Charges filed in death of girl, 11, hit by bullet on July Fourth

Jackson County prosecutors charged a Kansas City man today in connection with the death of an 11-year-old girl hit by a stray bullet in her uncle’s backyard on Independence Day.

The gun’s owner, Aaron Sullivan, 50, surrendered to police in tears late this afternoon. He faces charges of involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action.

Blair Lane and her parents were visiting the home in the 4300 block of Pittman Road to celebrate the holiday. The east Kansas City home has a fenced backyard encircled by heavy trees. Beyond the trees are several apartment complexes and a lake. Police said they traced the general vicinity of the bullet’s trajectory and questioned residents at the nearby complexes.

An employee at the Whispering Lakes complex told police he and three friends were shooting into the lake about the same time Blair was shot. He and his friends said they were shooting into the water, not the tree line, but the crime lab matched his Glock to the 9 mm bullet found in Blair’s neck, according to court records.



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/14/3013604/prosecutors-to-announce-charging.html#ixzz1S8nFhz78

He should be given community service and have to go around for a very long time and talk to people about gun safety. Also, although I know I'll get flamed for this statement but, he should lose his ability to own and operate a firearm for the rest of his life.

I'd bet nearly every gun rights advocate who posts here will agree..

"Also, although I know I'll get flamed for this statement but, he should lose his ability to own and operate a firearm for the rest of his life."

I know it must be fun to think that those of us who oppose draconian gun control measures literally do want every single person to have a firearm at all times no matter what, but the reality is very different. This person has demonstrated that he should lose his right to poses a firearm through his extreme negligence, and I agree that him serving time in jail does nothing for society and that his time would most certainly be better spent telling people about his experience and encouraging firearm safety.

They are charging the guy who owned the gun. But they have no way of knowing which of the men fired the bullet that killed her.

It's such a sad story.

I and two buddies got drunk and took turns driving my car but no one remembered anything that happened during our drunken bout. But the next morning by examining the car it became obvious that one of us ran over and killed this girl, should anyone see the inside of a prison?

No one knows who shot the bullet that killed her. Maybe all three should be punished, they were all equally stupid. Some one dies by another's criminal negligence, some one goes to prison, period!

You don't drive drunk or let some one else drive your car drunk, and you don't shoot your guns foolishly or let some one else do it in your presence either. These weren't 12 year old kids, they should know better. If it isn't the law against shooting over water there, it should at least be common sense.

He should lose his ability to own and operate a firearm? Did it hurt very much to say that about an obvious criminal? It sounds like you feel sorrier for the shooters than you do for the little girl or her family.

If we as gun owners coddle gun criminals, they will make all gun owners into criminals.

to build prisons. I'm sure he has learned his lesson and all that, but the law is meaningless without the penalty. Maybe he won't do a day of time. He should.

He carelessly took a life. There's no escaping that.

Personally, I'm a bit surprised how many posters here seem to think lengthy prison sentences are the solution to everything, and that includes at least as many gun control advocates as it does pro-RKBA types.

And speaking as a pro-RKBA poster, I don't disagree that the guy should have his ability to possess firearms severely restricted for a very long time. You do not send a potentially lethal projectile downrange unless you know where it's going to end up, and if you can't do that, you have no business owning so much as a BB gun.

Something I remember her and my older brother teaching me about bullets ricocheting off of water, just like skipping stones. It would have to be at a similar angle. I am surprised that this guy did not know it. Old time navies used to skip their cannon balls off the water to increase the range of their weapons. The 1587 book The Art of shooting in great ordnaunce(sic) by William Bourne covers this in detail.


No flame from me. Unless he has a really good lawyer, I see it happening. I don't see him getting out of a felony rap.

:thumbsdown:

:thumbsdown:

took a lot of police work. A nice stiff prison sentence for the shooter should help spread the word about celebratory firing of firearms.

They charged the guy who owns the gun.

How likely is it, do you suppose, that you'd loan your firearm to someone to shoot on July 4?

I'm quite certain that the district attorney in that jurisdiction understands the laws, aren't you?

"An employee at the Whispering Lakes complex told police he and three friends were shooting into the lake about the same time Blair was shot. He and his friends said they were shooting into the water, "

They have no idea who fired the fatal shot. They have identified the gun and FOUR men who admitted firing it. But they have no way to determine which man fired the fatal shot. So they charged the owner of the gun.

So yes, apparently he did loan his gun to a friend. :eyes:

You want things to go BANG! on the 4th? Buy some firecrackers. Sheesh!

A few years ago, I watched a neighbor who is a retired cop fire a full magazine from his 9mm into the air. I'd have talked to him, but he's a crazy old fart and has a hair-trigger temper. I'm not an idiot.

But yes, I agree these men were stupid. There's a lake there but also lots of houses. This is very close to Royals stadium. These guys weren't out in the middle of nowhere.

And unnecessary.

Basic gun safety should be taught in public schools.

and arithmetic skills. They don't seem to be doing that, so what hope is there of teaching firearms safety?

How about, instead, you have to show evidence that you've taken a firearms safety course before you're allowed to own firearms in the first place? Now, there would be a useful thing. As it is now, you needn't even know how to load your firearm's magazine to own it. Do you not see the problem there?

...to do a few basic tasks including unloading a handgun before you can take it home.

I don't have a problem with that. But it's a state issue, not federal.

Not all states have such regulations. Mine does, but only for handguns.

Want a long gun? Go to the store. Show your driver's license. Get the typical instant background check. Leave the store with your firearm (after paying for it, of course.) You may not even have opened the box or spoken more than a couple of words with the clerk. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Too easy, as far as I am concerned. There's a step missing. And that step is basic firearms safety training. BEFORE purchasing any firearm.

Now, in my state, if you want a hunting license, and you're not exempt from it by your age, you must take a firearms safety class, show your DD Form 214, or something. I'm exempt, because I'm a geezer, but I have a firearms safety training certificate and that DD Form 214. I'd be happy to show either to qualify for such a purchase. I'd love to show either. But, I don't have to.

In most states, nothing is required to purchase a long gun, other than proof of identity and the instant check. Something's missing.

Of course, you'll want to buy some ammo. Now, most new long arms come with an owner's manual, which tells you how to use your firearm.

He taught Basic Rifle to sailors and Marines for more than 10 years after serving in World War II.

He was a farm boy, and learned to shoot well at an early age as an alternative to going hungry.

Fewer and fewer children have a parent who is competent to teach gun safety, so I think it should be taught in schools.

In fact, I suspect that a great many gun owners are not opposed in principle to the idea of requiring some form of safety training before you can possess a firearm. The problem is that, in the past, a few too many seemingly "reasonable, common-sense" restrictions on private firearms ownership have been perverted to impose de facto gun bans by members of the executive branch of government (such as police chiefs) by the expedient of making the requirements practically impossible or prohibitively expensive to fulfill, at least for those whom the officials in question considered to be the wrong class of person.

It's these kinds of abuses of power that make people who support such measures in principle opposed to them in practice. You can blame the supporters of "reasonable, common-sense" measures that proved to be Trojan Horses for the fact that the NRA will now fight that kind of thing tooth and nail.

such ricochets. Perhaps these moronic fellows never had such training. It's not required to own firearms, you know, in most jurisdictions.

Imagine how bad society would be if legal gun owners were forced to stop carrying their personal protection devices. Everyone should realize the responsibility of the ownership of a firearm. You owe it to yourself, the people around you and the generations of future gun owners.

Some are armed, some are not. The number of people doing something as criminally stupid as this guy is really very small. That won't stop some from bleating incessantly about taking away my rights because of the criminal actions of another.

No? Then this thread is not talking about you or your firearms.

This thread is talking about morons who do just that. Sometimes, a little kid dies because of their stupidity. From my point of view, anyone who does such a stupid act should have all his/her firearms confiscated and should be disallowed from ever possessing another firearm.

Morons and firearms are a very, very bad combination. Add a little alcohol to the mix, as is likely in this particular incident, and you have a double whammy.

A new regulation is needed:

No moron who is so stupid as to fire a firearm into the air in celebration may possess any firearm.

How does that new regulation sound to you?

You can't fire blindly into the air and if you do you will be held responsible for that bullet? Oh, wait, that's what is already happening in this case.

If you want me in charge of determining who is a moron and who isn't I'll gladly take the job. I already know a few candidates.

don't you think? Being held responsible for the death of a child does not restore that child to life. So, it's pretty useless.

Prevention is better than punishment, especially when it involves someone's life.

Sorry, but your argument fails on several levels.

Further, you did not answer my question. I think it's an important question.

How do we go about deciding who is going to commit an idiotic criminal act like that? You tell me. How are we going to declare someone guilty by reason of a wild guess?

Get as emotional about the loss of the child as you wish. That doesn't change the fact that we can't punish criminals until they act on their impulses.

morons has at least one DUI conviction? I'd be willing to put some money on that. Driving while intoxicated is a moronic act. Conviction of it should be grounds for not being allowed to possess firearms, in my opinion, since the terrible judgment shown is a clear indicator of being a moron. There are other things that could also act as predictors for moronic behavior while armed. I'll bet you can think of some for yourself.

You see, I'm not a very friendly guy when it comes to armed morons. I'm pretty much a hard case about it. So, that's who I am.

I have my own little collection of firearms. They're nice ones, too. I have no DUIs. In fact, I've never been arrested for anything. I know firearms safety and I always am safe with mine. I do not do moronic things, because I am not a moron. Perhaps if doing moronic things and being convicted for them would cost you your right to possess firearms, we could weed out some of these morons like the ones in the article. Had that been done, then the girl might be doing girl things, instead of being dead.

No...I'm not in favor of morons with firearms. Not one bit. You're right, we can't take people's guns away for no reason. Acting like a moron and breaking laws, however, should be ample reason. Not just felonies, but anything that demonstrates that you're a moron. Thanks for asking.

I don't know how well it would go over with state and local governments, considering the additional costs for trying and then housing the offenders.

Or do you mean taking away Constitutional Rights for misdemeanor convictions? That won't fly for a variety of good and valid reasons.

time after the first. It's that way in many countries. I'm not a teetotaler, but I don't drink and drive. Ever.

Four guys were firing a gun. They claim they were firing into a lake, not into the air. One bullet hit a little girl. The police have no idea who fired the bullet that killed her. But they are charging only one of the men, the gun owner. There's a good chance he was NOT the one who fired the fatal bullet.

I once nearly got run down in a crosswalk by some asshole driving an old beat up muscle car. He saw me, he just revved the engine and went through anyway. I'm not, however, foolish enough to think that that reflects on other drivers.

:nuke:

:sarcasm:

"Discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense belong in the Guns Forum."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x95935

you can alert on it. It will be examined by the moderators, who will decide whether or not it fits the forum's stated criteria.

It's not your forum. You don't get to set the rules. Apparently such threads are OK with the administrators of this site. There it is.

Which is the purpose of my critique.

There's a sign there.

:hi:

because men using a legally registered weapon were careless.

We all agree the men were careless, even stupid.

Firstly, the fact that these man were behaving carelessly isn't so much a matter of opinion as it is a statement of fact. Secondly, you were asked to articulate your opinion in regards to firearm policy. This post does not appear to do that.

top of the page.

It doesn't say "For People Who Love Guns." It just says Guns. So any post that deals with topics having to do with guns and gun regulation is a natural for this forum. That's why the forum exists on DU. It keeps the gunnery barrage over in its own corner.

"Discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense belong in the Guns Forum."

firearms ownership are directly related to "gun-related public policy issues." Skinner apparently agrees, since such posts are routinely allowed in the forum. It's not my forum. It's not your forum. Neither of us gets to define it.

Complaining that the forum us not run in accordance with your particular ideas is a cosmic waste of time. The forum is clearly defined and contains many posts of the kind you object to. Therefore, they meet the stated criteria.

If you don't like such threads, there's a simple solution. Don't open them.

Read up on the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act.

The news story in the OP is not about firearms ownership or gun laws in general. It's about an incident of criminal misuse of a firearm. It's a news story, and the person who posted it made no effort to link it to a gun policy issue or the use of firearms for self-defense.

You would take me incorrectly. I know that stuff already.

I'm not sure who you think I am, but you've apparently made an error.

Perhaps you could expand on that and explain what you meant by it.

In the particular case described in this news story, it is apparent that a regulation is missing. That regulation would prohibit the ownership or possession of firearms by patent morons who would even consider firing one into the air to celebrate the 4th of July.

We don't have that regulation, so this incident killed an innocent child. We need such a regulation.

You may ask, "How would we know if a person was a patent moron?"

I imagine that the four morons in the story have demonstrated their moronic tendencies on numerous occasions. For example, they may have been arrested for a DUI. Now, to me, a DUI conviction is clearly a sign that the convictee is a patent moron. There are a number of things morons frequently do that draws attention to their unique qualities. That's how we'd tell.

To include additional misdemeanor convictions including DUI.

Thanks.

Things like bar fights. Things like DUI. Yes. Misdemeanors, too, if they demonstrate careless stupidity and negligence, especially when combined with alcohol.

Fourth of July. Shooting off guns. I can bet you that those guys would have blown over the limit. I'm pretty sure I'd win. They're morons.

Further the guy can probably quote stats about crimes; will vaguely imply that more guns equal less crime; and other assorted BS.

That's one of the things we love about you, Hoyt....

THOSE PEOPLE are all alike. You can tell by the sight of that gun. No need to look any further than that gun to tell that they're not OUR kind. Can't trust em.

Gretchen, bring me another glass of Chardonnay.