Try, try again...
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/16/BAGNM3O4RV1.DTL
Jurors deliberating in retrial of gun case
Boy was accidentally slain by best friend
Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, December 16, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a retrial of a case that drew national attention, an Oakland jury heard sharply contrasting closing arguments Monday on whether a gun manufacturer should be held liable in the death of a 15-year-old Berkeley boy who was accidentally shot by his best friend.
Elliot Peters, a San Francisco attorney for the family of slain youth Kenzo Dix, urged jurors to assess a $10 million damage award against Beretta U. S.A. Corp. for failing to incorporate adequate safety features in the 9mm semiautomatic handgun that killed the boy.
But Craig Livingston, a Walnut Creek attorney for Beretta, said the Maryland company was not culpable and blamed the 14-year-old shooter and his father for ignoring safety warnings in the owner's manual.
After a monthlong trial in 1998, a jury found that Beretta had not designed a defective weapon and was not liable in Kenzo's death.
His parents, Griffin and Lynn Dix, won a new trial on the grounds that an original juror defended the gunmaker from the beginning and angrily lashed out at those on the panel who did not agree with him.
After receiving instructions from Superior Court Judge Gordon Baranco, the new 12-member jury began deliberating Monday after a three-week trial in a product-liability case under close scrutiny by the firearms industry and gun- control advocates.
The shooting took place May 29, 1994, at the Berkeley home of 14- year- old Michael Soe. Michael got his father's Beretta 92 Compact L handgun from a camera bag and replaced the loaded ammunition magazine with an empty one, thinking he had unloaded the weapon.
But a bullet was still in the chamber when Michael fired at Kenzo, his best friend. The Berkeley High School freshman died after the bullet struck his heart.
Peters said the gun's chamber-loaded indicator, a red dot on the barrel that is raised one millimeter when a round is in the chamber, was too subtle for unintended users such as Michael.
Peters asked the jury to find Beretta 50 percent responsible for the boy's death and find Clarence and Michael Soe each 25 percent responsible.
"This accident was also caused, in part, by the extremely poor design of this gun by Beretta," said Peters, who displayed the weapon for the jury. "It was technically foreseeable to make this gun safer. Beretta needs this message to be delivered."
But Livingston denied that Beretta was at fault, saying it is the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children are safe, from making sure they wear bicycle helmets to removing poisons or knives from reach.
"As parents, we have an awesome responsibility to protect our children," Livingston said.
In this case, Clarence Soe's "horrendous lack of judgment" is to blame because he allowed open access to his gun for home-protection purposes and knowingly kept the weapon loaded, Livingston said.
"This is not a toy," Livingston said of the weapon. "This is a gun. This has lethal capabilities."
Griffin Dix, 60, of Kensington, program director of Physicians for a Violence-free Society, said outside court that he was hopeful for a victory this time around.
"We feel strongly that this needs to be done," Dix said. "People need to see what Beretta and the gun industry are doing in the design and manufacturing of guns, which is negligent."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two comments:
"...Dix said. "People need to see what Beretta and the gun industry are doing in the design and manufacturing of guns, which is negligent."
Clarence Soe kept a loaded and unlocked firearm in their house without explaining basic safety procedures to the family; Michael Soe deliberately violated all four rules with a gun he 'thought was unloaded.' And (even with an LCI) the MANUFACTURER is negligent, Mr. Dix?!?!?
"His parents, Griffin and Lynn Dix, won a new trial on the grounds that an original juror defended the gunmaker from the beginning and angrily lashed out at those on the panel who did not agree with him."
Speculation, but this might've been the one person on the jury who knew what the Four Rules were. Ironic, no? If that person had maintained their cool, educated, and gotten the other 11 to think a little instead of conforming to a stereotype (the 'hot-headed gun nut'), case closed. We are all ambassadors...
P.S. Let's hope the new jury puts this case where it rightfully belongs, and we don't end up with flashing LEDs and a synthetic voice shouting "Warning! Chamber is loaded. Warning! Chamber is..." mandated on all new guns in a couple of years.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/16/BAGNM3O4RV1.DTL
Jurors deliberating in retrial of gun case
Boy was accidentally slain by best friend
Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, December 16, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a retrial of a case that drew national attention, an Oakland jury heard sharply contrasting closing arguments Monday on whether a gun manufacturer should be held liable in the death of a 15-year-old Berkeley boy who was accidentally shot by his best friend.
Elliot Peters, a San Francisco attorney for the family of slain youth Kenzo Dix, urged jurors to assess a $10 million damage award against Beretta U. S.A. Corp. for failing to incorporate adequate safety features in the 9mm semiautomatic handgun that killed the boy.
But Craig Livingston, a Walnut Creek attorney for Beretta, said the Maryland company was not culpable and blamed the 14-year-old shooter and his father for ignoring safety warnings in the owner's manual.
After a monthlong trial in 1998, a jury found that Beretta had not designed a defective weapon and was not liable in Kenzo's death.
His parents, Griffin and Lynn Dix, won a new trial on the grounds that an original juror defended the gunmaker from the beginning and angrily lashed out at those on the panel who did not agree with him.
After receiving instructions from Superior Court Judge Gordon Baranco, the new 12-member jury began deliberating Monday after a three-week trial in a product-liability case under close scrutiny by the firearms industry and gun- control advocates.
The shooting took place May 29, 1994, at the Berkeley home of 14- year- old Michael Soe. Michael got his father's Beretta 92 Compact L handgun from a camera bag and replaced the loaded ammunition magazine with an empty one, thinking he had unloaded the weapon.
But a bullet was still in the chamber when Michael fired at Kenzo, his best friend. The Berkeley High School freshman died after the bullet struck his heart.
Peters said the gun's chamber-loaded indicator, a red dot on the barrel that is raised one millimeter when a round is in the chamber, was too subtle for unintended users such as Michael.
Peters asked the jury to find Beretta 50 percent responsible for the boy's death and find Clarence and Michael Soe each 25 percent responsible.
"This accident was also caused, in part, by the extremely poor design of this gun by Beretta," said Peters, who displayed the weapon for the jury. "It was technically foreseeable to make this gun safer. Beretta needs this message to be delivered."
But Livingston denied that Beretta was at fault, saying it is the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children are safe, from making sure they wear bicycle helmets to removing poisons or knives from reach.
"As parents, we have an awesome responsibility to protect our children," Livingston said.
In this case, Clarence Soe's "horrendous lack of judgment" is to blame because he allowed open access to his gun for home-protection purposes and knowingly kept the weapon loaded, Livingston said.
"This is not a toy," Livingston said of the weapon. "This is a gun. This has lethal capabilities."
Griffin Dix, 60, of Kensington, program director of Physicians for a Violence-free Society, said outside court that he was hopeful for a victory this time around.
"We feel strongly that this needs to be done," Dix said. "People need to see what Beretta and the gun industry are doing in the design and manufacturing of guns, which is negligent."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two comments:
"...Dix said. "People need to see what Beretta and the gun industry are doing in the design and manufacturing of guns, which is negligent."
Clarence Soe kept a loaded and unlocked firearm in their house without explaining basic safety procedures to the family; Michael Soe deliberately violated all four rules with a gun he 'thought was unloaded.' And (even with an LCI) the MANUFACTURER is negligent, Mr. Dix?!?!?
"His parents, Griffin and Lynn Dix, won a new trial on the grounds that an original juror defended the gunmaker from the beginning and angrily lashed out at those on the panel who did not agree with him."
Speculation, but this might've been the one person on the jury who knew what the Four Rules were. Ironic, no? If that person had maintained their cool, educated, and gotten the other 11 to think a little instead of conforming to a stereotype (the 'hot-headed gun nut'), case closed. We are all ambassadors...
P.S. Let's hope the new jury puts this case where it rightfully belongs, and we don't end up with flashing LEDs and a synthetic voice shouting "Warning! Chamber is loaded. Warning! Chamber is..." mandated on all new guns in a couple of years.