water. Just because he may have gotten away with doing this before this incident, or even if this was the first child the so-called RO allowed to shoot an Uzi, it doesn't mean they were not negligent in the first place. And this is not something that was just "****ING HINDSIGHT"; it is unfortunately the life of an 8-year old boy who did not know better. Hindsightness or intent does not change the fact that they were expecting a child do something that most adults could not do unless they've had the proper training - PERIOD!!
As a Range Safety Officer myself (NRA certified and club designated; as well as former RSO at various Army Bases and Ranges; and have worked as such in a Law Enforcement capacity); it is up to me to prevent this type of incident from happening to the best of my abilities. A few weeks ago during a formal class (Women on Target), when someone decided that they would allow new shooters to shoot a FA Mac-11, I spoke up against it. As much fun as it is to shoot FA, it takes a different skillset to be able to do so SAFELY. You can take the best handgun shooter in the world or an Olympic Trap/Skeet shooter, have them shoot a FA firearm and chances are they are going to violate some safety rules. As a result, the owner of said MAC-11 agreed and he ended up putting no more than 4-rounds in each magazine. This is something that they should have considered at this particular range.
The same can be said for children, when I tried to teach my nephew and Godson how to shoot when he was 8, I had to stop the session because I recognized that he did not have the maturity and discipline to continue SAFELY. What did he do? He tried to (repeatedly) look down the barrel of a .22 pistol whenever it misfired. Where was I when this happened? Right there next to him preventing him from doing so - like any Firearms Instructor should be. It's the same space I occupy when trying to teach and adult regardless of how much experience they have. Until I have seen that a student can handle a firearm safely and competently regardless of their age, sex, oe experience; I put myself in a position where I can take control of that muzzle (and I've had plenty of occasions where I've had to).
When you take on the responsibility of becoming a Range Safety officer, whether formally or informally, you bear the responsibility of what happens on that firing line. As one of my Gun Club's RSO, this is something I have to deal with everytime I go to the range. It doesn't matter what I am doing nor does it matter if I am only there as a shooter. As a club-designated RSO I must address any safety issues that I observe because if I allow it to happen I WILL be held responsible. That's what being a Safety officer means!!
The funny thing is, if this tragedy had occurred because someone allowed an 8-year old to drive a car around their private property there would not be an argument. As supposedly responsible adults it is up to us to make sure that we do not allow our children to put themselves in this type of a situation. It has nothing to do with hindsight or MMQB; and everything to do with cause and effect. It's no different than some adult gun owner who accidentally and negligently sweeps everyone on the firing line. He may not be criminally negligent until he has an AD and hurts someone in the process. And the Range Officer that let's him get away with it until then IS NEGLIGENT for allowing it to happen.
This mistake cost some poor child his LIFE!! I'm willing to bet that this was not the first child that this so-called Instructor let shoot an Uzi at that range. I'm also willing to bet that they've had close calls before this incident. The only difference is someone lost their life this time. When the answer to the question: "COULD THIS OUTCOME HAVE BEEN PREVENTED?" is a resounding YES!! Then like it or not, someone should be held criminally responsible. In this unfortunate case, hindsight or otherwise, there are multiple individuals who share that responsibility.
Responsibility does not end when you hand someone else a firearm. JM2CW.
I sincerely doubt that the decision to let the poor kid shoot that Uzi was not ultimately his parents'. Somewhere along the way his parent (or whoever was the legal guardian present) had to approve of the move.
IMHO, this is no different than a parent allowing their child to ride a bicycle without a helmet or the proper visibility equipment after dark. If that child gets run over (like that 10-year old who got hit and killed by an Officer who was responding to a possible armed home invasion recently), the parent or guardian who allowed the situation to develop should be held responsible.
Should they be given jail time? I don't think so - unless they discover a long-standing pattern that led to this situation. Maybe they should loose their right to own a firearm? I also think that the ROs responsible for the shoot should be held criminally negligent because they never should have allowed this to happen. JM2CW.
I know that it was ultimately up to the parents to allow or disallow the shooting, but my point was that the blame can't automatically be placed on the father. I'm not saying that this is certainly the case, but rather a point that needs to be addressed before we pass judgment. What if the father had no idea what a Micro Uzi would handle like? Being at a machine gun shoot doesn't make the attendees firearm experts, as is evidenced by this tragedy. I can see an entire scenario where the father brought his son to this, was told by someone that it would be a good idea to let the child shoot the Uzi, and the father trusted the judgment of this guy and/or the guy next to his son on the line. Does that make the father negligent? I don't think so. If he came to the shoot and expected the people running it to be responsible and ensure the situation remained safe, I can't really fault him.
Of course, there's also the possibility that he was a seasoned expert in firing Micro Uzi's and knew exactly how it would handle, but was more interested in getting a "kid gets owned by gun" video for youtube.
My point is that we need to know the facts before we condemn him.
Here is a novel concept. Maybe the father could have observed other shooters or shot the weapon himself prior to allowing his 8 year old shoot it. The bottom line is people with any kind of firearms need to behave and act responsible. One incident like this is all it takes for those on the other side to show how "irresponsible" gun owners are and how "dangerous" machine guns and assault weapons are to the people. And because it was a child they are going to blow it out of proportion more than if it had been a 21 year adult.
My personal feelings on this are that whatever guardian was there at the time when it happened is an idiot. I wouldn't be surprised if a lawsuit comes out of this as well. Common sense isn't a super power.
I know that it was ultimately up to the parents to allow or disallow the shooting, but my point was that the blame can't automatically be placed on the father. I'm not saying that this is certainly the case, but rather a point that needs to be addressed before we pass judgment. What if the father had no idea what a Micro Uzi would handle like? Being at a machine gun shoot doesn't make the attendees firearm experts, as is evidenced by this tragedy. I can see an entire scenario where the father brought his son to this, was told by someone that it would be a good idea to let the child shoot the Uzi, and the father trusted the judgment of this guy and/or the guy next to his son on the line. Does that make the father negligent? I don't think so. If he came to the shoot and expected the people running it to be responsible and ensure the situation remained safe, I can't really fault him.
Of course, there's also the possibility that he was a seasoned expert in firing Micro Uzi's and knew exactly how it would handle, but was more interested in getting a "kid gets owned by gun" video for youtube.
My point is that we need to know the facts before we condemn him.
theJanitor
10-31-08, 11:12
Common sense isn't a super power.
and in this case, it was the least common of his senses.
Here is a novel concept. Maybe the father could have observed other shooters or shot the weapon himself prior to allowing his 8 year old shoot it. The bottom line is people with any kind of firearms need to behave and act responsible. One incident like this is all it takes for those on the other side to show how "irresponsible" gun owners are and how "dangerous" machine guns and assault weapons are to the people. And because it was a child they are going to blow it out of proportion more than if it had been a 21 year adult.
My personal feelings on this are that whatever guardian was there at the time when it happened is an idiot. I wouldn't be surprised if a lawsuit comes out of this as well. Common sense isn't a super power.
I totally agree. The father should have known what his son was shooting before he shot it, but we're all looking at this from the perspective of seasoned gun owners who know better. If you go to one of these events as a relatively uninformed person, you put your trust in the people who own and shoot and know these weapons to not allow anything dangerous to happen. If this is the case, the father shouldn't be deemed negligent, at least criminally, for trusting people who he believed knew better than he did.
Common sense isn't a super power.
Debatable. Very debatable.
People say common sense after the fact.. but in reality, it seems like a lot of people don't have common sense. :(
CarlosDJackal
11-01-08, 01:47
People say common sense after the fact.. but in reality, it seems like a lot of people don't have common sense. :(
Yup!! As someone smarter than I once said: "Nowadays common sense is anything but..."
Erik Eastman
11-01-08, 09:12
This is easily the dumbest move I've heard of in a while. Guess dad gets the rest of his life to ponder that one.
You can't even get a hunting license in Maine until you are 10 and take a hunter safety course. You can't hunt by yourself legally until you are 16.
I can't imagine anyone involved thinking it was a good idea to give an 8yr old an smg.
And to say it's perhaps not all the dads fault, I tell you, when I leave the house with my kids it is MY RESPONSIBILITY AND ONLY MY RESPONSIBILITY to bring them back safely. Regardless of what we are doing.
Even if I drop them off at daycare and something happens while I'm at work IT'S STILL MY FAULT IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, 'CAUSE I PUT THEM THERE. Some people get it, some don't.
You failed dad. Enjoy the bitter fruits of your stupidity.
toddackerman
11-01-08, 16:03
And we'll be the ones that ultimately pay for yhis stupidity!
Just received this email from a Westfield Sportsmans Club member.
"The County DA is going to try to prosecute someone for this incident.
The Pelham MA police chief who supervised the Shoot has put himself on vacation."
I would like to know if the shooter was using one of the C.O.P Firearms rental guns, or was he using a gun owned by an individuals private collection? Many machine gun owners come to this event to shoot their guns, because full-auto fire is only allowed by civilians during this single event. People that bring their own guns to shoot are set up to the far right of the range... and while they come under the same fire commands as the rental area, they are much less supervised, as RO's are familiar with all these shooters, and assume they know what they are doing.
I've been to 4 of these events at the WSC back in the early 00's. It is a smaller version of the Knob Creek shoot. Very family oriented.
When Rachel Bigley was struck in the head and killed by a malfunctioning minigun at the 95 Knob Creek shoot, no one called for her father to be arrested... but... the situation was one of mechanical failure, not operator error.
If I hear anything more, I'll post it.
My understanding is that the 16 year old son of the machine pistol owner was the range officer and was assisting the 8 year old. The Owner of the weapon was not in the area. The victims dad thought the small weapon would be easier to control. Big Mistake. Also believe the child fired from the hip and the micro uzi rotated up and he was shot in the head. The Victims dad is an MD and a Director of Emergency Services.
My understanding is that the 16 year old son of the machine pistol owner was the range officer and was assisting the 8 year old.
Can a 16 year old be a class III range officer? :confused:
If this is true, it adds yet another dimension of stupidity to an already unbelievably stupid scenario.
J
When Rachel Bigley was struck in the head and killed by a malfunctioning minigun at the 95 Knob Creek shoot, no one called for her father to be arrested... but... the situation was one of mechanical failure, not operator error.
It was also not in mASSachusetts
CarlosDJackal
11-04-08, 16:32
...When Rachel Bigley was struck in the head and killed by a malfunctioning minigun at the 95 Knob Creek shoot, no one called for her father to be arrested... but... the situation was one of mechanical failure, not operator error...
Exactly!! Anyone can safely shoot a fixed minigun without any training (barring mechanical failure) but very few individuals can shoot a FA SMG safely without immediate and experienced supervision.
RogerinTPA
11-04-08, 21:51
Good. If the RSO and parent aren't charged for criminal negligence, they should at least be dragged through the legal system. It will send a clear warning to those that would endanger a child's life with a weapon that most adults aren't capable of safely controlling without the proper training. By the way, who would sign off a 16 year old as an RSO for a range using fully automatic weapons???
[QUOTE=Pilgrim;241881]Just received this email from a Westfield Sportsmans Club member.
"The County DA is going to try to prosecute someone for this incident.
The Pelham MA police chief who supervised the Shoot has put himself on vacation."/QUOTE]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.