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: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by notfallingdown
 


Let me ask you a question, why does it matter? I personally subscribe to this website because I am interested in most of the topics and agree with some of its members points of view. When we post on this website we bring with us the knowledge and experience that we have gained just like you do. Most of us provide facts and cite laws, which differ from state to state, to try to have people make an informed opinion on the matter at hand instead of posting knee jerk statements that are mostly due to them being uninformed. Based on a few posts ive read, some do not know what the laws really are or distort the reason they are in place.

Instead of discounting anyone, think about the information that they provide. Then either CONSTRUCTIVELY refine your arguments on the subject or refine your point of view.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
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)

Well you sir are the problem. You are an idiot. (You have lots of company)
Didnt George Bush teach you about preemptive warfare?


edit on 9-9-2010 by RRokkyy because: ?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


You make a statement like that and call him an idiot? You sir do not have the first idea of the laws that govern using firearms nor the stones to use one if you did. I can only hope that the future of our country never rests on your shoulders because we will truly fail if it does.

This is why I'm all for extending the death penalty to encompass morons.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Please. Protecting your family is priority.

MS-13 is an incredibly wide spread and violent street gang. You take down five of these guys and at least 30 will come looking for you.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
If you saw 5 or more people threatening your life you would just lock your doors inside your house and wait??? Wait for what exactly for each one of them to come in the front door like a set of domino's? If they were gang members that had murderous intent your house would look like swiss cheese, but I guess locking the doors and sitting in the corner will somehow shield you from bullets...... I am not saying swinging a gun outside is smart either but I don't know where you people get your false sense of security from?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jheated5
 


If they were on his property and were brandishing weapons and threatening to kill him thats one thing. They were standing in his driveway threatening him. The most you have is tresspassing at this point. In my jurisdication to have a first degree assault you need to have the threat and a means to carry it out. Simply saying im going to shoot you, or stab you, or even kill you without taking any steps to carry the action out is simply everyones god given right to freedom of speech.

If you are going to kill an unarmed person, you need to satisfy a few basic conditions to make it legitimate. One basic condition is that they entered your home without your permission and you fear for your or your family's lives, not simply standing outside yelling. If everyone could do this without the threat of arrest and prosecution, do you know how many neighbors would be shooting at each other because they were standing on their property and didnt like each other?

The proper way to handle THIS situation would have been to call the police and wait for them to arrive inside the safety of your home. Then when they do, the hoodlums will be prosecuted for tresspassing if they did not decide to leave before the police arrive. If the tresspassers decide to become burglars, open fire and let the medical examiner figure things out.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
Simply saying im going to shoot you, or stab you, or even kill you without taking any steps to carry the action out is simply everyones god given right to freedom of speech.


No it is not.

Threatening someone's life is a class 1 misdemeanor and is worthy of jail time.

Whether you take steps or not.


In most U.S. jurisdictions, the crime remains a misdemeanor unless a deadly weapon is involved or actual violence is committed, in which case it is usually considered a felony.

Criminal threatening can be the result of verbal threats of violence, physical conduct (such as hand gestures or raised fists), actual physical contact, or even simply the placing of an object or graffiti on the property of another person with the purpose of coercing or terrorizing.


en.wikipedia.org...




edit on 10-9-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

So what do we know? Guy discharged a firearm. He wasn't charged for having the weapon. Whatever happens should be up to the official finders of fact, a jury, to decide. The police have no business making the call to NOT arrest him in this situation. All they know is what he told them. Maybe it's true. Does anyone here want the police to have the latitude to make that call?

Maybe he was threatened by a gang. Witnesses will be called. Testimony will ensue. This is what should happen when someone fires a gun in a neighborhood. In my opinion.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


Well said. Anytime a firearm is discharged, there should be a thorough investigation. Police have a responsibility to the public to protect them....sometimes from themselves.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
It is not nice to ask people to leave while holding a gun. You get the gun later, when they don't leave. He created a problem and will get punished for it. He won't get punished much.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
"I feared for my life and the lives of my family/friends. I took the action I deemed was appropriate to eliminate the threat to our lives."

Memorize it.


It also helps if you can squirt a little bit in your pants before the officers arrive.

A man who has urinated in his own pants was obviously scared for his life.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by jheated5
 
The proper way to handle THIS situation would have been to call the police and wait for them to arrive inside the safety of your home.


The proper way to handle this is with a few well placed shots and a drop gun or two.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


If you read just above where you quoted you find this statement:

In most countries it is only an offence if it can be proven the person had THE INTENTION AND EQUIPMENT TO CARRY OUT THE THREAT. However if the threat involves the mention of a bomb it is automatically a crime.

A definition of criminal threatening from wikipedia is a far cry from citing an actual States's law saying that you cannot simply exercise your right to free speech and threaten someone. I would be interested to see what New York's laws are pertaining to this because this is the jurisdiction it occurred in.

There are exceptions like the threat of arson is a crime in some jurisdictions as well as making bomb threat. These are crimes because of the immediate threat to public safety if it is carried out.

Again, I submit that to have a crime you need guilty intention and a guilty action.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


If you believe so strongly, then I DARE you to go out and threaten someone's life.

Then come back to us after you are releasd from jail and tell us about your 1st amendment right to call for murder.

BTW, I know it is against the law to call for murder. A few years ago my boss' 11 year old son got into major trouble when he told another kid he was going to kill him. Did I mention that there was no action taken by my boss' son but still got into trouble and also that his son claimed it was "just a joke", "just a saying", etc. Or in other words......freedom of speech?

Also, I believe that 22 guys advancing on your property, not backing down, calling for your death is a form of action that shows intent, no?

Having said all this, I do agree with posters above who have stated that since he did fire his weapon, he needs to be investigated. I am always saying that the police should be held to the same standards as the citizens. I believe all police who discharge their firearms are investigated, correct? Therefore, it is only fitting that this civilian be held to the same as the police.


edit on 11-9-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
New York law.

Making a terroristic threat is a class D felony.
4 § 490.25 Crime of terrorism.
5 1. A person is guilty of a crime of terrorism when, with intent to
6 intimidate or coerce a civilian population
, influence the policy of a
7 unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of
8 a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping, he or she
9 commits a specified offense.

Above could be used.

Also

Section 240.08 Inciting to riot

A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm.

Inciting to riot is a class A misdemeanor.

Section 240.10 Unlawful assembly

A person is guilty of unlawful assembly when he assembles with four or more other persons for the purpose of engaging or preparing to engage with them in tumultuous and violent conduct likely to cause public alarm, or when, being present at an assembly which either has or develops such purpose, he remains there with intent to advance that purpose.

Unlawful assembly is a class B misdemeanor.

Section 240.20 Disorderly conduct

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or

Section 240.26 Harassment in the second degree

A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:

1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or

Section 240.30 Aggravated harassment in the second degree.

A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she:

1. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise, with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or

Section 240.45 Criminal nuisance in the second degree

A person is guilty of criminal nuisance in the second degree when:

1. By conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all the circumstances, he knowingly or recklessly creates or maintains a condition which endangers the safety or health of a considerable number of persons; or

I got this from this link-wings.buffalo.edu...

So yeah, there are a few charges they can throw at someone for threatening their life and killing the family.


edit on 11-9-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
New York law.

Making a terroristic threat is a class D felony.
4 § 490.25 Crime of terrorism.
5 1. A person is guilty of a crime of terrorism when, with intent to
6 intimidate or coerce a civilian population
, influence the policy of a
7 unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of
8 a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping, he or she
9 commits a specified offense.

Above could be used.


While the rest may be plausible calling it terrorism by the definition you gave is a bit of a stretch. Unless the lawyer can convince the judge that the family constitutes a 'population' you have no argument.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Yeah, that is why I said COULD be used.

The rest are pretty much perfect matches to what MAY HAVE happened.

Not enough information to come to a conclusion though. I am sure the police are going to great lengths to find the gang members. /s



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Awesome research! We have several charges to hit these hoodlums with. Although terrorism would be a stretch, I would say you have probable cause to charge it and let the court decide whether or not to drop it or run with it.

So, we have several misdemeanor charges to hit this group with. So under New York State Law these guys are not going to just walk away from the situation. If this guy would have used some restraint and gone back inside, the police would have arrived and the group would have been subject to arrest.

Again, if any tried to get inside of his house he would have been fully justified to use whatever means he deemed necessary to protect himself and his family. I would even go as far as to say if he saw them brandish weapons outside while on his property I think he would still be justified to take that person out.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


Well, that is the problem, from the article all we have is the homeowner's testimony.

Did the police even attempt to find the gangbangers?

That is part of the problem.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Some of the twisting of laws here to make them look like terrorists, and practising pat statements about being "Afraid for my life" are worthy of the scummiest of police pigs.

Go join the force if you want to twist laws and words in your favor in order to act out like a psychopath.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join