i agree... if he was in prison he would be unarmed

Whatever happened to blades? So much more finesse in a blade, sadly it is all guns today.

Still to this day I do not own a gun, but I own plenty of knives. Not against guns, but as this story points out...some people are just not capable of the responsibility owning a gun comes with.

The one guy was an idiot for waving his gun around.

However, one person's self-defense is different then another persons view. If someone hit me, and I had a gun, I probably would shoot the person dead. Simple. I feared for my life.

As far as the issue with the dog, I can certainly see both sides of it, in general. Most people should not have and aren't particularly responsible for their animals. I've had to shoot dogs running free that come on the property and piss and chit. It's a health hazard if people aren't taking care of their dogs with regular vetting. It also burns the grass. Dogs can be taught to piss on the side of the road, or take the dog farther down to a tree. Basic politeness was ignored.

Fortunately, the dog didn't pay the price, just the idiot man.

It's sad the kids pay for the loss of life, but the father screwed up. He obviously didn't think things through, did he? He could have walked away and still been alive for his kids. His ego got him into a fight.

Shooting a man for punching you is not a proper response.

My opinion in this case would be different had Funches punched the man repeatedly, but he only punched him once, which he probably needed and then just stood there.
If it had been me I would have taken the gun away from the man and then used it to beat him with.

Im curious, what should the old man have expected once the man STOOD there? Should he have gotten back up and HOPED the man didnt get the urge to hit him again? Should he have laid there and hoped the man didnt get the urge to kick him? Once the young man showed a capacity for violence,,how much violence would warrant defense?

Now, I agree, without guns in the equation, it may have ended differently. But if it was legal for the man to have the gun, what circumstance should the law have permitted him to USE it?

I recall many less threatening cases in right to carry states and police shootings where 'threat of harm' was sufficient cause to use the weapon, I guess this was another one of those.


the young man called the old mans bluff and lost,, he should have walked away when he was shown the gun.

We don't call that violence in my neck of the woods.

We call it not getting run over.

The man should have shut his mouth and went back to sit on his porch.

His first mistake was showing the gun. You don't use a gun to threaten someone, which he did.
The only time you pull a gun on someone is to use it.
Not threaten someone.
He finally did use it but the reason was not justified.
Even less so since he first used it to make a threat. That threat was the reason Funches probably punched him.

Funches mistake was that he did stop and stand there. He should have taken the gun from the old man. He already knew where it was.

Seems to me that he did use the gun!!

Come on Divebomber,
read all of my post.

Don't you think showing the gun was a direct threat?

If Funches had been gay it would have been construed as a hate crime and the old guy would have gotten more time.

A split second decision can have extreme consequences. I totally disagree with the courts on this one. In reality, if funches had apologized and gone on (respect for elderly) the situation may have been diffused. If either man had walked away in disgust - diffused. But they resorted to violence on both sides. Both men were wrong. Funches paid an extreme and unreasonable price and Clements should have received much more than a slap on the wrist.

I do think that the neighbors will now steer clear of Clements lawn and Clements. You have to wonder how much joy he'll have conversing with his lawn.

it all depends upon if he was in a right to carry state, doesnt it?

my understanding that revealing a gun was lawful as long as one was not using it,,,,especially if they put it BACK after displaying it(as opposed to holding someone at gun point)

Maybe in your neck of the woods it wouldn't be a proper response. In my neck of the woods, it's considered just fine.

I fully agree with your comment that the old guy should not have pulled his gun out the first time and put it back. Idiotic. He is lucky the other guy didn't go for the gun. I know personally if someone had done that to me I'd have been going for the gun. But that's how I was taught. You don't threaten with a weapon, you just use it. However, the other guy obviously didn't understand and back down from the threat so the old guy used it. He walked his talk. I can't fault him for that. The young guy was aware of his choices and he made the wrong choice by taking a swing at the guy. That's his problem.

Funny enough, we were talking about defending oneself Friday night, about whether violence can only be reciprocated equally. However, I and most folks around here do believe if someone punches you, you have the right to do WHATEVER it takes to defend yourself. They swing first, but you make sure to end the fight. Or else you run the risk of having that person come up from behind or another time and hurt you.

Showing it to another during an argument is using it.
It's using it to make a threat.

Kids playing ball in the back yard – a wayward ball breaks a neighbor’s window.

A tree limb from the big tree next door fall and damages your car.

The kid down the road learning to drive backs into the mail box across the street while pulling out of his drive.

Kids rollerblading on the sidewalk & one hits a rock and tumbles into the flower bed at the edge of the lawn.

A driver skids on ice in the road and side swipes a parked vehicle.

The father of a 16 year old catches a 20 year old pot dealer selling to his son.

A puppy stops to pee on a lawn while walking with his owner.

Two people in a bar have a confrontation, one gets pushed or punched and the offender backs off.


PLEASE, tell me – who should be shot to death in all the cases above?

A broken window, a dented car hood, crooked mail box, crushed flowers in a bed, paint scratch off the side of a car, two kids dealing in pot (which so many adults are advocating should be a legal drug), a puppy doing not only what comes natural, but doing it OUTSIDE where it’s suppose to, cross words and wounded pride.

Even combined – are all those THINGS more valuable than one human life?

If the courts tell us that a lethal weapon is a legitimate form of negotiation, if we are led to believe that respect is achieved only by pointing a gun or using a weapon – what do we expect kids of today to learn?

If we can’t learn to ‘communicate’ with respect, if we can’t learn to think of others as humans who make errors, and have bad days, and if we can’t assure our children that problems CAN be resolved through rational negotiation – then how can we expect them to grow up having faith in or respect for anyone?

If we go through life in constant fear of physical harm by those with whom we do not agree, at what point do we STOP communicating at all?

At what point is one excused for NOT controlling their anger, and what point is ‘anger’ alone a reasonable excuse to kill?

noone should be shot in those situations UNLESS they attack someone physically who doesnt have another means of defense handy

Two people in a bar - both cannot pass a alcohol level test. They have a disagreement, one carries a gun - the other doesn't know it. The person without the gun takes a swing at the other - does he deserve to be shot and killed?

Does it matter that they're drinking - would it matter if it happened on a street between two sober people?

Would it matter if it happened between two 16 year olds?

If you are ARGUING and you KNOW the argument is escalating and you KNOW that you have a gun - do you care if you are making the other person mad?

If you pull out your gun and shoot and kill that person should you expect to be punished?

When YOU have the upper hand - when YOU are in control - when YOU have the concealed weapon, shouldn't you be MORE responsible to make sure an argument does not escalate to violence?

Again I have to ask - At what point is one excused for NOT controlling their anger, and what point is ‘anger’ alone a reasonable excuse to kill?

anger is reason enough to argue and even yell as adults will do, adults cannot LEGALLY use violence and they should not use violence without EXPECTING violence back, thats the risk an ADULT takes for bad choices

Have to agree here. If it escalates, then the person has the right to protect themselves.

The tree limb was a rather pointless example. If a random tree limb fell on your car, you're basically out of luck. If your tree limb fell on your neighbors car, then a lawsuit can be done for negligence. I know personally, I'd be offering to pay for the damage, or would be running over to volunteer my insurance card so it could be dealt with. That's personal responsibility.

Actually, all of these are negligence. A simple apology and not doing it again, or offering to pay for any damages incurred is the proper thing to do. Standing and arguing and getting into a screaming match or a fight over it is stupid. The man who let his dog piss on the neighbors lawn should have apologized, moved on and not let it happen again. He'd still be alive.

As far as the "things" versus human life, I'm really getting tired of that guilt-trip. My things ARE more important then the majority of people. I put my hard-earned money into getting those things whatever they might be, and deserve the basic respect of those objects being left alone, not stolen, not mistreated, etc. If those items were not important to me, then I would not have them, and would not take care of them.

And if all the THINGS that are most important to you are inside your home and the house is on fire; what THINGS would be worth risking your own life for or the life of others?

What if there was company staying in your home at the time, would you worry most about the THINGS or would you make sure the PEOPLE and your loved pets take priority?

If there were homes nearby and the wind seems to carry the flames in their direction - would you first worry about what THINGS you could save from you own home?

The point is, human life IS more important than THINGS. Just because you don't know someone does not make that person's life any less valuable.

We all have bad days, we all cop an attitude for different reasons, and as Msharmony said, we take a risk when we annoy those we don't know. If a person believes they are in a life-threatening situation, then deadly force is a reasonable responce.

In the case being discussed, there are several stories being told besides the one in the OP. There were witnesses who say the man with the dog left after the assulting the lawn man. The lawn man followed him, pulled his gun and shot him in the gut.

That is not reasonable - that is anger whose objective is to get even, but getting even would be a punch - not a bullet.

If the THINGS we own are more important to us than human life, then perhaps we should better safegard them. An open lawn divided by a public sidewalk next to a public street is not well protected.

If the choice is to put up a fense or shoot whoever threatens your lawn, what clear thinking person would consider taking another person's life as a cheaper alternative to putting up a fense?

Of course we don't know the whole story, and I can only hope there is more to it because I just can't believe that any judge would excuse the behavior of the lawn man as outlined by the OP.

if the young man had walked away, than shooting him was not defensible in my opinion


if the young man had punched him and continued to stand or punch him, I think an action of self defense was reasonable(although the mode was extreme, I understand a senior not feeling it was likely to turn out in their best interest go get in a FIST fight with a twenty something year old man)