Man defends his family and his home, arrested.

[vjf915]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/07/long-island-man-arrested-for-defending-home-with-ak-47/

UNIONDALE, N.Y. (CBS 2) — He was arrested for protecting his property and family.

But it’s how the Long Island man did it that police say crossed the line.

He got an AK-47 assault rifle, pulled the trigger and he ended up in jail, reports CBS 2’s Pablo Guzman.

George Grier said he had to use his rifle on Sunday night to stop what he thought was going to be an invasion of his Uniondale home by a gang he thought might have been the vicious “MS-13.” He said the whole deal happened as he was about to drive his cousin home.

“I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?’ Grier said.

Grier said the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house.

“He starts threatening my family, my life. ‘Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead.’ So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,” Grier said.

Grier was later arrested. John Lewis is Grier’s attorney.

“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,” Lewis said.

Grier said he knew Nassau County Police employ the hi-tech “ShotSpotter” technology in his area and that the shooting would bring police in minutes. Cops told Guzman he was very cooperative.

Grier also said he was afraid the gang outside his house was the dreaded MS-13. And Nassau County Police Lt. Andrew Mulraine, head of the gang unit, said MS-13 has 2,000 members in the county.

“They’re probably the most organized. They almost have a military hierarchy within the gang, so they are the most organized gang we encounter on a daily basis,” Mulraine said.

You may think a person has the right to defend their home. But the law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force. Grier said he never saw anyone pull out a gun, so a court would have to decide on firing the gun.

Police determined Grier had the gun legally. He has no criminal record. And so he was not charged for the weapon.

That ShotSpotter technology pinpoints where a gun has been fired within 35 feet. Police said it also detected two other shootings in nearby Roosevelt that night.

This is actually 2-3 days old, but it wasnt posted here so I wanted to get the opinion of CC on this matter.

It is also my understanding that the gang was surrounding his cousin who was outside, so if he were to protect his cousin.....he could not just shut the door and wait for the cops. My belief....I dont feel like he did anything wrong. They are charging him with reckless endangerment which is defined, by them, as "a depraved indifference of human life." I believe that not protecting his family would be a depraved indifference towards their lives. I also believe that if he can prove he knows how to control the weapon, and the prosecuting attorney CANNOT prove that he didnt know about the shot spotter, then he could easily testify that the warning shots were controlled and did NOT recklessly put anybodies life at risk.......that he fired the warning shots to ensure the police would arrive quickly, and to try and scare the gang members off.

But I want your opinions. Discuss. And as always, keep it civil

 

[lowlife9]

well shooting into the ground is very dangerous the bullets can easily ricochet.

 

[el_betiyo]

I would've done the same.

I do beleive that AK's are illegal tho, so he might be screwed on that. But for firing warning shots, to get arrested, that's messed up.

 

[oc_civic]

I would've done the same.

I do beleive that AK's are illegal tho, so he might be screwed on that. But for firing warning shots, to get arrested, that's messed up.

the gun fired was likely NOT an AK 47 but instead some legal variant.. in NJ I can not own an AK47 but I can own a legal variant..

in a lot of cases reporters are leftist nuts who want to make every gun seem as evil as humanly possible..

 

[vjf915]

That is not necessarily true. There are MANY factors that need to be taken into account. What he was shooting into....there is a higher chance they could ricochet if he shot at concrete than if he shot at dirt. The article says he shot into the dirt. Also the angle at which he shot at the ground must be taken into account as well. The TYPE of ammo matters as well. Also, even if it DOES ricochet, it may not have enough energy to do damage. I know for a fact that before non-lethal shotgun rounds were used by police, they would take buckshot in the shotguns and ricochet it off the pavement at rioting crowds. This would have a non-lethal effect due to the energy lost when the pellets bounced off the ground. MANY things need to be considered, and I believe that shooting at the ground for warning shots is MUCH safer than shooting in the air.

I would've done the same.

I do beleive that AK's are illegal tho, so he might be screwed on that. But for firing warning shots, to get arrested, that's messed up.

An ACTUAL AK47 would be illegal, but there are MANY AK variants. I have an AK variant, OC has one as well. They are 100% legal. It also states in the article that he legally owns the weapon.

Edit: s**t Ant, your post wasnt there when I hit submit

And thats a pretty funny picture right there.....sad but true.

 

[oc_civic]

That is not necessarily true. There are MANY factors that need to be taken into account. What he was shooting into....there is a higher chance they could ricochet if he shot at concrete than if he shot at dirt. The article says he shot into the dirt. Also the angle at which he shot at the ground must be taken into account as well. The TYPE of ammo matters as well. Also, even if it DOES ricochet, it may not have enough energy to do damage. I know for a fact that before non-lethal shotgun rounds were used by police, they would take buckshot in the shotguns and ricochet it off the pavement at rioting crowds. This would have a non-lethal effect due to the energy lost when the pellets bounced off the ground. MANY things need to be considered, and I believe that shooting at the ground for warning shots is MUCH safer than shooting in the air.

here let me help you....

unfortunately the shooter is DEAD WRONG.. you do NOT EVER fire warning shots... and 7.62x39 at 2000+ fps hitting a stone.. pebble.. small piece of metal.. basically any foreign object other than soft dirt will likely throw that round in any crazy direction.. if you are fearful enough for your life to shoulder a rifle and point it, you should be pointing at the threat.. and only the threat... and ANY shot should be center mass into the threat.. warning shots are a self defense 101 mistake..

 

[vjf915]

Completely understandable. Believe me I know 100% that a weapon should not even be PICKED UP unless you intend to use it, let alone shouldered. I was not disputing that, and I SHOULD have mentioned that in my post. I was just simply stating that JUST firing at the ground does not mean the bullet will ricochet. I know that shooting to wound is a 101 mistake too. Had this discussion COUNTLESS times. Even drawing a weapon is the use of deadly force, and if you are going to use deadly force.....you shoot to kill. Bottom line. People always ask "well why couldnt they just shoot him in the legs?"....doesnt work that way

I dont necessarily think that the warning shots were the best idea, but in a case like this.....its HARD for this guy to win no matter what he does. His cousin is surrounded, there are 25 guys threatening to kill him and his family. If they wanted to, 25 guys could kill his cousin, him, and his wife and kids in a matter of minutes.....even if they didnt have any weapons. To me....legally.....that is deadly force. When you have 25 people who are capable of killing everyone in your household in minutes without weapons, that is deadly force. Im just saying thats how I would rule it if I were the judge.

 

[raz18]

so basically your damned if you do, and damned if you dont.

maybe it wasnt the right thing to do, but if he shot in the air-he's screwed.
shot in ground-possibly screwed
shot at threat-screwed
not shot at all-possibly dead/severly injured.

i'd take my chances in shooting in the ground.

edit: vjf915 basically covered it. good post

 

[vjf915]

Picking up the weapon was the right thing to do, the ONLY thing I see that he really did wrong LEGALLY was fire the warning shots. But its always easy to look at this from an outside point of view and pick at what someone did wrong. His best chance is to plea that he KNEW about the "ShotSpotter" and fired the warning shots in hopes that the police would arrive quicker. I feel for the guy though.

 

[raz18]

Picking up the weapon was the right thing to do, the ONLY thing I see that he really did wrong LEGALLY was fire the warning shots. But its always easy to look at this from an outside point of view and pick at what someone did wrong. His best chance is to plea that he KNEW about the "ShotSpotter" and fired the warning shots in hopes that the police would arrive quicker. I feel for the guy though.

i would have done the same thing.

 

[lowlife9]

not to mention he just technically shot at one of the most dangerous gangs in america you know there going to retaliate.

 

[Robin...]

I would've done the same.

I do beleive that AK's are illegal tho, so he might be screwed on that. But for firing warning shots, to get arrested, that's messed up.

...

 

[oc_civic]

the correct thing to do in a situation like that is take hold on one of the attackers.. loaded ready to fire.. order them to NOT move in a LOUD clear direct voice.. being clear that you WILL shoot them if they do anything.. explain in a loud clear voice that you feel threatened for yourself and your family.. order your cousin to your side.. if they move.. if they react.. if the threat level increases you shoot.. not in the air.. not at the ground.. but instead to kill.. unfortunately this is not Hollywood.. and if it was really a life or death situation then shooting the attacker IS justified.. might want to let them get a couple hits on your cousin first just to validate that it was a threat.. but 7.62x39 at 10ft is going to be really nasty, and my guess is after one of their guts are spilled all over the lawn the rest of the attackers are gonna loose a lot of their fight.. and they will likely take off.. if stay stay secure.. when the police arrive and you are safe put the gun down immediately.. let the cops do their job.. and be prepared to give a clear simple answer, keep it simple..

 

[253eg]

Personally, this guy should have unloaded into their faces. The city make a statue of him, and give him a new house and have him not pay for utilities ever again.

 

[vjf915]

Lol 253 believe me, I TOTALLY AGREE. I think it would be awesome if we could work ourselves into that kind of society.

OC, grabbing one of them and maintaining control of a rifle would not be the easiest thing, but I do agree with you.....when your family is in trouble, and you grab a firearm....be ready to use it.

 

[somejaykid]

wow that is some bullshit right there, the man is just protecting his family i wish to god that all gang bangers should get their hands chop off. wish there was a vote for this cuz i will support this 110%

 

[oc_civic]

OC, grabbing one of them and maintaining control of a rifle would not be the easiest thing, but I do agree with you.....when your family is in trouble, and you grab a firearm....be ready to use it.

I never said to grab anyone..

 

[oc_civic]

Lol 253 believe me, I TOTALLY AGREE. I think it would be awesome if we could work ourselves into that kind of society.

OC, grabbing one of them and maintaining control of a rifle would not be the easiest thing, but I do agree with you.....when your family is in trouble, and you grab a firearm....be ready to use it.

OOOHHH "take hold on one of the attackers.." take hold meaning gun on target.. "6 oclock hold" "center mass hold" and so on..

 

[vjf915]

Right, now that you pointed out you didnt mean that, I realized what you meant. My bad.

 

[Aaron.]

But if he just shot one of them, he'd be in a even worse situation then he is now, not only with the cops but with the gang themselves.