A judge in Wisconsin found that probable cause for the filing of felony criminal charges existed in a fireworks accident from Rome, Wisconsin. The accident happened in July 2011 when a lead pyrotechnician and a local fire inspector/chief allowed a crowd of people to sit within 39 feet of a five inch shell being discharged for a July 16 fireworks show for a pizza parlor. The proper distance for the crowd should have been 350 feet or more.
The judge found that probable cause to maintain criminal charges existed against the lead pyrotechinician for injury by neglgent handling of explosives, a felony. This means that the lead pyrotechnician (Michael Rose) will have to submit his case to a jury to decide his fate for the injuries sustainted in the July 16,2011 accident in which 11 people were injured. Seperate civil cases for injuries are also pending.
The affidavit filed by the Prosecutor in this case showed that the lead pyrotechician could not remember the appropriate distances between the crowd and the display and that there may bave been several inadequacies of his training. The lead pyrotechnican supposedly had 34 years of experience in conducting fireworks displays.
There seems to be little question that the guidelines of NFPA 1123 were brazenly violated not only by the lead pyrotechnicain, but also the local fire chief. One has to wonder why the Fire Chief that authorized this outrageous behavior is not also being charged criminally, even with conspiracy.
While i don't fault the Prosecuting Attorney for taking the action against the lead pyrotechician, I have to fault her for singling out the fireworks and not the actual Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) which allowed this activity to occur not only in 2011, but according to the probable cause affidavit, in prior years as well.
I've been on shows where "We've done this for years!" has been spoken by either the lead or the AHJ. I've tried speaking up before (as a worker-bee) and was told it was OK. (I no longer shoot with that person.) I do feel the lead is at a higher level of responsibility as he is the one who, in the end, hits the button. But the AHJ, who has the authority to either sign off or deny the show, should bear some level of responsibility as he had full knowledge of what happened without exercising proper authority. Both are at fault, but I think the lead has the higher level of responsibility. Especially on such a blattant violation of commonly known safety practices.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree: Why isn't the AHJ in the courtroom? And does he still have AHJ authority?
(It says "Quaker Meadow" - one of the accounts attached to my Google account. Should have read "pyrorockettom@gmail.com" - sry!)
Delete