It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Long Island Man Arrested For Defending Home With AK-47

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


This should not go to trial at all... it should never warrant the assembly of a jury and if it does, the jury must TEACH the justice system that this is NOT something our society punishes...

When a gang of thugs is swaggering about on your property, playing their "oooh be scared of me and mine" mind games, they need to know that the community WILL support the homeowner in any effort he or she makes to restore peace and security to his home.

The only way to accomplish this "message" to the justice department is to A) drop the charge at the grand jury stage by decreeing "no bill" - the DA of course will be outraged and simply finagle a way to browbeat the grand jury to get the charge they want... or B) if the expense of a jury trial is forced from the tax-payers.. ensure the DA is embarrassed when his or her case is NULLIFIED ...

Maybe then they'll realize that Justice is up to the community - not their egos.

He shouldn't have been charged. At all. Period.

My opinion.

[edit on 8-9-2010 by Maxmars]




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Thats New York, Liberal Central, they guy is gonna get charged and most likely convicted



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Well, thanks for the comments that are at least giving me a glimmer of hope there are those out there that believe protecting ones family is not a crime.

There is hope for us yet.

Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention.

So the charge is reckless endangerment. Tell me, if the shots would have hit one of the gang members, do you think I would have lost some sleep over it?


Maybe people should not go around threatening others should they?

Wonder what you would have thought if it was in your neighborhood?

Wonder if maybe your daughter or son or a neighbor was getting threatened by these type of idiots. Would you have come back out and protected them or sat and cowered inside waiting for the police.

And, because the person knew that the police would respond quickly because of the shot location system, probably a lot quicker than calling the police.

Hey, a little trick for you people out there, that really need help quick. Use this only if you really need them, otherwise you will be charged with something.

Life and death situation, call into 911 and tell them it is a life and death situation, give them the address, make them read you back the address then state there is an off duty officer down, then hang up. You will have cops there in the quickest amount of time, you will also not get shot because they will be worried about one of their own catching one.

Works everytime.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Wonder if maybe your daughter or son or a neighbor was getting threatened by these type of idiots. Would you have come back out and protected them or sat and cowered inside waiting for the police.


But, if you have your AK47, you have no need to cower. You can just sit calmly in the house waiting for the cops, knowing that if these jerks do break in the house while you wait, you have a weapon ready to protect yourself.

I think the cops are quite right to charge him. Sure you have a right to self defense, but it should be a last resort, and you should use minimum force necessary to stop the attack. You don't start unloading your AK47 when the potential attackers have only got to the mouthing off stage, it's completely disproportionate.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
While it is his right to defend himself, we cant have people firing Aks off outside all willy nilly, at least it was fired into the ground and not the air. While I admit I wasn't there, I find it hard to believe that 20 people were after him that night, and if there were, than there is alot more to the story than he is telling.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bane9907
I find it hard to believe that 20 people were after him that night, and if there were, than there is alot more to the story than he is telling.


It's happened to me before. For nothing more than a wave or eye contact.

Say 'good morning' to the wrong guy and next thing you know your front lawn becomes a hang out for misfits who take pleasure in throwing rocks at your kids on their way to the bus stop.

One of the many reasons I left the city. People are insane and once they focus in on you the only way to get rid of them is to kill them.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bane9907
While it is his right to defend himself, we cant have people firing Aks off outside all willy nilly, at least it was fired into the ground and not the air. While I admit I wasn't there, I find it hard to believe that 20 people were after him that night, and if there were, than there is alot more to the story than he is telling.


First off, from all accounts it wasn't a "AK 47". Despite how the media portrays it, it is a legal semi auto variant and not even really considered a "high powered" round at that.

Why is his story hard to believe? Gangbangers are animals with a pack mentality that rivals predators out in the wild. Would it have made a difference if it was only 5 or 10? More to the story? Maybe, but who knows he could have just looked at one of them wrong way or refused to give up his $300 sun glasses. It happens everyday here in Detroit. But as always, I guess it's easier to blame the law abiding victim.



[edit on 8-9-2010 by Tyr Sog]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
This guy is in a no win situation with the law coming for him on one side, and a gang threatening him and his family on the other. Even if all charges get thrown out, he still has to deal with the threats of a gang that knows where he lives. And if it is the MS-13 they WILL want revenge.

It sucks that that this guy was even put in this situation to begin with.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Tyr Sog
 


Apparently, some posters have never faced the situation where - despite their own efforts to be invisible, innocuous and non-threatening - a small horde of double-y chromosome types or organized crime wannabe's decide your the object lesson for the day.

I too would have fired off some rounds into the dirt to let them know that it wasn't just an empty weapon or a mock-up ... when these people smell fear they can be VERY dangerous....

Imagine your neighbor facing these thugs down, and then suddenly it gets quiet and no one is around the house anymore... why? because your neighbor and the horde are INSIDE the house playing crime scene...

When the local news crew shows up after the mess is made you'll be the one carrying on about 'how could this happen here?'

I have NO sympathy for anyone who runs in gangs and intimidates communities into a state of timidity... that's what we have the government for.



[edit on 8-9-2010 by Maxmars]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
As another member stated, if you have not lived in a big city where these freaks exist, you have no idea what they are like.

Once they target you, might just as well leave the city.

The cops will not help.

What he should of done was placed them under citizens arrest. And then if they made furtive moves, well there you go.

[edit on 8-9-2010 by saltheart foamfollower]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Stories like these make me glad to live in Florida. Though, even here, he would have been charged with brandishing a firearm at the least. In all honesty, Im suprised he was even allowed to own an Ak in New York.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
He is probably being charged for criminal menacing and/or discharging a firearm in city limits. He was obligated under the law to retreat into his home. The moment any of the punks threatened his or his family's safety within the home, all bets are off and you shoot to kill. He violated legal protocol and will pay the price. Owning a firearm is a great responsibility - one that comes with knowing the law and abiding by it.


I agree 100%. Yes, we have a right to protect ourselves and our property, in SELF-DEFENSE... but we DON'T have the right to escalate the situation, which is what this gentleman did. How many times have you heard that if you shoot someone on your property, be sure to drag them into the house?


Seriously, he should have called the cops, sent his family into a safe area and sat at the front door waiting for the cops OR these scum to break down the door or a window and then unload that nice weapon on them...

I feel sorry for the guy, but the law is what prevails. And ignorance of it... can get you charged with reckless endangerment.



[edit on 9/8/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by kozmo
He is probably being charged for criminal menacing and/or discharging a firearm in city limits. He was obligated under the law to retreat into his home. The moment any of the punks threatened his or his family's safety within the home, all bets are off and you shoot to kill. He violated legal protocol and will pay the price. Owning a firearm is a great responsibility - one that comes with knowing the law and abiding by it.


I agree 100%. Yes, we have a right to protect ourselves and our property, in SELF-DEFENSE... but we DON'T have the right to escalate the situation, which is what this gentleman did. How many times have you heard that if you shoot someone on your property, be sure to drag them into the house?


Seriously, he should have called the cops, sent his family into a safe area and sat at the front door waiting for the cops OR these scum to break down the door or a window and then unload that nice weapon on them...

I feel sorry for the guy, but the law is what prevails. And ignorance of it... can get you charged with reckless endangerment.



[edit on 9/8/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]


This is the same ridiculous kind of rhetoric that opens a door to thoughts like "well it's rape: just sit back and enjoy it". I know that's not what you mean but come on, what is happening to this guy is heinous. Let's punish some guy for trying to do what most law enforcement is starting to fail to do? We could also go into the budgetary austerity programs where they are cutting police and fire. So, what? Throw up your hands just say "go ahead"? Escalating the situation? Would you have rather that the gang members escalate the situation by duct taping them, raping his family, killing them, and then taking off with all of their property? Seriously? We're going to claim "rule of law" rhetoric here and just hope for the best? And what happens if the cops show up and they aren't equipped? What happens if the cops don't show up due to a furlough day? What happens if they are far, far away and that family gets massacred in the meantime? Just sit back and take it because you might "escalate" the situation? And just because something is a law doesn't mean it can't be overturned or reappraised or voided. I sincerely hope that the justice system will look at this and drop the charges by challenging this through the Appeals process. I think this whole thing stinks to high heaven.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by justinsweatt
This is the same ridiculous kind of rhetoric that opens a door to thoughts like "well it's rape: just sit back and enjoy it".


WHAT? What are you talking about? The law isn't a secret and the guy broke the law. And I personally don't think it's a good idea to go outside and start shooting, whether it's an AK47 or a .22 pistol.



I know that's not what you mean


Well, then why did you say such a RIDICULOUS thing?



Would you have rather that the gang members escalate the situation by duct taping them, raping his family, killing them, and then taking off with all of their property?


I said if they break into his house, all bets are off. How are they going to do all that when their dead bodies are riddled on his living room floor? You're just being overly-emotional about it. And I'm not interested in defending my perfectly reasoned position any further.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


Seriously, he should have called the cops, sent his family into a safe area and sat at the front door waiting for the cops OR these scum to break down the door or a window and then unload that nice weapon on them...

I feel sorry for the guy, but the law is what prevails. And ignorance of it... can get you charged with reckless endangerment.



[edit on 9/8/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]


So wait, now our property is just reduced to our house only? Why stop there? They should have all locked themselves up in a closet and waited for the intruders to open that closet door. The gangbangers and criminals after all should be given every benefit of doubt possible.


Sorry, law or not I'm stopping this before it gets in to my house and I'll take the fall out before a jury of my piers.. There's far to many entry points that I can't keep my eyes on if I'm cowarding in my house waiting for the attack on my family. I want this resolved as far as away from my family as possible. My wife will be the one with the 12 guage waiting in the foyer as a last line of defense, not me.

Lets not even mention this is all happening on the fly and more then likely his train of thought isn't, "well, what should I do now". He's in survival and protection mode.

So, lets get back to the real world.


edit on 8-9-2010 by Tyr Sog because: typo.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by justinsweatt
This is the same ridiculous kind of rhetoric that opens a door to thoughts like "well it's rape: just sit back and enjoy it".


WHAT? What are you talking about? The law isn't a secret and the guy broke the law. And I personally don't think it's a good idea to go outside and start shooting, whether it's an AK47 or a .22 pistol.



I know that's not what you mean


Well, then why did you say such a RIDICULOUS thing?



Would you have rather that the gang members escalate the situation by duct taping them, raping his family, killing them, and then taking off with all of their property?


I said if they break into his house, all bets are off. How are they going to do all that when their dead bodies are riddled on his living room floor? You're just being overly-emotional about it. And I'm not interested in defending my perfectly reasoned position any further.


If you are being intimidated and threatened, last I checked there was a law against that whether you are in your own home or out on the street. Also, please re-read my post where I said this: "And just because something is a law doesn't mean it can't be overturned or reappraised or voided." There is a thing where this could go before a jury and the charge could be nullified through the criminal justice system by the jury stating that they are hung due to disagreement with the law and how it was enforced.

Why would I say such a ridiculous thing? Because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and I was making the point that your thinking is a slippery slope to some really just, in my opinion, justification of bad behavior. So you should just wait until they get in the house? And what happens if they grab you on the street? There have been examples of that in El Paso, TX, Presidio, TX, Tuscon, AZ, Phoenix, AZ, San Francisco, CA and on and on and on.

I'm asking you to defend your position not because I think you're personally bad or anything, I'm just curious as to how reasoned that kind of thinking really is. Again, exactly how do you address furlough days and budgetary austerity so that City Councilman can enjoy ridiculous pay increases? Seriously? What is the person supposed to do in those situations? Damned if you do and damned if you don't? Again, just sit back and enjoy it and let the cops and the "system" "work" it out.

No one, with any sense, goes into a situation where they want to shoot some one of have these kinds of experiences. However, an unchecked 2nd Amendment will definitely take care of situations like this one. Another forward thinking, awesome notion put in place by the framers our Constitution. I'm not saying that they were perfect but I happen to really like the 2nd Amendment for this very reason. And who wants to fight a cartel, who buy their machines guns on the black market, with a .22 anyway?

Why people think that his guy should have been arrested is just beyond me.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by justinsweatt


If you are being intimidated and threatened, last I checked there was a law against that whether you are in your own home or out on the street.



Here, I'll provide poof.

Road rage suspect released

This wasn't restricted to being couped up in his house. The father is still free although I'm sure some would argue he could have raced back home, ran to his front door and locked his kids and himself in waiting for their attackers.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I doubt it had anything to do with the type of gun (unless he had it converted to full auto). You don't fire warning shots, that's just stupid. If I have to pull the trigger, I'm shooting for the kill. He was arrested for ilegaly dischargiing his weapon and should have known the law regarding that since he owned a weapon. The LEO's did their job and did it well.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Alright, I am getting some ideas from both sides of the aisle here.

Some questions to ask.

At what point, is threats to your person or your family obliged to be reciprocated by deadly force? Tell me, do you think peace officers call their precinct for instructions for instructions when faced with situations such as these?

Our government has began to layoff and restrict our very peace officers. They have begun to say that citizens need to protect ourselves. They have in many states stated that we need to arm ourselves. They have gone so far as passed laws to allow us to conceal carry.

Now, you are going to say that someone that gave WARNING shots actually should be convicted of something? Blow it out your........

People, look at my avatar. I am ALL about no harm no foul. But, if someone threatens my family, my friends, my community, my country, my freedoms, they better hope to hell, I am not packing!




edit on 8-9-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: Oh one more thing, by God, I will protect my family, my life, and my country with EVERYTHING I have, including my LIFE!



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Having read the article and followed this on the news here are the facts:
1) The suspect and his cousin walked outside, saw where three people were having a heated argument infront of his property. He walked up, asking if there was anything wrong,and the three people there said no, it was a family argument and he asked that they move, as his family was sleeping inside the house.
2) He and his cousin got into his vehicle and the three individuals moved further onto his property and started to block the vehicle. They got out to see what the problem was.
3) His cousin became the target of the three peoples agression and he went inside to get his wife to call the cops and to grab his gun.
4) His gun, the AK47 is liscensed and he has all of the permits for such.
5) He went back outside as his cousin was there cornered by the 3 individuals.
6) As the arguments got more heated, more people came out of the dark, all converging on his lawn, making threats towards the homeowner and his family, according to the witness statements it was about 20 people.
7) As this is a known territory for the MS13 gang, they either are a member of that gang or a rival gang seeking to make inroads into that area.
8) He fired 4 shots into the ground, scattering the mob that had assembled on his front lawn infront of his house.
Those are the facts as they have been presented. The question that the courts in New York will have to answer, is what justifies reasonable force in this case, and what would have been considered equal force in this case? What could have been a reasonable response on the home owners part, to protect not only his family inside but also his cousin that was out there, and with a mob showing up on his lawn? At what point does a person have the right to justify using deadly force in the protection of life and property?
But as I see it, if it was just the three people, then yes it would have been excessive force, with 20 people all converging on the small front lawn, then I believe he met such with equal force. They may or may not have had a fire arm, however, the reality is 2 men versus 20, unless the 2 are trained for combat, they are not going to survive the onslaught. I am hoping the the jury in this case takes that into consideration and will issue a verdict that reflects that, and pushes back to the Judge and DA that there has to be a consideration that the definition of what is reasonable or equal force needs to be carefully defined.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join