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 ...
No. Read the article. The judge said it was about his reaction to being beaten by the young thug (my word).
IOWs, you can't argue with my facts so you won't bother. If I am wrong, please state where I am wrong. Thank you.
Not the case in FL. In Florida, if the Defense requests a bench trial, the State may request a jury trial, and the rules require that the judge set the case for a jury trial. At the end of the State’s case, the judge does have the option of dismissing the case if the judge believes the State has not met its burden—this rarely happens.
Agreed completely. That is why the law requires us not to use deadly force when it is not reasonable. An altercation in which one person, without a weapon, has disengaged and is standing still is not a reasonable juncture at which to apply deadly force.
Lawful concealed carry is lawful in Chicago. Always has been.
You are the one that is absurd. What fundamental property rights to allow in your world?
/johnny
Here. Cite law that says he could carry, display for non-life threatening words; and where the mere act of putting the gun away (but still standing there arguing)removes the previously issued threat.
The legal issue is whether the use of deadly force was justified.
Having been attacked and unable to defend himself, maybe he felt he was still in danger. What would a reasonable person do? He had every right to use deadly force if he felt he was in danger of great bodily harm or death.
If he reasonably believed that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm, deadly force was justified.
I taught my child not to be punching old people in the face. I also taught him to respect people, particularily people that were older than him and to respect other people’s propeerty. And last but not least to defend himself.
If the “child” as you refer to him hadn’t let his aligator mouth overload his mockingbird ass he would still be alive.
If my daddy was still alive and a 23 year old punched him in the face when he was 70 years old,I would have taken a hand in it.
I stand with the old man on this one.
Is the right to life less fundamental? We start with asking people to leave, putting up signs that ask people to keep their pets off the lawn, putting up fences, etc. We don’t start with taking a loaded concealed weapon out to confront someone whose dog has ‘trespassed.’ Instinctively you know that, or should.
Florida wants to wander off the reservation? I can't do anything about that.
And considering the rates of indictments and guilty verdicts these days, it's a wonder that justice is available at all.
Reference the bad DA in Dallas County, and all the overturned convitctions, and all the overturned convictions because of DNA evidence.
Our justice system is neither.
/johnny
...and the court ruled that he wasn’t justufied; he was convicted of second-degree murder, which is why the sentence is such an outrage.
How clever of you.......
“Sounds like self-defense or very close to self-defense to me.”
It seems murder to me. The old guy escalated the situation by showing his weapon perhaps in a threatening manner. The young guy may have been acting in self defense feeling that the display of the weapon was a threat. Showing a weapon is an offensive action when there is no threat.
And then bow up because the old man tells you he won't put up with that treatment (being cussed and shoved)....
There's your clue. Leave. Don't do that again.
You lose your rights when you strike me with intent to hurt me.
The agressor, in this case, was the person that laid hands on the other first.
/johnny
The news story is extremely skimpy on details. Knowing Chicago, the judge was probably a liberal who agrees with Chicago’s anti-gun laws. And when a liberals judge agrees that the guy deserved to be shot, then he deserved it.
No, you don't. There's almost always a legal requirement to use only that force which is reasonable.
IOW's...no permits are issued.
Noting that Chicago....until June of this year...Chicago wouldn't even allow registration of handguns.
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.