home

Looking at A Different Self-Defense Shooting Case

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:07:07 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Everyone seems to have an opinion about the Trayvon Martin case. Even though the facts aren't fully known, and few take the time to actually examine Florida's laws and the multiple fact-driven jury instructions in self-defense cases, those invested in one side or the other either make stuff up or selectively choose certain facts and ignore others to fit their agenda.

Let's look at a case that happened in Illinois. It went to trial and there was a sentencing. Where do you come down on the outcome? It is not equivocal to the Trayvon Martin case, although it does have a few parallel issues.

In University Park near Chicago, a man was walking his dog when it ran up on neighbor's lawn and peed. The homeowner came out and displayed a gun. He didn't use it at the time, but the dog owner, after seeing it, cursed the homeowner and punched him. The homeowner shot and killed the dog owner. [More..]

The dog owner, a father of three children, was named Joshua Funches. The homeowner, a grandfather, is named Clements.

Clements confronted Funches about the dog and at one point took a .45-caliber pistol out of his pocket. But Clements didn’t fire the weapon until after Funches cursed at him, then punched him, according to testimony during his trial. Clements told police he shot Funches once in the abdomen because he feared his younger neighbor would harm him.

The homeowner was charged with first degree murder. The jury convicted on second degree murder. The judge sentenced the homeowner to probation. The state accepted the sentence saying:

He is an excellent judge and we respect his decision.”

The judge said the homeowner took action only after he was hit by Funches. “It was uncontroverted that the homeowner was physically provoked." Also,from a Chicago Tribune report,

[Judge] Rozak said the slaying wasn't about a puppy urinating on Clements' manicured lawn but "about (Clements') reaction … to being yelled at, pushed and punched in the face by a 23-year-old man."

The dog-owner's family disagreed with the sentence.

It’s unbelievable to know that in this day and age you can follow a person down the street, pull a gun in broad daylight when children are on the street, kill a man, get charged with second-degree murder and walk out of a courtroom,”

Here's a gallery of photos from the case. Both the homeowner and the dog-owner are African American -- i.e., it was not a cross-racial situation.

Since this case is over and no prejudice to a potential defendant can result from your opinions on it, where do you come down on the outcome? Should Clements not have been tried or convicted in the first place? If you agree he should have been tried, was the sentence of probation appropriate or too lenient in your view?

Again, the question isn't how is this like or not like Trayvon Martin. I'm interested in what readers think of this particular case.

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Federal Judge Tosses Most Counts Against Hutaree Militia Members >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Looking at A Different Self-Defense Shooting Case | 129 comments (129 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    "the homeowner was physically provoked"? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:33:53 PM EST
    I would call Clements pulling the pistol out of his pocket physical provocation, and say Funches  punched him in self defense. Clements pulling it out was a threat of violence in itself.

    But that's just me. Don't pull a gun on me that's not cocked and pointed at me.

    FYI - I have been robbed at gunpoint. By a roommate. The only reason I didn't hit him was that I walked into a room to find him standing there pointing a sawed off double barreled shotgun at me, and saying put your hands on the wall. I did so and said there is 25 dollars in my shirt pocket - you can have it - and since you need it I would have given it to you had you just asked. You didn't need the gun to get the money, but now you need to keep the gun pointed at me till you're out of here or I will attack you. Take the money and get out.

    I found out later that day that he had robbed about ten other people we both knew, and left town...

    Cliffhanger alert (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:45:39 PM EST
    What happened to the guy?  Did he get caught?  Go to prison?  Find Jesus?  

    As for this case, wow, seems like brandishing the gun is a fairly provocative act for a dog doing his business on your lawn.  And probation a tad, um, light.

    Parent

    He was a VietNam era (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:50:42 PM EST
    army deserter. This happened in 1969. I was told a few weeks later that he had been arrested and was in jail. The story I was told was that he had heard the police were after him and needed money to get away. I had no way to confirm the story, but the saddest part of it was that virtually everyone he had robbed would have given him money and helped him get away...

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:35:43 PM EST
    Sad story, and more sadly we're already experiencing similar ones with veterans returning home from our most recent malevolent fiascos abroad.

    Parent
    It made a lot of us shake our heads at the time. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 04:05:39 PM EST
    When he deserted he came and hid amongst the hippies, who at the time were among the few people who would have taken him in, and then when he got desperate he turned on and robbed the people who who would have continued to help hide him if he had only asked...

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:49:10 PM EST
    I think it's even worse now. James McMurtry did a song about it a few years ago, too... (lyrics here)

    Parent
    The first violent action was the homeowner (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    pulling the gun from his pocket, not the punch to the face by the dog owner.  I think the dog owner probably feared for his life and that's the reason for the cursing and punch.  Just because the homeowner didn't "use" the gun when he pulled it from his pocket doesn't mean that it wasn't threatening to the dog owner.

    I think the sentence of probation is too lenient.

    The biggest problem I have with this is that the homeowner felt he needed a gun when asking him neighbor to not let his dog pee in his yard.  Is this what our society has come to?  You need a gun when asking your neighbor to keep your dog from peeing on the lawn?

    pulling a gun out of your pocket (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:57:26 PM EST
    .

    Pulling a gun out of your pocket is not violent.  It is no more violent that picking up a baseball bat, or a stone, or a tire iron, or a shovel, or any other inanimate object that can potentially be used as a weapon.  

    Go to a pistol range some time.  You are not going to witness violence being committed right and left.

    .

    Parent

    Pull a gun on a cop and you'll learn otherwise. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:06:35 PM EST


    Parent
    It's assault under Illinois state law (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Addison on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:01:36 PM EST
    Under Illinois Law (720 ILCS 5/12-1), a person commits Assault if they engage in conduct that places another person in a reasonable apprehension of fear.

    If a guy chases me down the street, curses at me, and brandishes a gun, I have a "reasonable apprehension of fear". You are pretending context is not at all important with your facile "shooting range" example. It is important -- it's the MOST important thing. The brandishing of the weapon followed antagonistic acts and a pursuit, this combination is obviously different from the brandishing of a weapon at a shooting range. It's as different as setting a fire in a fireplace versus setting a fire in a kindergarten playroom.

    I fail to see how the presence of a weapon in the midst of an antagonistic altercation actively pursued by the gun-holder is not in some way "violent".

    Parent

    And no concealed-carry law (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:02:46 PM EST
    in Illinois, either. . . .

    Parent
    Good GMAT question (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:08:16 PM EST
    Brandishing a gun in the middle of a dispute is to taking out a gun at a pistol range, as ...

    ... holding a knife to someone's throat during an argument is as to taking a knife out of the drawer to prepare dinner.

    Fail.

    Parent

    Yes. Epic fail. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:01:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Say what? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:50:34 PM EST
    Abdul: "Go to a pistol range some time.  You are not going to witness violence being committed right and left."

    What's the matter with you? We're not talking about shooting pistols for sport at a gunnery range. This happened in a Chicago neighborhood, and this guy wasn't popping off at a paper target. He pulled a gun on a man whose dog was merely taking a leak, and then shot and killed him when the dog owner interpreted his action as a clearly hostile threat, which it obviously was.

    "Pulling a gun out of your pocket is not violent"? I seriously beg to differ. Most sane and rational people are going to interpret the act as a serious threat of bodily harm. You don't casually wave firearms around in public. If you're going to pull a gun, you better have a really damned good reason, well beyond merely beyond offended or taking umbrage.

    Gun violence -- whether directed at others, directed at ones own self, or accidental -- is directly attributable to the the deaths of over 30,000 Americans annually. People who live in households where guns are owned are up to seven times more likely to be a victim of gun violence than those residing in gun-free households. Further, you are over five times more likely to be a victim of gun violence at the hands of a relative or acquaintance, than by a random stranger on the street or in a home invasion.

    (Source: Miller, M.; Hemenway, D.; and Azrael, D. (2007). State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of households firearms ownerships, 2001-2003. Social Science & Medicine. Pages 656-664. Sorry, there is no online link.)

    Among industrialized nations, the firearm-related death rate in the United States (14.24 per 100,000) is more than twice that of the next highest country, Finland, and is eight times the average rate of its first-world economic counterparts. Compared to high-income Asian countries such as Taiwan, Singapore and Japan, our firearm mortality rate is over 70 times higher. Among American children younger than 15 years of age, the firearm mortality rate is nearly 12 times higher than for children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

    Given the way our firearms laws are devolving to the lowest common denominator, rather than evolving to reflect a contemporary society that's no longer defined by Dodge City, Tombstone and Deadwood of the late 19th century, it's painfully obvious that most people don't feel the need to go to a gunnery range, when the shooting gallery is right in our own households and neighborhoods.

    And when the inevitable tragedy occurs, we're seemingly content to invoke the time-honored concept of American exceptionalism, and find fault in everyone and everything, rather than face the brutal reality about the pandemic of gun violence in this country.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    He pulled a gun (3.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 06:48:37 AM EST
    .


    He pulled a gun on a man whose dog was merely taking a leak...  

    That is only your assumption.  The news story at the link is not at all clear as to when the gun was withdrawn from the pocket.

    Your phrase "He pulled a gun on a man" implies that he pointed the gun at him as opposed to, say resting it on his lap.  The only fact that can be taken for a certainty from that news story is that the man was shot after initiating a violent physical assault on  senior citizen who was more that 45 years older.  

    Of course if the oldster did not have a gun and the young tough had beat him to death, we would not be having this discussion.

    .

    Parent

    "The young tough" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 07:50:39 AM EST
    The older man was the one who followed him down the street with a gun to confront him - but "the old tough" does sound a little strange.

    "When the gun was withdrawn"?  The quote you cite ("He pulled a gun on a man whose dog was merely taking a leak...") isn't discussing the timing of the gun being drawn, unless you're suggesting the gun was drawn before the dog took a leak on his lawn.  The facts (and Clement's own testimony) are undisputed.  Clements was sitting on his porch.  Funches was walking his girlfriend's dog, who urinated on Clement's lawn.  Not liking the "smug and defiant look" on Funches face, and thinking that dog may be the one that previously p00ped on his lawn, Clement's followed Funches down the street to confront him.  The two argued, and Clements showed Funches the gun he was carrying in his overalls.  Funches punched Clements once in the face.  Clements drew the gun and shot Funches, who was standing motionless.  Clements then went home, changed his clothes and called his stepson, a former police officer.  Those are the facts - not some imaginary story about Funches beating Clements to death.

    But maybe you're right.  Maybe Clements was just "resting it on his lap" in the middle of a heated argument, as opposed to threatening Funches.  or maybe he just wanted to show him what a beautiful weapon he had while they were arguing.

    Pffftttt ...

    Parent

    So the gun was in his overalls (none / 0) (#114)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 08:15:25 AM EST
    .

    So the gun was in his overalls when Mr Testosterone decided to attack him.  Thanks for the clarification.

    .

    Parent

    Why don't you try reading the story and the links (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 09:19:18 AM EST
    provided before commenting?  Would that be too much trouble?

    Parent
    "Mr. Testosterone" would be ... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 09:29:34 AM EST
    ... the guy who chased him down the street to confront him about his dog peeing on his lawn, then pulled out a gun.

    But good job at ignoring all those other pesky facts that don't fit your NRA fantasies.

    Parent

    not an assumption. (none / 0) (#134)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    That is only your assumption.

    it is fact, as laid out in the facts of the case. apparently, your studied obliviousness knows no bounds.

    Parent

    Silly comment (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:15:10 PM EST
    There is no equivalence between a pistol range and the situation Jeralyn describes in the post.

    Parent
    Seriously.... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:29:34 PM EST
    pull a baseball bat out at a softball game is a akin to pulling out a gun at a shooting range.

    Pulling out a baseball bat or a gun while you cuss a guy out because his dog peed on your lawn is a violent act, either way.  

    Only a coward would go there....and the more lethal the weapon, the bigger the coward.  If you're that scared stay in the house.

    Parent

    I think the sentencing is way too lenient (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by CST on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:42:55 PM EST
    and in some ways the whole scenario is a good example of the messed up way our society treats guns.

    A fight is not an acceptable reason to kill someone.  People are way too quick to pull the trigger at the first sign of something going wrong.  I think there should be serious consequences to that.  If you are a gun owner you need to use it responsibly, and that includes not pulling it out at the first sign of trouble, and certainly not pulling the trigger.

    Do I think there should be consequences to punching someone?  Yes, I just don't happen to think those consequences should be death.

    I think you best state my view (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:25:14 PM EST
    How many fist fights between unarmed men end in death? And in this case it may have been the homeowner threatening the dog owner (or maybe his dog, in his mind) with a gun that provoked the punch. Pulling a gun on someone is a threat, and some people respond to threats with force. I have no idea what I would do if I thought someone was going to shoot my dog.

    If first degree murder requires premeditation, then I agree with the 2nd degree murder conviction, but the sentence seems way too lenient to me. I think more than probation was warranted.

    Parent

    I'm just gonna go ahead and quote the movie Friday (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:03:10 PM EST
    [Craig's father catches him with a handgun]
    Mr. Jones: What's that for?
    Craig: Protection.
    Mr. Jones: Protection from who? C
    raig: Me and Smoke...I've got to walk Smokey down to his house.
    Mr. Jones: Aw, man. Your mother and I never would've moved to this neighborhood if we'd known you need a gun to walk down the damn street. Craig: You know how it is 'round here.
    Mr. Jones: Oh, no, son. That's not the way it is. You kids have been nothin' but punks. Sissified. So quick to pick up a gun. Too scared to take an ass-whipping. [raises his fists] This is what makes you a man. When I was growing up, this was all the protection we needed. You win some, you lose some. But you live. You live to fight another day. Now you think you're a man with that gun in your hand, don't you?
    Craig: I'm a man without it.
    Mr. Jones: Put the gun down. [Craig complies]
    Mr. Jones: C'mon, put up your dukes. [Craig raises his fists]
    Mr. Jones: Now you're a man. Your uncle picked up a gun, too. He found out the hard way. 22 years old. You've got a choice. This is all you need, alright?

    Way too lenient on the sentencing (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:09:11 PM EST
    From your Chicago Tribune link

    Funches was standing motionless, Clements testified, when he pulled out his gun and opened fire. Funches was shot once in the abdomen in front of his aunt's house.....

    Is the argument that if I'm a licensed gun owner, I can argue with you, follow you, and when I don't like the way it's going, shoot you?  I'd hope we'd be more civilized than that - even if the law says I can.

    I agree w/others here - people are too quick to pull out a gun as a problem solver.  Protecting your home & family, yes.  Protecting yourself if you come home at 3AM alone often, yes.  Better solutions in this case - get a judgement in small claims court, file a restraining order.  This Marine should know better and is lucky.  Had he been younger, he'd be in jail.  In that way, IMO, this case is also about how young black men are often viewed as intrasigent.

    Consider this story on that same judge.

    "Intransigent" (none / 0) (#17)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:16:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Obvious answers. (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Addison on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:48:30 PM EST
    Since this case is over and no prejudice to a potential defendant can result from your opinions on it, where do you come down on the outcome? Should Clements not have been tried or convicted in the first place? If you agree he should have been tried, was the sentence of probation appropriate or too lenient in your view?

    Wait, you're missing a huge chunk here. What were the relevant "self-defense" laws in Ilinois? Did the homeowner have a duty to retreat? What is the wording of the rationale for deadly force? How did all this apply to the case? Asking if he should have been charged or convicted in the first place is nonsensical without including that particular bit of information.

    I guess that absent the law, just going by my understanding of "justice": of course he should have been charged. And of course he should have been convicted of a lesser murder charge or manslaughter. Running out with a gun because a dog peed on your lawn and they displaying that gun is an implied threat far in excess of anything reasonable, frankly it's an assault charge right there! When he was shot the guy with the dog was on a public street, so it's not even a question of a "castle" law at that point. That the man got probation is a perversion of justice and more about "judicial nullification" than anything else.

    Conclusion: justice did not prevail in this case (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 04:08:58 PM EST
    1) Pulling a gun on someone when you are NOT in danger is a stupid, provocative, and inherently threatening act. It's also a possible sign of serious mental disease. At that point in the scenario, all that had happened was the dog peed on the lawn. SO WHAT. And being punched is no justification for shooting and killing someone.

    Homeowner: Fail

    2) The conviction for second degree murder was the right decision. First degree murder means the act was planned. There is no way of knowing that the homeowner intended to kill the victim when he brandished his gun. But he did, in fact, shoot and kill the victim.

    Jury: Correct

    3) The sentence of mere probation for murder is an outrage and  travesty of justice. Period.

    Judge: Epic fail

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 04:34:32 PM EST
    You don't have the right to pull a gun on someone merely because they (or their dog) steps onto your lawn.  Similarly, you also don't have the right to say whatever you want, although (as under most circumstances) there are probably very few statements that would legally justify a punch to the face (i.e. "I'm going to blow your head off", etc.).

    The "Castle Doctrine" extends certain legal protections and immunity when a person is in a certain place, usually their house (sometimes other places, like a car/workplace).  It usually arises in cases where deadly force is used against a home invader/burglar.  In some states it means a homeowner has no duty to retreat when attacked in their home before using deadly force against an attacker, as long as deadly force is otherwise justified.  Other times, it means that a presumption is created that the homeowner held a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury when someone forcibly enters a home.  There are variations from state-to-state, but they don't allow you to brandish a weapon at someone stepping on your lawn.  Similarly, while trespass to land is a civil/tort offense (and sometimes criminal, depending on the circumstances), brandishing a gun if someone steps on your lawn is a good way to end up with a civil suit and/or criminal charges.

    Speaking of (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 04:55:33 PM EST
    Even though the facts aren't fully known, and few take the time to actually examine Florida's laws and the multiple fact-driven jury instructions in self-defense cases

    It would be nice if there was an actual trial to present findings of fact as opposed to "he says self-defense, he's immune".

    sentencing (none / 0) (#1)
    by jharp on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:24:58 PM EST
    I am neither a lawyer nor a judge but the sentence seems far too lenient to me.


    My advice. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:33:02 PM EST
    .

    Don't physically attack a person holding a gun.  They might reasonably conclude that action is merely the prelude to great bodily harm soon to come.  This is particularly true when if you are much younger than the oldster you decide to punch.

    Indeed if a person is so unhinged to start punching a person holding a gun, that person is really dangerous.

    .

    persons threatening with guns (none / 0) (#19)
    by jharp on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:26:23 PM EST
    "Don't physically attack a person holding a gun."

    To me, anyone who pulls out a gun has one thing in mind. To use it. Either to shoot you or scare you.

    So if someone pulls a gun on you you should just shoot them to be safe?

    Great idea. Now let's get more people carrying guns.

    Parent

    Education is the cure for ignorance (none / 0) (#32)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:53:26 PM EST
    .

    To me, anyone who pulls out a gun has one thing in mind. To use it. Either to shoot you or scare you.

    That's two things.  Another possibility is to be more ready in case of an attack.  That seems to be the case here.

    .

    Parent

    wrong (none / 0) (#58)
    by jharp on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:25:29 PM EST
    "anyone who pulls out a gun has one thing in mind. To use it."

    Wrong. That is one thing. To use it.

    Parent

    Now i understand you (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:49:20 PM EST
    .

    To use it to shoot and,
    to use it to scare and,
    to use it for better balance and,
    to use it to prepare a defense and,
    to use it to make room in the pocket and,
    to use it to exercise the hand and,
    to use it to pound in a nail pop
    are all only one thing.

    .

    Parent

    Use a gun to pound a nail? (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 04:53:55 PM EST
    Clearly, you are not a serious person, and we're wasting our time engaging you.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 08:31:13 AM EST
    Seriously ?  It's taken you years to realize AAA is a buffoon who, I believe, thinks using an arabic sounding name somehow legitimizes him a left leaning blog.

    Parent
    His name is actually a poem (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 09:27:06 AM EST
    ... about a Russian and a Turk who, because of their pride, end up killing each other.

    Parent
    Depends (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:41:38 PM EST
    On who was really the initial aggressor and how you define that.  In this case, I think both victim and perpetrator WAY overreacted and someone ended up dead - all for basic rudeness.  What a waste.

    Professor Michael Mannheimer of Northern Kentucky University, has a good analysis of "initial aggressor" here.

    Pulling the gun.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:08:46 PM EST
    was the initial violent act, it was extremely dumb for the dogwalker to attempt to defend himself, but within his rights...the conviction seems appropriate.

    But I can't say I have a problem with the sentence...I assume the guy had to forfeit his right to bear arms as terms of his probation, I don't see him being likely to reoffend and harm/kill others.  Even if he provoked and escalated the incident, and therefore is at fault for the incident, it's not like he shot the guy in the back.  I also assume no history of violence on the part of the convicted.  In light of all those extenuating circumstances, probation and the guilt over taking a life over something so stupid is punishment enough. A civil suit and award for the victim's family for wrongful death is on the table too.  A good example for giving judges discretion at sentencing, imo.

    reminds me.. (none / 0) (#104)
    by bocajeff on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:41:39 PM EST
    of my first day in driver's education: you come to a  4 way stop with 3 other cars. Who goes first? The biggest car.

    What is legal and courteous is a nice luxury, but not getting into the accident is the main thing.

    I'm a bike rider and even if I'm in the right I always give the car the benefit of the doubt. He can afford to be wrong - I can't.

    A guy has a gun - I leave. I don't punch. Can't afford to be wrong.

    Parent

    I Agree for the Most Part (none / 0) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 09:12:36 AM EST
    There is no mention if this was the first incident, but it doesn't seem like it.  Or if the neighbor is one in which coming to the door in daylight with a gun is acceptable.

    And sorry the guy is dead, but if there is one thing everyone should know, if you punch a guy with a gun, you had better be sure that punch is a Tyson like knock out punch.  Because the odds of getting shot go up about a million percent.

    I can't see, with the limited facts, where this guy is really responsible at the civil leverl either.  He shouldn't have brandished a gun over BS, but a guy punched him, and if he's that bold, surely then man feared for his safety.  Only a complete fool would do something so reckless, certainly an act that I would interpret in that millisecond as straight up crazy.

    I think the brandishing of a weapon when it's clearly not needed, should carry jail time.  Not much, but enough to let the point stick; 'Flashing a lethal weapon for intimidation over BS will not be tolerated, regardless if someone gets shot'.  If proves one thing, BS gets escalated real quick when a gun added into the mix.

    I have had a gun pulled once and flashed a couple times, never pointed at me, but used for intimidation.  And unlike this guy, I re-evaluated my... whatever, and changed course very quickly.  In a sense, it diffused the situation (very unfairly) because I am a reasonable person.  Had I not been, like above, it probably would have escalated over what was essentially nothing but hot tempers and pure non-sense.

    Parent

    Jail time for pulling a gun only... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 09:36:37 AM EST
    would be excessive imo, but I could get definitely get down with it being a crime punishable by revoking the persons right to possess a firearm for a certain period of time.  And some community service.

    Another factor is the shooter's age in this case...the victim shoulda never stepped to an old man, even if the oldman was begging for it.  Plenty of blame to go around for the altercation, but the greatest sin was taking it to lethal force level.  

    Parent

    After Reading the Comments... (none / 0) (#130)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 01:33:23 PM EST
    ...I think I am swayed; an old man on his property shouldn't be jailed for flashing his gun.

    I wouldn't say the kid got what he deserved, but he got the most predictable outcome when you slug a man with a gun.  He hit the peak of the bell shaped curve without a doubt.

    Parent

    The departed definitely did himself... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 01:55:17 PM EST
    no favors, that's for sure.

    He deserved to have his clock cleaned perhaps, but definitely not death.

    Parent

    If someone brandishes a gun (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:12:03 PM EST
    at me, the LAST thing I'm going to do is anything that puts me closer to  that weapon, so I don't understand why anyone would deliberately put themselves close enough to someone who may be trigger-happy.  Does that mean I fault the dog-owner for cursing and throwing a punch?  Only to the extent that (1) it's extraordinarily stupid and (2) is an action that probably only escalates the confrontation.

    Part of the reason I think we have these kinds of situations is the myth that guns always solve problems, as opposed to (1) creating them and/or (2) guaranteeing that a bad situation is going to get worse - for someone.

    One can only imagine the outcome if the dog-owner had been packing - the lawn would have looked like the OK Corral - over a dog peeing on the lawn.  Not over someone's home being broken into, or anyone being robbed or a car being stolen, but dog pee.

    We are going `round the bend as a society, and the sentence - or non-sentence - is part and parcel of that insanity.  

    Just was reading a little bit more about this case (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:31:33 PM EST
    From reporting about court testimony, Funches said the victim first walked by his house and swore at his wife as she was getting in his car.  Then he came back later, gave a smug smile and deliberately put his dog on the grass to do its business, and apparently this wasn't the first time the victim had let the dog go on Funches' grass.

    I'm not sure where the victim punched Funches after he saw the gun (did he tresspass up the driveway and then punch him? And it does seem stupid to punch and provoke someone who has already shown you a weapon?)  The victim also allegedly said something to the effect of "Don't show me a gun, old man, unless you're prepated to use it.'

    Shooting him is still outrageous, and maybe a 69 year old didn't feel like he could win by starting a fight with a 23 year old, but he could have called the cops instead.

    Parent

    C'mon, call the cops (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:36:29 PM EST
    about a dog peeing on the grass?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:41:26 PM EST
    Especially if it had happened mutiple times and you had been asked not to do it.

    Let your dog pee on your own grass and leave yellow spots where it kills it.

    Parent

    We put it up with it all of the time (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:47:53 PM EST
    and reseed.  People are to pick up their dogs' poop, and we may say something about that. . . .

    But then, we live near a big city, much like University Park is near a big city, and we do not call our cops about dogs peeing, or about kids walking by with hoodies -- or we would be calling the cops constantly.

    Parent

    This man (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:55:24 PM EST
    Cared about his grass, worked many hours on it,  and won awards for his lawn.  Maybe you don't care that much about your grass, but I bet you might not like it if drunk frat boys did it on your lawn. I don't think it's out of the realm of any reality to say he has a right to tell someone not to let the dog pee on his yard. Especially, if his testimony is true, and this guy was asked and told repeatedly to take his dog elsewhere and was just a complete a$$ about it and continued to do it.

    And this took place in a Chicago suburb - not exactly the boonies.

    Parent

    Basic facts, part 2 (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Addison on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:08:50 PM EST
    You say:

    Especially, if his testimony is true, and this guy was asked and told repeatedly to take his dog elsewhere and was just a complete a$$ about it and continued to do it.

    The article says:

    Clements testified at trial that Funches looked up at him "with a smug and defiant look on his face" and let the dog urinate on his lawn. He decided to confront Funches because he had been finding "stool deposits in my yard and on the sidewalk."

    "I suspected he might be the person," Clements said. "I told him, 'You are supposed to clean up after your animal.'"

    Emphasis mine. He had been finding dog poop on his lawn. He suspected Funches because of the urination incident and his "smug look", whatever that means.

    I don't know where you're getting the idea that he'd been told multiple times. Maybe there's some source of information I'm missing? In the end that's irrelevant. But I also think it might be false.

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    (I have also been confusing the name of the victim and perpetrator).

    But does it really even have to be multiple times?  If someone asks you to not have your dog pee on the grass, are you really going to punch them?  Especially if they show you a gun - who is that stupid?

    And nowhere did I say this man was justified for shooting the victim.

    Parent

    I wouldn't have punched him... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Addison on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:27:57 PM EST
    ...I wouldn't have a dog, for that matter. I also don't think any of that matters much.

    The issue here is whether you decide to bring a gun out when arguing over where a dog pees, what impact that has on the tenor of a discussion, whether that invalidates your self-defense claim, and what responsibility you have when you use the gun you threatened someone else with after chasing them down the street.

    So the victim may have acted stupidly. Well, they died from a gunshot to the stomach. They'll never do anything again. The penalty for being stupid was paid in full and more. Justice isn't for the dead, it's for the living. The guy who did the shooting was alive and made decisions and took actions that, in my view, necessitated charges, a conviction, and a bit more than probation in sentencing.  

    Parent

    Bringing us back to the original point (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:33:45 PM EST
    I agree with you.

    Parent
    No one's saying he didn't have a (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    right to tell people to take their dogs elsewhere, but if you ask me, an "award-winning" lawn is not reason enough to pull a gun on someone.  If he yells at the dog-owner and then the dog owner reacts by coming after him physically, then maybe the shooting could be justified.  

    Just so you know, I don't condone the dog-owner going after the homeowner, either, even though the homeowner pulled the gun before any punches were thrown; I think both men acted way out of proportion to the situation, and it had nowhere to escalate but to where it did - to someone's death.


    Parent

    Actually, I do care a lot (3.67 / 3) (#40)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:06:31 PM EST
    about my lawn  -- and I am an avid gardener, too.

    And I'm in a student area so do deal with them peeing on the lawn (I prefer the dogs do so), dumping cans and bottles on the lawn, etc.  

    But I don't shoot them, and I don't even threaten them.  Not even when drunken kids come on my porch and ring my bell past midnight, because they have the wrong street for the party.

    To paraphrase you, maybe you don't care about human life.

    Parent

    Another possibility: Once a gun is out, how does (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:11:39 PM EST
    the person at whom the gun is aimed know that he or she won't be shot while leaving the area? Or the dog be shot?

    Once a gun comes out, I would feel in incredible fear for my life -- as I once did, in my own home.

    I had an incident with a contractor, Ted the Terrible, who was rehabbing my house.  One day, after I'd left a note pointing out the studs were not spaced to spec and or code,when I returned home from work Ted the Terrible came out of the back rooms, holding a handgun in front of himself and elaborately wrapping it in some kind of fabric, while demanding the remaining money for the job.

    Since the work was not completed, he had no right to ask for it at that time.

    But, guess what? I wrote a check, figuring I could cancel the check.  Well, my credit union closed before his bank did -- and I was screwed.

    But, far as I'm concerned, pulling a gun is an act of aggression. And I wuz robbed. But the local police said it would be nearly impossible to prove, and said I should drop any idea of getting charges against the guy. Who disappeared.

    Neither of the men in Jeralyn's example showed any wisdom, civillty, or simple restraint. But, pulling a gun over a dog peeing? Sheesh.

    Parent

    Usually you're pretty level headed (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:15:53 PM EST
    And engage in fact-based debate, but you have gone off the deep end with that one.  Did you hurt yourself with that leap of logic?

    I say a man should have called the cops and filed acomplaint on a neighbor who apparently repeatedly trespassed on his property instead of shooting him, and by your logic, I don't value human life.

    O-kay.

    Parent

    I am being very level-headed (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:51:54 PM EST
    in putting life ahead of a lawn.  I'm shocked that you keep arguing that this is all about a lawn -- to the point that you insult my lawn.  Jeesh.

    And I am not in the boonies.  I am in a highly populated area.  People walk on my grass -- "trespass," as you put it -- all of the time, be they students or little kids or dogwalkers or jaywalkers.  

    So what?  It's grass.  I'm used to reseeding, every spring and several times throughout the season to keep it gorgeous and lush and green.  Maybe that's why my lovely lawn is so tempting.

    Parent

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#94)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 05:18:27 PM EST
    I didn't say YOU lived in the boonies.  You insinuated that since yoy live in an "urban area" people don't care about a little dog pee like this guy.  I was metely pointing out that he also lives in an "urban area", so I guess they do care there.

    Parent
    Still trying to understand how (none / 0) (#95)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 05:28:21 PM EST
    "caring about a little dog pee" equals some sort of inevitability or justification for killing someone.

    Parent
    Not what I said (none / 0) (#96)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 05:32:12 PM EST
    or supposedly "insinuated."

    What you inferred.

    But I give up on you and on anyone who has such twisted priorities.

    Parent

    I feel the same (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 05:36:12 PM EST
    You are obviously confused today about what I wrote, because I don't think you're being deliberately obtuse.

    Maybe tomorrow we can communicate more clearly.

    Parent

    Simple solution (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    get a gate.

    Parent
    For the front yard?? (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:00:52 PM EST
    Simpler solution:  dog owners with manners

    Why should the homeowner have to put up a fence because some people are rude and alliw their pets to tresspass?

    Parent

    is it that shocking? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CST on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:04:41 PM EST
    That seems like the obvious answer to me.  Should they have to?  No.  But if it bothers them that much it's a much better solution, imo, than shooting someone.

    I live on a street where just about everyone has a fence in their front yard except for us.  And yes, the neighbors dogs sometimes use our lawn.  I don't care as long as they pick up the #2, I kind of always assumed it's just a natural consequence of not having a fence, and having some trees in the front yard.   But then again I don't really understand lawn "competitions" either.  It's grass.  Dogs need to pee.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:11:38 PM EST
    If you were doing something on your neighbor's property, and they asked you to stop, are you saying you wouldn't stop and that's the cost of living there??

    This is a neighborhood with yards - the dog can pee in its own yard.  Unless the owner is deliberately doing it to get a rise out of the neighbor.

    We had this issue at my house.  A neighbor would walk their dog and let it use our lawn as it's bathroom.  My dad taljed to the woman, she apologized and never let the dog use ours (or any neighbor's lawn that we could see) as the bathroom again.  How hard is that to be respectful?

    Parent

    no I wouldn't (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by CST on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:15:25 PM EST
    Heck I've never even had a dog.  And I sure don't go around personally peeing in people's yards.

    But if someone did it to me I sure wouldn't shoot them for it.  Because I value life more than things like my lawn, and yes, I also value life more than things like respect.

    This strikes me as a man taking a life because someone disrespected him.  Which is not nearly a good enough reason to me.  That doesn't mean I think it's okay to be disrespectful, just that I think it doesn't warrant death.

    Way too little value is being placed here on human life.

    Parent

    Do you own or rent? (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:12:25 PM EST


    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:17:45 PM EST
    am referring to my parents house, which I am currently renting while they are out of the country.  So I rent, technically, but it's not like I don't care about the property, or know my neighbors, or could put up a fence if I really wanted.

    Parent
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:23:06 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't even give a sh*t... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:27:18 PM EST
    if they leave the dog sh*t...it's natural and biodegradable.  Better than chucking your Big Gulp out the car window on my lawn, and even that I just pick up and get on with my life.

    The things people get all worked up over never ceases to amaze me....but I guess everybody has their pet peeves.

    Parent

    This thread is like the (good) old days of TL (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:30:57 PM EST
    bringing a tear to my eye!

    Parent
    Lots of lively debate... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:35:09 PM EST
    and varied opinions...and not about elections or assorted wonkish nonsense.

    Hear, hear...good stuff!

    Parent

    ever stepped in it (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CST on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:35:02 PM EST
    coming home late?  Kind of sucks.  I'd almost rather have the big gulp because I can see it and throw it out.  Dog $hit doesn't necessarily stand out on a lawn at night until it's too late.

    Parent
    Not usually walkin' on the front grass... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:41:29 PM EST
    got a paved walkway...but in the backyard I do it all the time, but thats my dog's crap;)  

    I'm not good at keepin' on top of that unless I'm having a bbq party or something...otherwise I leave it to mother nature do her thing with the dog's dueces.

    Parent

    I don't disagree w/you (none / 0) (#50)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    here's the problem though:

    people are idiots

    and sadly, we can't shoot them all.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    "sadly, we can't shoot them all"?

    Sadly, we can't wake up - much less put away - all the people who think like this until after they shoot someone.

    If even then, apparently...

    Parent

    You misunderstand (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:01:19 PM EST
    Left of the snark tag on the last sentence.  

    It was sarcasm in response to JB's desire to blast anyone who dare wrinkle a blade of glass on her lawn.  :-)

    Parent

    I got the snark :) (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by sj on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    Made me laugh, too, so I don't know what that says about me...

    Parent
    Ahh, ok, thanks. - Sorry, I did miss it (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:43:16 PM EST
    Unfortunately there are probably some people who actually would like to shoot anyone who's an idiot. But if they did it right they'd only need one bullet, wouldn't they? ;-)

    Parent
    WTF!!!?? (none / 0) (#80)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    "grass"

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 05:16:16 PM EST
    Only rude pet owners.  ;)

    Parent
    That is Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 09:33:32 AM EST
    I've told this story many times, HPD didn't come to the scene where multiple cars got broken into, which happened in one of Houston's better neighborhoods.  They charged my friend $12 to get a police report for insurance and she had to go to the police station days later to get it.

    Thought you lived in DC, do you really think the police are going to not laugh if you call about a dog urinating on your lawn.  Is that a 911 call ?

    That is living outside reality of life.  The reality is even if they had the time to bother with this non-sense, a normal rational person, and there are millions and millions of them, get over such non-sense and realize it's just one of those non-nonsensical things you put up with when you decided to join civilization.

    The death rate in American (for people and canines) would drastically increase if every clown who's had a dog urinate on their lawn decided to solve the 'problem' by brandishing a gun.  Who do you shot when it's a stray and the gun flashing doesn't produce the results you like.

    Parent

    Some people, (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 09:45:00 AM EST
    unfortunately, would then probably shoot the poor dog.  

    Parent
    Of Course They Would... (none / 0) (#129)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 12:11:33 PM EST
    ... the difference is that discharging a weapon in a city and killing a dog would would almost guarantee jail time.  

    But a dog didn't punch an old man.

    Parent

    You know what? (none / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:38:00 PM EST
    I've had dogs for the last 15 years.  Yes, that's multiples.  

    Haven't had to reseed at all.  Maybe I'm just lucky.  Maybe also cause I feed them good quality food.  Dunno

    Parent

    Rainfall (none / 0) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 01:49:12 PM EST
    Is what seems to determine the effects, this past drought in Texas my friend's back yard looked like a dalmatian, spots everywhere.  Normally they don't show much, she's got 3 dogs and mine many days.

    Don't every remember spots on the farm, and I guarantee my dad feed them the cheapest stuff at the store.  And we had huge dogs.  Don't even know if there were more then a couple choices back then.

    Doesn't matter anyway, only in a republican wet dream will the cops show up for a dog urination, and in that dream, those cops* work for free so taxes aren't raised, all suspicious people are behind bars, their lawns are greener, and women are invisibly chained to the stove in lingerie waiting to tell their hubby's how noble it is to call the cops about shear stupidity.

    *Complete with a canine CSI team to ensure the accused is actually the 'mutt' in question.  Otherwise it's one man's/woman's word against another and the dog ain't talking.

    Parent

    Ah, that makes sense (none / 0) (#136)
    by sj on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 05:10:31 PM EST
    My house in Denver has a sprinkler system which substitutes for rain, and Maryland typically has plenty of rain.

    Parent
    Yeah, that would be a priority (none / 0) (#25)
    by me only on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:37:52 PM EST
    for the local cops.  Bet they would come with sirens blazing for that.

    Parent
    Or - another option - just stay in the house. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:43:58 PM EST
    Just because someone might be baiting you doesn't mean you have to take the bait.

    Parent
    Funches says (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:47:52 PM EST
    He was sitting on the porch when it happened.  He also says this wasn't the first time.

    I agree you shouldn't take the bait, but if true, Funches had every right to ask, even demand, that the victim not alow the dog to use his lawn as it's own personal bathroom.

    That's why I said he should have called the cops.

    Parent

    Your resident Spelling Nudge wishes to (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:14:20 PM EST
    let you know that it's "Trayvon" not "Trayvan."

    thanks, fixed (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    much appreciated

    Parent
    Shooter got off way to easily (none / 0) (#21)
    by nyjets on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:29:56 PM EST
    The dog owner was wrong but there was no reason for the shooter to take out a gun in the first place. He should of done some time, not probation.

    I don't know the gun laws (none / 0) (#24)
    by me only on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:36:37 PM EST
    in the jurisdiction, however, in many places, pulling a gun on someone is a crime.  I think he should have been tried for that.

    On another note, just how much TV do you have to watch to be dumb enough to punch a guy with a gun?

    Initiator (none / 0) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:42:33 PM EST
    Seems to me that you are allowed, on your own property, to pull whatever kind of gun or weapon out that you are allowed to have on your property and yell whatever you want without getting punched.

    Then (separate analysis) if someone rushes you and starts punching you and attacking you on your own property, you should be able to shoot him.

    I distinguish this from the Martin case for a number of reasons.

    Basic facts (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Addison on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:54:13 PM EST
    You say:

    Seems to me that you are allowed, on your own property, to pull whatever kind of gun or weapon out that you are allowed to have on your property and yell whatever you want without getting punched.

    Well, you've missed a basic fact of this case...

    Clements said he was hoping to talk with Funches when he left his porch and followed Funches down the street. Instead, the two men argued, and Clements showed Funches the gun he was carrying in his overalls.

    The homeowner chased the dogowner down a public street. That is where the verbal altercation occurred, that is where the gun was brandished, that is where the punch occurred, that is where the shooting occurred. Only the dog peeing happened on the homeowner's property, everything relating to the actual confrontation occurred on public streets and the homeowner chose to pursue the dogowner to those public streets.

    Your argument as cited does not apply.

    Given that the crux of your argument was based on faulty information, I hope this changes your view.

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#76)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:04:32 PM EST
    I missed the fact that he wasn't on his own property.  Different rules apply there in my mind.

    Parent
    If you follow me (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:08:25 PM EST
    and my dog off your property and harass me, you can be glad that I do not have a gun.

    However, do listen for these words:

    "Sic' em!"

    Parent

    Did you really ... (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:10:36 PM EST
    Seems to me that you are allowed, on your own property, to pull whatever kind of gun or weapon out that you are allowed to have on your property and yell whatever you want without getting punched.

    ... go to law school?

    Parent

    So brandish YOUR weapon on YOUR porch (none / 0) (#126)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 10:00:39 AM EST
    to those walking by on the public sidewalk.  That's cool.

    And if any of those passerbys happen to feel threatened or, God forbid, provoked, shoot them should they try to disarm you for fear of you shooting them or others.

    Nah, we don't need to regulate or control gun ownership. We have an informed citzenry of responsible gun owners.

    Parent

    There is plenty of more info by google. (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    Old guy lives in a bad neighborhood, such that he habitually carries a gun when he leaves his home.

    Old guy also spends hours everyday on his lawn which is completely obvious to anyone as it sticks out like a sore thumb in this kind of 'hood.

    Old guy is also hard of hearing.

    Old guy is sitting on his front porch step, with his gun for protection as usual, when young guy walks by with his dog.

    Young guy lets his dog pee on old guy's perfect lawn knowing full well that old guy is sitting on his porch watching him do it.

    Words are exchanged. Old guy shows young guy that he's packing and then puts the gun back in his pocket.

    After more words young guy starts to leave, and uses words that result in the old guy following him and continuing to use his words.

    The words the old guy uses result in the young guy turning around and punching old guy in the mouth.

    The punch results in the old guy pulling the gun out of his pocket and shooting young guy, who then dies from the the gun shot.

    I think the bottom line is that they argued and then young guy physically attacked old guy who then defended himself with his gun.

    Jury finds for old guy, at least in my kangaroo court.

    i think your "bottom line" is legally (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 04:45:05 PM EST
    incorrect:

    think the bottom line is that they argued and then young guy physically attacked old guy who then defended himself with his gun.

    by chasing the young guy down the street, the old guy became the aggressor. the young guy, concerned for his safety consequent to the old guy's aggressive behaviour, punched him. aggressive old guy then shot young guy, resulting in young guy's death.

    the young guy was, legally, acting in self-defense, not the old guy, as the court astutely determined.

    any rational person is going to be concerned when someone, who has previously displayed a gun, chases him down the street. i believe clarence darrow would agree with that.

    Parent

    Emphasis on "Kangaroo" (none / 0) (#49)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    Even if the facts are as you say they are, a punch in the mouth does not justify the use of deadly force.

    Parent
    Assuming your misstatement of my words was (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:21:52 PM EST
    unintentional, let me be more clear. The jury of my kangaroo court agrees with the actual court in this case.

    Parent
    Yes, but (none / 0) (#70)
    by sj on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:44:38 PM EST
    did you take the same route?

    Parent
    Look again (none / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 04:43:16 PM EST
    There was no "misstatement", intentional or otherwise.

    BTW -

    The jury of my kangaroo court agrees with the actual court in this case.

    So, to clarify, when you said:

    I think the bottom line is that they argued and then young guy physically attacked old guy who then defended himself with his gun.

    Jury finds for old guy, at least in my kangaroo court.

    So when you said "jury finds for old guy", you weren't suggesting that his use of deadly force was justified, and you would not have acquitted him.  Your "kangaroo court", like the actual jury, would have found him guilty of second degree murder?

    Parent

    Yup. (none / 0) (#108)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 12:08:01 AM EST


    Parent
    So by "finding for the old guy", ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 07:25:47 AM EST
    ... you're saying you would have convicted him.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Nah, I'm saying that my kangaroo court, (none / 0) (#137)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    which was charged with deciding whether the actual court did right or not, found for the old guy - iow, they found the original court did right.

    Parent
    How is that different? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 01:18:17 PM EST
    The original court found him guilty of second degree murder.  Do you mean you would have convicted him but given him probation?

    Parent
    As I said in post #55, and then again in #137, (none / 0) (#139)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    and now for the 3rd time in post #139, my kangaroo court says the court did right. iow, my kanga court would not change the conviction nor the sentence.

    Parent
    "uses words" OMG! Break out the gun! (none / 0) (#127)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 10:48:53 AM EST


    Parent
    I do corporate stuff (none / 0) (#82)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    short answer.  I have friends who are litigators and very interested in this case. I know little about criminal law (which is a completely different planet from what I do) but my understanding is that the Castle Doctrine and related laws give you broad leeway to do all sorts of crazy things on your own property.

    And to some degree, I kind of understand and agree with those laws. Not the most extreme versions, but I give a homeowner a fair amount of leeway when someone is breaking into their home.

    But this Martin business is a different animal.


    No castle-doctrine law in Illinois (none / 0) (#84)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:47:25 PM EST
    and surely law students in any area of the law are taught that laws do not apply that do not exist.

    Parent
    In Pennsylvania, in my opinion, (none / 0) (#107)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 09:06:12 PM EST
    our self-defense law does not go far enough in protecting the person defending him/herself, although Florida's clearly goes way too far the other way.  Here's what I'm talking about: guy in jail for over six months waiting for his homicide trial, where the facts disclosed at the preliminary hearing show a very strong case for self-defense -- and that (under our law) is a matter of defense which is only relevant at trial.

    Parent
    self-defense no (none / 0) (#99)
    by Joe a on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:12:05 PM EST
    Clements was the one who escalated an otherwise trivial incident by his absurd act of pulling a gun over a trivial incident. Once Clements pulled the gun, the dog owner was entitled to do anything, up to and including killing Clements, who has no claim of self-defense in any morally reasonable univers. One's front lawn just isn't that important in the scheme of life. Even though both were black, there is a racial component to this case - it is the interaction of race and age. Old black men cease to be threatening; they are like the grandfather on the Cosby show, likable codgers who tell cute, if apocryphal stories to their children. A twenty-three year old is still a menacing member of the underclass, one whose existence is seen as a threat to society.

    interesting race perspective (none / 0) (#123)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 09:44:51 AM EST
    though I would think the racial makeup of the jury would be factor.

    Parent
    Please keep comments here (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 12:16:24 AM EST
    opinions about the Illinois case that is the subject of the post. Thanks.

    A mess. (none / 0) (#110)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 06:27:36 AM EST
    Brandishing a firearm was really over the top.

    However, firearm or not, it seems to me that the dog owner should have apologized and moved on.

    It seems that instead, he went onto the homeowner's property and physically assaulted him. Not the brightest thing to do. Killing the guy was also over the top, but when one is physically assaulted and physically overpowered or overmatched, one might do things that are over the top in order to stop the assault.

    With the facts as I read them, and not having read the trial transcript, it would be hard for me to disagree with the verdict of second degree murder. As to whether the guy should have been sentenced to jail, I don't know. I don't really like the idea of people having easy access to guns. They tend to get used.

    On the other hand, older people tend to be easy targets and might seek a weapon to put things on a more equal footing with a potential attacker.

    But, ultimately, I think I have to fault the dog-owner for not just calling for his dog, apologizing for the unpleasant event, and leaving quietly for home.

    Wrong on a crucial point (none / 0) (#128)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 10:48:57 AM EST
    which is that the dogowner did not come on the homeowner's property; the homeowner followed the dogowner and accosted him off the property.

    That alters your stretch to justification of this, doesn't it?

    Parent

    I (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 03:40:56 PM EST
    see what you mean.
    That does change things.

    Parent
    Confronting someone with a gun in hand (none / 0) (#122)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 09:39:52 AM EST
    is provocation.  Obviously the gun toting party is threatening to shoot you if you do not do whatever he or she demands.  

    I don't see how the punch is the provocation, it is the understandable, if not ill-advised,  response of the party provoked.  A dog peeing on your lawn is no reason to break out your gun and the old man who did so is  or was not in his right mind.  Talk to the dog owner and let them know you do not appreciate your lawn being peed on, call the animal control dept if necessary.  The have one, I can attest to that, in Chicago.  Starting the time clock on provocation as they did here is like basing who wins a basketball game on only the fourth quarter scoring outcome.

    Illinois does not, to my knowledge, have the burden shifting stand your ground laws that are at issue in Florida.

    This is old man should not have been in possession of a pistol.  His actions demonstrate that.  Like my elderly mother in law who brought her pistol, about which we were all previously unaware, to the dinner table to show pre-school grandkids, said gun being promptly removed from her posession forever after.      

    Clements should have been sentenced & sent to jail as that would have served to deter others from such outrageous behavior.  Call the cops, he's in Chicago they got them there.

    Dog peeing on your lawn, reach for your gun? If that doesn't make the case for regulating the who, when, where for gun ownership I don't know what does. Three fatherless toddlers but the old man doesn't have to worry about that dog ever peeing on his lawn again, as he looks out through his picture window from the comfort of his living room.

     

    What if they required license exams for would be (none / 0) (#125)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 09:55:33 AM EST
    gun owners and a question read:

    True or False? A person is walking their dog and the dog pees on your lawn.  This is an appropriate time to confront the dog owner with your handgun in hand.

    Would we issue gun ownership licenses to those who repond True?  I think even the most zealous gun rights advocates would have a hard time with that.  But alas, we don't ask those things or require much in the way of licensing.  That would be a terrible bruden on the Constitutionally-sanctioned, many multi billion dollar gun industry.  

    Let society instead bear the cost of dead innocent folks and their orphaned children. Why should any industry bear a regulatory cost when it can be so readily socialized so indiscriminately across the population? Such socialized costs, whether it be pollution or randomly dispersed innocent deaths, can be easily ignored to the point of not acknowledging these costs even exist.  Stuff happens, people die or get killed. Guns don't kill people, a$$holes with guns kill people.

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#140)
    by Euro News Magazine on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:30:58 AM EST
    Euro News
    Fırsat

    Looking at A Different Self-Defense Shooting Case | 129 comments (129 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment