Are we responsible for the results of pulling the trigger no matter what?

[nogods]

"Experts" say it all the time - once you pull the trigger you own the results.

But as the saying goes, the only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

LaVar Burton saw a man with a gun break through the living room screen late at night. 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.

Burton 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.

The two men suspected of being involved in the home invasion are charged with the death Amaia Edmond, as I think they should be.

But what of Lavar Burton? Is it reasonable to close your eyes and shoot at footsteps?

Fortunately for Lavar he was given immunity in exchange for his testimony against the two BG's.

But that begs the question. Are we responsible for the results of pulling the trigger? Thankfully, there are no absolutes. Otherwise Lavar Burton would be facing the same fate as the BG's.

Now think about that next time you want to premise an argument on an "absolute." Absolutes have a way of coming around when you don't want them to.

Store here: Link Removed

 

[father-of-three]

I should have read the newspaper article first. I initially thought this was about LaVar Burton the actor.

 

[nogods]

in his most well known role, he was blind, but could see

 

[CharlieK]

.....
....Burton 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."[/url]

Yes, he owned the results, and got away with involuntary manslaughter.

 

[father-of-three]

in his most well known role, he was blind, but could see

I am still a Trekkie!

Phasers are cool!

 

[Treo]

Yes, he owned the results, and got away with involuntary manslaughter.

I guarantee you he will think about what he "got away" with every day fir the rest of his life.

That said if you pult the trigger you are responsible

 

[Kasper]

He fails in my book. He didn't follow gun safety rules. How the hell are you going to know what your target is if you close your eyes then pull the trigger? Let alone what could be behind your target. I hope you are right that this crosses his mind every day for the rest of his life. I hope he learns to keep his eyes open when firing a firearm.

 

[Doc Mustang]

There is a substantial difference between being criminally responsible and being morally responsible. In this case those who committed the home invasion are guilty of what is termed "felony murder", that is any death that occurrs during the commission of a felony that would not have occurred otherwise, which was not the result of direct criminal actions. This means that if two guys break into a bank and an old guard has a heart attack from the stress and dies, it is murder just as if they had shot him.

This case stretches that definition a bit as a third parties direct (albeit negligent) actions resulted in the death of a 7 year old girl. That clearly fits the definition of manslaughter. In this case the prosecutor chose to go after the home invaders for felony murder in addition to likely charges related to the burglary. This would result in a bigger conviction, always a good thing for a prosecutor from a political standpoint.

To secure that conviction he knows that he needs the testimony of this unfortunate father. However, if the father takes the stand he will convict himself of manslaughter. Under the fifth amendment that testimony cannot be compelled by the prosecutor. Therefore the prosecutor removes the threat of conviction and incrimination. The DA loses a manslaughter conviction but likely gains a conviction for felony murder, home invasion etc. clearly a winning strategy for the District Attorney.

Now we come to the moral responsibility, do the invaders bear some moral responsibility in the death of the 7 year old girl? Of course they do, that is why the felony murder statute exists. But what of the father? His moral responsibility is ABSOLUTE! There is no way that the father in this case can shirk, avoid or dismiss his moral culpability in the death of his daughter. He blindly pulled the trigger on an unknown target which turned out to be his daughter. This will likely torture him for the rest of his life. Ask HIM if we are responsible for where every bullet goes. I doubt you will receive an "I beat the rap" story. You WILL hear a story of deep regret and profound remorse.

 

[S&W645]

in his most well known role, he was blind, but could see

Not the same person. But I thought the same at first. Levar Burton is closer to my age, not 33.

 

[Treo]

in his most well known role, he was blind, but could see

I'd say far more people remember Lavar Burton as Kunta Kinte than Geordy La Forge

 

[jg1967]

He is morally responsible IMHO, even though maybe not legally. Obviously he did not handle his firearm very professionally firing blind. But if have never actually been shot at and who knows what mistakes I might make in such a high stress situation. He will have to live with having killed the girl and from the whole story it's fairly obvious that he meant her no harm but was not only surprised by BGs but actually under fire.

 

[JSDinTexas]

Yes, we are responsible for our actions - all of our actions. And I bet that if the facts of every night, home shooting event included whether eyes were open or not, it would find a number of incidents where people close their eyes and pull the trigger.

 

[mappow]

I wouldn't have taken you for a Ozzy fan, G50AE. A man of multiple facets.

 

[wjh2657]

The unasked and unanswered question. Why was the little girl wandering around in front of him? He should have gone to protect her and not protecting himself. Her protection was more important than his own. As a father myself, I think he is a murderer.

 

[BC1]

"Burton 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."

Poor PPITH planning. NRA Rule - know your target and what is beyond. Both the NRA PPITH and PPOTH take on this scenario. Students are taught not to fire until they have a clear known target with no potential collateral issues. In his favor, he was probably exiting the bedroom to secure the remaining family members. But good PPITH practices teach children to lock down, jam the door and get under the bed. He didn't practice these drills with the kids.

Hindsight is 20/20. We're all "Monday morning quarterbacks" and couldn't possibly have understood his state of mind during this incident. I feel very badly for him and may God bless the child an family.

We must all learn a lesson from this. Learn and practice a home invasion plan. Ensure the kids know what to do. And remember, there's a lawyer attached to every round that leaves your gun.

Be safe,
BC

 

[tattedupboy]

The burglars should be charged with what they did, which was home invasion. My heart goes out to the Burton family for their loss, but those burglars did not kill that little girl; the fact is, she is dead not because of what the burglars did, but because of what her father did, and he's the one who should be charged. So, to answer the original question, yes, he is responsible.

 

[SC Tiger]

The burglars should be charged with what they did, which was home invasion. My heart goes out to the Burton family for their loss, but those burglars did not kill that little girl; the fact is, she is dead not because of what the burglars did, but because of what her father did, and he's the one who should be charged. So, to answer the original question, yes, he is responsible.

I must respectfully disagree. The burglars put this man in a very unenviable position where he had to defend himself and his family with deadly force. In my mind they should be charged with her death. Had they not broken into the house (a criminal act) this would not have happened. I agree that Mr. Burton made a huge mistake in closing his eyes before he shot but I really cannot judge the actions of a man who is in a position I have never been in. In my opinion he made the mistake so he is responsible but should not be held criminally responsibe. Besides, who do we want off the streets - two thugs who broke into a house or a man who tried to defend his family and made a grave mistake?

I have actually heard of a training doctrine for night firing where you close your eyes right as you fire the weapon and open them right afterwards - it's kind of like blinking in time with the shots.

 

[6shootercarry]

I'd say far more people remember Lavar Burton as Kunta Kinte than Geordy La Forge

Roots... 1977 Ahhh... Charlie's Angels w/ Farrah... Good times...

 

[tattedupboy]

Yes SC Tiger, you're correct that none of that would have happened if the burglars hadn't broken in, but the fact remains that they didn't shoot anybody; the father did, and he did it with his eyes closed. The fact that they're being charged for a murder they didn't commit is ridiculous.

 

[mappow]

Yes SC Tiger, you're correct that none of that would have happened if the burglars hadn't broken in, but the fact remains that they didn't shoot anybody; the father did, and he did it with his eyes closed. The fact that they're being charged for a murder they didn't commit is ridiculous.

tattedupbay, the hand of one is the hand of all. This incident wouldn't of happened if the BG's had not violated the Law. Anything after that initial violation is chargeable. If the guys wife would have had a heart attack and died, they'd be charged with manslaughter. Their criminal act intiaited a string of events. ALL events are from their choice. ON THE OTHER SIDE think of it this way. If initial evidence is secured agaisnt someone that was not legally obtained, ALL other evidence collected afterward is thrown out (As it should). So the link, chain if you will, goes both ways.
Just my opinion, not telling anybody how to think or what to do.