Man Who Killed Dog Walker for Dog on Lawn Talks for the First Time

[RamboLiberal]

-----

On Mother's Day, 23-year-old Joshua Funches walked his dog past Clements' house in University Park. Clements said he suspected Funches' dog had been responsible for some dropping he'd found on his property earlier.

"The regulations state when you walk your animal, you're supposed to clean up behind it," Clements said. "He sees me sitting on the steps and he's got a smug, defiant look on his face, and then he lets his dog wander on the property."

-----

"I said will you please keep your dog on the sidewalk. He started cursing me and threatening me," Clements said.

Clements said that he showed Funches a gun he often takes into the yard -- because there are people "up and down the block who are less than desirable" -- that Funches punched him in the face.

"I was bleeding, I was dazed, I was rattled," Clements said. "I don't know if he was getting ready to throw another punch. All I know is that I reacted instinctively. I pulled the weapon, racked a round and fired it. I was a throw back to my military training , my reasoning that when somebody attacks you, and you have a gun, thinking they can overpower you and take you weapon. It's a do or die situation."

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/special_report/charles-clements-joshua-funches-killed-guy-man-dog-lawn-university-park-20101221

As a University Park man tried to apologize Tuesday to the family of a young man he killed over a dog on his lawn, the victim’s mother struggled for breath and fled the courtroom.

Charles Clements had barely begun his statement at his sentencing hearing when Patricia Funches, the mother of Joshua Funches, rasped: “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe.”

Paramedics arrived minutes later to the Will County Courthouse to attend to a crying Funches, who lamented the loss of her church-going son: “Why did you take him away from me, O God?”

She already had described for the judge her last moments with her son, praying with him in the back of an ambulance.

http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/2974202-418/clements-funches-dog-prison-lawn.html

[SoCalNative]

1. Sounds like he needs to be committed

indefinitely

[hlthe2b]

2. SOB.... Give him the max 40 years, IMO

This is why guns are such a damned problem--those with no impulse control.

[RSillsbee]

23. Sounds more like a people problem

than a tool problem

[SteveM]

55. Do you mean to say that guns have "no impulse control?" Please explain.

[WingDinger]

3. my reasoning that when somebody attacks you, and you have a gun, thinking they can overpower you and

my reasoning that when somebody attacks you, and you have a gun, thinking they can overpower you and take you weapon. It's a do or die situation."


That is why you dont go with weapon everywhere, and you NEVER show it till you need to use it. Good riddance COWARD.

[spin]

7. I agree with never showing the firearm until you need to use it ...

I fail to see why you state, "That is why you dont go with weapon everywhere."

Do you have extrasensory perception or the ability to predict the future? I don't, so I never know when I might "need" my concealed weapon, therefore it travels with me everywhere that it is legal to carry it.

The first rule of gun fighting is to have a gun.

I would rather be considered a coward because I have a concealed weapons permit and carry a firearm than be considered a stupid fool because I had a concealed weapons permit and didn't have the weapon with me when I had a legitimate reason to use it to defend myself or my family.

[WingDinger]

11. Unless you are exceedingly lucky, any gun you see will be premeditated, and deadly, to you.

That is certainly what dogman thought. Gun shown in threatening manor, shot dead while out walking next time. When a man shows his gun to you, lie, cheat, act, ANYTHING, to throw thier guard off. Then strike. You can never allow a gun showing enemy. Call the cops immediately. Even hit him if you must. As was done. Anytime you BRANDISH a weapon in a threatening manor, that is a death threat. And should be charged shy of kidnapping. His escalation of force, started illegitimately, as a brandishing, he should be charged with murder. Second. Like using a gun in the commission of a crime.

This guy is a dangerous citizen. Bad guys show their guns.

[spin]

15. Where did you learn that?

First ... Handguns are often used by criminals for intimidation. The criminal often just wants your money and doesn't want a fight so he obtains a handgun. Often, if you are caught in such a situation, you are wise to merely turn your money over or throw your wallet on the ground and run. Of course, some robbers will shoot you after you turn your money over. If you look into your attackers eyes and believe that this is his intend, it's wise to fight. Having your own concealed handgun makes the fight more equal. If you can draw it quickly you can catch the attacker off guard and shoot him first.

Second ... Criminals are not normally incredibility good shooters. Most don't spend much time practicing on the range. Unlike in the movies, handguns are challenging to shoot. An incident happened outside of the building I was working in years ago. Two drivers became angry with each other and pulled over. Both were armed with revolvers and both emptied their weapons at each other at close range with no hits. They then walked back to their cars and drove off.

Third ... Handguns are not the extremely powerful deadly weapons you see on TV. The reason that many people fall down when shot is that what TV trains us to do. Police reports document many incidents where multiple shots were necessary to stop a criminal high on alcohol or drugs. In one case a man attacked a police officer with an ax and it took 8 rounds of .45 caliber bullets to stop him. A person can still fight for a short period of time if hit in the heart. Shot placement is critical. While it's true that one shot can disrupt the central nervous system and drop a person instantly if it hits the spine or the brain, neither is an easy shot.

[lepus]

18. Hmm.

Aggressive man walking dog. Homeowner tired of dog shit in his yard.

Homeowner shows a weapon to prevent aggressive dog walker from allowing his dog to shit in homeowners yard. Already aggressive dog owner attacks man and gets shot.

So based on your interpretation, the aggressor immediately should initiate violence to protect his right to have his dog take a shit in someone else's yard?

That's fucking insane.

There is a reason why a hand gun is often called an equalizer. It evens the field between a strong person and a weaker person. In this case it sounds like a man who was used to getting his way through physical violence lost out to a man who believed in Sam Colt's philosophy.

BTW, this was a property crime that the dog owner decided to escalate. In many states, property can be defended with force. In most states, life can be defended with lethal force. When the dog owner initiated violence, he created the situation that he could lawfully be shot anywhere but Chicago.

I have stopped property crimes in the past. Usually trespassing/poaching/theft. I did display weapons and read the transgressors the riot act. If any of them had initiated violence against my person as you advocate instead of waiting with me for the sheriff to show up, I would have killed them graveyard dead.

[Euromutt]

24. One correction to your post

Where you wrote:

Homeowner shows a weapon to prevent aggressive dog walker from allowing his dog to shit in homeowners yard.

that should have read:

Homeowner attempts to remonstrate with dog walker; dog walker threatens to beat homeowner up*. Homeowner then shows a weapon to dissuade aggressive dog walker from following through on said threat.

* "Neighbor Wesley Haslett testified he heard Funches yell at Clements and threaten to beat him." http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/10/man-tells-why-he-shot-neighbor-after-dog-urinated-on-his-lawn.html

The media have, not to put too fine a point, repeatedly been lying any and every time they've claimed Clements shot Funches "over a dog on his lawn." Clements showed his 1911 to Funches after Funches threatened him with violence, and then shot Funches after Funches had initiated use of force.

In this case it sounds like a man who was used to getting his way through physical violence lost out to a man who believed in Sam Colt's philosophy.

Pretty much. On a visceral level, I can't help feeling that Funches pretty much had it coming.

[PavePusher]

20. I guess all us open carriers are doing it wrong?

Or are you actually refering to brandishing wich is something different altogether?

[Katya Mullethov]

21. I always had it in my mind , that someone that was toting

Would walk around with their hands on their hips . Did you get that same impression ?

[patrice]

4. Rather a facile, well prepared explanation, don't you think, for being "instinctive"?

[Devil_Fish]

5. Wile I think pulling a gun is extream, I hate people that don't clean up after their dogs.

A simple "Pick that shit up" would have worked in this situation.

[WingDinger]

13. Yesm but he had one of those self satisfied looks on his face, that scertainly counts?

[spin]

6. It's never a good idea to show someone a firearm in the middle of an argument ...

it often escalates the fight.

If you show someone a handgun you better be justified in using it to stop his attack not his words.

Some instructors say that when you show someone your handgun it should be smoking.

[WingDinger]

14. He showed it, asa a prophylactic. BRANDISHING. Dogboy defended himself.

By hitting killer. Killer, makes good on his brandished threat.

And not for personal safety, but to threaten the dogwalker, and likely threaten to kill his dog. With a gun. Then, dogboy attacks, after likely getting him offguard. Murder two.

[Euromutt]

17. Only by a very unusual definition of "self-defense"

We went over this topic two months ago, and from an article I dredged up at the time (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/10/man-tells-why-he-shot-neighbor-after-dog-urinated-on-his-lawn.html):

Neighbor Wesley Haslett testified he heard Funches yell at Clements and threaten to beat him.

Note that this was before Clements drew his handgun. By all accounts, Funches practically dared Clements to shoot him. That doesn't justify Clements actually shooting him, but let's not pretend Funches wasn't being a total asshole.

[SteveM]

56. See #24 above? nt

[valerief]

8. Gun moron. nt

[SteveM]

57. See #24 above. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

9. Does nobody else have a problem with...........

his overreaction? I've trained as a martial artist for 30 years and it's been pounded and pounded into me over and over again about appropriate response. Like you don't break some drunk's neck for calling your girlfriend a whore. And you don't kill somebody over a fistfight. Apparently, the guy punches him and he pulls a gun and SHOOTS him??????? That's overreaction in my book and deserves at LEAST second degree murder, if not first.

[RamboLiberal]

12. I'm not defending Clements but there is a disparity of age

as a factor. A senior citizen, a smaller person, a woman may well be justified in going to a weapon instead of trying to duke it out in a fistfight. People have died in fistfights. Do I think Clements deserves jail time - yes. But first or even second degree murder, maybe not.

[socialist_n_TN]

28. So would the dog walker have been justified...........

in killing the shooter IF he'd been able to do it AFTER the gun was shown?

I mean by my training, if it's an escalating argument and somebody even goes for his pocket, I'm not going to hesitate. I'm using all the force I've got to make sure that hand doesn't come OUT of the pocket. Now I'll do my BEST to not actually kill somebody (too much karma there even if justified by law), but I'm not going to spend a LOT of that split second on niceties. If I've got a shot, I'm going to take it. Am I justified?

[RamboLiberal]

51. Yes once the gun came out or Clements was in process of drawing

Because the gun created a disparity of force against the dog walker at that point.

[spin]

16. I had some martial arts training years ago ...

but age and lifestyle caught up with me. Now I have degenerative disk disease in my back and a hip that needs replaced.

If a much younger person physically attacks me and I shoot him, the law would probably consider my age and physical condition. (That's why you never start a fight with an old man. He'll just kill you.)

I also carry a legal concealed handgun but I don't go around starting arguments and flashing it. I try to avoid fights. perhaps that's the most valuable lesson I learned when I had some training in jujitsu.

Also, dog poop is irritating but hardly worth killing someone over.

[RamboLiberal]

19. I'm kind of like you

I studied martial arts for 20+ years but age has caught up with me. Some herniated discs in back and neck. I'm also female. I have no illusions about going toe to toe with fists & feet.

Agree, don't flash the gun and don't escalate the confrontation if you are carrying. And dog poop and a lawn is not worth killing someone.

[lepus]

25. I'm willing to kill someone to prevent them beating me.

It is called self defense. No one has the right to beat me up.

It is simple enough to avoid getting shot by me. Don't start hitting me.

You might want to look at how many people actually die every year in fights. Fights escalate and can easily result in someone being crippled or killed.

It is the typical self defense argument. How do you know when the guy is going to quit hitting/kicking you? Are you willing to put your safety in an aggressor's hands?

Generally, from my humble experience, the people that cry the most about someone pulling a gun to stop from being beaten, are folks that are either good at fighting or get into a lot of fights. I am neither.

Last year, My live in girlfriend had a daughter whose boyfriend had some known violence issues. I told him to stay away from them and my place after I found out he bounced her off of a few walls at his home. No escalation or insults on my part.

In a fit of pride, he decided to drive 20 miles to beat me up over this perceived slight. I was waiting for him at my door open carrying a .45. He pulled into my yard, got out of his truck with hands balled up into fists while yelling at me,and saw me standing at my door with a weapon. I told him he needed to leave. He got back into his truck while calling me every name in the book, and left.

Fight averted. I did not get my ass beat. The kid did not get a bad case of dead. All through the defensive display of a weapon and a willingness to use it if necessary.

Reportedly I was called a coward by this kid repeatedly for the next few days because I was not willing to throw down, and instead brought a gun to a fist fight.

The last thing I want in this world is to have someone talking about how brave I was when I got killed or crippled fighting a younger, bigger man. I can live with people calling me a coward that shot a man dead that was only going to beat him up with fists a little.

[Euromutt]

26. It is remarkable how the term "coward" gets applied sometimes

I've quite frequently encountered the term being used, generally by persons with an aversion to firearms, to describe a person who wasn't willing to engage in a fight on the aggressor's terms. And curiously, the fact that the terms on which the aggressor sought the fight in the first place were ones advantageous to him doesn't earn him that predicate. As in this case, where Funches, age 23, threatened and then inflicted physical violence on Clements, age 69. Reportedly, Funches threw the punch while Clements was leaning in an attempt to better hear what Funches was saying, since Clements was hard of hearing. I mean, yeah, hitting a guy 46 years older than you while he's off guard; that's really fucking courageous(!)

One minor quibble, though:

Generally, from my humble experience, the people that cry the most about someone pulling a gun to stop from being beaten, are folks that are either good at fighting or get into a lot of fights.

In my experience, you can add to that people who have a psychological or cultural aversion to firearms, and would prefer just about any outcome--including the victim being forced to fight on the aggressor's (almost invariably unequal) terms, or submitting to the aggressor outright--to use of firearms to threaten or incapacitate.

It is a tacit acknowledgment on the part of such people that their view is morally insupportable that they insist such matters can and should be left to local law enforcement. They thus acknowledge that nobody can reasonably expected to submit to the threatened or actual use of unlawful violence, but just can't bring themselves to acknowledge that the threatened or actual use of firearm to forestall the need for such submission might actually be justifiable. Pulling a gun on someone who is threatening to harm you is cowardice; calling several burly agents of the state, armed with a variety of weapons including guns, to deal with that individual is not cowardice.

If that seems incoherent, that's because it is.

[Euromutt]

10. Those articles are severely misleading

From the Fox piece:

It's a story that had plenty of people talking this year: Charles Clements, an elderly South Suburban man, shot his neighbor. He was supposedly upset that his neighbor's dog relieved himself on his lawn.

The placement of the two sentences "merely" suggests that Clements shot Funches because he was upset about Funches' dog pissing on his lawn.

The Herald-News piece goes a bit further:

As a University Park man tried to apologize Tuesday to the family of a young man he killed over a dog on his lawn <...>

That doesn't merely suggest it, it asserts it outright.

The fact is that Clements did not shoot Funches because Funches' dog pissed on his lawn; Clements shot Funches because Funches first threatened him, and then punched him (thereby seemingly starting to carry out his earlier threats).

And while I take issue with Clements' reasoning that he was at risk because Funches might try to take his gun--the gun that he, Clements, had himself introduced into the situation--it's hard to escape the feeling that Funches was a prick with a serious attitude problem, and was practically asking to get himself severely hurt sooner or later. Note that I don't think "asking for it" constitutes legal or moral justification for shooting somebody, but Funches' behavior towards Clements should certainly constitute a mitigating factor.

[SteveM]

58. Sounds like MSM's "Intruder killed over an old T.V. set."

[Hoyt]

22. Yep, another lawful gun owner protecting his "civil rights." Probably packed at public parks too.

[DonP]

32. Yeah, except nobody "packs" in Illinois

You are allowed to carry on your own property (home or business) but nowhere else.

You should move here and feel terribly safe because those crazies in Wisconsin are about to join the other 48 states and allow the law abiding to carry. Pretty soon the only place people with your peculiar view of life will feel safe is Englewood and such.

But another pointless and poorly thought out nice try to smear anyone that owns a gun lawfully.

[mistertrickster]

27. Okay, the dog walker was an ass BUT

did the homeowner ever think about just installing a fence?

Long story short, problem solved.

I have no problem with guns, but in this case, showing a weapon escalated the situation needlessly.

I don't blame the gun. I blame the people involved and the media which glamorizes guns and suggests that the solution to every problem is "redemptive violence."

On edit--both people were wrong. But the shooter was more wrong. I don't buy the "defense of property" BS. Defending your lawn against dog shit is not the same as defending your house against armed intruders, say.

I have a big lawn and a lot of neighborhood dogs use it as their toilet. So what? Two rains and it's fertilizer.

This was totally uncalled for. Both men were just too macho for their own good.

[lepus]

29. The shooter was not defending his lawn when he shot the guy

He was defending himself from a guy hitting him.

Big difference.

The shooter was almost 70. The shootee was 23.

A man in his senior years has no obligation to mix it up with a violent kid.

I would put the blame solely on the aggressor in this case which would be the person who threw down first.

Whatever happened to civilization? The real issue is not that the kid got shot over his 'right' to let his dog go bathroom in some guy's yard. The issue is that he felt free to beat up on an old man.

I am not a philosopher, nor a poli sci grad. But for some reason, I feel that civilization means a rule of law and protection for those that cannot protect themselves. In this case, a man who decided to beat down another, who because of age was incapable of matching physical force with force, was killed because he decided to initiate unlawful violence against someone whose only recourse was lethal force.

In a very weird sense, the kid getting shot was a civilized act.

[dmallind]

63. nope - the shooter THOUGHT the dog had previously crapped in his yard

There is absolutely no proof that it did so, and no claim whatsoever it did so in this instance. I am fine with people having guns, but there was no reason or need to even start this confrontation on ther shooter's part, (which he did so by launching an unwarranted accusation and demand - completely against any and all gun training for civilians which universally caution against initiating confrontation) let alone make it an armed one.

[Euromutt]

31. "The media which glamorizes guns"? Say what now?

If there's one identifiable trend on the part of the news media in reporting this story, it's to claim that in so many words that Mr. Clements shot Mr. Funches merely because Mr. Funches allowed his dog to piss on Mr. Clements' lawn. Even the local Fox affiliate peddles that version, thereby demonstrating that Fox is so stinking sensationalist/populist that it'll report events incorrectly even when doing so runs counter to the Mother Ship's supposed agenda.

"The dog walker was an ass BUT"? But nothing. It is not incumbent upon the decent members of society to accommodate the anti-social ones, such as the late, not particularly lamented Mr. Funches. Funches could have not let his dog excrete on Clements' lawn; he could have, when Clements tried to remonstrate with him, not threatened Clements with violence; he could have, when Clements displayed his 1911, not initiated physical violence against Clements. Fucnhes had plenty of chances to avoid winding up dead if only he hadn't behaved like an utter prick at every step.

How far does society in general have to bend over backwards to accommodate assholes like Funches in order to not have them end up in a body bag? More to the point, why should we?

[mistertrickster]

34. Media glamorizes guns . . . as in cop shows, where the good guys can't

go anywhere without fondling their Wonder 9's. Then there's Clint Eastwood "do you feel lucky, punk? then and now with "Grand Torino."

I'm no gun-grabber. I collect historical military weapons.

But you gotta know when to show them and when to fold them. This entire situation was very unnecessary. The old man wanted trouble, and he got it.

Good luck with the jury, pal.

[Euromutt]

38. "This entire situation was very unnecessary."

That comment there, I can heartily agree with, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree over who was responsible for creating that unnecessary situation in the first place. If Funches had been a responsible dog owner, and if he hadn't responded to an attempt to remonstrate with him about his behavior by almost immediately threatening violence, and basically had done anything other than acting like a self-entitled anti-social prick, this situation wouldn't have escalated to where it did.

It might be realistic to point out that there are other methods of recourse if you could expect the police to respond to a 911 call that some guy's letting his dog excrete on your lawn (ha!) or has threatened you with violence when you tried to remonstrate with him (assuming you could identify him to the police in a matter that would let them find the guy). But realistically, "folding them" implies letting assholes like Funches do whatever they like, until the situation escalates to the point that somebody gets hurt.

The main thing I'd fault Clements with is not carrying pepper spray or some similar item not in the lethal range of the spectrum of force.

[dmallind]

64. Where does the shooter even claim the dog crapped on his yard in this instance?

Do "responsible" dog owners now have to pick up urine somehow?

[oneshooter]

33. Many Homeowners Associations will not allow fences in the front of the house. n/t

[Ready4Change]

37. Howabout brick walls? Solid steel? Electrified moat?

How much of a fortress should he be required to build, before it becomes reasonable to expect someone else to not violate property? He should NOT be required to install a fence because of some OTHER person dog. However, dog poop, by itself, is not justification for a shooting.

From the outside, looking in just through the mirror of this one article, it does sound to me as if the property owner took inappropriate action. However, there is a LOT of vagueness in the article.

How long and loud was the verbal argument before the violence? How large was the yard, and who closed the distance between the two persons such that one could strike the other in the face? Had there ever been 'words' between these two before? Had the homeowner ever before requested that this individual clean up after his dog, or keep his dog off his property in the first place? Had this homeowner had altercations with others in this neighborhood for other reasons? Noise, littering, loitering? Has there been violence directed towards other homeowners in the area?

I live in a quiet neighborhood. I can't see a shooting over something like this being reasonable.

But that's MY neighborhood. I've driven around Chicago suburbs. Some are like war zones. I can see someone, particularly an elderly person, fearing for their life just stepping out their front door. In a gang/drug infused neighborhood, using your dogs poop could just be an excuse to intimidate the home owner. Start an argument, escalate it into a fist fight, all while claiming 'the old man went nuts over my dog!' I've encountered bullies who work in that exact manner.

So I don't have enough info. Could be the homeowner is a nut job. Could be the dog walker was a gangster. Could be both. The report doesn't deliver enough info to make my mind up.

[Euromutt]

60. I can't answer all your questions, but I can answer a few

How long and loud was the verbal argument before the violence?

From an article from October (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/10/man-tells-why-he-shot-neighbor-after-dog-urinated-on-his-lawn.html):

Neighbor Wesley Haslett testified he heard Funches yell at Clements and threaten to beat him.

As Funches walked away, Clements testified, "I said, 'Stop, wait a minute, talk to me.'"

Funches apparently continued to verbally threaten Clements with violence.

Next question:

<W>ho closed the distance between the two persons such that one could strike the other in the face?

Clements did, primarily because he's hard of hearing and couldn't make out everything Funches was saying (though he described Funches' tone as "adversarial" according to the article).

I can't find any indication in the coverage that Clements and Funches had had words (or "words") before, but Clements had found dog shit on his lawn, and was worried that if one dog started making a habit of excreting on his lawn, every other dog in the neighborhood would soon follow suit. Dog urine, due to its high nitrogen content, can seriously mess up grass.

By all accounts, Clements was pretty obsessive about his lawn, but only to an extent of verbally badgering people about it. I suspect that if he'd ever threatened someone with more than a complaint to the police or city council, that would have come out in the coverage (which has been consistent--even the local Fox affiliate--in presenting the incident as if Clements shot Funches over the dog piss, rather than over the fact that Funches verbally threatened and physically assaulted him).

Clements' neighborhood reportedly does suffer a comparatively high level of violent crime. He had the 1911 in his pocket because he'd just escorted his wife to the car so she could go to the post office, and he was waiting for her to get back. There's no indication, however, that Funches' motive in letting "Gucci" (that's the dog's name; seriously) excrete on Clements' lawn was anything more than plain self-entitled egocentrism.

[lawodevolution]

30. Sounds like a home owner was attacked by an idiot with a dog and shot the idiot

[Kennah]

35. You are correct ...

... however, deadly force is legal in the face of immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

I've trained with Mas Ayoob, Marty Hayes, and the late Jim Cirillo. That is the standard I learned under which deadly force is legal, and it is the standard vigorously preached in most gun owners circles. I don't see an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm after getting punched.

Flashing a gun is almost always stupid. It almost always says, "Shit or get off the pot."

Funches' dog took a dump in Clements' yard.
Clements used words.
Funches used words.
Clements flashed a gun.
Funches punched Clements.
Clements shot and killed Funches.

I think second degree murder is the appropriate charge.

Finally, if we could shoot people for being idiots, there would only be about 25 Republicans left in the country.

[Glassunion]

36. That many? Really?

"Finally, if we could shoot people for being idiots, there would only be about 25 Republicans left in the country."

[Kennah]

42. In all honesty, I don't know.

I was just shooting from the hip.

[dmallind]

65. no - the man THOUGHT the dog had taken a dump earlier

Everyone is missing this - he doesn't even claim that he started the confrontation over an actual witnessed canine defecation.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. Irrelevant- Funches didn't get shot because his dog shat in the wrong yard

Or because someone thought his dog shat in the wrong yard.


Funches chose to punch an older man because he didn't like being confronted- after he knew the guy had a gun.

Criminal behavior on the part of the shooter? The jury thought so.

Lethally stupid behavior on the part of Funches? Definitely.

[safeinOhio]

39. If a dog shits in my yard

I have 2 choices. 1. leave it there until nature takes care of it. 2. go out and pick it up, just like leafs that fall on it.

Dog crap goes with owning a yard. Confrontation is a choice and always a bad one. Right or wrong on shooting, the cost are way too high for both parties. Another case of dumb and dumber. I guess lawyers have to make a living too.

[lepus]

40. What caused the shooting was not the dog shitting in the yard

but a young guy who decided to defend the right of his dog shitting in a yard with violence.

I avoid confrontation when I can. Many times you cannot or you will be ran over.

This old man made a choice. He confronted the young man. The young man initiated violence and received lethal force in turn.

If this had happened in many, if not most locals, the old man would not have even received probation much less jail time.

My family is currently having some problems with cattle being disappeared. I am intending to spend some time standing watch on the cattle. I also intend to carrying a rifle for self defense while I do this.

If I catch someone stealing cattle and they are shot during the confrontation because they escalated it to violence, is it my fault for causing the confrontation? Should I go to jail? After all, I did not have to initiate the confrontation. I could have, as you suggest, just lived with the problem.

[safeinOhio]

41. I'd say stealing a thousand lbs of

beef on the hoof is a little different than a dog craping on your yard. I use to have problems with some locals trespassing during hunting season. I've got this little tool that you can use to take the air valve out of a tire. Found where the guy was parked on the back side and, let the air out of 4 tires and called the sheriff. Took the deputy 2 hrs to get there, but the car didn't move in that time. I guess I could have confronted him and found an excuse for a gun fight.

[Katya Mullethov]

43. Trespasser shot by automobile vandal

So if they were to catch you jacking with their car , and then proceed to kick your ass . What a delima .

[safeinOhio]

45. Not for me.

Use to be a boxer and have taken many ass kickings. Even as old as I am, I could surprise a few kids.

[lepus]

44. Not really. Both are nonviolent crimes until someone confronts the perpetrators.

Does someone have the right to confront someone committing a property crime against them? I say yes.
Does a person have the right to defense against violence against there person? Again I say yes.

The only difference between these two incidents is a matter of scale.

Where I live, once the lawbreaker initiated violence, the property owner was free to protect himself. Because of the disparity of age, the property owner would have been under no obligation to fight a person forty years younger than him using force against force.

This is the root of this story. A person breaking the law initiated violence and was subsequently killed. Not because the dog took a shit where it should not have, but because the dog's owner attacked a man willing to defend himself.

Is there a right to initiate violence against someone who cannot respond in kind?
Are there protections in place for those who initiate violence in the commission of a crime?
Just because you are physically weaker than an aggressor, you should let them do as they wish?

These are the questions that should be the root of this thread.

[safeinOhio]

46. You don't live there

"The 69-year-old has now been convicted of second degree murder and could be sentenced to anywhere between probation and 40 years in prison."

I'm over 60 myself and would prefer an ass kicking and even death over 40 years in the joint. What, you want to live for ever? I'm not even sure a dog craping in a yard is a crime. It is rude, but I'm not going to draw a gun on every rude person I meet or bad driver. Those that would need anger management, not a gun. Me, I have both.

[lepus]

47. Glad I don't. That place is going to hell in a handbasket quick.

Basic fact. The old man did not draw his weapon until after he had been attacked. He did not draw against the guy because he was being rude, nor because of the dog shitting in his yard. He drew and shot because the man attacked him.

If you are far more scared of the laws judgment of you than you are of being assaulted by someone 40 years younger than you just for standing up for your rights, I am quite obviously not the one with the problem.

This comes down to a basic self defense question. How do you know that once that guy starts beating on you that he is going to quit before you end up dead or permanently in a wheelchair?

Simple answer. You don't.

[safeinOhio]

48. Some thing I'd not have been involved in

to begin with. I'd never have yelled at someone for letting a dog doing what a dog does. Too much like John McCain for me.

[lepus]

49. Good to know if I have a dog and no place handy for it to go bathroom.

Lousy for you if you ever decide to stand up for yourself.

Gee, me stopping this man from letting this dog go bathroom in my yard may lead to a shooting. I have a door mat to clean my shoes.
Gee, me calling the cops on this guy parked in the driveway may lead to a shooting. He'll leave in the morning.
Gee, me stopping this guy loading my lawnmower in the back of his truck may lead to a shooting. It was old anyways.
Gee, me stopping this guy from copping a feel from my wife may lead to a shooting. I better let him finish.

Face it. You do have the right to stand up for yourself within the limits of the law. Just because you stand up for yourself does not mean it will end in a shooting. Standing up to an aggressor who is reacting violently is not illegal. You are not responsible for the aggressor's illegal actions.

Basic tenets of civilization: Rule of law and the strong do not get to take advantage of the weak. In this case, the aggressor felt no fear of the law when he caused the confrontation, he also felt no fear of the law when he started beating a man in his senior years.

As much as you want to cling to it, this shooting was not about the dog going bathroom.

You can tell yourself that it was, and that it was not worth some idiot getting shot over.

As soon as the kid broke out the fists, this was purely a self defense issue.

[safeinOhio]

50. You are 100% right

"As much as you want to cling to it, this shooting was not about the dog going bathroom."

It's all about anger. Those that let it eat at them with no peace. Those like the dog owner that doesn't want anyone telling what to do and like the guy that comes out of his with a gun to yell at his neighbor. I think either one of them could have just as easily been in the others shoes. Either way you look at it, they were both ass clowns and the results sucked for both. Rather than make this a case about the law, I see it a case about mental illness.

[lepus]

52. you are correct about it being about anger.

But it was anger on the part of the man that got shot.

The homeowner was already carrying a weapon before the dog owner came around.

The gun was only exposed in response to the dog owner screaming. Try yelling at a cop and get into his face sometime and see if he does not at a minimum touch his weapon. If I was on my own property and in the same situation, I would have been getting my carry weapon ready for use also. I'm not an angry person either, just an asshole with a firm belief in right and wrong.

The weapon only came out after the dog owner initiated violence.

Face it. In order to blame the homeowner, you have so far:

Blamed the homeowner because he dared stand up to someone.
Blamed the homeowner because it was only a bit of dog shit that would wash away in the rain.
Blamed the homeowner because of where he lived.
Blamed the homeowner for defending himself once the younger man started beating him.
Blamed the homeowner for being angry when he was not the one who started yelling or initiated the violence that led to the shooting.

Yet you go to great lengths to ignore the fact that a man in his twenties initiated violence against the homeowner who was in his sixties.

Denial, not just a river in Egypt.

[safeinOhio]

53. After reading the 2nd link

Seems the dog didn't shit in his yard, only walked on it. Also the dog walker didn't hit the old guy UNTIL he brandished the gun, making it self defense on his part.

We certainly don't have all of the facts from the media report. The judge and jury heard both sides. I could "dared stand up to someone" that cuts me off on the road. I don't. If someone yells at me, I don't draw my weapon either. In fact, if I am threatened with any weapon less than my weapon I will only state that I am legally carrying a weapon and will defend myself if needed. Also if some nut case starts yelling at me, I'm inclined to turn around and walk away. Not yell back or pull my gun.

[lepus]

54. Again with the denial.

Who has the greater claim to self defense?
A man who is attacked by a man 40 years his junior?
A man who is harassing a homeowner in his mid sixties and sees that the man is armed while having every chance to back down and leave?

You are almost doing backward somersaults trying to fix the blame on this shooting on the old man. The younger man has no claim to self defense.

Other than a quick obit for the dog owner and a short article over justifiable homicide, this would not have even made the front page here. Concealed carry is common and easy enough that one should think twice about hitting a senior citizen out here. But then again, it looks pretty obvious that seniors carry a lot more respect here also.

I am sorry if you are a bit dense, but I tend to think your intentionally trying to obfuscate the point.

Standing up to someone does not mean drawing a weapon. Self defense on the other hand,,,

The old man did not draw the weapon until after he was hit.

As far as a display goes, I have done something close to what happened. The only difference is the other person backed down and left. Had he attacked me, I would have ended him.

[PavePusher]

62. Were Florida an Open Carry state...

the homeowner would have been completely in the clear, methinks.

Unfortunately, in places where concealed-only is the rule, merely exposing the weapon, even if on your own property, is often seen as brandishing or escalation by the courts.

Sadly.

[Ter]

59. He's right if what he says is true

Free him, it seems like he did society a favor.

[NaturalHigh]

61. As I posted in the GD version of this thread...

Never pick a fight with an old man. If he's too old to fight, he'll probably just kill you.

A better headline for this story would have read "Man assaults senior citizen, gets himself shot."