Long Island Man Arrested For Defending Home With AK-47

[NRA_guy]

I'm guessing that New York does not have a Castle Law:

Long Island Man Arrested For Defending Home With AK-47
Says Many Gang Members Were Coming After His Family

September 7, 2010

UNIONDALE, N.Y. — 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.

Grier was later arrested. John Lewis is Grier’s attorney.

“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,” Lewis said.

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.

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

That ShotSpotter technology pinpoints where a gun has been fired within 35 feet. Police said it also detected two other shootings in nearby Roosevelt that night.

Down South there would be some dead gang bangers in the yard and the only question would be, "Did you run out of ammo?"

[johnlives4christ]

no charges would be filed around here, it would be on the news and the guy would be a hero

[graehaven]

I imagine that down "south" as you say, those types of gangs and gang activity are not what they are in the major cities.

These thugs KNOW they rule.

As I told my son yesterday, "the police are not here to help you, only to clean up the mess afterward - and you are usually that mess; that and write up a report." Their other job is to "prosecute law abiding citizens with stupid infractions - especially where it concerns defending one's life or property."

And....here is a perfect example.

[flintlock]

The home owner would have been in less trouble if the gang members were in his house. Not much less trouble though, we are talking about Long Island. If your life is threatened you don't have a responsibility to retreat in your own home.

[graehaven]

Regardless, I think this guy is a marked man now by those gang members, and we'll likely hear about it again.

Perhaps his best bet would have been to take a camera out with him as well, and take several pictures of the group. At least then, the police would have something to go on. You KNOW they aren't going to follow up on threats made by "alleged" gang members.

[flintlock]

I got curious and looked up the section of NY's code (35.20), and it pretty well spells out what the homeowner could do. Because there was no physical attack at the moment, he could not resort to deadly force, which he didn't do, although that is subject to a judge's interpretation, warning shot =deadly force? If an physical attack had taken place he would have been justified in using deadly force to defend himself and his family. New York is a Castle Doctrine state, but it has no stand your ground rule. Go figure.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by flintlock

I got curious and looked up the section of NY's code (35.20), and it pretty well spells out what the homeowner could do. Because there was no physical attack at the moment, he could not resort to deadly force, which he didn't do, although that is subject to a judge's interpretation, warning shot =deadly force? If an physical attack had taken place he would have been justified in using deadly force to defend himself and his family. New York is a Castle Doctrine state, but it has no stand your ground rule. Go figure.

Whoa whoa whoa, NY is a Castle Doctrine state? Are you sure? do you have the statute for that? As far as I knew, we are not.

[graehaven]

I don't think we are a castle doctrine state. That would be BIG news here.

I found this, here:
Additionally, some states have passed laws that encompass parts of the Castle Doctrine without explicitly calling them such. Some states have also passed a "weak" version of the Castle Doctrine that keeps the duty to retreat but still allows for the use of deadly force in a home invasion. Some of these states include: Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York. A local criminal defense attorney may be your best resource in determining if the Castle Doctrine may be a viable defense in your case.
http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/...-doctrine.aspx

[3/2 STA SS]

And thats why I live in Florida. Everyone here has a weapon somewhere.

[johnlives4christ]

last night there was a shooting in louisville, what i picked up on the news was that a guy and girl were confronted by a man, they ended up fighting, the first guy shot the perp, cops detained him and then released him after confirming it was self defense

[flintlock]

Here is where I got the information from Graehaven.
New York Penal- Article 35-35.20
1. "Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such is 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 priviledged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another 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 of a crime by such other personof 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 necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force in order to terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision 1, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as described in subdivision three.
3. A person in posession or control of, or licensed or priviledged 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 neccessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

Maybe my understanding of Castle Doctrine is confused, but I think this pretty much covers defense of your home/business, and protection of your life and those of your resident family. It's what you learn after you know it all that makes a difference! I've still got things to learn!

[fas111]

Every time I read a story like this I thank God I live in South Carolina.

[lawdawg]

There are at least 25 men (according to the story) coming at you shouting that they are going to kill you and your family! I think that should be considered as physical force, and I think that should merit using deadly physical force to defend yourself and your family! I'm not sure about the laws in NY, but here (Alabama) anytime a person has reason to believe his/her life, or the life of another person, is in jeopardy they can use deadly physical force. They can also legally use deadly physical force if they have reason to belive that someone is about to commit kidnapping, assault (1st or 2nd degree), burglary, robbery, forcible rape or sodomy (13A-3-23 Code of Alabama). It SHOULD be that way everywhere! No graehaven gangs are NOT as bad here as in the larger cities (although they are present and are a problem to be reckoned with), and this is a large reason why. We don't mind our citizens defending themselves.

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by lawdawg

There are at least 25 men (according to the story) coming at you shouting that they are going to kill you and your family! I think that should be considered as physical force, and I think that should merit using deadly physical force to defend yourself and your family! I'm not sure about the laws in NY, but here (Alabama) anytime a person has reason to believe his/her life, or the life of another person, is in jeopardy they can use deadly physical force. They can also legally use deadly physical force if they have reason to belive that someone is about to commit kidnapping, assault (1st or 2nd degree), burglary, robbery, forcible rape or sodomy (13A-3-23 Code of Alabama). It SHOULD be that way everywhere! No graehaven gangs are NOT as bad here as in the larger cities (although they are present and are a problem to be reckoned with), and this is a large reason why. We don't mind our citizens defending themselves.

It's the same way here in Ohio lawdawg. My only problem with that is that according to my LEO ccw instructor you can not assume that someone crawling through your kitchen window intends to do you harm. It was confusing. As I understand it if they come toward you and refuse to stop you can shoot. If they are merely making entrance you can't. I believe if they're in your home, or attempting to get in your home, anytime, night or day, game on.

I also believe a person has a right to use deadly force to protect their property. I know the argument is that no physical property is worth a persons life, but I think that is kind of twisted logic and a product of modern thinking. People work hard for the things they have and someone who has no respect for the property of others is taking his own life in his hands. Just my opinion.

[lawdawg]

Originally Posted by RunningOnMT

It's the same way here in Ohio lawdawg. My only problem with that is that according to my LEO ccw instructor you can not assume that someone crawling through your kitchen window intends to do you harm. It was confusing. As I understand it if they come toward you and refuse to stop you can shoot. If they are merely making entrance you can't. I believe if they're in your home, or attempting to get in your home, anytime, night or day, game on.

I also believe a person has a right to use deadly force to protect their property. I know the argument is that no physical property is worth a persons life, but I think that is kind of twisted logic and a product of modern thinking. People work hard for the things they have and someone who has no respect for the property of others is taking his own life in his hands. Just my opinion.

AGREED! But even with that interpretation when that many people are moving toward you shouting that they are going to kill you and your family, any reasonable person would believe they intend on harming you, whether they are armed or not, and have the potential to do so. One could argue that you could fight off one unarmed person without using deadly physical force, but for every person added to the equation it multiplies the threat level exponentially. As a LEO, I understand that sometimes our hands are tied when it comes to enforcing certain laws, no matter how idiotic those laws are. But NO ONE should EVER be denied the basic human (and Constitutional) right of self defense including the defense of your family. I would not have arrested under those circumstances, unless ordered to do so; and even then would have explained it to the Grand Jury that it was self defense. I always try to use myself as a "measuring stick" when faced with an arrest/don't-arrest scenario. What would I do in this situation? In this case I would have done the same thing this guy did.

[johnlives4christ]

in kentucky.. if a person breaks into your house. no matter what they are doing, or the situation, you can shoot them on the spot no questions asked.

[RunningOnMT]

Absolutely lawgawg. I fear I wouldn't have shown the restraint to fire into the ground with that bunch around me, and shooting some of them would have been out of sheer terror rather than anger. These gangs are a menace and spreading across the country like weeds. While rationally I know you can't do this, emotionally I'd like to say every one of them should be shot on sight. A lot of this problem could be fixed if we secured our borders and deported them all.

[Oneida Steve]

"Arrested" is one thing.

"Convicted" is another. Let's see the DA make his case in front of a jury.

[johnlives4christ]

if i thought i was going to be convicted.. i dont think i'd go to court that day. then i'd be an outlaw for sure

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by lawdawg

There are at least 25 men (according to the story) coming at you shouting that they are going to kill you and your family! I think that should be considered as physical force, and I think that should merit using deadly physical force to defend yourself and your family! I'm not sure about the laws in NY, but here (Alabama) anytime a person has reason to believe his/her life, or the life of another person, is in jeopardy they can use deadly physical force. They can also legally use deadly physical force if they have reason to belive that someone is about to commit kidnapping, assault (1st or 2nd degree), burglary, robbery, forcible rape or sodomy (13A-3-23 Code of Alabama). It SHOULD be that way everywhere! No graehaven gangs are NOT as bad here as in the larger cities (although they are present and are a problem to be reckoned with), and this is a large reason why. We don't mind our citizens defending themselves.

I'm with you, man, I'm with you.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by flintlock

Here is where I got the information from Graehaven.
New York Penal- Article 35-35.20
1. "Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such is 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 priviledged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another 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 of a crime by such other personof 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 necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force in order to terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision 1, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as described in subdivision three.
3. A person in posession or control of, or licensed or priviledged 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 neccessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

Maybe my understanding of Castle Doctrine is confused, but I think this pretty much covers defense of your home/business, and protection of your life and those of your resident family. It's what you learn after you know it all that makes a difference! I've still got things to learn!

Yes, I'm familiar with that section of the penal code. I've got it printed out and have read it many times. It's something that every NY gun owner should have on hand, and most don't, would be my guess.

Also, another issue here in NY is, that criminal you just shot in your home, defending yourself - if he's not dead, he can sue you. And if he IS dead, his family can sue you.

I hope I NEVER have to defend myself either in my home or outside of it.

[lawdawg]

My first reaction to people who live in these draconian states is "Why don't you move?" But in reality I know this is your home. Upstate NY is a beautiful place as is a lot of these draconian states. We, as a nation, NEED people like you there. Hopefully you can change the attitudes of some of these politicians (or change politicians), but that will never happen if you move away. Stay there and multiply and produce more voters who actually care about the freedom of others.

I find it rather ironic that these (New England)states is where the nation began, where our forefathers first dreamed of a free nation and had the balls to make it happen, where they penned the framework of that nation in our Constitution, and now it is in some ways the polar oppisite of what they envisioned. It is up to people like y'all to bring it back. Hope you can do it!

[NRA_guy]

Just for comparison:

In 2006, the Mississippi Legislature, following Florida’s lead, codified the Castle Doctrine into law. It is Mississippi Statute 97-3-15, and it states in part that:

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:

(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be;

(3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person’s will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties;

(4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person’s failure to retreat as evidence that the person’s use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.

(5) (a) The presumptions contained in subsection (3) of this section shall apply in civil cases in which self-defense or defense of another is claimed as a defense.

(b) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant acted in accordance with subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section. A defendant who has previously been adjudicated “not guilty” of any crime by reason of subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section shall be immune from any civil action for damages arising from same conduct.

The “new” Castle Doctrine law also added civil immunity when you used deadly force within your house or motor vehicle. This means that if you are forced to shoot someone that is breaking in your house, you cannot be then sued civilly by his family. The law also removed the duty to retreat before using deadly force. You no longer have to prove that you retreated, from your own house, before you can lawfully use deadly force in protecting yourself and your family from imminent harm.

[CampingJosh]

Here's the relevant section of Indiana code, again for comparison.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and

(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.

(Emphasis added)

If you're interested in escaping NY, Grae, I'll start looking for a job for you. Just send me a PM.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Here's the relevant section of Indiana code, again for comparison.



(Emphasis added)

If you're interested in escaping NY, Grae, I'll start looking for a job for you. Just send me a PM.

LOL, thanks man, I appreciate it. It may come to that some day. The wife would have a hard time with it, because both our moms are still alive and here and they both need us. So, we can't just yet. But I do foresee a day when we will literally be "forced" to move, because of the progressive policies and ridiculous taxes. It's INSANE here. And getting worse.