Pelham Police Chief Ed Fleury. Photo by Izzy Lyman (2003)At my age, having seen and experienced a most traumatic moment or two, and still only an intermediate ranked father (green belt in karate terms) when it comes to child rearing, I simply cannot imagine anything even remotely worse than witnessing your child's head explode from the point blank impact impact of machine gun bullets gone awry.
So I wholeheartedly agree with former Pelham Police Chief Ed Fleury's lawyers attempt to quash the presentation at his manslaughter trial of video taken by the dead child's father at that most horrific moment. And I shudder to think the number of "hits" it would generate if it somehow was leaked to the Internet (WikiLeaks perhaps?)
But I don't disagree with Edward P. Ryan Jr., a defense lawyer and former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association who said the video would probably be allowed because "It depicts the gun in operation. It could help the jury make a determination as to whether or not allowing the boy to fire the weapon is wanton or reckless," he said. "They get to see the circumstances under which the gun was fired."
Fair enough. But even I--a lowly blogger using a $35 shareware digital editing program--could edit that video in a fair-and-balanced way, showing the gun in operation but stopping just short of "the horror...the horror."
As I said on this blog exactly two years ago:
Of course the DA is quoted saying that Machine Gun Shoots are "clearly a violation of the law.” Well gee Mr. DA, where the Hell were you over the past few years when these things having been routinely promoted—and I mean PROMOTED—in this state?
It’s not like they were secretly holding cock fighting in a basement somewhere. If you did your job and shut these events down a year ago that child would be alive today.
If you are going to indict somebody then how about the father who picked out the gun? Or your office for dereliction of duty.
The jury will never convict. But another life has been destroyed.
If, however, the judge allows that indescribable death video at trial--the jury will convict...the wrong man!
The AP reports
Could you, just this once, wait until we see what comes out at trial?
ReplyDeleteI understand that you think that you know it all, but perhaps, just this once, you don't.
"What comes out"?!
ReplyDeleteThe only purpose of this post was to simply say that what we NOW know--courtesy of the AP (and you have to wonder why the hell the Gazette or Republican did not break this new revelation) MAY COME OUT is a snuff film of an 8-year-old blowing his brains out.
THAT should not come out!
You're right on Larry. How stupid of the DA to pretend this wasn't going on, and widely promoted. A lot of blame to lay around. What on earth was the father of the little boy thinking???? What was the club thinking letting a little kid hold that for even one second unattended?
ReplyDelete"A snuff film"?
ReplyDeleteIt's a film of what happened!
It's called "evidence".
And as such, if allowed by the Judge, could very well come under public documents law.
ReplyDeleteFilm at 11:00
Fleury is charged with involuntary manslaughter (negligent accidental homicide) I think that is exactly right. Do you?
ReplyDeleteIf the video, which depicts the gun in operation, could help the jury make a determination as to whether or not allowing the boy to fire the weapon is wanton or reckless" then it should and must be admitted, so that the jury can find the truth using the best available evidence.
The tape would allow the jury to to see the circumstances under which the gun was fired.
Larry is right to ask whether the boy's father, Dr. Charles Bizilj was not also reckless in allowing his son to fire the automatic weapon but law enforcement would never charge the victim's father who saw his own son blow his own brains out.
Fleury doesn't own the these weapons. We'd be right to ask if the company that makes these traveling gun shows available to local people like Fleury as a matter of course allow machine gun shoots. If so, they should be standing at the bar too.
As far as blaming local law enforcement whether the police, sheriff or DA, that's absurd.
The video, like a document or testimony is evidence. It carries the weight of what happened. No one is claiming its been doctored. The jury, as part of its civic duty in assessing the truth of what happened that day, must watch it and make a reasonable judgment about it and other facts.
If Larry wasn't looking for a way to help insure a more fair trial for Fleury, he'd never argue to suppress the evidence; he's a journalist and 1st amendment devotee.
A "more fair trial"--I like that. What a concept. As far as I'm concerned, when your life is on the line there's no such thing as a trial being too fair.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, it's not like Ed Fleury is facing the possibility of capital punishment, but I've heard that cops--even from a small town--don't do so well in the slammmer.
The fact that the guy who's being scapegoated in this case happens to be a cop is just a big, fat cherry for leftish types.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile...well, here's a plug for my blog:
http://bellyofthebeets.blogspot.com/
Larry is right to ask whether the boy's father, Dr. Charles Bizilj was not also reckless in allowing his son to fire the automatic weapon but law enforcement would never charge the victim's father who saw his own son blow his own brains out.
ReplyDeleteOh, really? In a case five years ago that is chillingly similar to the PPrince suicide in South Hadley, Connecticut charged the dead kid's mother -- got a conviction and that was then overturned on appeal. See http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR279/279cr131.pdf
Judge will allow jurors to see the video of the little boy shooting himself. Audio portion is still being decided.
ReplyDeleteFrom what we know Fluery did NOT put the gun in this boys hand, AND the father of the boy gave his consent for his boy to fire this weapon....
ReplyDeleteTragedy, sympathy to the family and friends for their loss....that fact remains, that Fluery did not do anything illegal, at least how I see it...maybe the pain is more of an influence to "go after someone" for it. That's why they have "insurance".