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
21
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by DazedDave
 


Its a little short sighted of you to assume that anyone who finds themselves in a bad town can move house ! I mean what the hell is wrong with YOU ? Do you really believe that everyone in the nation you live in can just up and leave any time they like ? What the hell ?
Ok , a little information for you . First of all , a person has a RIGHT to live in peace no matter wether they live in the middle of a big city , or out in the middle of no where. They have the right to defend thier freedom from violence and danger no matter where they are from or where they live. They have the right to defend thier property and thier lives.
Second of all , alot of people who live in places which suffer this sort of gangland problem, are too damned short of cash to move someplace else. Property , rented or bought is expensive, even when the market is slack its expensive. Consider please that many people in high crime areas dont have more than a grand in their bank accounts, and would be hard pressed to save more than they have already, and that figure isnt enough for even a deposit. People are sometimes poor is what I am saying. Besides which, it is the job of local government and the police to do a better job of keeping crap off of the streets, and it seems to me that in the area specified in this case , they have failed. That is not the fault of the homeowner with the AK , and therefore it should not be his problem either.
All he is doing in protecting himself, is taking responsibility for someone elses mistake, a burden which is supposed to be taken by the state.
People should be thanking him for not making a stink about it with the local government, rather than decrying his manful defence of his home, self and family.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Who can "just move" anymore? This guy live where he can afford to live and sometimes those circumstances are less than ideal. Yes this is America, but have you looked around lately? Even the so called "safe" neighborhoods are riddled with crime. I applaud this gentlemen for taking a stand and for being willing to defend his home, himself and his family. I would do the same thing .



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by summerbreeze.ddp
 


I did! I uprooted my whole family. My wife was a teacher for 12ys, two kids in elementary school, I owned my own business (doing very well) own nice home in upstate (currently on market) and moved to TX. That is how sick I am of the crap in NY. Just packed up the truck and went.


edit on 9/9/10 by xyankee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by xyankee
 


Yes Im sure you did... theres a reason you were able to do that. You have your own business. Have you any idea how lucky that makes you ? And therefore have you any idea how irrelavent the small number of people who can afford to actualy move are ? Its an insignificant amount of the population,and therefore has no importance regarding this individual case.
Besides, even if this gentleman could have moved his whole family , and just because you DID move your entire family, does not mean its the right thing to do for everyone. For you it worked. But for someone who values the home they have , it should not mean just because they can move, that they must move! The thug people in the wrong need to move. To the next life preferably.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by AzoriaCorp
 


The home owner was walking a fine line. Did the gang brandish weapons or merely make verbal threats? Did anyone actually try to break into his home or where they just on the edge of his property? I dont think that he should have been arrested under the circumstances especially since he felt threatened (isnt that the excuse that the police use when they shoot someone brandishing a steak knife from 5 yards away?). However, the gang didnt try a "bum rush" on him while he was outside with the gun (in which case firing a warning shot(s) into the ground would have been de rigeur) but if he had fired the shots into the air which would have endangered others then he should have been arrested for that. But this is as dangerous trend to demonize citizens for exercising their right of self defense (self, family and property). BTW, I am sure that the weapon was a civilian AK-47 clone (semi-auto) not a military AK-47 (full-auto) but the media's use of AK-47 makes it seem more sinister.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh

But the law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force.


That is exactly what he was doing.

Start whining when he gets convicted, such things must be investigated.


No he wasn't and no it doesn't. The law doesn't say you use physical force to "DETER" physical force. Someone used the incorrect term there. Deter connotes to stop something from happening BEFORE it happens. The law does not allow this. If you see a guy walking around in front of your house and he LOOKS suspicious to you you are NOT allowed by law to go punch him in the face and subdue him. The law allows use of physical force only to stop actual physical force that is already occurring. This is NOT what this man did. This man used physical force without it being used on him. The alleged "gang" did not do anything to him apart from shouting and as such by law he was NOT in his right to fire off his gun. Now if they charged his house and began assaulting him or his house THEN he will be ok to shoot.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
At least in Indiana, if someone is on your property trespassing you can ask them to leave and brandish a weapon at the same time. That means yes if it were me and someone is trespassing on my property I can walk out side with a handgun or a 12 gauge as I am in "fear for my life" and that person is violating my property rights and I can ask them to leave. Then if that person becomes aggressive then force is justified.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigshow
At least in Indiana, if someone is on your property trespassing you can ask them to leave and brandish a weapon at the same time. That means yes if it were me and someone is trespassing on my property I can walk out side with a handgun or a 12 gauge as I am in "fear for my life" and that person is violating my property rights and I can ask them to leave. Then if that person becomes aggressive then force is justified.


The same applies in MO. Our castle doctrine has been expanded to property lines. So a life threatening situation (including trespassers) within the owner's property lines can be met with lethal force. But this is not what the article is stating he's being charged for. He's being charged with discharging a weapon unlawfully.

Since his state does not have these laws, he should of just waited until they attempted to enter the home and then proceed to light them up. Then I believe he wouldnt of been arrested and he wouldnt be in this unfortunate mess.


edit on 9-9-2010 by AzoriaCorp because: added to comment



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak

Originally posted by Soshh

But the law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force.


That is exactly what he was doing.

Start whining when he gets convicted, such things must be investigated.


No he wasn't and no it doesn't. The law doesn't say you use physical force to "DETER" physical force. Someone used the incorrect term there. Deter connotes to stop something from happening BEFORE it happens. The law does not allow this. If you see a guy walking around in front of your house and he LOOKS suspicious to you you are NOT allowed by law to go punch him in the face and subdue him. The law allows use of physical force only to stop actual physical force that is already occurring. This is NOT what this man did. This man used physical force without it being used on him. The alleged "gang" did not do anything to him apart from shouting and as such by law he was NOT in his right to fire off his gun. Now if they charged his house and began assaulting him or his house THEN he will be ok to shoot.


you seem to give the impression that the gang did nothing illegal when in fact they did. The State of New York however failed to protect the innocent and prosecute the criminals. The gang was trespassing and were asked to leave. Once they did not comply by not leaving the property is when the crime occurred and in most states like MO or Indiana, the gang would have been shot and the property owner justified.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Hold on a min!
First you must realize I am not saying that I am happy with what I did, I never said it was for everyone. The business I own is still in NY I have to pay someone a lot of money to run it. My kids are not happy because they had to leave there friends. My wife, god bless her does what ever I ask her to do, but I don’t think she likes her new job.

If I could have the government and the people that are in NY I would be in paradise, but I can’t sit around and wait for that to happen because it won’t I read somewhere that 1000 people a day are moving from NY.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Why does everyone act surprised at all this type of news.

Its like everyday the same infringement on your liberties is being displayed and ATS members act all surprised.

Either ATS members are a bit challenged or they choose to ignore and forget all other news stories that happened the day before, or the day before that etc.

Stop being so juvenile. YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. And you will never do anything about it. Except moan on ATS.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

The home owner was walking a fine line. Did the gang brandish weapons or merely make verbal threats?


Irrelevent. They were trespassing. Unfortunately his State could care a less about his or his family's safety.


However, the gang didnt try a "bum rush" on him while he was outside with the gun (in which case firing a warning shot(s) into the ground would have been de rigeur) but if he had fired the shots into the air which would have endangered others then he should have been arrested for that.


The ricochet scenario is irrelevent.

He was protecting himself, family, and property. If he had fired a shot at the criminals in which the shot ricocheted and hit someone or something that burden would also be on the criminal. The owner was just upholding justice. If a cop is trying to stop a bank robber and is being threatened forcing the cop to shoot in which his bullets ricochet and injure someone, would the cop be liable? No.




edit on 9-9-2010 by AzoriaCorp because: grammar



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   


Why does everyone act surprised at all this type of news.

Its like everyday the same infringement on your liberties is being displayed and ATS members act all surprised.


As long as we spread the news and keep the idea of freedom fresh in our minds, we wont be desensitized to the violations of American and human rights. To this we owe it to ourselves and our children for a better America and so that we are educated to stand a chance in the fight against tyranny.



Either ATS members are a bit challenged or they choose to ignore and forget all other news stories that happened the day before, or the day before that etc.

Stop being so juvenile. YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. And you will never do anything about it. Except moan on ATS.


If the discussion is meaningless or any debate about rights and their infringement then why are you here?

YES WE DO HAVE RIGHTS. We just need to stand up and enforce them. We always will have them. The problem is their enforecment.

So go be cynical somewhere else...



edit on 9-9-2010 by AzoriaCorp because: fixed quotes



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I live a half hour from Uniondale and this man did the right thing morally and legally, despite stupidity on the part of the cops. What pisses me off more than the cops is that I don't hear a word from the NRA in defense of actions like these.
Interesting how the NRA never seems to speak up on the real issues but when it comes to their right-wing politics they're on the spot quicker than lightening.

If you support George Grier, please write to the Nassau County, NY police dept to express your extreme displeasure with their handling of the event - for all of our sakes.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
This man should and better be acquitted on all charges.

All information presented points to the fact that this man is telling the absolute truth.

In that circumstance, those punks should be glad they didn't get hosed down with 7.62. MS-13 is a soulless and terrorist organization by definition. They have no qualms with murdering Mothers, fathers, sons, daughters. They have proven that they don't mind kidnapping and murdering infants. They rape, steal and kill.

2,000 CONFIRMED MS-13 in one county is ridiculous, someone needs to let the reigns off of special weapons teams and round up these terds. Most likely many of them would fire at leo's, I say good, those little bastards should eat a healthy helping of .223

This man did what any responsible and logical man would. Grabbed his best weapon for self-defense, and then warned off a 20+ member gang while alerting police. He did not kill anyone, he did not attempt to kill anyone, he fired the shots into his yard, which is the safest place to unload them in this scenario. Police say he was cooperative, what more do you need.

Not to play the race card, but would a rich white guy in Orange County, CA be arrested on these charges given the exact same scenario? Something tells me the unlawful discharge was an excuse to detain the man while the cops looked for drugs, money and illegal weapons. Help this brother out, I am actually going to send a respectable email to NCPD.


edit on 9-9-2010 by Shark VA84 because: (no reason given)




edit on 9-9-2010 by Shark VA84 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Personally I don't care about any of this wimpy garbage commentary - any 25 people in front of my house that have chosen to be or appear as a gang or any other group of hostile people making threats on my life or my family's get 1 warning and then in this case 25 more to there buddies.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


an ak-47 levels the odds when you have 20 potential armed gangbangers.



Yeah, valid argument


Not.

Absolutely disgusting someone can own such a weapon.


Well, the interesting thing about my 'tactical turd technique' is that it would potentially eliminate the need for battle carbines like the AK47 or the M4; however, how would you guys view using laxatives, high fiber diets, etc. as avenues to induce a 'rapid projectile delivery system' (e.g., diarrhea)?

Yet another option would be to obtain and then deploy used colostomy bags in a more strategic manner - i.e., carpet bombing the mob with feces-filled plastic bags from an area of high elevation and relative safety.

The possibilities are endless....think strategically planned meals (buffalo wings, mexican, spicy Indian dishes, Metamucil) in conjunction with water balloons, heavy duty garbage bags, five gallon buckets, and so forth.

A potential problem of such defenses would be having your 'arse-enal' categorised under various NATO and UN/Geneva Conventions as biological or perhaps germ-warfare type weapons.

Please...feel free to discuss this among yourselves, and get back to me either thru this particular thread or thru the U2U function.

Thanks kindly for your input and ideas.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AzoriaCorp
 


Before I read the comments or even the main story I will say I see in the headline of your post the AK-47 and Long Island.
I know the AK is still legal in some states but I am not totally sure as I do not live there but I think Long Island is part of a black gun free zone, maybe even any gun free zone.
If said man was arrested it was probably for this.
Now onto reading the story and comments.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


The gun was legal, and he was not detained and charged with an illegal possession of a firearm. He was charged with endangering the public for firing four warning shots into his front lawn.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AzoriaCorp
 


Bummer, it seems I was mostly if not totally wrong.
The homeowner’s first mistake was for not seeing or at least claiming to have seen a weapon…
Second mistake was for firing a warning shot, as far back as I can remember warning shots will get you put into jail.
You do not know where said bullet will end up, if you fire into the air it can land anywhere, and if you fire into the ground a ricochet is possible off of a rock, pipe, dirt, Etc.
I did not know that in NY anywhere that you could legally own an AK though.
This gentleman will get grilled for doing the right thing however.
All we can hope for is he goes for a jury trial and there is at least one juror that knows of “Jury Nullification”.
I wish the best for this man.




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join