Follow up to another story (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13192165).
The shooting was ruled justified.
[During today's sentencing hearing, Judge Rozak said Clements (age 69) 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," the Tribune reported.]
Then why was there ANY sentence, suspended or otherwise? When a 23-y-o man goes to fists against a 69-y-o, there is legitimate cause to fear for one's life.
[Pam Marrs, who manages the Sconecutter restaurant in Kearns where Poulton worked, says he was well-liked. "It's unbelievable to me to even think he would break into a home," she said.]
Teenagers do stupid things. Most of the time it doesn't get them killed, but sometimes it does. I think parents fail to impress upon their kids the importance of looking at a situation from more than one perspective.
Dad: "Okay son, say you're in bed at home with your own wife and you hear someone trying to break in. What would you do?"
Son: "Jeez dad, I'd shoot his ass."
Dad: "Exactly. And that's why YOU don't break into people's homes."
Son: "Huh... I never thought of it like that."
Dad: "That's because you're an idiot, and it's my job to fix that."
Son: "I love you, dad."
Dad: "I love you, too, son."
I was just watching the report on this on Fox News. . . I got so mad after hearing them talk about how 'despicable' it was that he 'killed the young man for nothing more than a punch" that I had to email them. Was I wrong?
Haven't there been legal precedence set for using lethal force in defending against a younger unarmed attacker?
Disregard the dog, and just deal with the claim of self-defense shooting. If an older, weaker, victim is attacked by a younger and stronger assailant, you have the right to defend yourself from being killed or maimed, I believe.
I don't know how the law in Illinois is, I've never been there. But I have heard of other cases where an older, weakened, or handicapped assault victim was ruled to be acting in self defense when using deadly force against a younger unarmed attacker.
I wonder if parts of the movie ‘Gran Torino’ was inspired by this case...
Live wire, I saw the Fox report as well and it made me mad also, but I dont know the whole story and I dont think they did either. I agree with SD, but if he did pull the gun first then got hit in the face, then I think that the shooter got what he deserved at a minimum. He could have walked away and not pulled the gun. Fox also reported that the shooter followed the kid down the street and the incident did not happen on his property. If thats the case, then the shooter escelated the event in my eyes and should have gone to jail.
Coder should have made his own thread.
But also in kind your thread title should have specified this case rather than being huh what who as it is current.
I can well see where Coder is coming from in thinking singularly by the manner that you started this thread.
At least in the OP include some background info on the story prior to the link as by your own hand or a partial (full is now against forum regs) quote of the meat of the story so folk know what this is all about.
To the story itself I distinctly recall this, BUT the detail of Funches being attacked including pushed and punched was not known/reported then.
In this case with this new info he should not have gotten a probation of anything, he should be no billed (!).
Dude was attacked on his own property by a trespasser who elevated the crime from simple trespass (uninvited) to criminal trespass upon coming forth to assault hm.
Clements being shot is Clement's own fault. Stay off peoples grass and don't be pushing, punching and trying to intimidate senior citizens (!)
Funches got robbed here...Even as he might be a person with an otherwise salty personality finicky about his lawn. IF this reporting is accurate
Personality type should have no bearing on ones right to defend ones self in the immediate from an attacker; Who is younger, stronger and thus more able to harm as against a person less able to defend without means of being armed.
None of this story as reported current or past makes much sense.
Toward the item by Coder I recall that story too.
Nothing much seems to have changed there aside from actual arrest of the accomplice, which is a minor update.
This is a god shoot. IMHO.
Although myself personally, I would not have made the choice to take that shot.
Why? Not because he might have looked like a teen/kid rather than say some salty old man.
Rather because no actual intrusion had been made AND because me simply yelling at the intruder to leave, I WILL SHOOT YOU!, and the cops are on the way would very likely have been enough to save me having to replace my door & glass after shooting through it (!) as well as the legal hell associated with shooting never mind killing a human being.
See the Funches case, among many others, for how an idea of how sideways that can go against an otherwise good shoot victim.
I'd have said what I had to say...And then _waited_ for the person to make a choice:
A) Cease & desist...No harm no foul, to maybe be swooped up by on the way responding police and thus live to see another day possibly toward reform;
B) Continue to attempt entry, and fail while being caught in the act by responding police for THEM to shoot him or take him without further property or person damage;
C) Continue to attempt entry, and _succeed_...Only to have him/them enter into my home as opposite my position taken up earlier by way of concealment (there is little to no real cover in a modern home)...And I'd dump on him/them both to stop him/them cold in their tracks at the entry point leaving them no where to hide or go but back out the way they came.
A is best case scenario, B is most probable case scenario, and C being worst case scenario for ll involved victim and victimizer(s).
There seems to be more to this story.