Ex-Marine Gets Probation for Killing Man Over Peeing Pooch

[Fandango 1,440]

Actually, I have asked the same question, such as when the police shoot someone who is a moderate threat, such as a man with a knife who won't drop it and he starts to walk toward police... that type of thing.

But Police training I think, prohibits the use of deadly force (firing a weapon) except to cause deadly force.

Well, if that's true, then I dunno how I feel about that. Just because someone has the ability to take someone's life, doesn't make it RIGHT.

I am all for the right to bear arms, but I believe that being a gun owner comes with an enormous amount of responsibility, and you should only use as much force as needed, with the goal being to protect ALL life possible. Who knows what really happened here? A dog pees, a fight ensues...when did the gun come out? Presumably before the fight, as evidenced by the 'if you pull a gun, prepare to use it' threat. And now, 2 children are left without a father...because of a fight. It seems so tragic and unnecessary.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Just because it's 'legally ok' to shoot someone, I do think people who have guns have an obligation to protect all life if possible.

If a guy was holding a knife to your throat, and death is imminent, then yeah, shoot to kill. But an argument on a lawn in broad daylight? Shoot him in the leg, incapacitate him, and then get to safety.

Obligation to protect all life? Well, he felt his life was in danger and he was protecting the most important life of all. Especially if the guy stepped up onto his lawn, he had every 'right' to shoot the punk.

A guy is dead because he decided to be a jack ####### to the wrong guy. Plain and simple.

[tmma 467]

Details of the confrontation are scarce here- there has to be more to the altercation than what's written for the judge to sentence so lightly ( especially in a dem state like Illinois).

About the shooting in the leg thing--it becomes second nature ( or it did in my training in the Military) to shoot to kill. If you are going to shoot-make sure they will not shoot back or otherwise pose a threat.

I am assuming the victim had no weapon but it does say that he was hitting and punching the homeowner.....

I'm not saying what the homeowner did was right and I think the sentence is way too light on the information presented...The whole story needs to be told to get a clear picture.

Either way to kill a 23 year old father of 2 is tragic.

[Fandango 1,440]

Obligation to protect all life? Well, he felt his life was in danger and he was protecting the most important life of all. Especially if the guy stepped up onto his lawn, he had every 'right' to shoot the punk.

A guy is dead because he decided to be a jack ####### to the wrong guy. Plain and simple.

Being a jackazz shouldn't be a mortal sin though, should it? OK, if the young guy started the fight, obvs there's some culpability there...but does that mean it's ok that he's dead now? No.

Again, he obviously didn't have the 'right' to do so, because he was charged in this particular case. If it was all legal, no charges would have been filed.

Details of the confrontation are scarce here- there has to be more to the altercation than what's written for the judge to sentence so lightly ( especially in a dem state like Illinois).

About the shooting in the leg thing--it becomes second nature ( or it did in my training in the Military) to shoot to kill. If you are going to shoot-make sure they will not shoot back or otherwise pose a threat.

I am assuming the victim had no weapon but it does say that he was hitting and punching the homeowner.....

I'm not saying what the homeowner did was right and I think the sentence is way too light on the information presented...The whole story needs to be told to get a clear picture.

Either way to kill a 23 year old father of 2 is tragic.

Hey, I called you yesterday...you were on the other line.

Ph is dead now tho I'll charge it right now.

[Ban Hammer 13,475]

why's that?

the leg is a very small target - and if the subject is moving, even more difficult to hit. when most go target shooting, they don't aim for the lower part of the target - they aim center mass.

[Danno 1,228]

the leg is a very small target - and if the subject is moving, even more difficult to hit. when most go target shooting, they don't aim for the lower part of the target - they aim center mass.

And ever when aiming to kill, it's not always easy.

Check out this recent "exchange" at near point blank range.

THe store clerk thinks he got one, but with no blood trail.... I bet not.

[Danno 1,228]

Lets stop focusing on the report that the young man was a "Father of 2" or was it three?

Any 23 yr old punching a near 70 yr old guy..... might not make -Father of the Year- award....

We don't even know if he even lives with or supports his kids.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Being a jackazz shouldn't be a mortal sin though, should it? OK, if the young guy started the fight, obvs there's some culpability there...but does that mean it's ok that he's dead now? No.

Again, he obviously didn't have the 'right' to do so, because he was charged in this particular case. If it was all legal, no charges would have been filed.

Charges get filed in 'questionable' cases. Even when one is thought for the most part to be innocent. That's why we have a judge/jury. The job of the prosecutor is to file charges for the maximum they can try and get. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Obviously the judge thought the evidence presented put majority blame on the "father of 2"

[Fandango 1,440]

Lets stop focusing on the report that the young man was a "Father of 2" or was it three?

Any 23 yr old punching a near 70 yr old guy..... might not make -Father of the Year- award....

We don't even know if he even lives with or supports his kids.

He may not have won Father of the Year, but he was a father of two. People make bad choices all the time, people lose their tempers and things happen. For this to have escalated from a dispute over the lawn seems ridiculous. Everyone's sitting here making this poor guy out to be some fking scumbag, when no one knows whether he was or not. Should he have hit the old man? No way. But does that mean he forfeits his right to life over it? No, it shouldn't.

Believe you me though, I'd hazard a guess that if the guy was a deadbeat dad, the article would have said so. Sure, I'm speculating, but we all are.

An old man hit a teenager on a plane, got arrested. Should the teen then have pulled out a gun and killed the poor #######? Pls don't get into 'oh it was on a plane, you can't have guns on a plane' nonsense cos that's not my point.

Charges get filed in 'questionable' cases. Even when one is thought for the most part to be innocent. That's why we have a judge/jury. The job of the prosecutor is to file charges for the maximum they can try and get. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Obviously the judge thought the evidence presented put majority blame on the "father of 2"

My bad, I shouldn't have said 'charges were filed' what I should have said was that the old man was convicted. Clear cut cases of self defense don't usually wind up with the 'victim' being convicted, regardless of how light the sentence is.

At the end of the day, we are all just speculating, and I'm sure there's wayyy more to this case than what one little blurb says. I still maintain that it's a tragedy, and whether the old man had the 'right' to kill this man on his lawn, he should have tried NOT to.

[^_^ 5,021]

... whether the old man had the 'right' to kill this man on his lawn, he should have tried NOT to.

+1

[Fandango 1,440]

(May 13) -- An Illinois man was so protective of his lawn that he allegedly killed a neighbor whose dog urinated in front of his home.

According to police, 69-year-old Charles Clements -- whose manicured yard was reportedly named the best-looking lawn in the Chicago suburb of University Park -- shot and killed 23-year-old Joshua Funches after the victim's pet fox terrier relieved itself on Clements' property Sunday night.

The victim's mother, Patricia Funches, told the Chicago Tribune that her son lost his life in a squabble about landscaping.

"It was all over a little wooden plaque," she said, referring to a sign honoring Clements' award-winning lawn. "It was a senseless death."

After Funches -- a father of two with a third child on the way -- allowed his dog Gucci to urinate on Clements' yard, the former Marine and retired truck driver exchanged nasty words with the victim.

Witnesses say Clements drew a handgun, and Funches told him: "Next time you pull out a pistol, why don't you use it?"

According to WBBM 780, Funches then started to walk back toward his home, but Clements approached him from behind and shot him once in the abdomen.

When police arrived on the scene, they reportedly found the victim bleeding on the ground in front of a vacant home down the block from Clements' home, and witnesses directed the officers to the suspect's house -- where Clements was waiting in his garage with the door open.

"I knew you were coming for me," he told police, according to Will County Assistant State's Attorney Sondra Denmark. "That's why I changed my clothes. I knew you were coming for me."

Investigators recovered a .45-caliber handgun from the home that they believe Clements used in the killing. Clements faces first- and second-degree murder charges, and is being held on $3 million bail.

Neighbors said they knew Clements was protective of his grass -- he actually has a sign on his mailbox warning the mailman to keep off his lawn.

But they never thought his passion for landscaping would turn violent.

"I was thinking that was so petty," Kwesi Sallis, a friend of the victim, told WBBM. "You're a grown man. He's a young man, you know what I'm saying? It's just some grass, you know? You can grow the grass back."

Shot from behind. Father of two with one on the way. Walking a terrier named Gucci....yeah he's a real 'dirtbag' and deserved to die.

eta link: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/05/13/man-killed-after-dog-urinates-on-neighbors-lawn/

Edited December 30, 2010 by Lisa C

[^_^ 5,021]

Witnesses say Clements drew a handgun, and Funches told him: "Next time you pull out a pistol, why don't you use it?"

According to WBBM 780, Funches then started to walk back toward his home, but Clements approached him from behind and shot him once in the abdomen.

Sounds like an undiagnosed mental health issue to me. The inability to ignore a challenge is a hallmark of a mentally unsound adult.

[Fandango 1,440]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40843342/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

In May 2009, as Funches passed Clements' home while walking his fox terrier, the dog lifted its leg and relieved itself, witnesses said. The two men got into an argument. After Funches cursed at him, Clements pulled out a .45-caliber handgun, then put it back in his pocket, the Tribune reported. Soon after, Funches punched Clements in the face. Clements said Funches was standing still when he redrew the gun and shot him, the Tribune reported.

So by the old man's own admission, the poor guy was 'standing still' when he was gunned down. Nice.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

+1

-1

[Fandango 1,440]

Sounds like an undiagnosed mental health issue to me. The inability to ignore a challenge is a hallmark of a mentally unsound adult.

It sounds disgusting, is what it sounds like.

And I'm going to go off on a mini-tangent here cos I'm really pissed off at the reactions here. Yes, I'm pro-guns. Yes, I own one myself. And yes, if someone broke into my home and was threatening the life of me, my husband, or our child, I would shoot to kill. There is a reasonable expectation of what may ensue if an armed person breaks into your home.

But just because I am pro gun does NOT mean that I applaud all those who kill when it's a 'grey area'. There's NO NEED to have a dancing smiley over some young 23 year old man losing his life over a fight about a lawn. Some might say I've grown soft since having a child, but I don't see it that way at all, as I think that even though you may believe in your rights to use deadly force, can envision scenarios where it seems justifiable to protect yourself with deadly force...it doesn't mean anyone should be so cold hearted as to not see this whole thing as a senseless tragedy, and that introducing a gun in this situation seems totally over the top. It's like killing a mosquito with a 44.

Old crazy man yells at people over his lawn, then finds himself in a situation where he thought it was acceptable to kill his neighbor. No one should be posting dancing smileys, or assuming the real victim in this case 'had it coming'. Not in the slightest.

Is there no middle ground? You either have to be a 'pansy-azz tree hugger' who doesn't believe in hurting anyone - even if it means dying, or some gun-toting believer of the 2nd amendment who rejoices in the death of people?

There is a middle ground. And I've said it many times here....if you have the right to shoot and kill someone, it doesn't mean you should always exercise it.