Long Island Man Arrested for Defending His Home

Quote:

---

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....Rest of Article

---

I want to hear what his wife and cousin have to say about the incident as we are only going by his words on the actions of the gang. I'm not doubting him but it would be nice to have a clearer picture of the whole incident.

The article provides almost no context and seems pretty biased - almost like the "Armed Citizen" section I love so much in the National Rifleman.

The important part is, no one was hurt.

Give the guy a caution or a slap on the wrist. No point making a big fuss over something when no one was hurt or affected by the incident. He is lucky the only thing damaged was his own lawn.

On the other-hand, if he shot some one, that's where we get into the serious talks.

He should be able to defend his home against the brainless matter we call gang members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

The important part is, no one was hurt.

Give the guy a caution or a slap on the wrist. No point making a big fuss over something when no one was hurt or affected by the incident. He is lucky the only thing damaged was his own lawn.

On the other-hand, if he shot some one, that's where we get into the serious talks.

---

The charge is that he was reckless, that it was only luck that he didn't hit anyone. I don't see why we would judge someone based only on the result.

It seems from the story like he wasn't reckless though.

I agree with Sasaki, I don't see how it was reckless. It was more like bad aim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The charge is that he was reckless, that it was only luck that he didn't hit anyone. I don't see why we would judge someone based only on the result.

---

Yet we do that all the time. What is the difference between grievous bodily harm and homicide? It is pretty much "Person is severely injured" and "Person is dead".

It is based on the intention and result. He intended for them to leave him alone with their threatening behaviour, by shooting a bullet into the lawn. Since you are a society which has guns, and strict 'property rights', and the gun is legally owned, then there is really nothing 'wrong' being done, which would result in the maximum of a slapped wrist or a minor fine which could possibly be related to the act of firing a gun when it wasn't necessarily needed.

Definitely need more details. Quite honestly, I'm of the opinion that as soon as somebody makes credible threats against my children they have forfeited their right to stay alive. I simply can't affor to take the risk of having them walking around anymore. I realize I might end up in jail for killing them, but that's a price I'd pay.

Summary: A guy, with an AK, shoot at a group of intruders at a distance less than 10 metres and nobody was hurt… :oops:
Wahoo, this guy should be deny to have a gun… Good it was in his home, because innocents could have been killed in a more populated area…:embarassed:
Advice to his wife: get divorced… Your hunter/gatherer future-ex husband can’t protect you. At least not with weapons…:laugh4::laugh4:

He never shot at them. He did a warning shot in the lawn which he did intentionally.

Congratulations on not reading the article?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Definitely need more details. Quite honestly, I'm of the opinion that as soon as somebody makes credible threats against my children they have forfeited their right to stay alive. I simply can't affor to take the risk of having them walking around anymore. I realize I might end up in jail for killing them, but that's a price I'd pay.

---

Amen to this. I feel the same here, but if i could run 'em off without killing, i would strive for that result. But if that can't happen, then a man has little choice but to fight for himself and his own. I think the article shows a responsible man defending his family. I would do the same as he.

He isn't convicted.

When you shoot four 7.62 shots towards a group of people, the police should of course do their job and investigate it and see if a crime was committed or if it was within the law. If the police then decides that an arrest is necessary, then they have been given the right to arrest him.

Just how is any of this a problem?

Congratulations on not reading the article?
I did but decided to ignore what wouldn't fit in my comment.

damned strong islanders, home of the lax bros.