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: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
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?


That's why to carry concealed you have to know the laws. You are given instruction on when it is okay to use deadly force to defend yourself. If a person doesn't know the law, they have no business owning a gun.



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!



Exactly, that's why you don't put your finger on the trigger until you're going to fire and you don't give warning shots. If you pull that trigger, it's to be used in defense, not as a warning. A gun isn't something to waive around and hope you scare some bad guys off. It's definitely not for shooting into the ground where a ricochet might hit an innocent. If I felt threatened, I would have stood my ground and the first advance towards me would have been met with several ounces of lead to the soft tissue of the body. No leg shots, no warning shots; center mass aiming straight for the heart. That's how you deal with people that put you or your family at risk.




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


there are some very basic firearm rules that were broken. Never point a gun at something you don't intend to kill. Never discharge a weapon in close proximity to innocent people. (he neighbors, not the gang) Any one of his 4 shots could have ricochet and went God knows where. The thing to do is like most here have said. Go inside lock up, wait for the cops or an idiot to come in the door. And a shotgun would be the proper tool for this job. This guy needs an education. I would hate to see him have to live with a felony over this, but he did make some serious mistakes.(IMHO)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
At what point, is threats to your person or your family obliged to be reciprocated by deadly force?


Verbal threats are NOT enough to warrant the use of deadly force. You have what's called a "duty to retreat" but you're not expected to retreat from your HOME. THat's why it's important that if you're going to shoot, someone better be entering your home.



"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."


Source



Tell me, do you think peace officers call their precinct for instructions for instructions when faced with situations such as these?


Regular citizens are not police officers.



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


So, stating the law as it is is reason for you to get offensive?


] But, if someone threatens my family, my friends, my community, my country, my freedoms, they better hope to hell, I am not packing!


If someone verbally threatens you and you shoot him, you will most likely go to prison. Then your family will be safe, huh?


We live in a society of laws. If you don't like them, get them changed. But breaking them will only get you into trouble. I will protect my family, too, but I'm going to make sure I do it within the law.



edit on 9/8/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: coding



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG
That's why to carry concealed you have to know the laws. You are given instruction on when it is okay to use deadly force to defend yourself. If a person doesn't know the law, they have no business owning a gun.


Best quote in this thread!


Know how and when to use it or put it away!



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


Thanks a LOT for the additional information.

Now we have a person being threatened, not just the homeowner and the family inside the house.

Will any changes of opinion be made with the new information?

Thanks again for the additional information.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
The problem here is that the posters in this thread are arguing what should be vs. what is.

IMO, if a gang shows up on your lawn threatening to kill your family you should have the right to take action. Waiting until they are actually in the act of trying to kill your family is too late.

Unfortunately, that is not how the law is written. This man will face charges and will most likely be convicted. NY is anti gun and any chance they get to sensationalize and criminalize gun owners will be taken.

An example of this sensationalizing is them reporting he had an "AK47". An AK47 is a fully automatic machine gun. The gun he had was not. It looked like one, but was not. Right off the bat they are trying to make this guy look bad and lying about what he used.


edit on 8-9-2010 by Primordial because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Sorry there BH, I know the law like the back of my hand. It is actually quite simple!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Sorry, like I said earlier in the thread, this person can expect to be found NOT GUILTY.

If the defendant allows the assistance of council to do everything, then more than likely he will be found guilty. But if the defendant actually asks some questions himself, he will be not be vilified.

Yes, no matter what you do, you can be found guilty of something. Does this mean you deserve to be punished? I have actually heard of people found guilty of crimes and the judge has designated no penalty. I have also heard that juries have sentenced heroes to jail. That is why we have to use our own words and tell the juries exactly what the ultimate problems are. SO, are we going to sentence people that have only attempted to protect themselves and families, without injuring anyone, to a jail sentence?

Pfffft. Those that KEEP going on and on and on and on and on about the law, do you even understand what the LAW means? Doubt it.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


WOW! took me a few seconds to get what the hell you were talking about then i almost choked on what I was drinking lol..RPG right...
Star for you. Maybe I should have said AT4 instead, but you may have used verbal judo on me with some kind of star wars techno babble.

touche, touche!



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Shoot first ask questions later my motto and im stickin too it



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


yea i can smell the bacon. how many cops r on this site?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Star for that post sir..

Epic.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
if he fired the shots on his property, why should it matter? Don't we have property rights anymore? Shouldn't I be allowed to do what I please on my own property as long as I don't infringe on anyone else? If they were on his property, doesn't he have a right to defend it against trespassers? No one was injured. The commotion made by the gun surely couldn't have woken anyone up (disturbed the peace) anymore so than the large crowd of gang members.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   
On the topic of home defense this man played extremely dumb. Walking out to threaten 5 people not smart. If you believe they are MS-13.. Then you'd think they are incredibly violent, and armed. So what did you do? You just put five guns on you..

Apparently he didn't see 300.. to realize a narrow space of his choosing would be better for a battle..

He should of waited for the cops, but he chose to fire his gun.

Oh and if that was MS-13 (and it could have been.. who knows?) he just screwed himself and his family..



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj

Oh and if that was MS-13 (and it could have been.. who knows?) he just screwed himself and his family..


Yes, just bow to the vermin.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   
You know. If 25 gang members were coming towards my home with my family in it and I had an AK-47 that holds 30 rounds. There would be no survivors. I would fire killshot after killshot, popping gang members heads like overripe watermelons. I am a very accurate shot. There would be NO survivors.

that's my 2 cents.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Lolz, nanny state. If that ever happened to me, I'd sue several people until they're dead, then open carry my pistol and jog in front of my local police station every day.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brotherman
for the most part you are obligated to retreat a confrontation or fight like that and alert police or near by people that may be in danger. That being said the only time you do not have to retreat is when you are in your home I believe its the castle rule as in the king doesnt have to flee from the kingdom. I think it gets harry when you fire at someone outside your house in close proximity of other homes and since he obviously didnt intend to shoot them as in his action to fire shots into the ground is reckless negligance and unlawfully discharging a fire arm. theres all kinds of stuff that they can probably charge him with but then again being charged is different than being convicted.


Thankfully, we have the "castle law" here in Texas. We no longer have to "retreat". Our property PERIOD is our castle. I didnt think you guys in GB were allowed weapons at home?

Should have wasted all the SOB's that arrived! Cant be much more aggressive in manner than that!


Miraj, you have the correct method! Damn problem will be cleaning the carpet. Hope they have tile floor LOL!


edit on 9/9/10 by felonius because: edit to add



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


it's easy to make weapons and traps. You don't even need a gun. I could come up with dozens of ways to destroy a group of gang-bangers. I mean have you seen home alone?
You could electrify your doorknobs by running a wire from your outlet.
You could dig concealed pit traps in your yard and fill them full of spikes
You could use a lighter and a can of hairspray as a flamethrower
you could use vodka or gasoline with a rag in it as an incendiary grenade
you could stick shotgun shells in the end of a pipe and hit em with a hammer. homemade shotgun
there's endless ways and means to fight back. Just use your creativity.
Even if there was no second amendment you can still buy guns illegally
Even if all you have is a knife, if you get the drop on someone with a gun, that gun is yours now.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by harpsounds
 


The police are held to the same standard in this situation as are citizens. What he should have done is gone back into his house, locked the door, called the police, grabbed the rifle and waited for the first guy to bang the door down. Once that happens open fire.

You might get charged but it will have to go to a thing called a Grand Jury. They will review the case and if they feel it was self defense you will not get an indictment. If they still feel you were wrong then it will go to trial but i can assure you that you will not get convicted.

I agree with the right to bear arms and defending your home and family. More power to you. But it would be a totally different story if he cracked off a round and it entered some poor childs bedroom (or anyone for that matter) and killed someone. He did not see a weapon. He could have gone back inside and waited for the police.

As for the police. We have to follow the same process. If we shoot someone, whether it is an obvious good shooting or not, we will have to go to Grand Jury on murder charges. They review the case and if it is rightfully justified there is no indictment. If it is not justified then we get indicted just like everyone else and have to go to trial.

We are not "gods" and we do not try to "enslave" people. We just ask that people use common sense when approaching situations. No police officer would have been justified to fire his weapon in that situation and if they would have, at the very least, he would have lost his/her job if he/she did.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by iamoverrated
 


Most jurisdictions have a law prohibiting firing a firearm within a "metropolitan" area. A metropolitan area is an area where properties and houses are too close together to allow discharging a firearm safely. If you are inside of the metropolitan area you may not discharge a firearm whether it is on your property on not due to the public safety risk. If you live outside of the metropolitan area you may feel free to make your own gun range providing you are doing it safely with proper back stops and things like that.

Look at it this way. Someone who lives in a townhouse where the houses are closely packed together should not open a gun range in their back yard because if you throw a round the chances of you hitting another person are good. If you have a fairly sizeable piece of land where your neighbors are pretty far away then one could argue that the chances of you hitting another person if you miss are relatively low.




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join