Not the murderer's fault, blame the gun.

[Black Butte]

A Will County judge doesn't want to inconvenience a murderer with any jail time for shooting a man whose dog urinated on his well-manicured lawn.

http://www.suntimes.com/3066589-460/clements-dog-funches-judge-county.html

 

[G27RR]

Clements confronted him about the dog’s actions 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 in the face, according to testimony during his October trial. Clements told police he shot Funches once in the abdomen because he feared the younger man would harm him.

Dumb moves all around on this one. They both should've avoided continued escalation.

 

[Sgt_R]

What's that quote that gets thrown around here all the time? Oh yeah, "Don't pick a fight with am old man, he might just shoot you."

Brandishing because a dog peed on your lawn is pretty stupid, but assaulting someone you know to be armed over something so trivial is at least equally stupid.

There must have been dozens of missed opportunities to de-escalate the situation, on either side, before things turned violent. What a tragic waste.

R

 

[Grunt Medic TXARNG]

A Will County judge doesn't want to inconvenience a murderer with any jail time for shooting a man whose dog urinated on his well-manicured lawn.

Black - since you're on a firearms blog, you should probably understand the definition of murder. The DA was foolish to go for a murder 1 charge on this - depending on the exact sequence of events and how they were documented in the police reports, he probably could have successfully prosecuted a manslaughter charge and gotten a heavier sentence. The jury convicted the man of murder in the second, and as a felon he has now lost his right to vote and to own firearms. The judge decided it wasn't in everybody's best interests to put this 69 year old man in prison. But here's the question - somebody trespasses on your property, you confront them, they assault you - are you justified in shooting them? The answer is - it all depends on the circumstances.

 

[Shadow 7D]

^^^^
+1 .........

 

[black_powder_Rob]

to Grunt. also your state.

 

[KodiakBeer]

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.

Yeah, there's plenty of stupid to go around but when all is said and done, a 69 year old man has a right to defend himself on his own property from a younger man who is attacking him.

 

[mongo4567]

Yep, dumb actions all the way around. The only crime I could see on the property owner's part is possibly brandishing...should be probation or less if you ask me. I don't know if he'd even get probation in a gun friendly state like Texas. He could have shown the gun after being threatened or as the dog walker approached quickly, you can show your gun as part of defensive action after all.

 

[gearhead]

This one is really murky, nothing is cut and dried. Typically for it to be a legitimate case of self defense the shooter has to make every effort to de-escalate the situation and is prohibited from creating the confrontation in the first place. If he accosted the tresspasser and was yelling and making threats then he basically forfeited his right to use deadly force.

I agree, he didn't deserve to do hard jail time but from the facts presented in the article he would have been really lucky to have gotten off scot free.

 

[Black Butte]

Black - since you're on a firearms blog, you should probably understand the definition of murder.

Grunt Medic TXARNG, I have posted the definition of second-degree murder below for your review. Clements had no business pulling a gun on a man and shooting him because his dog urinated on his grass.

he has now lost his right to ... to own firearms.

We will all lose our right to own firearms if gun owners are allowed to shoot people dead over trivial disagreements.

(720 ILCS 5/9-2)

Sec. 9-2. Second degree murder.

(a) A person commits the offense of second degree murder when he or she commits the offense of first degree murder as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of Section 9-1 of this Code and either of the following mitigating factors are present:

(1) at the time of the killing he or she is acting

under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by the individual killed or another whom the offender endeavors to kill, but he or she negligently or accidentally causes the death of the individual killed; or

(2) at the time of the killing he or she believes the

circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify or exonerate the killing under the principles stated in Article 7 of this Code, but his or her belief is unreasonable.

(b) Serious provocation is conduct sufficient to excite an intense passion in a reasonable person.

(c) When evidence of either of the mitigating factors defined in subsection (a) of this Section has been presented, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove either mitigating factor by a preponderance of the evidence before the defendant can be found guilty of second degree murder. The burden of proof, however, remains on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of first degree murder and, when appropriately raised, the absence of circumstances at the time of the killing that would justify or exonerate the killing under the principles stated in Article 7 of this Code.

(d) Sentence. Second degree murder is a Class 1 felony.

 

[Geckgo]

I can't wait to see the other media spins and points of view that will eventually get dug up on this. +1 to stupid all the way around.

 

[KodiakBeer]

If he accosted the tresspasser and was yelling and making threats then he basically forfeited his right to use deadly force.

So, he should have shot him without warning?

The 69 year old man accosted a 23 year old man who was allowing his dog to use his yard as a toilet. An argument ensued. The 23 year old violently assaulted the older man. The 69 year old man shot him in response.

Based on this information alone, he'd get a free pass from me if I was sitting on the jury. A verbal argument is just that. Once the younger man resorted to violence, he should have had no expectation that his attack wouldn't result in getting shot.

1. Don't assault people.

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

 

[KodiakBeer]

We will all lose our right to own firearms if gun owners are allowed to shoot people dead over trivial disagreements.

So, if a 23 year old man starts beating your 69 year old grandmother, it's "trivial" and she should just cower and take the blows because it would be improper for her to shoot the assailant?

 

[Shadow 7D]

(2) at the time of the killing he or she believes the

circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify or exonerate the killing under the principles stated in Article 7 of this Code, but his or her belief is unreasonable.

and there is your answer, I don't know that states SD law, but, in mine, if you draw (escalate) the situation, then you MUST retreat, and show that you were actively leaving the situations and that the other party posed a deadly threat and that you could not retreat


Frankly the guy could have gone inside and called the cops, and if he had tried to and they guy followed him or prevented him, then it could have been a good shoot.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Kodiak

Actually, my grandmother is much older, and under Alaska law that she is 'family' (that has a not so strict legal definition) and in defense of her life I could shoot, but you know that already,.

If I saw my 84 year old grandma pick a fight, and get knocked down, I would, like you, have to step in, stop the fight and call the cops... cause she helped start it.

 

[LiENUS]

Black Butte you need to read the article, it's not clear why exactly he pulled the gun (although most likely that was in response to the dog urinating on his lawn) however clearly he shot the man because the man punched him. It was a younger man who was killed and the offender was 69 years old. In some states there's a good chance he would have gotten off entirely if he had not pulled the gun until after the man shot him. This is a very murky case. This was a compromise that the judge made that did a good job of pleasing most of the people involved, the offender's family is happy because he didn't go to prison, the offender is presumably happier than if he had gone to prison and the prosecutor is happy to get his conviction. The only people not happy are the victim's family.

The reality is everyone messed up, the offender should not have pulled the gun and the victim should not have punched him. The dog... just did what dogs do, let that be a lesson to everyone. If a dog pees on your lawn... get over it.

 

[KodiakBeer]

If I saw my 84 year old grandma pick a fight, and get knocked down, I would, like you, have to step in, stop the fight and call the cops...

But you're not there. She's alone and has a gun in her pocket. A man is beating her for yelling at him about a dog peeing in her petunias.

At that point it's no longer about a dog peeing in the petunias, it's about a 23 year old violently assaulting a 69 year old. I wouldn't convict granny for defending herself, and I wouldn't convict this old gentleman either.

Not all attacks start with "Give me your wallet".

 

[Shadow 7D]

I agree with you
and that's the hanger that we don't know
the guy had a gun in an argument
personally I don't see it as much of a issue (I wouldn't have convicted him) as the guy still attacked him.

 

[Geckgo]

Kodiak, I agree with you for the most part. But the 69 year-old in this case was part of the cause of the problem. Anyone regardless of age, if you are on your porch and your neighbor is being a d-bag in your front yard, for whatever reason, whether you are right or wrong.

Say, "hey, Jim, get off my lawn with that"
Jim: "Go to hell"

Don't pull your gun and continue. Go inside and call the cops and let them settle it. It's not like you don't know where the guy lives.

 

[EmGeeGeorge]

Without witnesses, it seems fishy.... I couldn't see attacking someone with my chihuahuas on a leash....
I could see moving between myself and an attacker trying to kick my dog, and possibly striking them to defend myself and my dogs. If that person then drew a pistol and shot me, lotsa people would say I was in the wrong for beating on an old man, and he was just defending himself...
looks like he won't be defending himself *legally* with a firearm ever again, thankfully. Maybe he'll wish that he hadn't shot the guy if anybody ever breaks into his home with the intent of doing him harm...
I bet there is more to this than will ever be know than about by anyone other than the shooter.

A while back my old condo had teens tagging the streetside fence with (wannabee) gand tags. I would get off work (at the jail) and scrubb the fence almost every morning...

One day I saw two of the kids doing it... as tempting as it was to go confront them, it would only show them a. where I lived, and b. that it bothered me. I called the cops...

If I had gone out and screamed and yelled and gotten in their faces, and they started punching me, could I have shot your 14 and 13 year old sons or grandsons, and would some of you be defending me? And don't say "oh, but your in your 20's and theyre teens" he shooter in the artilce was a retired Marine, and trucker. When I worked at my last job, a co-worker was a retried LAPD cop with 35 years of service in his late 60's, and an Army LRRP vet from Vietnam. I'm in my 30's, reasonably tough and in good shape, with boxing, judo, and DT's in my background, as well as a former MP. That "old man" could beat me six ways til Sunday I do not doubt and I wouldn't fight him if you paid me, 'cause he WOULD HAVE HURT ME.

Bad shoot, I think. Felony conviction, should've done some time I think.... but again, good bye gun rights.

 

[cambeul41]

I wasn't on the jury. I didn't hear all the evidence. But I am 69 and work in Detroit.

There are plenty of younger, stronger men who might decide to physically put that old xxxxx guy in his place.

At this stage in the discussion, I tend to agree with KodiakBeer.

 

[jad0110]

Kodiak, I agree with you for the most part. But the 69 year-old in this case was part of the cause of the problem. Anyone regardless of age, if you are on your porch and your neighbor is being a d-bag in your front yard, for whatever reason, whether you are right or wrong.

Say, "hey, Jim, get off my lawn with that"
Jim: "Go to hell"

Don't pull your gun and continue. Go inside and call the cops and let them settle it. It's not like you don't know where the guy lives.

That's what I read from the story. Granted, I wasn't there, but it wasn't as simple as some have stated it. He didn't just go outside to confront a trespasser, the trespasser cussed the homeowner and then punched him in the face, whereupon the homeowner drew and returned fire. The way I read it, it went more like: homeowner went out side to confront trespasser, homeowner pulled out .45, trespasser cussed and punched homeowner, homeowner returned fire.

Again, I wasn't there and the story didn't say what prompted the 69 year old to pull out his .45 before he was assaulted. If he just pulled out ahead of time "just in case", it could be considered brandishing at the very least and at worst, assault with a deadly weapon. Again, perhaps there is more to this story than was printed in the article, but given what we have to work with, it sounds like perhaps the homeowner turned himself into the initial aggressor and gave up his "mantle of innocence". What a mess.

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.

Well, he may have. I don't think he went out, weapon drawn and pointed at the young guy's head. But pulling out a weapon before the use of deadly force would be authorized under state law, even if it isn't pointed at the other person, can legally be considered brandishing or assault. Some may not agree with that, but it is the law in many states.

I think others said it best, in that in this situation everyone acted rather stupidly. At least from the information we have at hand.

 

[KodiakBeer]

it went more like: homeowner went out side to confront trespasser, homeowner pulled out .45, trespasser cussed and punched homeowner, homeowner returned fire.

I'm not going to second guess whether he could have walked away prior to that point, or if he was prevented from doing so. I only know that a 23 year old assaulted a 69 year old man in his own yard and got shot for his troubles. That's case closed for me. He'd walk (or there would be a hung jury) if I was one of the twelve.

 

[2WheelsGood]

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

 

[TXiceman]

There ain't no cure for stupid....