Boston Takes Responsibility For Killing An Innocent Girl

The Boston Herald reports that the City of Boston has paid the parents of Victoria Snelgrove about $5 million for killing her by mistake.  Her death appears to have been an accident, occasioned by the improper use of a badly-designed or badly-explained weapon of devastating power.

Two of Carpundit's suggestions are coming to pass: Deputy Superintendent Robert O'Toole is leaving the department, and City may be seeking contribution from FN Herstal for building that vile implement in the first place.

As for the criminal investigation, it's too early to say whether charges are warranted.  I think a big part of the blame lies at the feet of the gun manufacturer, who seems to have sold this thing as a crowd control weapon, when it is really just a rifle - a deadly force weapon.  I doubt seriously if the police intended to hurt anyone, and I'd hate to think a cop could be charged just for doing what he reasonably thought was his job.  But that's the question, isn't it?  Did he reasonably think the FN303, as he understood it, was proper at that moment?  I'd guess yes, but it's just a guess.

My deepest sympathies to the parents and family of Victoria Snelgrove.

UPDATE: It now appears the city will not sue the gun maker, but the family may.  Yesterday's Herald online had it backwards.  There may well be good reason for the city's not pursuing a remedy, but I don't know what it is.  Based on the literature and promotional materials on the FN Herstal site, that gun should never have been sold for crowd control, though that's exactly what they were selling it for.  Maybe it qualifies as an inherently-dangerous product, but I'm don't know enough tort law to know if manufacturers can hide behind that when they sell it expressly for a benign use.  Mary Jo Harris is the BPD's top lawyer, and she's pretty smart, so they must have looked at this.

Comments

[Josh]

I agree with you that it's dumb to market a "crowd control" weapon that kills people. However, legally speaking, I think the pellet gun probably wouldn't qualify as unreasonably dangerous. See my explanation here: http://www.bostonist.com/archives/2005/05/03/less_lethal_more_expensive.php.

[carpundit]

Here's the URL Josh was aiming for:

http://www.bostonist.com/archives/2005/05/03/less_lethal_more_expensive.php#more

I strongly disagree with Bostonist's position on guns and weapons manufacturers, but you should read his post anyway.

CP