The whole ordeal has cost us tens of thousands of dollars, and my decision to write about the corrupt handling of the lawsuit in Shelby County Circuit Court almost certainly contributed to the loss of my job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
As you can see, property issues can get complicated, expensive, even dangerous. But here is a key thought to keep in mind: One of the concepts that makes our country America is the notion of private-property rights. Some people are quite relaxed about this right; others are highly sensitive about it. But there is no question that, under the law, any owner has an almost unfettered right to manage what takes place on his property. Renters have similar rights.
So what's our take on the Chicago story? First, I think it's about way more than lawns vs. dogs. According to news reports, several people who lived nearby said Clements was an excellent neighbor, and they appreciated the fact that he took care of his property. They also said his concern usually was about children who came on his yard, not pets.
That's one thing Clements and I have in common. I've never been concerned about animals coming on our property. I regularly scoop up dog poop off our front yard, and we have a terrier that lives behind us who makes regular journeys into our yard to dig holes. I go out after a while and fill them up with dirt, but I've never complained to the owner. The presence of animals on our property just does not bother us--and my wife and I are especially fond of terriers.
After all, we've never had an animal sass us. We've never had an animal lie to us--or about us. We've never had an animal's parent call to threaten us. We've never had an animal sue us.
People are my concern because I've learned that people can lie, cheat, steal, threaten, and vandalize. Well-behaved children, who have parents that I know and trust, used to always be welcome on our yard. Before McGarity moved in, the neighbors on the other side of us asked if their two boys could come on our yard to retrieve balls, etc. We said yes, and that worked fine for awhile. But when it became a problem, and we raised concerns with the parents, they indicated they weren't going to take the matter seriously. So we rescinded the invitation to come on our yard. We have a feeling the mother bad-mouthed us to numerous neighbors, and that made us even more determined that kids no longer were going to romp on our yard. That was our mindset when McGarity moved in.
Charles Clements had every right to be vigilant about what took place on his property. But he and Funches both made mistakes on Sunday evening, mistakes that had fatal consequences.
To many people, a dog peeing on a lawn is a minor thing--and it certainly would be a minor thing to me. But under the law, Clements was within his rights to tell Funches that he would prefer the dog do his business elsewhere.
Allowing a dog to pee on a lawn almost certainly is not a crime, unless it would violate a municipal ordinance in some places. But if Clements had plenty of time and money to waste, he could have filed a lawsuit against Funches for trespass. That probably would have resulted in an injunction, hard feelings, and use of public resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
If Clements simply could not let the issue pass, he took the wiser path by simply telling Funches that he did not want the dog peeing on his yard. We don't know the kind of tone that Clements used to start the conversation. My guess is that he was fairly rough about it.
Funches' big mistake came when he apparently didn't simply say, "Sorry about that," and keep walking. When a property owner makes a lawful request--even if it's in a rough tone of voice--the appropriate response is to acknowledge the mistake, apologize, and say you'll try not to let it happen again. If you don't want to say all of that, just try "Sorry," and it should work. Even if you think the property owner is being a horse's ass, "sorry" is the best response.
Clements' big mistake came when he introduced a gun into the equation. There is no indication that Funches threatened him. So why go get a gun?
All of this reminds us of Edna Jester, the 88-year-old Cincinnati woman who wound up being arrested after she kept footballs that kids kept throwing onto her yard--despite her repeated requests that they quit doing it.
We tend to be sympathetic to the Edna Jesters and Charles Clements of the world. They have every right to be vigilant about what takes place on their property. But Charles Clements clearly went way too far. (I have a feeling Mike McGarity would have been dead a long time ago if he had moved in next door to Charles Clements.)
The Jester case, thankfully, ended in fairly benign fashion after area law enforcement had butchered the situation horribly--actually arresting a senior citizen for picking up objects off her yard.
The Clements case, sadly, ended in death. Joshua Funches should not have sassed a property owner, making a lawful request--no matter how silly it might have seemed. Clements should not have introduced a gun into the equation, no matter how disrespectful he thought Funches was being.
Now, multiple lives are ruined because of those mistakes.
As you can see, property issues can get complicated, expensive, even dangerous. But here is a key thought to keep in mind: One of the concepts that makes our country America is the notion of private-property rights. Some people are quite relaxed about this right; others are highly sensitive about it. But there is no question that, under the law, any owner has an almost unfettered right to manage what takes place on his property. Renters have similar rights.
So what's our take on the Chicago story? First, I think it's about way more than lawns vs. dogs. According to news reports, several people who lived nearby said Clements was an excellent neighbor, and they appreciated the fact that he took care of his property. They also said his concern usually was about children who came on his yard, not pets.
That's one thing Clements and I have in common. I've never been concerned about animals coming on our property. I regularly scoop up dog poop off our front yard, and we have a terrier that lives behind us who makes regular journeys into our yard to dig holes. I go out after a while and fill them up with dirt, but I've never complained to the owner. The presence of animals on our property just does not bother us--and my wife and I are especially fond of terriers.
People are my concern because I've learned that people can lie, cheat, steal, threaten, and vandalize. Well-behaved children, who have parents that I know and trust, used to always be welcome on our yard. Before McGarity moved in, the neighbors on the other side of us asked if their two boys could come on our yard to retrieve balls, etc. We said yes, and that worked fine for awhile. But when it became a problem, and we raised concerns with the parents, they indicated they weren't going to take the matter seriously. So we rescinded the invitation to come on our yard. We have a feeling the mother bad-mouthed us to numerous neighbors, and that made us even more determined that kids no longer were going to romp on our yard. That was our mindset when McGarity moved in.
Charles Clements had every right to be vigilant about what took place on his property. But he and Funches both made mistakes on Sunday evening, mistakes that had fatal consequences.
To many people, a dog peeing on a lawn is a minor thing--and it certainly would be a minor thing to me. But under the law, Clements was within his rights to tell Funches that he would prefer the dog do his business elsewhere.
Allowing a dog to pee on a lawn almost certainly is not a crime, unless it would violate a municipal ordinance in some places. But if Clements had plenty of time and money to waste, he could have filed a lawsuit against Funches for trespass. That probably would have resulted in an injunction, hard feelings, and use of public resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
If Clements simply could not let the issue pass, he took the wiser path by simply telling Funches that he did not want the dog peeing on his yard. We don't know the kind of tone that Clements used to start the conversation. My guess is that he was fairly rough about it.
Funches' big mistake came when he apparently didn't simply say, "Sorry about that," and keep walking. When a property owner makes a lawful request--even if it's in a rough tone of voice--the appropriate response is to acknowledge the mistake, apologize, and say you'll try not to let it happen again. If you don't want to say all of that, just try "Sorry," and it should work. Even if you think the property owner is being a horse's ass, "sorry" is the best response.
Clements' big mistake came when he introduced a gun into the equation. There is no indication that Funches threatened him. So why go get a gun?
All of this reminds us of Edna Jester, the 88-year-old Cincinnati woman who wound up being arrested after she kept footballs that kids kept throwing onto her yard--despite her repeated requests that they quit doing it.
We tend to be sympathetic to the Edna Jesters and Charles Clements of the world. They have every right to be vigilant about what takes place on their property. But Charles Clements clearly went way too far. (I have a feeling Mike McGarity would have been dead a long time ago if he had moved in next door to Charles Clements.)
The Jester case, thankfully, ended in fairly benign fashion after area law enforcement had butchered the situation horribly--actually arresting a senior citizen for picking up objects off her yard.
The Clements case, sadly, ended in death. Joshua Funches should not have sassed a property owner, making a lawful request--no matter how silly it might have seemed. Clements should not have introduced a gun into the equation, no matter how disrespectful he thought Funches was being.
Now, multiple lives are ruined because of those mistakes.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
