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.
The mistake unfortunately this guy made was he fired the first shots. If he had been fired upon or if one of these gang members entered his home then he had the right to defend himself.
The real mistake that this man made is that he elicited the ire of the local chapter of MS13.
He might've felt that he was averting trouble the moment that he stepped out upon his doorstep with an AK47 but did not realize that
because of this ill conceived "fix", for what could have been an otherwise avoidable incident, he's veritably sealed his own fate. If the
skewed legal system here in NY, doesn't make him regret his impetuous decision, I'm reasonably certain that having to spend the rest of
his nights there in Uniondale, sleeping with one eye open, surely will.
I'm also wondering why the homeowner had lost sight of the fairly recent conviction and incarceration of John White, another gun owning
Long Island citizen who found himself indicted for manslaughter because of a similar incident. No, if I were this poor fellow, I'd worry less about the
legal ramifications of his errant actions, and so much more about what those MS13ers are going to do to him and his family, especially now that he
has to go down to Sports Authority and buy a pump shotgun and a box of buckshot, to replace his confiscated rifle.
Because Long Island has so gracefully accepted the likes of MS13 in their neighborhoods, I'm sure that we'll be getting the street level feedback
before too much time passes. In their twisted Hispanic minds, they've been "dissed" by a black man who is living on their turf and if my senses about
them, as a gang, are correct, I just know that they'll be back. I hope that when the poor guy finishes paying for his lawyer, he has enough money left
to also buy himself a bulletproof vest and increase his life insurance and his fire insurance coverage. Can't you just feel the love here?
I agree. I wouldn't have set one foot outside my house. I have no idea why this guy thought that was a good idea. I would have had my family go to the back of the house so they would be under and in front of as many obstacles possible to keep them from getting hit if one of the thugs (who I have no doubt were carrying weapons) decided to spray the house. I would then watch them from behind a makeshift bunker by a window or peephole (making sure I had a way to duck) and waited for the PD to show up.
It was this guy and his family versus about 20, isn't that dangerous enough?
Because an armchair quarterback expects this guy to have his weapon trained on 20 gang members simultaneously, and superhuman peripheral vision to detect a potentially brandished gun.
Does the law say that? Don't think so. Were the "gang" members armed? were any weapons brandished?
the part I quoted was related to machine guns..
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'll tell you what is unsafe ... it's unsafe to cower in a corner dialing 911 in hope that some knucklehead who thinks he's the only one that has a right to use force in protection of his life shows up 15 minutes later, and before these pieces of filth decide to follow through with their threats.
What's unsafe is having our police embracing the type of attitude that you clearly demonstrate.
That the police acknowledge the existence of over 2000 members of MS-13 in that area only shows just how ineffective the police are. Maybe they should spend more time removing this filth from the streets, and less time arresting law abiding citizens forced to defend themselves from the criminal gangs the police are apparently incapable of handling.
This reminds me of a time when I was in NYC ... I asked a beat cop directions .... he said "well, the direct route is two blocks north, and 4 blocks over ... but I wouldn't go that way if I were you ... it would be safer to go 3 blocks east, then two blocks north and 7 blocks west to avoid X".
Nice. Let's not address the danger ... lets avoid the area.
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.
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.
"He thought might have been?" really?
“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
Ran upstairs (away from danger) told his wife to call the police. Got his rifle ran BACK OUT (toward danger) .
Sounds perfectly logical to me. Sorry, something is missing. I would love to see the police report on this.
First, I'm not here to argue about the law, it is what it is, and from what I am reading the actions of the police in this case is one that is pretty universal across states.
Second, arguing over the weapon used is strawman argument since it has nothing to do with the charges Mr. Grier faces.
Mr. Grier made a number of very egregious mistakes.
1. Once Mr. Grier had secured his weapon, he should have stayed inside his home and awaited the arrival of the police.
2. By going outside and confronting the perceived threat he did three things. He jeopardized his claim that he was in imminent harm.
3. According to the report by leaving his home and challenging the men he escalated the situation as evidence by the taunts that he wouldn't use the weapon and the fact that others came to the aid of his alleged intruders.
4. The fourth and most critical was firing his weapon without facing an imminent threat. And while it could be argued that firing warning shots is far more "humane" that actually shooting a person, it undercuts the argument that the individual holding the weapon was in a life threatening position.
Mr. Grier, is lucky that the only charges that he faces is discharging a weapon in a public area. Some jurisdictions would have charged him with much more serious offenses.
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?
And he shot an automatic weapon into the ground illegally.
What part of that is difficult to understand?
we have already established that this was not an automatic weapon.
unless you are using that term to mean simi-automatic?
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.
