NY Man Arrested After Firing AK47

[S Carver Orne]

Man arrested after firing AK47 rifle to defend home from notorious New York gang

A father-of-two was arrested by police for firing an AK47 rifle into the ground outside his New York house in a bid to scare off gang members.

George Grier was held after 20 men believed to belong to the vicious MS-13 gang threatened him and his family on the lawn of their home in Uniondale, New York.

The weapon, more commonly seen on the battlefields of Afghanistan, was legally held by Grier, a later investigation showed.

Speaking to a television reporter, he said: '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?"

The 30-year-old, who has no criminal record, claimed he was forced into the action when he saw five men arguing outside who were then joined by many more.

He told CBS New York: 'He starts threatening my family, my life. (He said) "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.'

Police were at the scene within minutes and arrested Grier who was later released on a $10,000 bond.

John Lewis, his attorney, said: '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.'

Grier said he knew Nassau County Police employ the hi-tech 'ShotSpotter' technology in his area which allows officers to pinpoint a gunshot immediately to within 35ft of it being fired.

Police later said the home-owner had been co-operative and told them he feared then men were members of MS-13.

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 organised. They almost have a military hierarchy within the gang, so they are the most organised gang we encounter on a daily basis,' Mulraine said.

U.S. law states that physical force can only be used to deter physical force, not the threat of it.

However, police determined the AK47 rifle - capable of firing at a rate of 600 rounds-a-minute - was legally held. Grier was not charged over the alleged offence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310439/Man-defended-home-gang-firing-AK47-arrested.html#ixzz0z34P1hSm

Arrest the homeowner and not the thugs. Stay classy, NYPD. Fucking libtards.

[Edmaster]

Textbook example of why you should never fire "warning shots."

If you feel you need to use your firearm, you shoot to kill, or you keep it holstered. And stay inside the damn house if you're calling the police.

BTW: Do I think this guy deserves jail time for what he did? No.

[Edmaster]

Quote from some guy on another forum that I agree with.

Lethal Force Institute (Massad Ayoub's outfit) teaches that once the numerical disparity between attacker and defender reaches 3:1, you are justified in using lethal force to defend yourself, as 3 men can invariably overpower and kill a single unarmed defender. It has become a fairly standard metric used in both police and concealed carry instruction as well.

A reasonable person would likely conclude that 5 men present a real threat to your life when they are trespassing on your property and threatening you and your family, even if they are truly unarmed. 20? If your handgun holds 15 rounds, you could shoot all 15 of those bullets with perfect accuracy and get a one shot stop on every single target you took aim at and STILL face odds that are nearly insurmountably against you.

It's fantastically ridiculous that this guy is facing the charges he is. I agree he shouldn't have fired warning shots, but shit. He sounds like a stand up guy with a family, a job and involvement with his community.

The shit eating gangbangers will probably get off scott free.

[Tonus]

U.S. law states that physical force can only be used to deter physical force, not the threat of it.

I understand the intent behind this kind of rule, but in a situation like that described in the article, it means that this guy has to wait until he is attacked (by up to 20 people) before he can fire his weapon. Considering he was facing a gang that apparently is well known for its organizing and aggressiveness (to put it mildly) his choices come down to... facing arrest for assault or even murder, or being pummeled to death (along with his family) before he is able to do anything to defend himself.

Who is the law protecting, in that case?

[S Carver Orne]

Most of you know I recently moved to Florida. One thing that I am very happy about is the strong legal defense for personal protection and firearms (e.g Castle laws) here. I am not sure about New York's, but I have to imagine they significantly lean toward the "civil rights" of the would-be attacker, and not the defense of one's self or personal property.

[Nyarlathotep]

U.S. law states that physical force can only be used to deter physical force, not the threat of it.

IANAL, but that wouldn’t fly in Texas.

On March 27, 2007, Governor Rick Perry signed Senate Bill 378 into law, making Texas a "Castle Doctrine" state which came into effect September 1, 2007. Residents lawfully occupying a dwelling may shoot a person who "unlawfully, and with force, enters or attempts to enter the dwelling", or who removes or attempts to remove someone from that dwelling, or who commits or attempts to commit a "qualifying" felony such as burglary, arson, rape, aggravated assault, robbery or murder. In addition, a shooter who has a legal right to be wherever he/she is at the time of a defensive shooting has no "duty to retreat" before being justified in shooting; the "trier of fact" may not consider whether the person retreated when deciding whether the person was justified in shooting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29

|
|
\/

Meanwhile, get a fracking clue . . . they were MS-13:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha
• http://www.knowgangs.com/gang_resources/profiles/ms13/
• http://www.insideprison.com/prison_gang_profile_MS-13.asp
• http://www.altereddimensions.net/crime/MS13Gang.aspx

[S Carver Orne]

New York Penal - Article 35 - § 35.20 Justification; Use of Physical Force in Defense of Premises and in Defense of a Person in the Course of Burglary

§ 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and
in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or
she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate
what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted
commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises.
Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly
physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for
such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably
believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson.
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be
necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to
be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a
criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of
physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she
reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly
physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in
the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in
subdivision three.
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.
4. As used in this section, the following terms have the following
meanings:
(a) The terms "premises," "building" and "dwelling" have the meanings
prescribed in section 140.00;
(b) Persons "licensed or privileged" to be in buildings or upon other
premises include, but are not limited to:
(i) police officers or peace officers acting in the performance of
their duties; and
(ii) security personnel or employees of nuclear powered electric
generating facilities located within the state who are employed as part
of any security plan approved by the federal operating license agencies
acting in the performance of their duties at such generating facilities.
For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "nuclear powered electric
generating facility" shall mean a facility that generates electricity
using nuclear power for sale, directly or indirectly, to the public,
including the land upon which the facility is located and the safety and
security zones as defined under federal regulations.
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN035.20_35.20.html

Although in this case it was not a burglary, I believe the above is relevant. Also, from a legal standpoint no duty to retreat exists when a person is threatened in a place where they have a right to be, such as in their own home or property. State v. Allery, 101 Wash.2d 591, 682 P.2d 312 (1984) (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A02/347318%20appellant.pdf). Also 137 Wn.2d 533 State of Washington v. Studd; Decided 1999/04/01. & 150 Wn.2d 489 State of Washington v. Reynaldo Redmond; Decided 2003/12/06.

tl;dr this is bullshit

[Nyarlathotep]

“Castle Doctrine” concept comes to mind, as wikipedia noted. Interpretation varies widely (say, on the property or in the physical house) —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

New York is not a castle doctrine of those states.

-

If one believes police will come and risk their life to save yours, they are sadly mistaken. That ShotSpotter in use is interesting:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/shotspotter.html

[Grunthos]

"When seconds count, the police are minutes away."

[Diniden]

Yeah shot spotter is another grand invention that allows police to capture the innocent or the dead. The guilty left the 35ft area a long time ago.

And sadly the dead are the ones who sat there wondering if they were allowed to shoot or not, and the innocent are hauled off to jail.

Engineers make some pretty cool stuff, but I wonder if they realize how fairly useless-ish it is? It at least lets them know if someone is lying about how many shots were fired....