Man uses "AK 47" to defend house and family from gang attack, and gets arrested for it

[virginia mountainman]

Shooting into the ground is stupid, but under this situation, should that rise to a FELONY crime??

Also note, he was not in trouble for having the "AK 47", he bought it legally, and owned it legaly...Just firing a warning shots into the ground..

I am using AK 47 in quotes, because he most likely did NOT have an AK 47, odds are he has a semi automatic clone..But in the simple mind of the MSM, if it looks like one, it IS one, no matter what it is internally.

A few bits from the article

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,”

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

The gang bangers are very lucky....Many of us, in the same situation, would have took the rifle, and holed up in the house with our families behind us, and shot anyone coming down an interior hallway, a window, or coming thru a doorway toward us.. Virginia law, is very clear on a situation with "multiple attackers" weather or not they are armed is irreverent.

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

EDIT: also, since he has now been arrested, and has a pending felony charge, WHO, is protecting HIS family now???

[DissedByBush]

1. The argument for legal full-auto

Sometimes you need to defend yourself against a whole gang.

[spin]

10. Interesting and a valid point. (n/t)

[MrModerate]

2. From the article, it seems the cops made a judgment call based on existing city law . . .

Which is probably a reasonable law in most instances but the wrong choice here. I wouldn't think that the 25 or so people milling about the front of his house threatening to kill his family would need to pull out guns to meet the test of "force" that would justify the homeowner's actions. This case won't go far, IMO.

[virginia mountainman]

3. I agree..BUT..

The problem is, now that he has a pending felony charge, he is now a "prohibited possessor" and can face MAJOR FEDERAL prison time, for just having a gun in his home..

Will the police station a patrolman at his house till the case is settled??

I am certain the gang bangers, are feeling an acute "disrespect" over this, and will want their "revenge".

Now that the Police has disarmed this man from protecting his family, will they protect them??

[Better Today]

5. If you're charged with a felony you lose gun rights? I thought you had to be found guilty.

[virginia mountainman]

7. A bit more research was needed...

And YOUR correct!!

A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.

I wonder if he still has the AK, are another firearm to defend himself with while all this gets sorted out in court?

[Better Today]

8. Excellent, then that resolves one of your concerns.

[Better Today]

4. Sorry, but he shouldn't have shot unless and until there was a reason.

He should've announced his intent to use the gun if they entered, and then gone inside and waited for the police, only using the gun if someone actually attempted to get into the house. jmho

[virginia mountainman]

9. I agree with you...

Expending ammo in a "gang attack" situation just to warn, is very stupid and tactically wrong..actully, expending ammo, that YOU MAY NEED TO DEFEND YOUR FAMILIES AND YOUR LIFE WITH AS A WARNING is very stupid...

But in this situation, I am willing to cut Mr Greer some slack on this.

[Callisto32]

16. I would say he would have been justified in shooting THEM, let alone the ground.

Advancing on a man with a gun saying "I'm going to kill you" sounds like plenty to create an imminent fear of grievous bodily injury or death. Advancing toward him could easily be an attempt to get into the house, especially given the "and your family" comments. We have to judge a person's intentions by their words and actions, as there is no way to get inside their heads.

[spin]

23. I just watched an interview with the man ...

and he said he didn't go inside because he would have left his cousin outside surrounded by gang members.

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

He did get a rapid police response.

[tularetom]

6. Most unfortunate they referred to his rifle as an "AK47"

In the original article it was called a "high powered" weapon.

I wouldn't be so quick to condemn his actions however. A confrontation with a single adversary, armed or not, is quite a bit different from facing a small army of gang bangers on your front lawn not knowing how heavily armed they were. It's easy to say what you would do until you are confronted with the same situation.

Although it would have been gratifying to see him actually dispense a few of these assholes, I wasn't there and I don't know the circumstances. So, I support Mr Grier's actions

[MichaelHarris]

15. Your words

actually sum up the Gun Forum pretty well, "I wasn't there and I don't know the circumstances. So, I support Mr Grier's actions"

Nope, you were not there so you support the gun owner ergo the gun.

[Callisto32]

17. "You support the gun owner, ergo the gun."

You besmirch two excellent languages with this idiotic statement.

How's this for some Latin: Non sequitur.

EDIT: P.S. You obviously support the criminals, and therefore the crime. That DOES make sense, because if you support the person in a situation, you obviously support the action. If you had said "you support the gun owner, and therefor the shots/gun ownership/right to protect his property and family," that would have actually made sense.

[Katya Mullethov]

19. They were likely just collecting census data or registering people to vote .

Had this been an exquisitely engraved Holland and Holland 4 bore things would have turned out much differently . The nice young gentlemen who were simply on their way to work would not have dared him to shoot them and no one would think ill of his attempt to summon the local constabulary via the instant action Shotspotter® system . It does beg the question , why did the city feel the need to go to such a great expense and install one of these acoustic devices ?

[ManiacJoe]

22. It is common and accepted practice

in the USA to refer to a semi-auto AK47 clone as "AK47" since the semi-auto clones are highly available while the real assault rifles are all but impossible to get legally.

The potential M16/AR15 problem is bypassed by their different names, similar to any G3/HK91 confusion, etc.

[petersjo02]

11. What does the weather have to do with anything?

n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

12. This is a real rough row to hoe. I do not know if the number of

people can be considered when using lethal force in self defense as in Texas. If you got a gang of twenty and five of them start moving toward you saying they are going to kill you; you are good to shoot in Texas, even if they have no visible weapons, because the shear number of them makes them a deadly force with clear intentions.

For the sake of argument lets say the NY state has a similar law, and leave the discussion of warning shots on the table. The man was in the clear to shoot. He was charged with "A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die." So he was charged with recklessly endangering people he was legally able to shoot???? This is not going to stick.

[virginia mountainman]

14. For information purposes...

It is settled law in Virginia, that a man, being attacked by two or more men, even if they are empty handed...is considered a "lethal attack". and if you believe a life is in danger, armed self defense is OK

Granted their are some other factors, like the size of the attackers, and size of the victim.

In that light, a unarmed man, beating a small female, is also considered a "lethal attack",and if you believe a life is in danger, armed self defense is OK

And stomping a person on the ground with feet, is also considered a "lethal attack" and it is considered self defense to draw a gun a fire.

Also Virginia law, their is NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION for "warning shots" it is actually settled law, that if you are firing warning shots, you evidently don't feel your life is in danger (if you did, you would be shooting to kill) and it opens you up to all kinds of CRIMINAL legal liabilities.

Also, their is NO LEGAL justification for "shooting to wound"... Only shooting to kill..

No legal justification for SHOWING a gun...that is brandishing (granted, holding a rifle on your porch, is a stretch for a brandishing charge) But pull a handgun, and DON"T USE IT, and see what happens.

[MichaelHarris]

13. Who was

threatening first here? The guys in the driveway or the man with the gun telling them to leave?

[Callisto32]

18. How about this:

It's his fucking driveway! He can carry a gun around his own property and tell whomever he wishes to get off.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Possible he did something to escalate it

but that is not in evidence at the moment.

The question is whether pumping four rounds into the ground, instead of the lead aggressor's chest is warranted under local law.

Where I live, that's a bad idea, because shooting into the ground as a 'warning' is prima facie evidence that you are not in fear of your life, and therefore unjustified to shoot.



Tactically, I think he made the right decision. If he had shot one of these guys, and they are indeed MS13 or a similar gang, he and his family would spend the rest of their lives in protective custody. As it is, this may blow over, from a 'his family is in danger' standpoint. Unfortunate he may have to eat a felony to do it.

I am somewhat dissapointed that you don't seem to grant an individual, placed in a position of defending his home from multiple people who have no right to be on his property, the benefit of the doubt. But who knows, maybe he did something to provoke, and you will be vindicated.

[Katya Mullethov]

25. He wanted an immediate response via the shotspotter -vs- calling 911

And he got it .

[AtheistCrusader]

26. That will be an interesting defense.

Said he knew it existed. Might prove valuable at his defense.

We have no such stuff here, so here, you would be screwed, in this scenario.

[spin]

27. Reminds me of an anecdote I once heard ...

For all I now it might be true.

A man's wife noticed a peeping tom lurking around the bedroom window. He called 911.

Fifteen minutes later he called 911 again and was told that the police were responding and to be patient.

Fifteen minutes later he once again called 911. When they answered he said, "I'm the guy that has been calling you because of the peeping tom at 801 East Jackson Street. Well you can cancel the call. Send the coroner. I just shot the SOB."

Several minutes later his house was surrounded by police cars and a helicopter was circling overhead. The peeping tom was apprehended.

Of course the home owner got in a lot of trouble, but in the end he considered it worthwhile.

[cleanhippie]

21. *facepalm*

Sometimes, idiocy knows no bounds.

[SteveM]

24. Oh, the thug life, it's a high life, it's my life. Oh, the thug life...

[Euromutt]

28. That sounds like a catchy jingle...

Perhaps Miller could use it for their latest product: "Miller Thug Life" malt liquor. :hide: