Family of Uzi Shooter sues

[Purplehood]

MSNBC states that the family of the 8-year old kid that shot himself is suing the gun club and promoters.

I have a few problems with that:

- You take risks shooting a weapon
It is like taking your kids over to Michael Jackson's for a sleepover. You know something bad might happen.
-The gun jammed twice before the fatal shots
If I observed my son having a difficult time with an automatic weapon, I would very likely have him stop shooting it, period.
-The instructor that cleared the weapon was 15-years old
I am sorry, I trust kids that were raised correctly with weapons but would never dream of allowing my 14 year old to handle a full auto weapon under the auspices of another young teen. That is another parental control issue.

Once again, here we go with a lawsuit that should never happen. It was a tragic accident and all parties concerned (Adults) should blame themselves equally.

[bdickens]

I don't know. If the gun club had a 15-year-old "instructor" supervising children with firearms of any kind, they should be sued.

[chabouk]

I don't know. If the gun club had a 15-year-old "instructor" supervising children with firearms of any kind, they should be sued.

Why?

[Dudley]

Stupid is as stupid does.

[MadMonkey]

I don't know. If the gun club had a 15-year-old "instructor" supervising children with firearms of any kind, they should be sued.

Why?

You mean besides physical, mental, and emotional immaturity?

[chabouk]

I don't know. If the gun club had a 15-year-old "instructor" supervising children with firearms of any kind, they should be sued.

Why?

You mean besides physical, mental, and emotional immaturity?

Paint with a broad brush, much?

A competent instructor is competent despite his youth, and an incompetent instructor is incompetent even with decades of experience.

There are many 15 year olds with the physical, mental, and emotional maturity to serve as a competent instructor on the range. I don't know anything about this particular 15 year old, and neither does anyone else commenting here, so that's why I question the call to sue the range based solely on his age.

[MadMonkey]

I don't know. If the gun club had a 15-year-old "instructor" supervising children with firearms of any kind, they should be sued.

Why?

You mean besides physical, mental, and emotional immaturity?

Paint with a broad brush, much?

A competent instructor is competent despite his youth, and an incompetent instructor is incompetent even with decades of experience.

There are many 15 year olds with the physical, mental, and emotional maturity to serve as a competent instructor on the range. I don't know anything about this particular 15 year old, and neither does anyone else commenting here, so that's why I question the call to sue the range based solely on his age.

I agree that there are *some* kids capable of being instructors... that doesn't, however, make it a good idea. I can tell you right that there is no way I would EVER feel comfortable letting a 15 year old instruct my kid on any firearm, much less a full auto Uzi.

In my opinion a 15 year old should still be under strict supervision any time he/she is at the range in the first place; I don't care if they have military parents and grew up with guns. Teens can still be easily distracted and lose focus... that's one reason we have a minimum driving age; beyond that age, most kids have matured to the point that they can safely handle an automobile. Well.. safely is debatable. Let's leave it at just "able".

Not trying to ruffle feathers, just stating my opinion. I know 9 year olds that can kick my butt in a go-kart but that doesn't mean they should be training others.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

Earlier reports that I read at the time of this incident referred to the
Uzi in question as a "50/50", meaning that there's a 50% chance of hitting
your enemy and a 50% chance of harming yourself due to the erratic recoil
of this short weapon. I confess that I have no idea whether that characterization
was from a 2A friend or a 2A enemy.

IIRC, the young boy was firing the weapon, the recoil moved the muzzle back quickly
to a point under his chin, and the bullet(s) fired up into his head, killing him.

The dead boy's father is a Connecticut emergency room doctor, so he should have deep
enough pockets for lawyer money to keep the suit(s) going for quite a while.

SIA

[57Coastie]

Chabouk says,

"I question the call to sue the range based solely on his age."

Would you kindly share with us your source for that statement? If true, I would question the competence of the lawyer bringing the action more than I would the judgment of anyone else involved in the incident.

Respectfully,

Jim

[Purplehood]

I think that suing in the first place is inappropriate. In my OP I pointed out where both sides screwed up in my opinion.

[bdickens]

I don't know. If the gun club had a 15-year-old "instructor" supervising children with firearms of any kind, they should be sued.

Why?

You mean besides physical, mental, and emotional immaturity?

Paint with a broad brush, much?

A competent instructor is competent despite his youth, and an incompetent instructor is incompetent even with decades of experience.

There are many 15 year olds with the physical, mental, and emotional maturity to serve as a competent instructor on the range. I don't know anything about this particular 15 year old, and neither does anyone else commenting here, so that's why I question the call to sue the range based solely on his age.

Yeah, whatever.

[chabouk]

Chabouk says,

"I question the call to sue the range based solely on his age."

Would you kindly share with us your source for that statement?

I was responding to another poster, who said they should be sued because of the instructor's age:

I don't know. If the gun club had a 15-year-old "instructor" supervising children with firearms of any kind, they should be sued.

Why?

[Zee]

It seems unlikely full responsibility could fall on a minor. I guess the first adult up the ladder, with money, will take the hit.

[chabouk]

It seems unlikely full responsibility could fall on a minor. I guess the first adult up the ladder, with money, will take the hit.

In a civil suit, it's going to be everybody with any money. The deepest pockets seem most liable.

[C-dub]

Didn't or wouldn't the father have signed a hold harmless agreement? I can't believe that the range would have let any shoot full autos without it.