This judge need to be removed from the bench!

[Shadow]

And we wonder why our system is so screwed up??

I wonder if he'd been so forgiving if the victim had been a friend or relative of his?

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/29/re...killing-man-w/

[85vette]

It sounds like another defense based on a "no duty to retreat" law. We'll see more of this in the future. All that is needed is for the subject with the gun to claim a fear for their life, whether real or conjured, errr, imagined.

[fletcher4u]

Hay thats Oboma town need I say more!!

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by 85vette

It sounds like another defense based on a "no duty to retreat" law. We'll see more of this in the future. All that is needed is for the subject with the gun to claim a fear for their life, whether real or conjured, errr, imagined.

I have absolutely no problem with the "no duty to retreat" aspect of self defense.

The fear has to be justifiable.

In this case, I don't think that was present, and apparently, neither did the jury.
Yet this bone headed judge decided that this clown had some sort of "right" to use deadly force againt what from the booking photo shown, could best be described as a simple or misdemeanor battery at best.

Again, in this case, this moron (moron #1 = Judge/moron #2 = gunman), moron #2 instigated any ass whipping he might have recieved, by pulling the weapon in the first place

Funches was walking his fox terrier in the Chicago suburb of University Park on May 9 when the dog urinated on Clements' front lawn, Will County prosecutors said. An argument between the two men ensued, during which Clements pulled out a .45-caliber handgun and pointed it at Funches, police say.

.

Just because some idiot (maybe we'll make him moron #3) decides to allow his dog piss in your yard, is no reason to brandish a weapon of any sort.
If I did this to every neighbor that allowed thier dog to relieve themselves in my yard, I'd not have any neighbors


So here's what I don't understand:

Funches became agitated and said, "Next time you pull out a pistol, why don't you use it?"

Nowehere in this statement does it mention the alleged ass whipping.

...Clements responded by firing a single shot that struck Funches in the abdomen, Assistant State's Attorney Sondra Denmark said

Based upon that alone, there's more than sufficient information to alledge manslaughter.
In Florida, that would get you 20-life.

Clements' attorney, Daniel Collins, claimed the shooting was in self-defense and occurred after Funches repeatedly struck Clements in the face.

"He feared for his safety," Collins told the Tribune in June. "He also felt that his life was in danger."

During today's sentencing hearing, Rozak said Clements had no prior run-ins with the law and said the case was not about his lawn, but "about your reaction ... to being yelled at, pushed and punched in the face by a 23-year-old man,"

1st, does the mug shot look to anyone like someone who has been "punched" or "repeatedly struck" in the face?
Bruising, swelling, deformation?
Not to me...
Even if her were "pushed or punched", from the sounds of it, this occurred after he pulled the weapon.

If not, then the pushing and punching would have been the result of a JUSTIFIABLE fear for someones safety on behalf of the deceased, in response to moron #2 pulling a firearm!
IDK? Maybe the judge slept through that part of the trial?

Had he pulled that weapon on the wrong (or right depending on your viewpoint) person, and as in this case, not immediately used it, he may be deceased himself.
Or at least sporting one less finger
It's relatively simple and easy to "deglove" a finger with a trigger guard

I also realizre that 'Bama land" has the "option" for probation; but does anyone other than this moronic judge, really see a justification for it in this case?

Had the guy with the dog, immediately gone off the hook, started beating the old dude and left him no other choice (given the disparity in age), and he caps puppy boy, then fine...go with probation.
But that doesn't sound like the case.
I wonder if the case is open to the public yet?
Sounds like an interesting study.

As for the shooter (moron #2), he sounds to me like some "ex" (I won't insult God Fearing, respectable, "former" Marines by including this idiot in the group) with an attitude.
One who let's his alligator mouth overload his hummingbird ass!
Someone who can't handle confrontation for crap!
Let's his mouth overide his commen sense and ability.

Anyway, back to the judge....how do the rest of you feel about the rulling?
Especially those that are CCWholders on the board.

Sound off!

[Mark Dalton]

I don't get this at all. He kills a guy because his dog pees on his lawn and gets probation?? The mug shot does not look like he sustained any injuries due to being punched, unless they were body blows. And if the shooter really feared for his life, why not pull the weapon and then retreat inside his house to call the police? Instead, he stands his ground and shoots the guy in the stomach.

[Bob K]

Originally Posted by 85vette

It sounds like another defense based on a "no duty to retreat" law. We'll see more of this in the future. All that is needed is for the subject with the gun to claim a fear for their life, whether real or conjured, errr, imagined.

Originally Posted by Shadow

I have absolutely no problem with the "no duty to retreat" aspect of self defense.

The fear has to be justifiable.


Anyway, back to the judge....how do the rest of you feel about the rulling?
Especially those that are CCWholders on the board.

Sound off!

This event happened in Illinois and I don't think the Castle doctrine or anything resembling it has been passed by legislation. I'm surprised the guy could even own a pistol.

If they do have the same rights as defined by the Castle doctrine I think the guy exceeded his right to defend himself at that point in time because of the conversation. You cannot react and shoot simply because someone said something. How can that be construed as a threat? So much for being in fear for his life. Remember, there were witnesses and I did not read that anyone said the guy was advancing toward the 'victim'.

85 may be right about the future but no one should get away with killing someone like this guy did. Shadow, to answer your question, I find this disgusing.

[85vette]

Originally Posted by Bob K

This event happened in Illinois and I don't think the Castle doctrine or anything resembling it has been passed by legislation. I'm surprised the guy could even own a pistol.

If they do have the same rights as defined by the Castle doctrine I think the guy exceeded his right to defend himself at that point in time because of the conversation. You cannot react and shoot simply because someone said something. How can that be construed as a threat? So much for being in fear for his life. Remember, there were witnesses and I did not read that anyone said the guy was advancing toward the 'victim'.

85 may be right about the future but no one should get away with killing someone like this guy did. Shadow, to answer your question, I find this disgusing.

Many states have adopted similar laws. That's where I was going with my earlier comments. I'm sure we are missing a lot of information about this particular case, but I see many Judges buying into some pretty weak "fear for your life" stories. I was concerned about this when I first heard of the "Stand your Ground" law.

Below is the Illinois version:

Illinois(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961

Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry.

Section 7-2(b). Prevents the aggressor from filing any claim against the defender unless the use of force involved "willful or wanton misconduct".

Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953).

[Bob K]

Originally Posted by 85vette

I was concerned about this when I first heard of the "Stand your Ground" law.

Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953).

I was way off in guessing Illinois law. I'm really surprised.

I understand your concerns but I don't think there are other solutions that would protect the law abiding citizen and our right to self defense. IMO, the problem is the judge and not the law.

Personally, if I can retreat safely I'm leaving but I'm not going to turn and run and get shot in the back.

Thanks for the info.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Bob K

...I understand your concerns but I don't think there are other solutions that would protect the law abiding citizen and our right to self defense. IMO, the problem is the judge and not the law.

Personally, if I can retreat safely I'm leaving but I'm not going to turn and run and get shot in the back.

Thanks for the info.

I agree that I'm not going to retreat from a situation when it might cause me injury.
But as you imply, common sense, regardless of the law, should apply where the use of force is concerned.
The problem in this case is primarily the judge, as well as the Illinios law.

Illinois(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961

Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry.

Thanks for the excerpts

As we note, the latter part of the above excerpt appears to apply itself to acts of unlawful entry, aka: burglary/home invasion.

"Reasonableness" is key in this event.
I don't see anything in the photo that remotely implies that this idiot could have been "reasonable" in fearing for his life.
1) The shooter has the weapon.
2) No apparent "great bodily harm."
3) The initial act, even if perpeturated, was a misdemeanor or minor crime (unless they have a statute similar to Florida, that makes battery on an elderly person a felony?).

85 is correct, that we're not getting the full story, which is why I'll check later to see if the case is avaiable to the public yet?

The problem as I see it is two fold:

1) The fact that Illinois even entertains a possibility of probation for a weapons related violation.
2) The JUDGE would ignore any hint of reasonableness, and consider the taking of a life "ok" in a situation like this.

More views?

[Bob K]

Originally Posted by Shadow

More views?

I can add only one more thing. Most of us think about different scenarios and the use of deadly force. I think if I took out someone while defending others, for instance a shooter in a mall I could live with my decision. If the incident occurred while just defending myself I think that is a decision that would haunt me the rest of my life.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't know how that guy can live with himself. It appears all he had to do was back into his house and instead he chose to kill the other guy.