Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
George Grier, 30, fired rounds into the ground and air from an assault-style rifle after arguing with a large group gathered outside his Long Island home Sunday evening, Nassau County police said Monday. No one was hurt.
NCPD (covers Uniondale) has some of the -- if not the -- highest paid cops in the USA. Taxes in Nassau are also through the roof. So where do the pols cut back? Hire fewer cops, thin the ranks through attrition. Meanwhile we are seeing a surge in illegal immigrants as well as a rise in violent gangs such as MS-13. If the PD payroll is high, people complain about that. If the crime rate goes up, people complain cops aren't doing enough. Then complain that their taxes will go up when the County hires more LEOs.
As for NYC -- my dad is ret NYPD. He was in the Bronx during the Fort Apache years, riots, Son of Sam, PCP, Crack, drug wars and retired a few years after my friend, PO Eddie Byrne, was assassinated while keeping watch over a drug informant's house. These men had a lot going on, the City was in financial crisis for part of that time. Rome wasn't built in a day, crime doesn't go away overnight.
As for NYC and the danger -- think about the population density of the area and the ratio of cop to civilian. The the cop gave you two sets of directions. You could have taken either -- which one did you use? Do you prefer a proactive approach or a reactive one?
LEOs can not be everywhere -- the resources don't allow for it.
Maybe the Grier situation will be the one which starts more people realizing that gangs pose a very serious threat to the safety many people take for granted within our communities.
Hey, don't get me wrong ... I appreciated the heads up ... the beat cop cannot solve the situation of inner city violence singlehandedly.
The operative point here is that maybe with this resource crisis you so clearly identify, those limited resources would be better utilized by focusing on violent criminals rather than citizens defending themselves?
I remember many years where Washington DC was the murder capitol of the nation ... and as a gov't contractor I was also keenly aware of the fact that you dare not allow that red flag to pop up on a parking meter downtown, because 30 seconds later, a blue uniform was standing along side your car with ticket book and pen in hand. I suspect it's very similar in NYC.
The point really is that we have far too many laws on the books ... too many resources enforcing non-vilolent crimes, while the hard core criminals rule the streets.
In this particular case ... you have a law abiding citizen utilizing a legally owned firearm to defend his family, and he is arrested for discharging the weapon based on an ordinance prohibiting the discharge of the weapon. The obvious contradiction here is that what good is a firearm for protection if discharging it is a crime?
Perhaps such ordinances should be clearly written that prohibit the unwarranted discharge of a firearm as a violation of safety code ... with the obvious and clear exception allowing for the discharge of a firearm in the act of self defense, considering that this is it's primary function?
Here in Texas, you may use a firearm for self defense if you have a reasonable belief that your life or property is in danger .... and direct threats like "I'm going to kill you" would surely constitute a reasonable threat, dontcha think?
got it. just being clear on terms here... we already dealt with someone thinking this was a fully auto AK....
Yes, semi-auto. Sorry.
Ferd, maybe it's just me being cynical (comes with the <former> job) but something is missing, here. It doesn't add up. Now there's another CBS station in NY saying he also shot into the air. Which is stupid squared.
A lot depends on what the law says. Are verbal threats reason to fear for your life in NY/NJ? I don't know. Is there proof the people on the guy's lawn part of MS-13, or did he assume so because they are hispanic? Something is missing. I'd love to hear the whole story.
"Perhaps such ordinances should be clearly written that prohibit the unwarranted discharge of a firearm as a violation of safety code ... with the obvious and clear exception allowing for the discharge of a firearm in the act of self defense, considering that this is it's primary function?"
It all hinges on what constitutes self defense. Are verbal threats reason enough to discharge a firearm?
Ferd, maybe it's just me being cynical (comes with the <former> job) but something is missing, here. It doesn't add up. Now there's another CBS station in NY saying he also shot into the air. Which is stupid squared.
A lot depends on what the law says. Are verbal threats reason to fear for your life in NY/NJ? I don't know. Is there proof the people on the guy's lawn part of MS-13, or did he assume so because they are hispanic? Something is missing. I'd love to hear the whole story.
if dude shot into the air, there is no excuse whatsoever i will agree with that.
and I agree that there may be more here than we know. we dont agree on some of this but I have enjoyed the exchange...
I was a deputy sheriff for 16 months during college and my dad was a DS as well. I have much respect for law enforcement.
The biggest problem I have with your post concerns your first point. Maybe you read a different report than I did, but I thought he had returned to the house for something he'd forgotten, leaving his cousin (or was it nephew) in the car. When he heard the commotion of the trespassers, he also picked up the gun before going back outside. Would you really have him leave his young cousin in danger while he hid in the house waiting for the cops?
If I missed some detail in the story, then I would be more than glad to edit my comments to reflect that. Thanks for the heads up.
not sure what all of the law states its pretty big. It does however severely restrict owning and carrying handguns without a license.
it was passed in 1911 by a Tammany Hall corrupt politician who was looking to disarm people so his criminal friends would be more safe when they attacked.
at least that what "Google research" turns up.
it appears that self defense in NY is more restrictive than the places I have lived.
There is no indication that the gang members were armed.
However, (serious question for you as a law enforcement professional): If a person if faced with 20 to 25 angry people threatening to kill you, your babies and your wife, do you need to see a gun before using deadly force yourself? I will state that I would think the bad guys would have to be moving toward you before you could respond with force....)
Not debating with this question. Just asking a serious question....
I understand the motive, Grier was scared. But it's based upon what the law states regarding self defense. He shot at the ground and into the air. He's lucky he didn't hit anyone, and by anyone I mean, innocent bystanders. There are a load of questions that are unanswered:
Were the men in his driveway really gang members?
Why didn't he grab his rifle, stay in his house until the PD came, since he had already asked his wife to call them.
Why did he go back outside where the danger is?
As in everything..there is one side to this story, the other side to this story, and the truth.
I am pro- 2nd amendment, guys. I advocate RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
Does it matter? MS-13 or twenty random people threatening to kill you - who cares? He had very good reason to believe that his family was at risk.
So you think that it is tactically wiser to defend yourself in the open with 20 opponents rather than just covering a single chock point, such as a doorway?
Number one, I did not say the "gang" members were not a threat.
Number two: you have an absolute right to defend yourself. According to the law.
Number three: The police don't write the laws, they enforce what's on the books.
That's great ... but your previous statements don't say that.
Your focus was on the danger posed by the warning shots fired, and not the threat posed by the gang bangers. Apparently, they were not deterred by the mere sight of the weapon, so the next step taken was to fire warning shots ... an intermediate step the police are unlikely to do ... they would simply shoot the SOBs ... no?
The man exercised very reasonable restraint, as well as his respect for safety and human life by 1) not killing a couple of these creeps (who would have earned such a result) and 2) by firing the warning shots into the ground which is the safest means to discharge a weapon in that environment and under those circumstances.
Sounds like a very level headed course of action on his part under stressful conditions ... certainly not deserving of arrest, let alone prosecution.
And, laws are selectively enforced every day. And it is the responsibility of the police officers to determine if a crime has actually been committed, and arrest warranted. If he discharged a weapon in the act of self defense, and he has the legal right to defend himself as you so claim ... then there can be no crime committed on his part. So let's dispense with the double talk and circular logic.
You cannot say that you have a legal right to defend yourself, while simultaneously defending a law that would prevent you from doing so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
