(MO) Accidental Shooting Victim's Father Files Suit

D

Drizzt

New member
Copyright 2002 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch


June 25, 2002 Tuesday Five Star Lift Edition

SECTION: ST. CHARLES COUNTY POST; Pg. 2

LENGTH: 438 words

HEADLINE: ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING VICTIM'S FATHER FILES SUIT;
WRONGFUL DEATH SUIT LISTS FOUR PEOPLE;
SEEKS EXPENSES, DAMAGES

BYLINE: Valerie Schremp Of The Post-Dispatch

BODY:
The father of a man who was accidentally shot to death at a friend's house in St. Peters has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the shooter, the owner of the gun, the owner of the house and the man who sold the gun.

Michael Thompson, 25, is accused of fatally shooting Andy Nolfo, 26, of St. Charles, in April. They had met at a friend's home to play computer games, and witnesses say Thompson was playing with the gun when he jokingly pointed it at one of his other friends. He pulled the trigger, but the gun did not go off. Thompson then picked up the gun again and this time cocked it, apparently unaware that he was letting a bullet fall into the chamber, police said. He pointed the gun at Nolfo and squeezed the trigger, shooting him.

Louis C. Nolfo, Andy Nolfo's father, filed the suit last week in St. Charles County Circuit Court. Named in the lawsuit are Thompson, Jimmy Bedrosian, 23, who lived in the house and owned the gun; Robert Huff, 38, who sold the gun to Bedrosian; and Christopher Crossen, 31, who owned the house. The defendants have 30 days to respond to the suit.

Only Thompson faces criminal charges. He is in the St. Charles County Jail in lieu of a $150,000 cash-only bond on charges of involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action.

The suit says that Thompson was negligent when he got the gun from Bedrosian and did not check whether the gun was loaded. Bedrosian had played with the loaded and unlocked 9 mm Ruger semiautomatic pistol, the lawsuit says, and he had been pointing the gun at his friends that day and pulled the trigger without "chambering" a round of ammunition.

Huff, the suit says, "illegally transferred" the gun to Bedrosian and did not have a gun permit. Police said Monday that apparently a gun permit had been issued but became void because no one picked it up.

Crossen allowed people to "reside and interact" at the house on Mayfield Drive "in an unsupervised and unregulated manner," the suit says. The suit says the other defendants were permitted to consume mind-altering drugs and to play with the loaded handgun.

Lt. Brad North, of the St. Peters Police Department, said Monday that there was no evidence the men were using any type of drugs.

Nolfo is seeking funeral and burial expenses and emotional damages. The suit concludes with the statement: "... Each defendant had within his means the ability readily to have prevented the tragedy by the exercise of a mere modicum of restraint or common sense, especially in light of the risk of harm known to exist when playing with something as inherently lethal and dangerous as a gun."



What, he's not suing the guy who sold the ammo? And the guy who walked past his son on the street earlier that day? And God?
 
Whole bunch of stupid people involved here.

The victim didn't know enough to put an end to the shooter pointing the Ruger at anybody, ever! The victim's father never explained the facts of life about guns to his son, and worse, the victim's father may not know them! The gun's owner made the gun available as a casual toy in addition to sharing the ignorance of the father and victim. And on, and on, and on.... :(
 
Guns don't go off by themselves. Guns don't aim themselves. Guns don't squeeze their own triggers.

Why do they call it an accident? Why do they call it 'playing' with a gun?

Why don't they call it murder? That's what it was.
 
I hate to say it, but nobody tackled him or threw anything at him or at least told him to check the weapon the first time he pulled the trigger, so they all are responsible. Common sense says not to use or allow use of deadly weapons when you don't know whether it's safe. These were not children (except perhaps according to Brady). If they can't figure things like that out after twenty-five years, they're hopeless.
 
Certainly the shooter was negligent, and should have some liability assessed against him. Dead man may have been contributorily negligent, which would mitigate damages. Other defendants - judgment call for the jury to decide negligence based on all the facts and circumstances. The plaintiff has to sue everyone, and let the jury decide who was at fault, in comparative percentages, including the contrib. of the (dead) plaintiff. Stupid peeps, yes. Meritorious lawsuit, on the whole, also yes.

Whether something is murder, manslaughter, etc., depends on the ACTUAL, SUBJECTIVE intent of the shooter here. It has to do with the "mens rea" or basically, extent of "evil" intent, or negligence. The varying degrees of intent (both actual intent to harm and reckless disregard for possible harm) can be thought of as one large continuum:

1. At the upper end of the mens rea continuum is actual intent to attempt to kill the person being shot at: This results in a criminal liability of Murder if the person dies, and a civil liability for intentional battery, both actual and punitive damages (OJ Simpson civil case).

2. A little further down on the scale no actual intent to kill, but an actual intent to do "serious bodily harm". If the person in fact dies as a result, this is ALSO MURDER (could be called 1st or 2nd degree, depending on states' rules about these nebulous designations). Example of this would be, you shoot someone in the arm or leg not intending to kill them, but obviously intending to do "serious bodily harm". If they end up dying, this is murder. Civilly, actual and punitive damages.

3. Just a smidge down below #2 on the scale (very very close to #2 on the continuum), is the so-called "depraved heart murder". Your actions do not indicate that you actually intended to do kill or even necessarily do serious bodily harm to anyone, but your actions were so incredibly recklessly dangerous that you have a "depraved heart". Classic example of this is shooting into a room crowded full of people. True, there is a small chance of not hitting anyone, but there is such an extremely high chance of hitting someone, and the resulting potential harm is so great, that if someone in fact dies, your actions are beyond negligence, and beyond even gross negligence, and amount to murder (I believe this is almost invariably designated 2nd degree murder, though in some states it might even be called 3rd degree). The peeps in Calif with the attack dogs that killed the lady - one of them was found guilty of depraved heart murder, though it's certainly arguable. I would put that case in the next category down (manslaughter), not murder. Civilly, #3 results in actual and in most or all states, I would imagine, punitive damages as well.

4. Below #3 is MANSLAUGHTER. There are two ways to get convicted of manslaughter. TRUE manslaughter (or involuntary manslaughter), is when you did not intend to kill anyone, nor did you even actually intend to do anyone serious bodily harm, but your actions were GROSSLY NEGLIGENT, or highly negligent - beyond any ordinary negligence or carelessness. Involuntary manslaughter is most often used for drunk driving accidents that result in death, but the case here (the pointing the gun and pulling the trigger repeatedly) is also a case where the appropriate charge, at least, is manslaughter, or gross negligence (not murder). It MAY be the case that the shooter had such a lack of knowledge and experience with firearms that he was NOT grossly negligent in racking the slide and pulling the trigger - and therefore not guilty of manslaughter (i.e. from the criminal liability perspective - it was an "accident"). Depends on whether he actually knew there were rounds in the mag. Depends on whether he actually knew or reasonably should have known that racking the slide would chamber a round. Depends on many things. But it possible that his actions were not manslaugter - up to the jury. Probably, most juries, and myself, would vote that this WAS grossly negligent handling, and thus manslaughter. On the civil side, this results in actual damages, but not punitive, IINM, in most or all states.

Other way to get manslaughter ("voluntary" manslaughter) is if the actual mens rea of the defendant is murder (i.e. actual intent to kill or actual intent to do serious bodily harm), BUT there is an extreme, serious, mitigating factor which would, in the jury's opinion, cause any reasonable person to "rage" or cause the defendant to do serious harm to the victim/dead plaintiff. The classic example of this is, you catch your wife in bed with another man, and you kill one or both of them intentionally, or beat them with a shovel and they die. Obviously, the mens rea is murder, but the mitigating factors leading up the the non-pre-planned, instantantaneous rage, leave an "out" for the jury to find manslaughter if they choose, rather than murder, based upon their own belief as to what factors might cause a reasonable person to do what the defendant did. So this version of manslaughter is actually and affirmative defense of the defendant. The DA brings murder and proves murder, but the defendant brings up and proves the defense of the mitigating factor which can result in the jury finding manslaughter, notwithstanding that murder was proven. Civilly, this results in actual AND puntive damages (since the actions to harm were intentional, not negligent). [BTW, in all of these civil cases for negligence/intentional battery, the cause of action is known as "wrongful death".]

5. Next down on the scale is "ordinary negligence". You failed to exercise that amount of care or prudence, based on all the factors and circumstances, that a reasonable person of average intelligence and prudence, would have exercise under the same exact circumstances. Criminally, this level of mens rea means the death was an "accident" or "death my misadventure" in the old terms - so no criminal liablity. You are still however, responsible civilly for actual damages, but not punitives. [BTW, anytime "actual" damages are assessed (also known as "compensatory" damages), these include in the case of a survivor (no death) medical bills, loss of pay from missed work, and physical and emotional pain and suffering, and in the case of wrongful death, an award to surviving family members of the loss of "consortium", or company, for the rest of what would have been the decedant's expected natural life.]

6. The final, lowest level, is a lack of negligence. Perhaps you did something that arguably was a little foolish in hindsight, or not the most careful way in the world to do things, as someone died as a result, but the average, reasonable person would not have done anything different, based on ALL the facts and circumstances. Here, of course, no criminal or civil liability.

So, on the criminal side, there are only 3 basic outcomes when a non-natural death occurs: Murder (1,2,3 above), Manslaughter (4 above), and Death by Misadventure (5 and 6 above). On the civil side, there are also 3 basic outcomes: Actual AND Punitive liability (1,2,3 and sometimes 4 above). Actual liability only (5 and sometimes 4 above), and no liability (6 above - I suppose 6 would be the civil version of the definition of "accident").

Hope this helps. It all comes down to what the jury BELIEVES was ACTUALLY going on inside the defendant's head. Here, if the jury actually believes that the shooter intended to kill the person (OR do him serious bodily harm - i.e. intended to actually shoot and actually hit him), then it's murder. More likely, he did not intent to kill or do bodily harm (or even cause the gun to fire at all, let alone cause the bullet to hit the victim anywhere on the body). So, it's a case of manslaughter, or possibly "death by misadventure", not murder. The appropriate course of action is for the DA to bring manslaughter, and let the jury decide whether the negligence was gross or extreme (manslaughter), or ordinary (an accident, resulting in acquittal). On the civil side, he's still fully responsible because clearly, there was at a bare minimum, ordinary negligence here.
 
Last edited:
I found this thread searching online for information about a friend that had been shot and killed.

I knew all these guys, and Andy was Mike's best friend. There is no way in hell he would have murdered Andy. I grew up with these guys, but drifted apart after moving to another state. All of these guys were very good people. I can't believe I'm hearing about this now, years later. But I thought I would put this to rest.

Sorry to bump this thread, but the responses I read pissed me off, and I only registered to put this to rest.

Rest in peace Andy, and thanks for the memories. And as for Mike, I hope you're taking this well, and that the police were leiniant on you.

If you guys happen to google this and find this, it's Jason. I will miss all the times at Darryls house. Please look me up if you get the chance, I've tried to find you guys, but I've failed so far. I'm sorry for what happened.
 
Another case of the current propensity to sue anytime anything unfortunate or tragic happens. The lawyers love this sort of thing - file suit with anyone remotely involved in a tragic case like this and reap financial benefits for someones misfortune.

The entire cast was at fault in this one. It wasn't playing with a gun it was total negligence, but does that make a law suit necessary. Why not just leave the criminal case proceed, unless money is really the driver for the civil suit??
 
Not me personally, but if someone pointed a real gun at me and pretended to shoot me, they probably wouldn't be able to smile straight after that...and I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT have stuck around for the morons to do more damage.

And, as a gun owner, I wouldn't hand my gun with a loaded magazine to some moron who didn't know how to operate it and who has the stupidity to point it at someone like that.

Were I in the idiots shoes who did the shooting...after shooting a guy like that, I would have turned the gun on myself and rid the world of my stupidity. He needs to be castrated to keep from reproducing, IMMEDIATELY.

As the first response stated here..."A bunch of stupid people in this situation."
 
Sorry to bump this thread, but the responses I read pissed me off, and I only registered to put this to rest.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for your loss. This was truly a tragic event for all concerned.

Please understand however that most responsible gun owners have no tolerance for the type of activity that led up to this. Pointing a gun, loaded or not, at another human being is inexcusable and unacceptable, because it can lead to this type of tragedy.

A friend of mine lost her son in this kind of situation- 17 years old, football player, almost finished with high school, on his way to college and the rest of his life- he put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger as a joke. As a result of his stupidity his life ended and everyone else's life was changed forever.

Not to mention he's another statistic the Brady crowd can use against us responsible gun owners.

People on this forum probably shouldn't react with emotion and call it murder when it's most likely manslaughter (because of the reckless behavior), but we're all human, too. And we feel outrage at something like this.

Jason, you've suffered a horrible loss, and you're obviously upset. Don't waste this opportunity to learn a valuable lesson from life. If you ever see someone acting irresponsibly with a firearm, correct it immediately. Have no tolerance for unsafe conduct with a firearm, or any other dangerous item for that matter. You'll likely save a life, maybe even your own.
 
I didnt read all the posts. None of us would ever be on the jury.

The owner of the house liable?? WOW I wont rent then.
 
What kind of best friend points a gun at you and pulls the trigger? Intentional discharge or not...

I guess that is where the saying comes from...

"With friends like that, who needs enemies?"

I don't know what you consider a "best friend," but THAT is NOT it!

And don't get me wrong, I feel bad for these guys, but cmon...what kinda moron...ugh...I give up.

As a friend of mine says: "A real friend is one that will help you bury the bodies." (IT'S JUST A JOKE!)

Pointing even an unloaded gun at a friend in such a manner is horrible!
 
The comments to which EGJason were referring are over 5 years old and were put to rest then. Time to move on. If after 5 years you find you can't, seek help elsewhere. You'll find little sympathy for reckless behavior here.
 
Be pissed at Darwin

Each defendant had within his means the ability readily to have prevented the tragedy by the exercise of a mere modicum of restraint or common sense,
Click to expand...
Unlike the "victim" who would have had to take the extraordinary measure of leaving the vicinity

Eddie The Eagle anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top