Robbery Victim's Family Say They're "Sorry" Baby Died in Shooting

http://www.kfsm.com/news/kfsm-news-rv-baby-shot-robbery,0,3992194.story


"A one-year-old baby who was shot Saturday during a robbery in Roland has died.

Meanwhile, two people are in custody in connection with the robbery Saturday afternoon. 19-year-old Michael Clemente of Fort Smith turned himself in to authorities on Sunday, while Fort Smith Police arrested a 17-year-old male Monday afternoon.

Sheriff Ron Lockhart said the two of them broke into a home north of Roland and attacked 21-year-old Devin Jeremiah, stealing guns, cash and other items in the process.

When his two attackers tried to flee, Jeremiah was recovered enough to fire several shots at their car with a .22 rifle. Lockhart said the car's driver was a Fort Smith woman, and her one-year-old daughter, Keene, was in the back seat. Keene was struck by at least one of the bullets that hit the car, and Lockhart said the people in the car headed to Sparks Hospital in Fort Smith. The suspects reportedly threw out the stolen items as they went."


I'm sure the items stolen and recovered were much more valuable than the little girl.

The dude was wrong for firing shots at the car, but really...a baby in the getaway car?

QUICK !!!! SOMEBODY INTRODUCE A BILL !!!

Stupid ones.

WTF? Was there some kind of family outing? What was the problem, they couldn't get a babysitter? :sarcasm:


There just are no words to describe certain levels of stupidity, insanity, ignorance and just plain evil.

...some of his stuff would be lost, and Keene would be alive. Add the guns so he could "defend" himself from fleeing people and suddenly a little girl is killed.

Yes, there are bad motives and awful judgement aplenty to go around. But the fact remains, no one needed to die in this dispute, and no one would have died if the shooter did not have a gun at hand. His pride would have suffered a bit.

Are you serious?

He was shooting people no longer a risk to his life or safety - bad idea. Already said so. Illegal too.

But it's FAR more valid to say he wouldn't have been put at risk at all had the criminals not decided to rob him.

Hypotheitical question: Had the robbers still been an active threat and had the one year old in arms, should he not have the right to defend himself at all? If so then all future attackers and burglars will simply carry kids to be safe from armed resistance. His wrongdoing is clear, but it was in response to their initial crime. Why do you think otherwise?

idiot criminals who broke into HIS house and ATTACKED HIM had a baby in the damned car? Someone attacks me or my family, I'm gonna do what I have to do to stop them. If they're stupid enough to have a baby in the getaway car, that ain't my problem or my fault. You don't break into someone's home, physically attack and rob them, and not think that there just MIGHT be physical and legal consequences and you DO NOT bring a baby in the fucking getaway car with you. The mother and the criminals are solely to blame here, not the victim.

Bringing your kid on a robbery like it's a freaking trip to grammies is mind bogglingly stupid but then so is firing at a fleeing car.

You get to defend yourself but that ends at what is essentially revenge. No one gets to shoot at people who are running away. If there's no threat then deadly force is not justified. If this guy had killed one of the robbers I wouldn't shed any tears but I'd still want him charged. If this article is correct, the fact is he killed an innocent because of his own anger and negligence.

I don't know the legal niceties but it seems to me 2 crimes have been committed.

unless you are 110% positive the law is on your side it is not smart to shoot at fleeing suspect.

There can be situations where it is warranted but you start getting into gray area.

An armed suspect fleeing towards the backyard where your child (hostage) is at may warrant deadly force even though he is technically "fleeing". Even a victim to is unsure where the other members of the family are in relation to the suspect may have a defense.

You are responsible for the consequences.

The driver should be charged at least with negligent homicide.

Any hunter will tell you that you must properly identify a target before shooting. He was shooting wildly and killed a baby. It's no different than if he killed a baby in a stroller on the sidewalk with one of his wild shots.

The robbers are guilty of 'depraved indifference' homicide. A much more serious charge. But just because they are guilty of a worse crime does not exonerate the shooter.

happened in Oklahoma and I don't think any thing will happen to him yes it is very sad.

Oklahoma Stand your ground law http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69782

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

the line: prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another

One could argue that they stole guns in a violent strong arm robbery now with fire arms
they now pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another

but I am not a lawyer so its just imo

The law is often shades of gray when it comes to this stuff.

Some states use term "imminent danger" Oklahoma doesn't so they shooter may be protected. Really depends on the Oaklahoma DA legal interpretation.

Often the statute isn't enough. You need access to the case law too. Case law often "fills in" the statute providing context and definitions.

Unless they have really unique laws there the parents will be held legally responsible for their child's death.

The charge will be Felony murder, IOW a murder committed during a crime holds the criminals responsible for any and all deaths that may occur during the crime or in any act relating to the crime.

We just had a cop in Chicago crashed and died driving to investigate a burglary and they charged the burglar with his death. The cop never even got close to the break in and died from an accident, but the burglar faces Murder one charges.

The legal standing is that the death would have never occurred if a crime was not being committed.

Seriously?

And steal without consequences.

:eyes:

But those consequences shouldn't include vigilante "justice," the death penalty, or murdering the infant child of an accomplice to a property crime -- not in a civilized society, in any event.

Murder requires a certain mens rea.

Oaklahoma has a felony murder statute. The likelihood of conviction under felony murder depends on the specific statute.

Generally speaking though:

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the course of an applicable felony, what might have been manslaughter is escalated to murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. While there is some debate about the original scope of the rule, modern interpretations typically require that the felony be an inherently dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. For this reason, the felony murder rule is often justified by its supporters as a means of deterring dangerous felonies.

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

The key elements are there:
1) a person died in the furtherance of a felony
2) the felony was one of a violent nature and where loss of life was foreseeable.
3) the actions of the felony increased the likelihood of a loss of life (having baby at a home invasion).

Every state is different and a lot will depend on Oklahoma felony murder statute but the glove would seem to fit here.

when he was just hanging around his own house. Now I do agree that he shouldn't have shot at the car. He didn't seem to be in any danger at that point (I really don't know that since I wasn't there, but I will assume if they were fleeing that would be the case), however, he didn't ask to be robbed and who in the hell takes a kid with them on their robbing spree. The robbers are completely responsible for this IMO. Such a tragedy for that baby.

However they do need more gun control.




















Gun control is hitting what you are aiming for.

The law recognizes this. It is called felony murder.

That's going a little further than "a bloody nose."

I'm also not willing to accept that Jeremiah was wholly wrong to shoot at the fleeing vehicle. The robbers had stolen guns, among other things, presumably for the purpose of fencing them. Once fenced, who knows where they'd end up, and to what use they'd be put? I think there's a reasonable case to be made that Jeremiah acted in the common interest, and therefore justifiably, in trying to stop the fleeing robbers.

...I mean, what did they expect, taking their infant daughter with them on a goddamn home invasion?

Its quick money you know.

Shooting at fleeing criminals when you are no longer in danger is a big no no, no matter how tempting it may be.

But did you maybe think bringing a baby on your getaway driving gig might have been unwise too on the criminal's part? Of course actually going on a getaway driving gig is a bad idea in and of itself, as is robbing a house. Any blame there?

that we will eventually see charges filed on all concerned.

The robbery victim for involuntary manslaughter. The robbers for robbery and contributing to the death of a minor.

Really?

He ceased being able to use "protection" as an excuse the moment the robbers fled and were no longer a threat.

would cover his actions anyway.

Like Texas!

Dont mess with Texas

The people were leaving at that point. The proper thing to do would have been to call the cops.

There should be a lot more of that, IMNSHO.

My property represents significant portions of my life. If you steal the former, you are also stealing the latter.

The police would have shown up (if ever) long after the fact, taken a description... and then, likely, nothing would happen. The rate of recovery for stolen property is dismally low.

And no-one wants to pay the taxes that would be required to significantly improve that. Better the criminals get discouraged at the source.

He killed a baby. He didn't mean to. That's why I chose involuntary manslaughter. It's a crime he's completely guilty of.

The robbers should go to jail until they die.

Meanwhile if this had been a police officer (off duty or not) charges would not come into question.

All parties have contributed to the death of the infant. The robbery victim may be the least culpable of parties, but he is still culpable.

A police officer that fired at a fleeing suspect and killed a baby would lose their badge.

You know that isn't true.




http://newsone.com/nation/associated-press/family-of-woman-killed-by-police-while-holding-baby-gets-2-5-million/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/08/judge-sides-with-lapd-throws-out-lawsuit-by-family-of-susie-pena.html

I know you're wrong.

Actually I'm still right since you probably only read the first 6 words of 1st article and completely skipped over the 2nd article.

Illegal use of a firearm maybe but blame for the child's death falls at the feet of her mother.

It's no different than if he hit a child in a stroller on the sidewalk. Just because the parents are more guilty doesn't make him innocent.

He was shooting at the proper target: the car.

Self defense applies when they is immediate threat of danger. A fleeing car does not pose such a threat. Just because the parents a re way more culpable in the death doesn't make him innocent. That's why involuntary manslaughter is appropriate.

I don't know all the details, but generally shooting at a car that is going away from you is not a justifiable use of deadly force.

Except in Texas at night, when it is done in order to protect tangible, movable property.

"Devin's grandfather, Sidney Jeremiah, said on Monday that his grandson was so injured when help got to him, he could barely speak.

"He had two teeth knocked out, jaw or nose cracked or both, he was pretty well mangled up," he said. It's a wonder they didn't killed him, with the damage that was done."

"He said (Clemente) was choking him, and he was blacking out," said Devin's aunt, Bobbie Freedey, "and I asked him how did you get him off of you? And he said I had to, because I knew if I didn't I was going to die."




I think I can see where he saw a threat existed....

It depends to some extent on the exact type of firearm, but I think you can argue there's a legitimate reason to fire at persons fleeing with stolen guns, in order to stop them before they can fence the guns, which might subsequently be trafficked and used to commit other crimes.

When I was doing my military service in the Dutch army, when performing guard duty, the only instances in which we were permitted to shoot other (than in self-defense) was if we suspected that an unauthorized individual was making off with classified documents or firearms.

are you suggesting he was protecting himself from a fleeing car?

Sid

The death of her child was a foreseeable consequence of her participation in the conspiracy, so the mother as well as the burglars should all be charged with negligent homicide.

We have a room full of people who vote for guns over all.

I mean, who in their right mind, would bring along a toddler to commit a potentially violent felony?

He did the wrong thing here. Although I do think being robbed (and probably frightened for his life) should be a mitigating factor in his case.

criminals who thought: drug money > child safety.

But keep blaming guns, I know it's easier for you.

Let's say instead of shooting at the fleeing robbers, he simply was chasing after them waving his gun. In her panic, the driver of the getaway car loses control, flips the car, and the baby dies.

Or maybe the person robbed and attacked was chasing them with big rock in his hand and when he threw at the car the same thing happened.

Or maybe the person robbed didn't do anything and the person driving the car loses control and wrecks the car, killing the baby.

Seems to me that the one thing in common about these scenarios is that its the idiots who robbed and attacked the guy who put the baby in harms way.

By the way, I'm a big supporter of gun control. But I'm not going to advocate jailing the victim of a violent crime under the circumstances described.

I have a good friend here in town who chased robbers out of his store and shot one, his trial starts in a month.

It's only property.

I work in a small industry, where our product is valued, and I tell everyone to just let them take it. In fact, I tell everyone to be friendly and offer to help.

Property and life, no comparison. What I see it too many macho young men, boys really, and too many guns and cash. There's more to this story.

That's about all it takes. Unless someone is threatening my life, then I won't take their life.

It's that simple.

Of course, you've got two choices to make when you've seen too many people die, too many of your friends go the way of the gun. You can numb yourself to it and lay your head obediently on the chopping block, or chose life.

Me and mine? We've seen enough violence, we want peace.

Is he any less responsible because he was the victim of a crime prior to his wild shooting?

Sid

He must properly identify his target before firing. He did not. A baby died. That's involuntary manslaughter.

A car load of criminals. He can not be held accountable for their bad judgement.

Never point your firearm at something you are unwilling to destroy.


The apology is prima facie evidence the shooter hit something he didn't know was there, and was not willing to destroy.

Depending on the state, you cannot shoot people for making off with your stuff. You have to be in danger. He's probably screwed, and while I can sympathize with the sentiment that led to the shooting, it is inexcusable, and not just because of the specific results in this case.

They should be charged with that little girl's death as well.

The robbery victim is still guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

trust me..if you robbed me and beat the hell out of my kid..I would shoot at you even if you were in your car..and it wouldn't be a .22 either

you should leave the kids at home :grr:.

And I have no problem with people defending themselves when their safety is threatened, but firing shots into a fleeing car doesn't really meet that description. Plus, if this was a populated area, he put other people in danger as well.

plus stupid victim equals dead kid. I try to stay out of the whole gun debate, but the truth is any responsible gun owner will not fire his weapon at a moving car on a public street when his life is in no danger.

I hope the shooter can find a way to live with the fact that his materialism and lust for vengeance has taken the life of an innocent child.

As far as the robbers go I believe criminally negligent homicide is in order and they can rot in prison for the rest of their lives.

Did you miss this part of the report?


"Devin's grandfather, Sidney Jeremiah, said on Monday that his grandson was so injured when help got to him, he could barely speak.

"He had two teeth knocked out, jaw or nose cracked or both, he was pretty well mangled up," he said. It's a wonder they didn't killed him, with the damage that was done."

"He said (Clemente) was choking him, and he was blacking out," said Devin's aunt, Bobbie Freedey, "and I asked him how did you get him off of you? And he said I had to, because I knew if I didn't I was going to die."



I can see where he thought a threat existed....

I don't think the victim was all that interested in the stuff, and may not have been interested in "vengeance," but was running on fight or flight and chose the former. In my "right" mind, I probably wouldn't have shot at a fleeing car, but after a severe attack (which apparently included attempted murder), who knows what anyone would think.

On the other hand, what kind of asshole takes his family along on a home invasion?

:sarcasm:

I can see the NRA billboard now.

Looks like everyone comes out like an ass on this one. The right to self-defense ends when the attacker turns their back and runs and no one has the right to take a baby along as an accessory to a crime, let alone commit the crime itself.

I would have had no problem with him shooting the invaders dead inside his home. But to pursue them outside and shoot them while they were fleeing, placing the lives of his neighbors and anyone else outside in grave danger, is a very criminal act.

The use of deadly force is justified to protect yourself or others around you from imminent harm or death. This shooting doesn't meet that standard.

Charge him with murder.

You just can't give the robbery victim the same sentence as the two subhumans who brought a child with them to rob someone.

The point is, his actions are essentially the same as those of a person who gets beat up, finds a gun, and then hunts down the people who beat him up to get "revenge". Once the assault is over and the assailants have fled, the legal and moral right of the victim to defend himself vanishes, because there is no longer anything to defend against.

"Devin's grandfather, Sidney Jeremiah, said on Monday that his grandson was so injured when help got to him, he could barely speak.

"He had two teeth knocked out, jaw or nose cracked or both, he was pretty well mangled up," he said. It's a wonder they didn't killed him, with the damage that was done."

"He said (Clemente) was choking him, and he was blacking out," said Devin's aunt, Bobbie Freedey, "and I asked him how did you get him off of you? And he said I had to, because I knew if I didn't I was going to die."



I can see how he might still perceive a threat...

What a shame. Wow.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

more than life. At least most of us aren't saying that, but the people who chose to rob someone and take their baby with them are not blame free. Not one bit. And from what I can tell, these people are all young and stupid, and a poor little baby died because of it.

-- risking lives -- to protect property. I think it was you who pointed out in an earlier post that the shooter was not at risk of any danger at the time he decided to shoot at fleeing theives, hitting the baby instead.

Like the OP said, his stuff must have been pretty gol-darned important, I guess. More important than that little girl's life, obviously.

Both can be true at the same time.

Like the OP said, his stuff must have been pretty gol-darned important, I guess. More important than that baby, obviously.

No information has been presented to suggest the shooter was aware of the baby's presence.

are criminally responsible. The mom that brought the baby is way more responsible, but the shooter is quite guilty of involuntary manslaughter and should happily accept the 1-3 years he gets for his baby killing.

"Devin's grandfather, Sidney Jeremiah, said on Monday that his grandson was so injured when help got to him, he could barely speak.

"He had two teeth knocked out, jaw or nose cracked or both, he was pretty well mangled up," he said. It's a wonder they didn't killed him, with the damage that was done."

"He said (Clemente) was choking him, and he was blacking out," said Devin's aunt, Bobbie Freedey, "and I asked him how did you get him off of you? And he said I had to, because I knew if I didn't I was going to die."



Do you think that might have legitamitely affected the victims state of mind? Do you think he might have still perceived the existance of a threat? Might there be more missing info, such as the criminals actually presenting a threat (brandishing weapons or verbalisations) as they departed?

Please address the questions.

And the shooter recklessly fired at a fleeing car that apparently no longer posed a threat.

The one does not negate the other.

"his stuff must have been pretty gol-darned important, I guess. More important than that little girl's life, obviously."

Well, there's no indication that the shooter knew there was a child on board. But the same could be said of the mother: obviously the guy's stuff was more important than the little girl's life, since she was willing to endanger the baby by taking her on a home invasion.

She definitely contributed to the death of her daughter.

"This baby didn't die because of its mother."

Bullshit. The mother took part in a violent home invasion (serving as the "wheel," no less), and the violence that ensued was the result of these criminals' collective behavior.

Do NOT service the thug: that kind of disposition is one of the reasons we have a persistently high violent crime rate (though it has dropped over the last 15 years). The mother NEEDS to go to prison until she can theoretically collect SS. The other thugs: the same.

at the end of the day. The homeowner was most likely not in his/her right mind when s/he fired into the car--probably scared and wondering if they'd come back, this time with more guns...

Again, I'm not a gun owner, and even if I was, that's not the choice I would have made (with a robber, my main goal would be to avoid confrontation if possible).

oh well

We can't threaten to ban people who post defensive shootings in GD and then allow other people to post threads about defensive shootings in GD without consequence.

The mother.

Don't go suing the driver of the car who hit your baby if you put her into oncoming traffic on the highway.

The car was fleeing so it was no longer an immediate threat. That eliminates any self-defense excuse. That makes the shooting illegal. His illegal act killed a baby. That's involuntary manslaughter.

The robbers are guilty of 'depraved indifference' homicide.

The difference between the crimes is 1-3 years for the shooter and 20 to life for the parents.

"Devin's grandfather, Sidney Jeremiah, said on Monday that his grandson was so injured when help got to him, he could barely speak.

"He had two teeth knocked out, jaw or nose cracked or both, he was pretty well mangled up," he said. It's a wonder they didn't killed him, with the damage that was done."

"He said (Clemente) was choking him, and he was blacking out," said Devin's aunt, Bobbie Freedey, "and I asked him how did you get him off of you? And he said I had to, because I knew if I didn't I was going to die."



I can see where he might have still perceived a danger...

I'm sure the items stolen and recovered were much more valuable than the little girl.

It's a shame that the little girl's parents valued stealing more than their little girl's life.

Her parents put her life to the hazard, and she paid for their mistake.

Moral of the story: If you're going to risk life and limb to commit robbery, don't bring your baby along for the trip.

is a big no-no from a legal standpoint. You are allowed to shoot to stop a home invasion, or to protect yourself or someone else from an unlawful, imminent threat of death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony. Not even the police can shoot to stop a fleeing burglar under most circumstances, though there are exceptions.

This is bad all around. I do hope the culpability of the home invaders doesn't get lost in the gun-ownership bashing, though.

The home invaders (including the mother) all should be charged with homicide, irrespective of the validity of the self-defense claim.

Oh No no no. THIS is about PISS POOR parenting. That woman (and the fuck-tards with her) should be strung up. It's called FELONY MURDER.

People like this (the thieves) are a BLIGHT upon society. Dragging the innocent into your dangerous-ass fuck-up of a lifestyle choice?? NO way.

All of thier actions contributed to somebodies death.

n/t

Sad facts as they are.

Impopular opinion, I know, but hear me out.
We had a thread not too long ago on the subject of what possible reasons there could be to justifiably use lethal force other than against an imminent threat to innocent life and limb. At the time, I suggested that one possible situation in which I could imagine firing at a fleeing burglar would be if that person had stolen one or more of my firearms. If the thief isn't stopped right there and then, it's a safe bet those firearms will end up in the criminal circuit, and the risk of their being used to commit future crimes, possibly resulting in the loss of innocent life, is a very real one. I'm inclined to think that heading off that risk is, all other things being equal, worth any risk to the burglar's life (admittedly, I think residential burglars are scum).

From the article:

Italics mine. The fact that the robbers were in process of getting away with firearms is the one possible factor that makes me unwilling to accept the victim was automatically wrong to shoot at the getaway vehicle.

"Devin's grandfather, Sidney Jeremiah, said on Monday that his grandson was so injured when help got to him, he could barely speak.

"He had two teeth knocked out, jaw or nose cracked or both, he was pretty well mangled up," he said. It's a wonder they didn't killed him, with the damage that was done."

"He said (Clemente) was choking him, and he was blacking out," said Devin's aunt, Bobbie Freedey, "and I asked him how did you get him off of you? And he said I had to, because I knew if I didn't I was going to die."





I can see how he might still perceive a threat, after being beaten near-senseless...

Is a cop allowed to shoot at someone who assaults him with possibly lethal force and then decides to flee? Even if he is no longer an imminent threat? In the majority of the US, yes he is. The theory is that the person he is shooting at is still a danger to the population at large.

Jeremiah retains the same privileges that a cop would have in that situation. He would be allowed to shoot to prevent their escape in quite a large portion of the US. Self defense is one consideration for deadly force, but there are still other considerations.

While the items that were stolen and recovered where not as valuable as the little girl, the girls mother and her accomplices were the ones that made that value judgment. They chose to take the little girl along when doing a crime that had a possibility of mortal consequences.

Just using my prescient crystal ball, everyone involved in the burglary gets charged with murder, Jeremiah walks on the charge unless he had more to do with the story than posted.

This guy had several firearms stolen. His guns made him a target for the thieves that knew guns would be easily sell-able.

All his guns didn't stop him from being robbed. They didn't stop him from being beaten nearly to death. Oh yeah, and they contributed to a baby getting killed.

Guns don't make you safe from anything.

I will be selling my guns tomorrow.

Thanks for saving me.

"I will be selling my guns tomorrow."

I'll buy em...

YOU keep you safe. I know this is passe, but guns are a tool, the weapon is in between your years.

As for the baby getting killed, there is a little thing called chain of causation.

The fact is that while the United States does not have a comparatively unremarkable burglary rate, it does have a very low rate of burglaries in occupied residences. It is practically axiomatic among American criminologists that American burglars who are merely after material goods do not break into homes while occupants are present, and the simplest explanation for that (which is supported by evidence) is that they're afraid of being shot.

I think we can take it as read that the perps in this instance weren't professionals. The fact that they were both teenagers, whose wheelman was presumably the girlfriend of the elder of the two, and the fact that they brought their infant child along because they didn't have a place to stash her safely is indicative of that. The fact that they didn't wind up on their backs with a few sucking chest wounds each, like many a home invader before (just check any thread started by Fire Medic Dave for examples) is a function of perhaps luck on their part, or perhaps they knew Jeremiah didn't keep a loaded firearm on or near his person with which to meet such a threat.

No, it's true that "guns don't make you safe from anything," in the same way that mere possession of a saw, a plane, a hammer, and a few dozen nails doesn't make you able to construct a decent wooden cabinet. You need the skill to use those tools effectively. But conversely, if you have the skill but not the tools, you won't be able to construct a piece of furniture. By the same token, defending yourself against a home invasion is a significantly more iffy proposition if you don't have a weapon.

Humor aside, quite often, posession of a firearm WILL keep you safe from a lot of things.

One exception does not prove any sort of rule.

realizing that the guns wouldn't keep them safe.

"When confronted with a menacing individual," Police Chief Brown said, "our officers will now call 911."

Michael Clemente, 19, and Aaron Bowen, 17, were charged with first-degree murder, including the lesser charge of second-degree murder, in the death of 1-year-old Elaine Keene, who, authorities believe, was shot during a robbery.

Devin Jeremiah, 21, was charged with second-degree murder in the child’s death.

http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2010/03/10/news/news031010_03.txt

we will have to wait and see how it plays out in the courts. The mother faces no charges.

not the victim or the gun. If you take your baby to a meat processing plant and the baby dies, it's not the meat processing plant's fault it is the moron who took the baby there. It is this idiot mother's fault for the death of the baby, she should be getting 1st degree murder also.