Skip to comments.Man gets probation in dog-lawn murder
Posted on 12/29/2010 12:55:58 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
A University Park man who killed a neighbor whose dog urinated on his lawn was sentenced today to four years probation.
"This is not justice," said Gail Williams, the slain man's aunt.
Charles Clements, 69, a great-grandfather, former Marine and retired truck driver who took great pride in his lawn's appearance, could have been sentenced to as much as 20 years.
In declining to send Clements to jail, Will County Judge Daniel Rozak noted the episode was Clements' first contact with the legal system in his 69 years.
He also said the slaying wasn't about a dog urinating on a lawn, but "about your reaction ... to being yelled at, pushed and punched in the face by a 23-year-old man" The Will County state's attorney's office, which had asked for jail time, indicated it would not appeal the sentence. "He (Rozak) is an excellent judge and we respect his decision," prosecutors said in a statement.
Clements had apologized for his actions at a sentencing hearing that was interrupted last week when the slain man's mother began to hyperventilate in court.
A Will County jury convicted Clements of second-degree murder in October.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagobreakingnews.com ...
4 years probation for murder??
Whats wrong with life or even a death penalty?
By Clements’ own account, it doesn’t seem that he was in any danger.
Shoulda got some time.
Chicago doesn't allow self defense?
Probation for shooting for murdering someone?! The mother is right; this isn’t justice.
I disagree,, the punk should have been shot for that. All I need is for me to be in fear of my life,, bang, your dead!
After Funches cursed at him, Clements pulled out a .45-caliber handgun and put it back in his pocket. Soon after, Funches punched Clements once in the face. Clements said Funches was standing still when he pulled out his gun and fatally shot him.
Simple request, is met with curses. Bad move by the dead guy.
Curses are met with a quiet display of defensive capability. Maybe not smart, but perhaps a sensible precaution by the live guy.
Quiet display of defensive capability met by unprovoked violence by the dead guy.
Unprovoked violence met with defensive action by the live guy.
I dunno for sure, but this might be the fault of the dead guy.
when you are 23 years old and you punch a 69 year old in the face, you take whatever comes next. He should have just moved along with his mutt and called the police if he felt threatened by an old man
Did you even read the post??? It was self defense!!!!!!! Punk got what he asked for!!
Today, I'm missing a spleen and kidney that I used to have.
Fall 5 feet and die? Har! Except that it happens and it's a really ugly way to go.
If someone is trying to blunt me to death, I'm going to poke high-speed holes in them to make them stop.
A quick Google search for the deceased’s photos may give more insight into the situation.
Should be interesting to read background information on the upstanding young victim who is such a loss to society.
Did Funches, the dog-walker, have a criminal history known to Clements?
>>If I’m 70 (hell, later next year, well before I’m 70) and some 23 year old is shoving and punching on me. I may die. People die from being punched.
Chicago doesn’t allow self defense?<<
That’s my take as well. When I read the headline, I was appalled. Then I read the story. It sounds a bit like the movie “The Burning Bed”, or the “whole town” that kills the local bully.
Their may have been the necessity to take out a continually harassing bully. I would have a stronger opinion if I had actually seen the whole trial, though.
"activist Will County Judge Daniel Rozak sentenced a spectator to 6 months in jail for yawning. what a great use of taxpayer $$$ considering it'll cost the taxpayer oh about $15,000 if he serves the full six months."
>>I dunno for sure, but this might be the fault of the dead guy. <<
i.e. An armed society is a polite society.
Who asked for the jury trial — the prosecution, or the defendant? Perhaps the defendant would have been cleared in a bench trial.
Yes, I read the post, and at no time was the man in mortal danger. He was the initial aggressor, he escalated it by carring and pulling a concealed handgun, and he used deadly force when not required. By his own admission he was never in mortal danger. By every definition this man overreacted; he shot and killed someone without legal justification, and at very least it’s manslaughter. I think it’s clearly murder. They should throw is crazy old lawn-obsessed ass in jail.
It’s what I’m thinking.
If you mess with a young man, he may hurt you.
If you mess with a middle age man, he may really f*** you up.
If you mess with an old man, he may kill you.
One wonders why you would punch a guy that you know has a gun in his pocket?
The old guy was yelled at, then showed that he had a gun. The youngster, rather than being calmed down on the grounds that it isn’t a good idea to show up to a gunfight without a gun became more agressive and punched and pushed the old guy. He had the option of behaving, but chose to initiate a fight which he ought to have known would be a gun fight.
The punk was standing still, which is better than still hitting him, but as he was not going away, the fight was not necessarily over—should the old guy have waited to let the punk get in a few more licks or try to take his gun before using the equalizer?
Sounds like self-defense or very close to self-defense to me.
It was not murder.........
Corollary to the famous Texas courtroom defense “He needed killin.’”
It’s quite possible he’ll do something else whacked out during the probation then he will go to jail.
If it was self-defense, the defendant would have been acquitted. He wasn’t. He was CONVICTED of second degree murder.Since the judge didn’t set aside the jury’s verdict, he agreed there was legally sufficient evidence to sustain the murder conviction. That being the case, four years’ robation is a joke.
And deadly physical force is only justified when deadly physical force is being used against the actor. A punch to the face does not constitute deadly physical force in most, if not all, states.
“He also said the slaying wasn’t about a dog urinating on a lawn, but “about your reaction ... to being yelled at, pushed and punched in the face by a 23-year-old man” “
This is the first time I heard of this, the whole episode comes into focus much clearer now.
If I were this guy the 23 year old would never have gotten close enough to punch me in the face before he had a hole in him
He was warned, at least twice, and shown the defensive capability that would be used.
Stupid dead 23 year old is all I see here.
Could you point to the source for that?
>>If you mess with a young man, he may hurt you.
If you mess with a middle age man, he may really f*** you up.
If you mess with an old man, he may kill you.<<
As a 57 year old man, I strongly concur. As we get older, we see life differently. And Jesus did tell them to buy a sword.
You call confronting someone breaking the law on your property an 'initial aggressor'?
What color is the sky in your universe?
In some (wise) jurisdictions, mayhem can be defended against with lethal force.
One thing that keeps some people from trying to run all over others- you never know who you are messing with. When the 23 year old made the decision to physically assault a 69 year old man, he had to be prepared for the consequences of that man defending himself.
If the old Guy had smacked the punk upside the head with a cane, and the jerk had died as a result would there be all of this “outrage”?
Did the old man kill the dog too?
Public service. Time served. Well done, sir.
a 69 year old being punched in the face by a 23 year old punk is in mortal danger. Carrying a fire arm is escalation? shows me where you are coming from. the judge got it right
The older guy showed the kid he had two weapons: His own strength and a GUN. He made it pretty clear that he would probably fall back on the latter if the kid chose to escalate. He did, and he did.
Never bring a fist to a gunfight.
From what little the article gave, it seems like the dog owner verbally abused and then physically attacked him. Looks like self defense to me.
Agrred. No loss to society there.
The jury got this one right. The judge got it wrong.
I have heard that he had just turned his life around and skipped college and medical school and was accepted into the Harvard Medical School Neurosurgery program. He turned down a research grant in orbital mechanics saying “by practicing neurosurgery I can make a difference.”
You do know, don't you, that people die every year from blunt trauma to the head?
You've watch too much TV and spent too little time in emergency wards.
If someone is standing still when you shoot them, you are not in mortal danger.
He was the initial aggressor, he escalated it by carring and pulling a concealed handgun, and he used deadly force when not required.
I confess I come off a long season of reading Louis L’amour western novels and short stories. I like the “old west” mantra. You tend to be careful about what you say and do when around armed people. They WILL shoot you.
Louis is an amazing authority on the “real” world of 1800’s western culture, in every region and time fo that particular century. One of the most fascinating things I learned was that women were almost 100% safe to travel alone in areas where indians were not a real threat. The most hardened of male criminals considered them off limits. And if you did cross the line, you were everyone’s enemy.
But I ramble...
Wrong. At least in FL:
However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself
“The older guy showed the kid he had two weapons” not to mention that he served our country.
Do you even need a spleen?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.