# Tragedy: Step-father accidentally shoots step-daughter during home invasion



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2011)

This is a real tragedy, and one which I hope all who choose to keep firearms for self-defense will consider.  Just having a gun is not enough.  You must know how to use it, when to use it, or tragedy can occur.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...ld-home-invasion-by-accident?odyssey=nav|head



> LANSING -- The stepfather of a 7-year-old Lansing girl shot and  killed last year during a home invasion testified today that he shot the  girl accidentally.LaVar  Burton, 33, testified that he ran upstairs in his Lansing home July 22,  2010 after seeing a man with a gun break through the living room screen  late at night. Burton testified that the intruder fired several shots  at him as Burton ran upstairs. Burton then retrieved his .45 caliber,  semi-automatic pistol, and tried to return fire from the upstairs  landing, but the gun jammed, according to testimony.
> Burton  testified he then ran into a bedroom, and was able to dislodge the  bullets. He said he stepped out of the room, heard footsteps coming  towards him in the darkened house and fired one shot. "I closed my eyes  and then I shot," Burton testified.
> The next thing he knew, his 7-year-old stepdaughter Amaia Edmond, "was lying on the floor." She was later pronounced dead.



Two of the burglars are being prosecuted for murder - even though they did not fire the shots that killed the little girl, they were the original cause of the incident and in the USA, they can be held criminally liable for the results; just like a person who commits arson on an abandoned building can be charged with murder if there is someone inside he didn't know about and didn't intend to kill.  It doesn't matter - you're responsible for the consequences of your actions.

But it does not bring the poor little girl back.  I'm sure the step-father will live with this on his conscience forever.  If you own a firearm for self-defense; take this to heart.  Learn to use it properly, learn when to use it and when not to.  Practice with it.  Be as safe as you can be with a deadly weapon.


----------



## tenzen (Apr 20, 2011)

This truely is a tragedy. And I agree whith the burglars being prosecuted cuz it is their faults.
To legally own a gun shouldn't he have went through a course on how to use it before he was able to purchase it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2011)

tenzen said:


> To legally own a gun shouldn't he have went through a course on how to use it before he was able to purchase it?



Depends on the state or jurisdiction.  In Michigan, a hand gun purchase permit is required, but no safety course of any kind.  The purchase permit requires a $5 payment.  A criminal background check is done.  That's all.

In any case, a simple safety course is probably not enough.  If you are going to keep a gun for self-defense, I urge people to train with it often.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Apr 20, 2011)

Never shoot unless you have identified your target.

The guy is a moron, but yes, I think that the criminals involved should be prosecuted for her death.

Jeff


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 20, 2011)

The cynical cop in me wonders what the homeowner was "into". 99.999% of these sort of "home invasion's" are people who are all involved in the same sort of "business" if you catch my meaning.

Not that that should minimize the death of that poor little girl.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 20, 2011)

why should you have a course on how to use it as a requirement before buying?

you dont need to do that for a car, a chainsaw, a lawnmower, a weedwacker, a propane tank, or many other similar items that peoiple use for specific tasks.

as a matter of fact I can not go rent a gun and take it home with me.
I can and rent a chainsaw and be out the door in less then 10 minutes.

no this was unfortunate, the guy was not prepared for the situation and mentally and emotionally failed to rise to the occasion.
I have a feeling the vast majority of martial arts practitioners would do similar when they actually have to use their skills in a confrontation.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 20, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> The cynical cop in me wonders what the homeowner was "into". 99.999% of these sort of "home invasion's" are people who are all involved in the same sort of "business" if you catch my meaning.
> 
> Not that that should minimize the death of that poor little girl.


Depends on where you are.

We've had a lot in my region targeting immigrants who distrust the banking system and the government...  They're easy pickings, and it's not always reported.

But... yeah.  Lots of 'em are people targeted for what they're involved in (drugs, gambling, unlicensed businesses of several sorts).

As to the OP -- Virginia doesn't require any training to buy a gun.  Personally -- I'd like to see a basic safety class, and maybe a skills class be required.  In my mind -- it'd be a one-time thing, before you could purchase your first gun.  LE and security training would satisfy; I'm not 100% sure about military only because I don't know that they cover at-home safety very much.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Apr 20, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> why should you have a course on how to use it as a requirement before buying?
> 
> you dont need to do that for a car



Odd, when I bought my car I had to show both drivers license AND proof of insurance.


----------



## K-man (Apr 20, 2011)

A tragedy indeed.  I posted a scenario in the "Glad I don't live in Australia" thread pointing out the possibility of accidently shooting a family member.  Two months later we have a real situation.  Now it's the fault of the intruders?  Yes, they shouldn't have been there but when someone picks up a gun, closes his eyes and pulls the trigger, it's hardly responsible.


> Two of the burglars are being prosecuted for murder - even though they did not fire the shots that killed the little girl, they were the original cause of the incident and in the USA, they can be held criminally liable for the results; just like a person who commits arson on an abandoned building can be charged with murder if there is someone inside he didn't know about and didn't intend to kill. It doesn't matter - you're responsible for the consequences of your actions.


Interesting.  I would have thought that that law would be hard to prosecute.  Say I were to cause a traffic accident.  Someone driving past looks at my accident, instead of watching the road, and hits and kills a pedestrian.  Who is responsible for the death?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2011)

K-man said:


> A tragedy indeed.  I posted a scenario in the "Glad I don't live in Australia" thread pointing out the possibility of accidently shooting a family member.  Two months later we have a real situation.  Now it's the fault of the intruders?  Yes, they shouldn't have been there but when someone picks up a gun, closes his eyes and pulls the trigger, it's hardly responsible.



From the report, the men came into the house firing weapons.  The victim should not have done what he did - firing back with his eyes closed.  However, the risk of people dying from gunfire was already present.



> Interesting.  I would have thought that that law would be hard to prosecute.  Say I were to cause a traffic accident.  Someone driving past looks at my accident, instead of watching the road, and hits and kills a pedestrian.  Who is responsible for the death?



In the USA, when a person commits a felony, they are responsible for the consequences of that act.  We have put people to death for murder when the merely drove the 'getaway car' and did not pull the trigger themselves nor intend that anyone be killed.  They intentionally committed the crime; any reasonable person could foresee that death of innocents might occur.  Under US law, they are as responsible as the person who pulled the trigger.  This is mostly used in arson cases, but it has been used in murder cases as well.

This is a legal term known as 'proximate cause'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule



> The concept of felony murder originates in the rule of transferred intent, which is older than the limit of legal memory.  In its original form, the malicious intent inherent in the commission  of any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any  consequences of that crime, however unintended. Thus, in a classic  example, a poacher  shoots his arrow at a deer, and hits a boy who was hiding in the  bushes. Although he intended no harm to the boy, and did not even  suspect his presence, the _mens rea_ of the poaching is transferred to the _actus reus_ of the killing.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 20, 2011)

K-man said:


> A tragedy indeed.  I posted a scenario in the "Glad I don't live in Australia" thread pointing out the possibility of accidently shooting a family member.  Two months later we have a real situation.  Now it's the fault of the intruders?  Yes, they shouldn't have been there but when someone picks up a gun, closes his eyes and pulls the trigger, it's hardly responsible.
> Interesting.  I would have thought that that law would be hard to prosecute.  Say I were to cause a traffic accident.  Someone driving past looks at my accident, instead of watching the road, and hits and kills a pedestrian.  Who is responsible for the death?


It's called "felony murder."  Briefly, during the commission of certain crimes (generally, felonies like burglary, robbery, murder, etc.), you're criminally responsible for deaths that occur as a result of the underlying offense, even if that wasn't your intent or plan.  Say you decide to commit a robbery, but you don't want to actually hurt anyone so you're using a fake gun.  But... the guy you accost has a heart attack and dies.  Felony murder.  Or, I go with you as a lookout & getaway driver.  You go into a bank, and commit a robbery, shooting the bank guard dead.  I get to go on the murder ride with you, because I was involved in the crime.  

And -- yes, you can find yourself charged with murder under the felony murder rule if you're the lookout, and the robber gets shot and killed by the guard.

The underlying idea is simple; make it a really, really bad idea to commit felonies and have someone killed during them.


----------



## K-man (Apr 20, 2011)

Now if we read the report carefully there was just ONE intruder, the other two persons were outside. The inference is that he was not even in the house when the man shot his step daughter. So one of the guys who didn't enter the house and didn't fire a weapon is charged with a murder his associate didn't commit directly and who possibly wasn't even present when the killing occurred. 

Then another intriguing piece "


> Burton has been granted immunity from prosecution by prosecutors in his exchange for his testimony in this case."


 
I will be very interested to hear the outcome of the case.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 20, 2011)

I'm betting that all involved (excepting the little girl) are "dirty". 

Call it a gut feeling.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

K-man said:


> So one of the guys who didn't enter the house and didn't fire a weapon is charged with a murder his associate didn't commit directly and who possibly wasn't even present when the killing occurred.



Yes, that is correct.  That's the entire theory of proximate cause.  It's nothing new here, I assure you.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...rial.ART_ART_08-15-08_B2_I4B1IUK.html?sid=101



> 2007 fatal shooting
> Driver of getaway car guilty in murder




http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jan/27/court-upholds-murder-conviction-man-who-drove-geta/



> Court upholds murder conviction for man who drove getaway car



http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/16771512/detail.html



> Getaway Driver In Burger King Murder Convicted


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But it does not bring the poor little girl back. * I'm sure the step-father will live with this on his conscience forever*.  If you own a firearm for self-defense; take this to heart.  Learn to use it properly, learn when to use it and when not to.  Practice with it.  Be as safe as you can be with a deadly weapon.



He is the *step*-father. If it turns out this happened because he was dirty, the rest of his life might be very short indeed if the actual father shows up. I know that I would be angry enough already at this moron if it was an honest accident. If it turns out it is crime related, he 'd best flee the state and change his name.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> He is the *step*-father. If it turns out this happened because he was dirty, the rest of his life might be very short indeed if the actual father shows up. I know that I would be angry enough already at this moron if it was an honest accident. If it turns out it is crime related, he 'd best flee the state and change his name.



Dunno, but found this:

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...ld-home-invasion-by-accident?odyssey=nav|head








> *John Edmond (right), biological father of Amaia Edmond speaks with  Amaia's step-father LaVar Burton prior to a Candlelight Vigil July 26,  2010. Amaia was shot and killed in a home invasion when the assailants  opened fire and Burton returned it, wounding Amaia in the crossfire.  /   Kevin W. Fowler | For the Lansing State Journal*


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 21, 2011)

That is commendable. I honestly don't know if I would be man enough to do that.
Although I wonder if that feeling will last, should there be foul play on the part of the step father.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 21, 2011)

GANG IDENTIFICATION 101
-NEW YORK YANKEE: Blue, usually worn by CRIPS (hats and jackets)


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 21, 2011)

So the color of the clothes denotes gang affiliation? How does that work for other people? I mean, if the crips have blue, and blood have red (or something else), that leaves all non gang people with only green and yellow to wear?


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 21, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> GANG IDENTIFICATION 101
> -NEW YORK YANKEE: Blue, usually worn by CRIPS (hats and jackets)








HELP CRIPS!


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 21, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> So the color of the clothes denotes gang affiliation? How does that work for other people? I mean, if the crips have blue, and blood have red (or something else), that leaves all non gang people with only green and yellow to wear?




http://www.sanantonio.gov/sapd/pdf/Awareness.pdf


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 21, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> GANG IDENTIFICATION 101
> -NEW YORK YANKEE: Blue, usually worn by CRIPS (hats and jackets)


Not nearly enough there to make that particular leap.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 21, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> So the color of the clothes denotes gang affiliation? How does that work for other people? I mean, if the crips have blue, and blood have red (or something else), that leaves all non gang people with only green and yellow to wear?


No... green is Trinitarians and yellow (with black) is Latin Kings.

Colors of clothing or bandanas can be important identifiers for gang members, kind of like colors of belts for martial artists.

Or the guy could be just a Yankees fan.  

When I come across a group of 6 or 10 guys who can't tell a Yankee from a Padre but all "happen" to be wearing Yankees hats or shirts as they hang out on a street corner and they all happen to be fans of A-Rod... that's a clue.   Especially if they all have a girl friend named Maria Sanchez, immortalized in their tattoos.

If I've got a guy who's wearing nothing but red, top to bottom... maybe a Chicago Bulls jersey... and nobody he's hanging with is wearing blue...  Again, a clue.  

Is it a definite possibility here?  Yeah, sure.  But I haven't seen enough to make a call or accusation.


----------



## threethirty (Apr 21, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> GANG IDENTIFICATION 101
> -NEW YORK YANKEE: Blue, usually worn by CRIPS (hats and jackets)



mmmmm good ol' fashoned racism...  let me guess they love watermelon, grape soda, and fried chicken. I'm sure you can know all of that from the picture.


----------



## K831 (Apr 21, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> As to the OP -- Virginia doesn't require any training to buy a gun.   Personally -- I'd like to see a basic safety class, and maybe a skills  class be required.  In my mind -- it'd be a one-time thing, before you  could purchase your first gun.  LE and security training would satisfy;* I'm not 100% sure about military only because I don't know that they cover at-home safety very much.*



I'm sure military personnel know to identify their target before pulling  the trigger. I can't imagine basic gun handling skills (like assuming  all weapons are loaded, being careful not to "laser" others, know your  target and beyond, safe storage) are taught to new recruits being given  firearms. 

I'm not a big fan of giving the fed (or the state for that matter) one  more option for mandatory classes, mandatory fees, mandatory licenses  and mandatory taxes. Every "mandatory" government training course or  licensing procedure I have been through was woefully inadequate and  behind the times, and over priced. It also only furthers the lack of  personal responsibility and discipline of our already inept society. It  used to be that American children grew up learning firearm skills from  their parents, it was cultural. Our PC destruction of such culture is  the problem.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 22, 2011)

K831 said:


> I'm sure military personnel know to identify their target before pulling  the trigger. I can't imagine basic gun handling skills (like assuming  all weapons are loaded, being careful not to "laser" others, know your  target and beyond, safe storage) are taught to new recruits being given  firearms.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of giving the fed (or the state for that matter) one  more option for mandatory classes, mandatory fees, mandatory licenses  and mandatory taxes. Every "mandatory" government training course or  licensing procedure I have been through was woefully inadequate and  behind the times, and over priced. It also only furthers the lack of  personal responsibility and discipline of our already inept society. It  used to be that American children grew up learning firearm skills from  their parents, it was cultural. Our PC destruction of such culture is  the problem.


Note, please, that I specified AT HOME safety.  As in proper storage.  That's not something that is necessarily covered in military training -- but does get significant attention in LE training.


----------



## Carol (Apr 23, 2011)

Just a reminder that home invasions don't always happen to "dirty" people.  

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81351

So where is she now? 

http://amherstadvocate.com/2011/01/david-and-jamie-cates-named-citizens-of-the-year/

That, my friends, is courage.


----------



## chinto (Apr 24, 2011)

tenzen said:


> This truely is a tragedy. And I agree whith the burglars being prosecuted cuz it is their faults.
> To legally own a gun shouldn't he have went through a course on how to use it before he was able to purchase it?




NO NOT IN THE UNITED STATES!  the second amendment says that every one has the RIGHT to KEEP AND BARE ARMS!

that said, if you have a weapon, be it a knife, sword, spear or halberd, or a rifle or pistol or shotgun, I would strongly suggest you learn how to use it if you intend to have it for self defense.

I was raised with and trained to use fire arms from the age of 4.8 years. I like guns, they are a good tool.. but I do think that you should learn to use one if you own one and have not already... but it is your choice.  however, if I am on the jury and you made no attempt to learn to use it, it goes off and some one is injured.. i would provably hold you completely responsible for your actions.
that said, in this case a  case of felony murder seems correct and just against the burglars and the father will have to live with his ineptitude with that weapon and its results!

I feel very sorry for the child and the mother..


----------



## chinto (Apr 24, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Depends on where you are.
> 
> We've had a lot in my region targeting immigrants who distrust the banking system and the government...  They're easy pickings, and it's not always reported.
> 
> ...




maybe you should go READ the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS.... also the amendments, especially the 14th and 15th ...  I think you will find what you want is both illegal and unconstitutional .. especially if you read the Federalist Papers and the Founding Fathers intent  for Passing and requiring the passage of THE BILL OF RIGHTS.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 25, 2011)

chinto said:


> maybe you should go READ the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS.... also the amendments, especially the 14th and 15th ...  I think you will find what you want is both illegal and unconstitutional .. especially if you read the Federalist Papers and the Founding Fathers intent  for Passing and requiring the passage of THE BILL OF RIGHTS.


I'm quite familiar with the contents of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment.  

The right to bear arms is not unlimited, and no court ruling to date has held it as such.  Note that there are already waiting periods, limits on how many handguns may be purchased in a given time period, sales and import restrictions, limitations on how or when you may exercise your right to bear arms, training requirements to obtain CCW permits, and more.  Accordingly, a simple requirement of a few hours training on proper storage and handling, once in a lifetime, seems rather reasonable to me.  Nobody's done it yet -- but that doesn't make it automatically unconstitutional.


----------

