Under this set of circumstances, one can understand why a jury considered this an act of murder. The judge apparently took Clements' age and clean record into consideration when deciding the sentence:
[Clements] could have faced up to 20 years in prison. Instead, Judge Daniel Rozak, who last year sentenced a spectator to three weeks in jail for loudly yawning in his courtroom, ordered Clements to serve 4 years of probation.
"This is not justice," said Gail Williams, one of Joshua's aunts. "It's unbelievable to know that in this day and age, you can follow a person down the street, pull a gun " kill a man, get charged with second-degree murder and walk out of a courtroom (with probation). . . . "
Rozak said the slaying wasn't about a puppy urinating on Clements' manicured lawn but "about (Clements') reaction " to being yelled at, pushed and punched in the face by a 23-year-old man."
Prosecutors called Rozak "an excellent judge"--lawyers always say that about judges when it's for public consumption--and said they will not appeal the sentence. But we think both the judge and the prosecutors are wrong. The sentence should be appealed because the punishment in this case does not fit the crime.
By introducing a gun into the equation and following Funches down the street, Clements committed an offense that deserves quite a bit more than probation.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
