Not the murderer's fault, blame the gun.

Wait, isn't this in Chicago? I thought handguns were illegal in Chicago. What am I missing?

Click to expand...

Well just to be technically correct this was in University Park, a suburb, and not in Chicago proper.

As a 70 year old who carries while walking my dog that's peeing in other's yards, I'd probably be the shooter in such a case, and agree with KodiakBeer. If a younger, stronger guy wants to beat on me, I will use an equalizer...maybe even my pistol.

I don't consider this murder. Stupidity ran rampant on both sides. In the end don't punch someone in the face, you might get shot, especially if you have already SEEN their gun.

To get back to the legal issue:

"Serious provocation is conduct sufficient to excite an intense passion in a reasonable person."

I'd say that getting hit in the shnozz is fairly serious provocation. One problem is that the Hittee doesn't know whether the Hitter will continue the Hitting--which is painful. Injurious, even.

From a practical standpoint, of course, regardless of prior mouth-music, it is unwise to assault an armed person. As this case showed, it can be a one-time event.

I'm 76...

Art Eatman said:

To get back to the legal issue:

"Serious provocation is conduct sufficient to excite an intense passion in a reasonable person."

I'd say that getting hit in the shnozz is fairly serious provocation. One problem is that the Hittee doesn't know whether the Hitter will continue the Hitting--which is painful. Injurious, even.

From a practical standpoint, of course, regardless of prior mouth-music, it is unwise to assault an armed person. As this case showed, it can be a one-time event.

I'm 76...

Click to expand...

I think ultimately the best advice is either talk to a lawyer or take a use of force class relevant to your state. Use of force in Texas is certainly a heck of a lot different from NY. The article is light on some of the more important details but its certainly possible this could have been legal in one state and yet very illegal in another.

This guy better think ahead before the civil suit that's most-likely going to follow and sell his house, other assets, belongings, liquidate any investments, take all that cash, bury it, and go move in with a friend for a while; then he won't have a dime to his name.

I bet the homeowner would have been in worse trouble if he had shot the dog.

I totally agree on the "stupid" factor in punching someone with a gun. I second the self defense vote in the older man being assaulted, and I would vote to let him walk were I on the jury. Still, he could've handled this a LOT better.

Not all states have identical laws.

Whatever state you happen to be occupying at the time, as a gun owner you must be very very aware of the laws in that state. Be careful, guys.

My bottom line is = that if I were to take a mans life over a bit of urine on my lawn ,then I dont deserve to carry a gun PERIOD.

I would not shoot a man holding up a bank - its over money and if thats all he he take = WGAF.

So a bit of piss is no reason to kill another,not gonna back off on that one.

btw ,I am 63 and old enough to know better than to confront another and expect it to not come to blows or worse.

I wouldn't send him to jail either. It's not like he ran out there brandishing a firearm. He merely confronted the man about his dog, whereupon an argument began resulting in the old man being assaulted and defending himself with his firearm.

Click to expand...

Yes, the quoted news story vastly simplified the earlier published accounts. The convicted man could have let the whole thing pass and it likely would not have resulted in the death of the dog owner, but it was a protracted confrontation, with the dog owner returning to the scene after the initial confrontation and assaulting the elderly man. I've said this before, and it's unwise to rely on the news media to get anything like this right, but it appeared to me that there might have been room for a claim of lawful self-defense under Illinois' statute.

1. Don't assault people.

2. If you ignore rule #1, don't be surprised if you get shot. - Kodiak Beer

Click to expand...

Got to agree with your post. Lot to weigh in on both sides of the issue. But, given the facts stated ~ If I was on the jury, I would not have voted to convict nor would I award damages in a civil action as part of a jury.

A 69 year old should not be expected to fight it out with a 23 year old. Should he have "brandished" the weapon??? I don't know what threats, if any had been communicated up to that point. Bottom line, keep your hands off other people.

The wrongful death civil suite will likely (and should, imo) follow shortly.

I would have preferred the younger man to have recieved a huge dose of OC spray for his trouble, as opposed to a bullet. With that said, I would not have voted to convict the older man, nor would I vote to award damages to anyone. Most states have laws against assaulting senior citizens.

I see two mistakes made. first the property owner brandishing the firearm, second the young man attacking the armed man. both stupid. I agree with kodiak bear on this, once the younger man attacked it became self defense. I only see the property owner being guilty of brandishing

As MisterMike says in Post #36, there is more to the story.

We members should make it clear to the world, we are NOT saying that you punch a gun owner in the nose and you deserve to die.

In this case, the shooter was convicted of second degree murder under the law (he shot an unarmed man) and given probation due to mitigating circumstances (the other man physically provoked the shooter).

One point of view expressed on this thread is that the mitigating circumstances should reduce it to a non-murder matter of self defense. This view has merit given the age of the shooter.

An opposing point of view in this thread is that you really can't shoot an unarmed person regardless of provocation, an armed person needs to learn to turn the other cheek.

And a third point of view is that both men are/were idiots.

Either way, we should make clear to the world that we're not saying that a punch in the nose deserves death at the hands of a gun owner.




Or maybe we should say, "Guns don't kill people. Dog pee kills people."
Just kidding.

Black - thank you for posting the Illinois statute on murder 2. I also looked up the IL statute on murder 1, since that was the original charge, and the foundation of murder 2. It is quite obvious that the definition of murder varies wildly from state to state - in nearly all of the states I've lived in, intent must be proven as an element of the charge. Here in Texas the courts look poorly on people who trespass on other people's property, and even more poorly on people who trespass on others' property and then assault the property owner. When the assailant is young and fit and the one assaulted nearly seventy it's a no-brainer; this most likely would have been no-billed by the grand jury here.

You keep saying the old man shot the young one for allowing the dog to urinate on the lawn, implying that was the only provocation - while ignoring the young man's several crimes leading up to the shooting; trespassing, vandalism, assault and battery.

In Illinois - murder. In most other states - manslaughter at worst, but wounding or self-defense much more likely.

As if I needed another reason to stay away from the Prairie state...

Good overview, Grunt Medic.

In Illinois - murder. In most other states - manslaughter at worst, but wounding or self-defense much more likely.

Click to expand...

Actually, I suspect that the majority view (most other states) would be similar to Illinois. In so many ways, Texas is much more unique and individual due to its history as a republic. Not just laws, but in so many other ways Texas wrote its own chapter in the books. The majority of the other states including Illinois tend to fall into line similarly to one another on so many issues, with the obvious and sore exception of gun rights.

I'm not sure where you are, ants, but in several of the states I've lived in the prosecutor needs to prove intent to charge murder - otherwise it's manslaughter. That was the point I was trying to make - sorry if I was unclear.

Yes, now get your point. You're 100% correct. I agree. Unless he normally doesn't carry a gun, but carried it out to that specific confrontation with the dog owner and it resulted in the dog owner's death.

So a bit of piss is no reason to kill another,not gonna back off on that one.

Click to expand...

So, you'd just let a man 1/3rd your age beat you? Would you let him beat you to death or is there some point at which you'd defend yourself with an "equalizer"?

Good question, KBeer. It depends upon the circumstance.

There are pansies 1/3 my age, they punch me and I'll kick their butts without need for deadly force.
There are also men 20 years older than me, who will kill me with one pinkie finger.

It all depends on the circumstance. You gotta use excellent judgement when you choose to carry a gun. That especially includes us well-armed old guys. No one said it was easy, or clear cut.



But I think it was KBeer who pointed out that the man with the dog seems to have been looking for trouble. He found it in a 69 year old who wasn't afraid to protect himself. You can't blame an old guy for protecting his home and property, you gotta blame a young idiot for seeking trouble and then finding it was more than he could handle.

There are pansies 1/3 my age, they punch me and I'll kick their butts without need for deadly force.
There are also men 20 years older than me, who will kill me with one pinkie finger.

Click to expand...

True enough, but I think maybe some people have never really seen a good old fashioned beating. I have. I saw a guy permanently disabled in a bar brawl (knees don't bend backwards when kicked). People die in beatings. People asphyxiate from throat punches, broken ribs can pierce a lung, internal bleeding from destroyed organs, broken necks.

An attack with fists is a serious assault that can leave you crippled or dead. And it's just a fact that older people break more easily than younger people.

Well, for what it's worth, here's my two cents... Part of the story is not being told. The young thug had been provoking this confrontation for quite some time by deliberatly allowing his pooch to number one and two on the retiree's yard. IIRC, the police had been involved before and the thug had been warned about trespass and cleaning up the doo-doo- so he did it anyway when the "good guy" wasn't watching. The retired gentleman was noted for his meticuluosly cared for yard; he mowed it three times a week. Said thug had an extensive criminal record and had irritated other neighbors as well. Thug also had three kids, but I have been unable to find out if he was married (fat chance) or was paying child support (ROTFLMAO!). The babies mommas have yet to say anything. The single, fatal shot to the abdominal area was fired when the old man was on his back from being knocked down.
As an old fart myself, I say it's a good shoot and the retiree should get a medal for getting rid of some trash.

Good weapon choice - .45 ACP in a 1911.

As to the details of the event, this article reports some of the trial testimony.