NY man arrested for using rifle to defend family from gang
George Grier — a family man whose home in Uniondale, on Long Island just east of New York City, was threatened last weekend by two dozen gang members – thought he as doing the right thing protecting his family by confronting the gang bangers with a rifle he lawfully kept in his home. Instead, he found out that in Nassau County, home to an estimated 2,000 members of the ultra-violent “MS-13″ gang, brandishing a firearm, even in defense of one’s home and family, is a criminal offense. He was arrested and charged with felony reckless endangerment.
What landed Grier in legal hot water was not that he fired the rifle (a semi-automatic AK-47) at any of the gang members gathered on his lawn who were taunting him with threats to kill him, his wife and his children; but that he fired a few warning shots into his lawn in an obvious attempt to scare the thugs away, not to kill or even wound anyone.
As explained by Nassau County’s finest – who were alerted to the incident by sound detectors in the neighborhood that apparently can pinpoint the sound of gunshots and alert the police — because Grier admitted he did not see any of the gang members draw a weapon on him, his use of a rifle to try and scare them away was excessive and unlawful.
We can hope that if the local prosecutor persists in pursuing these trumped-up charges against Grier, a jury will acquit him. However, in New York, where New York City’s mayor proudly upholds that city’s draconian gun control law that disarms virtually all law-abiding citizens, such result is by no means assured.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
85 comments Add your comment
paleo-neo-Carlinist
September 10th, 2010
6:57 am
Bob, first things first. with regard to your final paragraph, I do not believe Uniondale, Long Island is part of New York City. As such, NYC’s gun laws and Mayor Bloomberg’s views on gun control are in play. In this instance, I believe Nassau County prosecutors have the final say. either way, this is a tricky case, and calls into question the value of video/audio surveilance of citizens. what do we know about Mr. Greir? was there a reason the “gang members” were harassing him? did he fear for his life? what do we know about the “gang members” who were allegedly taunting him? were they armed? did they produce weapons? did they threaten him? if they were MS-13 members, why did the police not arrest any of them (or did they?)? at the end of the day, personal protection and self-defense is one thing; and firing 7.62 rounds ANYWHERE is another. did Mr.s Greir act judiciously or was his behavior reckless and rash? I guess we do not know, and that is why there will be a trial. I do not believe such behavior to be criminal, and I believe most gun ownership/posession laws to be draconian; but the moment a person produces a firearm or pulls the trigger, we cannot afford to assume he was acting lawfully; or that his “target(s) was not.
I'm gonna git you, Suckah!
September 10th, 2010
7:17 am
Now that’s a fine bit o’ thinkin’, Bob Barr. But the danger to the community was obvious: the lunatic who fired an assault rifle in a neighborhood. If I catch anyone doing that near me, I would make a citizen’s arrest and see that clown in prison where he belongs.
Don’t let a narration skew your common sense. A group of citizens can assemble and vogue gangbang all they want. It’s like shooting at a car that cut you off. Yes, you had to slam on your brakes to avoid a collision in which you may have been injured or keeled, but you have no right to retaliate in any form whatsoever. Many road rage incidents are caused by one driver assuming that the other driver is armed and getting ready to make a preemptive shot. (”I had to shoot him afore he shot me.”)
Bob Barr is baiting the book burners here. But that doesn’t mean I have the right to call him a moron. See how that works?
New Rule. You may not fire no firearm in no neighborhood nohow, (you total idiots).
Robb
September 10th, 2010
7:45 am
The guy has a right to defend his family and use deadly force if needed. Where he screwed up was firing a warning shot. Take a defensive/tactical gun course and your trainer will tell you never to do such a stupid thing. It is hard to second guess someone who is in a situation where they are threatened, but he should have used the gun to hold the thugs at bay while someone inside dialed 911. If they tried to enter his home, then he should have shot them.
Hopefully he will get off of these charges…and hopefully thugs and criminals will come to understand that a lot of us law abiding citizens are armed and wouldn’t think twice about shooting them center mass if need be.
HL
September 10th, 2010
7:57 am
A gun and an assault rifle are 2 different things. And why didn’t the guy call the police? I am ok with having a gun at home, even though I think it is not necessary, but I am sure that the only people that should own legally assault rifles are soldiers in combat.
There is nothing draconian about the law, it is only common sense – and if this gang is so violent and blood thirsty – why has no one else problems? Or why did the police not arrest them? Didn’t they have guns?
PinkoNeoConLibertarian
September 10th, 2010
8:10 am
All he really needed to do was to say that he thought he saw a gun and feared for his life. Works for LEO’s all the time, even when they aren’t outnumbered 24-1.
shaggy
September 10th, 2010
8:22 am
If any gang bangers EVER threaten my home, there will be no warning shot. I will try to hold them at bay, until authorities can take over, but if they come anyway, I hit what I aim at…every time…no warning needed at that juncture of the ex-gang banger’s experience.
Duh
September 10th, 2010
8:22 am
HL @7:57, please provide us with an accurate definition of “assault rifle”.
Carlosgvv
September 10th, 2010
8:25 am
Bob, I remember, years ago, reading about a young woman in NY who stabbed a man who tried to rape her. Because she used a switchblade knife she was arrested and charged. The judge said he was sorry but the law is the law. Some things just never change.
Rusty G.
September 10th, 2010
8:52 am
HL – A gun and an assault rifle are two different things? How? Clearly, in this circumstance, he was in lawful possession of the firearm, so any distinction you are drawing seems a bit arbitrary.
As to whether the gang is violent and bloodthirsty, I’m not sure how you’re jumping to the conclusion that no one else had any problems with them, much less that the fact that they had not yet been arrested had any bearing on whether they could exist and act violently. The fact that gangs exist seems to rather support the notion that, believe it or not, the police have not succeeded in arresting all of them for whatever shenanigans they get up to.
Seems to me that the situation hinges upon various claims. If they were truly threatening him with violence, firing a warning shot into the ground was ill advised but probably shouldn’t be a felony. But it’s also not explicitly protected by the constitution or anything. Bearing arms and firing them is a pretty fine line.
If it’s against the law in Nassau County to discharge a firearm except in certain circumstances, it seems like that’s likely to be a legitimate, if potentially draconian law.
For my part it’s tough to argue that he was in immediate danger. If he fired the weapon into the ground without response from the gang, it seems unlikely that he was really in all that much danger.
Grumpy
September 10th, 2010
9:28 am
NOT.
GUILTY.
Del
September 10th, 2010
9:34 am
If these individuals were in fact congregating on this home owners property without invitation taunting him with threats to both himself and to his family, he has every right to defensive action. If he fired the weapon safely into the ground to provide warning that he was indeed armed and prepared to use lethal force to protect himself and his family from attack then he acted prudently. If this district attorney is stupid enough to indite any lawyer worth his or her salt would get an aquittal.
Dang The Hung
September 10th, 2010
9:36 am
Disparity of Force is a valid self defense argument and has been used successfully as a defense many times in self-defense trails. Looks like it would apply here in this situation too.
Since when is a person a “Lunatic” for defending his family??? Get Real!
Jeb
September 10th, 2010
9:45 am
Did your wife use an assault rifle to warn your mistress?
Sam
September 10th, 2010
9:46 am
Well, if you ever watch Gangland, you’d wished he sprayed them all with hot lead. Bunch of worthless 20 year olds good for not a damm thing at the rate they’re going. A mini neutron bomb might be worthwhile in that neighborhood.
StJ
September 10th, 2010
9:48 am
“…the gang members gathered on his lawn who were taunting him with threats to kill him, his wife and his children…”
Any gang bangers on my lawn threatening to kill me or my family won’t live long, as I don’t believe in wasting perfectly good ammunition with warning shots.
Death threats are plenty of justification for deadly force to be used. Apparently the People’s Republik of New York (and the other blue states) don’t think so, which is why I don’t live there.
People should not be arrested for helping get rid of the gangs, they should be rewarded.
NY man arrested for using rifle to defend family from gang – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) | Gangsta Extract
September 10th, 2010
10:04 am
[...] NY man arrested for using rifle to defend family from gangAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)George Grier — a family man whose home in Uniondale, on Long Island just east of New York City, was threatened last weekend by two dozen gang members … [...]
We All Lose
September 10th, 2010
10:08 am
We are endowed with an inalienable right to bear arms. This is exactly the reason—to protect our right to live and live free. What would the story be if the gang entered his home and slaughtered his family? They are lucky he fired a warning shot. If you ask me, he wasted two rounds. He’ll get off the hook in the long run, but what of the gang members? Will Bloomberg round them up, lock up the ones who can stay and send home those who are here illegally to protect his citizenry from their harassment? Doubt it, we wouldn’t want to offend anyone.
LJ
September 10th, 2010
10:43 am
Lots of mis-informed posters here. The rifle has been incorrectly reported as being an “assault rifle” by much of the media. It was merely a semi-automatic rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge. It was NOT an “automatic” rifle by any stretch of the imagination. Regardless of the definition, the rifle was legally owned and kept in the home.
Typically deadly-force laws allow for a victim to use deadly force when his or her life is in danger. This does NOT require the attacker to have a firearm. A bar stool, baseball bat, screwdriver, etc can easily become a deadly weapon. 24 angry sets of fists and feet is without a doubt a deadly weapon. If multiple(let alone 20+!) gang members trespass onto your property and verbally announce their intent to kill you and your family(which was the case in this incident) you ABSOLUTELY have the natural right to defend yourself.
This wasn’t a case where a few guys were harassing someone on a street corner- this was a large group of violent males declaring their intent murder this man on his own property.
The reason why the homeowner was arrested was because of the asinine “duty to retreat” law in his area. Had he gone inside, locked the door, and waited for them to kick it in he may not be in jail(although the liberal PD there would more than likely lock him up still).
And FYI- He DID call the police. His wife was on the phone with 911 during the incident. The old saying holds true- when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
gatorman770
September 10th, 2010
11:00 am
This outrage does not surprise me at all in a state like NY where the gangs and criminals have more rights than honest hard working residents. He should have shot the first gangbanging SOB that showed a deadly weapon on his property.
shaggy
September 10th, 2010
11:16 am
It is true that you have to look at the location. Anywhere in New York state can be gang infested rat holes, like Gwinnett County…uhhh, oops, sorry New York.
ButtHead
September 10th, 2010
11:44 am
It is obvious that this guy needs better training. Never pull a weapon unless you are going to use it, he got that part, the problem is his aim. I little target practice should help him. By the way his wife called the police and it took over 20 minutes to get there, so what can a gang do to your family in 20 minutes???? This guy needs a metal not a court date, think how much tax payer money he would have saved us if capped a few of these parasites…
JJJ
September 10th, 2010
12:10 pm
His guilt or innocent will be decided by the court. The real issues are the social implications. Mr. Grier will certainly entertain the idea of moving to a safer neighborhood, therefore, allowing the parasites or “sic” Gangster’s to further spread their disease into the community. Eventually, the foundation of the community will be over-run with crime, poor performing schools, devalued properties and children growing comfortable to violence. Then, of course, the Democrats will preach of injustices and how government can repair their communities by spreading the wealth by developing the area with parks, stadiums, etc and calling this inner city redevelopment, but then the good law abiding citizens come back for the events, using their incomes to support the high taxes and get robbed and harassed. Eventually, the business go bust. Wow, did I just describe underground Atlanta? Then, of course, when the core business and government developments move to safer areas for earning higher revenues it becomes a flash point of race and who should get what. Economics 101; let the market determine the outcome, eventually the property values will drop so far that someone will develop and gamble on the community and maybe even subsidize the required Police force to keep it safe because we know the State and local Governments are decreasing police budgets and protection. Thanks Mr. Grier for starting the dominoes’ to fall. Maybe we as American should re-evaluate our three strikes and you’re out law; I suggest making it two strikes and getting what needs to be done, just quicker! There again, had Mr. Grier been capable of firing some warning shots and removing these Oxygen thieves from his property it seems apparent the community would only gain more strength, but what do I know, America goes to war and instead of occupying territory after victory we pay large volumes of “our” money to eventually donate the country back to its original ideology. Why go to war if you don’t get the spoils?
Who knows what the outcome will be for Mr. Grier, but I can promise you one fact, PETA might file a lawsuit on animal cruelty for the ants, termites and worms that may have died when the bullets entered the ground.
Chagall Guevarian
September 10th, 2010
12:13 pm
Paleo
Once again your empty rhetoric serves not funtional purpose. How about processing your ludicrous thesis when 20 gang bangers are in your front yard threatening to kill you and your family. Why not have the gang bangers sit down for a spot of tea and discuss the finer points of War and Peace? You have already admitted that you live in your books which shows you have little real life experience with anything you espouse. Your indictment over a man protecting his home is deplorable but not surprising. Keep living in your fantasy world. This man had every right to brandish his firearms while the perps were on his property. But if you want to be in the same situation and have 20 gang bangers rush you, rape your wife and children before cutting all your throats – this is a free country – you can have at it.
mrs. w
September 10th, 2010
12:13 pm
I would not have been shooting at the lawn.
Chagall Guevarian
September 10th, 2010
12:19 pm
Paleo
Does Michael Dukakis ring a bell?
paleo-neo-Carlinist
September 10th, 2010
12:57 pm
Chagall, I’ll ignore you kids’ table moment. I agree with Robb, why the “warning shots”? if he he felt threatened enough to produce an AK-47 (I favor the Mossberg 500 with 00), he has sufficiently “warned” his attackers. so, you can refer to Mike Dukakis all you like, but your hyperbolic Charles Bronson “Death Wish” scenarios do not apply to ME, or Mr. Geir. I don’t live in Uniondale and I did not witness this incident.
Chagall Guevarian
September 10th, 2010
1:02 pm
Paleo
How long have you taken yourself this seriously?
Jefferson
September 10th, 2010
1:31 pm
You can’t shoot someone for stealing your lawnmower.
bank walker
September 10th, 2010
1:43 pm
Shoot the SOBs, every dam one of them!
Clint Eastwood
September 10th, 2010
1:54 pm
This tactic works well in the movies but I would not recommend it in real life. Unless ya feelin’ lucky…well do ya?
Hairlip walks into the Barr
September 10th, 2010
2:56 pm
Come on People. PLEEEEEAAAAASSSSSEEEE!!!Can’t a guy even aerate his yard in Long Island?
paleo-neo-Carlinist
September 10th, 2010
2:57 pm
Chagall, since you posted at 12:13 and again at 12:19, why do you ask?
Chagall Guevarian
September 10th, 2010
3:25 pm
I’m curious to know if you are still happy for everybody to be in the presence of your wisdom and to know every single opinion that you have about every single issue out there? Is that easy enough for you to understand?
Hootinanny Yum Yum
September 10th, 2010
3:44 pm
11 killed and 5 wounded in Metro Atlanta since Aug 21st. One was by a house sitter taking care of someone’s house.
At least five armed bank robberies in the last week.
No. No reason at all to feel the need for defending one’s person, family or possessions. Taunting, bullying and threats aren’t tolerated in schools? If 18 to 20 uninvited youths ranging in age from 16 to 24 gathering on your front lawn are not a threat, what is? If you were in Macy’s parking deck in your car and these same youths were surrounding your care, would that be a threat?
HL: You, as well as many others, watch too much TV. What is the difference between an automatic weapon, semi-automatic weapon or assault rifle? Is it a clip or a mag? Are assault pistols legal? Is a 7.62 round a decent hunting caliber? Which is bigger: 20 ga, 16 ga or 12 ga?
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 10th, 2010
4:09 pm
If a person or group of persons, is threatening another person or group of persons, with bodily harm and/or death, the only prudent thing to do, is to take whatever action one deems necessary, to see that it doesn’t happen. You can worry about the law later, as you’ll still be alive. If you take no action, you may very well not live to find out. Would you bet your life, in a split second situation? Survival is the strongest human instinct. Always has been; always will be.
Peter
September 10th, 2010
4:28 pm
Holding the gun visible while your wife dials 911…….should have been the correct move…….But hey at a time like that who is going to think rational ?
I think the cops over reacted, and this has given the thugs a green light to continue to intimidate.
Please tell me Bob……if the shoe was on the other foot…..what would you have done ?
Barack
September 10th, 2010
4:36 pm
Based on my experience, I would have recommended that this citizen should have tried to negotiate first. If that failed, then I think the group hug would have been a good fall back response. Works every time.
Bang Bang Bob Barr Blog
September 10th, 2010
4:43 pm
It’s better to be tried by 12 than be carried by 6 and put under the ground by that same number.
paleo-neo-Carlinist
September 10th, 2010
4:46 pm
Chagall, I am moved you care so much about my happiness and I am flattered you consider me “wise” (root of the word wisdom). thing is, these blogs are for folks to discuss/debate political issues and whatnot. your OCD-like interest in my posts is weird. at least other bloggers will present a counter-argument or alternate position, which is rooted in some sort of logical or “real-world” place (as opposed to ominous portents about 20 Mexicans raping my wife. you see, I’m not married).
paleo-neo-Carlinist
September 10th, 2010
4:49 pm
OH, and if the “20 gang bangers” did not “rush” Mr. What’s His Name, he did not (in my opinion) have the need to bust any caps. but again, he was there and you were not, so ultimately, the folks in Uniondale will sort the thing out. You ever fired a Ak-47. It’s not like popping off rounds with a .38 or a .45. It’s a weapon designed for combat/battlefield situations. Not exactly “home defense”, but to each his own.
SPQR(laissez faire)
September 10th, 2010
4:51 pm
More PEACE of islam..(sorry even the sarcastic use of the words peace and islam make me laugh)
Moments aftger a MUSLIM worker at a kraft food plant in PA was escprted from the building friday for unspecified reasons(probably threatening to blow up the place if the korans get burned..just my theory) she returned with a .357 Magnum and opened fire, killing two women and critically injuring a third co-worker before being taken into custody, police said.
Remember, you can’t have IED’s , without practicioners of EID
Bang Bang Bob Barr Blog
September 10th, 2010
4:52 pm
Long Island Law charged this guy with the same thing they hit Snookie with- Public Annoyance. Yep, said he was a terrible shot and was in desperate need of some range time. Remember eye and ear protection.
Call me a Constitutionalist.
September 10th, 2010
6:34 pm
This man’s only crime was lack of training on use of firearms. The only warning shots he should have fired should have been into the chest of the closest gang bangers. One should “Never underestimate the power of idiots in large groups.” The fact that there were 2 dozen gang members on his property making death threats to him and his family is enough for him to use DEADLY FORCE in order to defend himself. A threat to cause harm is an assault and once a person has been assaulted, one need not wait for it to turn physical in order to defend oneself. It matters not whether these thugs were armed or not, in that quantity it would have taken mere seconds for them to wipe out his family. The fact is these boneheads had no right to make threats of death to this man without expectation of him making any attempt to defend himself. Yeah, if he had shot them in the chest as I suggested, he would have to go to trial for killing some scum of the earth, at least he would still be around to defend himself. It’s better to be tried by 12 then be carried by 6.
Mike
September 10th, 2010
7:41 pm
I wonder what the entire story is. It’s hard to make a judgement.
I would have simply said, “I am going to call the cops first, and then if you come into my house, you will die.”
And then I’d close the door and wait for the first one to open the door.
You should NEVER show a gun unless you plan to use it. That’s cardinal rule number one.
He should have told them to leave, gone inside, called the cops, chambered a round, and wait for either the cops to show up, or the gang to mistakenly walk in.
Barring Logic
September 10th, 2010
7:52 pm
They were not “on” his property. They where shouting threats “onto” it. Big difference.
And, he shot that AK47 towards someone using words?
Who is the crazy person here????
Charles
September 11th, 2010
12:03 am
Better to be judged by twelve than by one. A person has to do what is necessary and worry about societies thoughts about it later.
Trey
September 11th, 2010
12:40 am
Robb, call the cops? Seriously, that is your answer for him is to call the cops? The cops would have done nothing but stir up the hornet nest even worse. He was best off with his weapon in self defense. Screw their law and carry a gun for self defense.
Trey
September 11th, 2010
12:41 am
Mike, actually the rule is do not point at what you do not intend to shoot.
Bryan
September 11th, 2010
12:43 am
I’m sure this has already been said, but…come on, Bob. This wasn’t NYC. It was in the same general part of the country, sure — but NYC laws don’t apply.
I’m a firm supporter of the Second Amendment, which means that I believe citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. But keeping and bearing arms doesn’t mean shooting at your neighbor — shooting at people isn’t a “gun right.” Even if you don’t mean to shoot “at” them, there should be laws about being criminally stupid with a gun — and this was criminally stupid. Shooting “warning shots” into the ground? Yeah, bullets ricochet, man. That “warning shot” can kill someone dead.
It’s a simple rule — anything on the business end of the gun might end up dying, even if you weren’t aiming at them. So if you pull the trigger, you need to be sure that it’s worth someone’s life. So was it? No one had stepped foot on his property. The police were just a phone call away. And he had a semi-automatic rifle in his hands — no one was going to “storm” the place. Heck, he probably could have just closed the door and called police, and been totally safe. So was it worth someone dying? Absolutely not.
He broke the law, and the law is a good one. Even the most staunch libertarian should agree — doing stupid things with guns that might get someone killed…well, that ought to be criminal.
Bryan
September 11th, 2010
12:47 am
P.S. — I think the punishment should be a required gun safety class…
Keep ‘em, bear ‘em, shoot ‘em, but…don’t accidentally blow your kid’s head off with ‘em. That’s my view of the Second Amendment.
g
September 11th, 2010
1:19 am
Hopefully a decent judge will throw the case out.
SPQR(laissez faire)
September 11th, 2010
1:52 am
Bryan, not all live has the same value, and much human life has no value..
Inner city gang bangers fall into the no value class..it doesnt mean hunt them down and kill them for kicks, but if threatened by them, killing them is no loss.
SPQR(laissez faire)
September 11th, 2010
1:55 am
according to witnesses, The gang members said ‘your dead, your family is dead”..thats a violent death threat..maybe they are muslim gang bangers..either way, its enough evidence that were I on the jury, I’d have to excuse up to 22(supposed number of gang trash) cases of justifiable innercitytrashicide
SPQR(laissez faire)
September 11th, 2010
1:59 am
Just as I refused to convict, when I was on a Jury for a tax evasion case, because I judged the law to be invalid so the prosecution of the law was moot, I would similary urge juries in clear cut self defense cases to use jury nullification if the law is not on the side of common sense right..legality and right rarely are the same thing in modern leftist dominated judicary and congress of the USA
budman
September 11th, 2010
3:00 am
Darn not another citizen trying to defend himself/family….Man can you write SPQR!!!!
Larry G
September 11th, 2010
6:56 am
“But the danger to the community was obvious: the lunatic who fired an assault rifle in a neighborhood. If I catch anyone doing that near me, I would make a citizen’s arrest and see that clown in prison where he belongs.”
This is very indicative of the thought process (or lack thereof) of many of our brainwashed sheep we call neighbors in this country. Let’s ignore the fact that the weapon was legally owned by a law abiding citizen who was abiding by his 2nd Amendment rights to self defense and that of his family in the face of overwhelming aggression and threat of murder, and concentrate on the catch phrase description of “assault rifle”. Mindless, spineless and ignorant people who make comments like the above are the same people who would be praying for their armed neighbor to come to their rescue if they were the target in a similar situation. Of course, they’d probably be bound weeping on their knees while they watched their wives being raped and children butchered by these murderous thugs.
“Citizen’s arrest” indeed!!! You, sir, are free to give up the right of self preservation and defense of your family while whining about others who choose to protect theirs. Others are still free to protect ourselves and our loved ones against those who would attempt to steal our freedom and our lives. God forbid the day when Americans are forced to lie on our backs unarmed, weak and vulnerable because of ignorance like yours!
reindawg
September 11th, 2010
7:07 am
Gun and assault rifle two different things? Please define “assault rifle” or do you just use the warped definition the media and senseless members of congress use “it looks like one so it must be one”. A semi-automatic weapon simply means one pull of the trigger….one round fired and the next round is fed and ready to fire. Not much different from someone who can quickly work a bolt or lever action firearm and many modern hunting rifles are in fact semi-automatic “assault rifles” that originated in military use. There are in fact very few people walking around either legally or illegally with guns that would be regulated under the NFA (tommy guns, other full auto) and this has been the case for nearly 70 years.
chuck
September 11th, 2010
7:53 am
The problem with stories like this are people that are completely inexperienced with firearms read “semi automatic AK-47″ and immediately start thinging “machine gun”. This post is aimed for the liberal crowd that has never had the opportunity to get outside, away from their laptops and blackberries, and enjoy the shooting sports or hunting. Let me preach on! All “semi automatic” means is that a cartridge is fired when the trigger is pulled…..exactly the same way as a standard Remington deer rifle that ole grampa used to use to put meat on the table!!! The difference is the capacity of cartridges in the magazine (thats the thingy that holds the “bullets”) Nothing was said that this rifle had some kind of monster magazine attached to it or that he fired some abnormal amout of shots. The troubling part of this story is that there are still people that choose to live in parts of the country that have these type laws i.e. “Blue States” Thank God I live in rural Ga. where I can shoot thugs or the ground in front of them and never worry about being locked up!!!! Yall have a good day now
Old man Robert Cox
September 11th, 2010
8:35 am
..OOKIJNM
budman
September 11th, 2010
10:08 am
This blog reminds me of basic training!!!! All the Southern boys were one side of the barracks talking about deer hunting and what firearms they own. The Yankees were on the other side asking us what it was like to fire a firearm. These guys have never seen a gun, held a gun, or even fired one! I have been a gun owner since I was 9 yrs old. Oh Yes! citizen arrest that is a good way to get shot!!! grave yard dead..as we say in Charleston. Bye the way my father taught me to shoot…It saved my ass in Vietnam.
nelson
September 11th, 2010
11:14 am
Sooooooooooo you think this guy should be firing a AK-47 at or over some thugs standing on his lawn? The AK-47 [assault rifle] has a cartrige holding 30 bullets, has an effective sighting range of 400 meters and fires 600 rounds per minute. All this for a few noisy bums standing on his lawn.
Even my hero “Dirty Harry” only needed a magnum 347. Although last night I saw him using a whale spear to impale a guy. What is next, a bazooka, “Dirty Harry” used one of those. I will grant you, crime is over the top, murder, armed robbery, lets face it, this is not worth haing a world wide uprising over
jennifer
September 11th, 2010
2:12 pm
he was doing the right thing.plus he had the rite to deffende his family.its amazing that the gang didnt shot back. the law in very unfair.i wonder what happen to the bangers?
Whimpy
September 11th, 2010
3:42 pm
Shoot to kill is my motto.Can’t stand thugs on drugs.
Palin fan
September 11th, 2010
4:11 pm
I hope he moves here to shoot some of those filthy gang members in south Fulton.
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 11th, 2010
5:37 pm
The idea of somebody performing a citizen’s arrest on someone who is holding an assault rifle, is a tad far-fetched.
Tango
September 11th, 2010
7:33 pm
People here argue right and wrong as opposed to what is legal or illegal, as if they were the same. Twenty people, appearing to be gang members, congregated on Mr. Grier’s property and refused to leave when asked. Instead, they threatened to kill Mr. Grier and his family.
Faced with belligerent superior numbers, Mr. Grier could show fear and run and hide, only delaying the possibility the antagonists would make good on their threat. Or he could face the bullies down with his rifle and have a much better chance of keeping his family safe, which is thankfully how it ended.
Putting four rounds into his lawn put no one at risk.
Was he right or wrong? I embrace his sense of security and believe he behaved admirably. Someone less cool headed might have opened fire into the crowd.
Were his actions legal? I have my understanding of the law but I’m not a lawyer or a judge. I hope wisdom prevails and all charges are dismissed but it is, after all, NY and sometimes the interpretation of the law there is nearly incomprehensible.
Regardless of the outcome, Mr. Grier will be facing costly legal expenses. I took it upon myself to locate his address and send him a donation towards those expenses. I hope he prevails.
budman
September 11th, 2010
8:59 pm
Bye the way: I would never shot some one in my yard….But ( biggest word in the English dictation ) You come in my house as a break end,you better come in shooting, because I am armed, my wife has her pistol and we have a bad ass dog
budman
September 11th, 2010
10:20 pm
‘Gun control ” use both hands”
barking frog
September 12th, 2010
7:22 am
He should have followed police logic. Lock the doors,
call 911. They would have responded within the hour,
required a land survey to determine if the gang was
trespassing,then issued a warning citation if they
were or a false 911 call citation to him if they were not.
You may keep and bear arms but if you use them
you will go to jail and to trial.
LeeH1
September 12th, 2010
4:13 pm
The man should have told the police he was Moslem and an immigrant. That would be enough of an excuse to murder the whole gang.
Hosea Williams
September 12th, 2010
4:47 pm
We have a right to approach the property and at least knock on the door.I can bring back two hundred protesters with picket signs.
bob
September 12th, 2010
5:18 pm
i live in a state with “LIVE FREE OR DIE” for a state motto but..
a 30 round magazine seems completely reasonable …. when there is 24 enemies
i would have waited on the outside of my door and defended the outside of my house
while wife called 911 from the other side of the locked door
he needs to be let go and his gun handed back in front of his neighbors so the people realize they dont have too be intimidted
Hosea Williams
September 12th, 2010
5:57 pm
bob need to relize my boys have guns and knifes.
bob
September 12th, 2010
7:00 pm
better bring more then couple dozen
me and my neighbors have guns and we have target ranges to get good at shooting
zeus234
September 12th, 2010
11:28 pm
I keep seeing all this “assault rifle”crap and some have explained the fact that it WAS not an assault rifle,it was not full auto, an AK47″ ASSAULT RIFLE” is actually a machine gun,also an assault rifle is select fire, burst,semi-auto.The civilian AK 47 is no more powerful then a 30-30 deer rifle.
And as a lot have expressed they would not have fired any warning shots(ok,consider one of their heads blown off a warning)I
would not either.I’d start dropping their sorry ass’s.
zeus234
September 12th, 2010
11:42 pm
paleo-neo-Carlinist
And you are correct…fire an AK47 ASSAULT rifle is nothing like popping off rounds with a .38 or .45. Have you ever fired the real deal full blown ASSAULT RIFLE?The civilian AK47 yes that’s like popping off rounds with a .38 or.45.
paleo-neo-Carlinist
September 13th, 2010
11:20 am
zeus234 – have fired all three (AK-47, .45 and .38) among others. my point was, civilian/semi-autmatic, or not; a 7.62 round fired from a AK-47 (M-14, or SKS, for that matter) travels a great distance. one has to consider the possibility of “collateral damage” when defending a home (in a residential neighborhood) with such a weapon. don’t get me wrong, better to have an AK-47 than a cell phone to call 9/11, but I suspect there is more to this story than we are hearing.
Chagall Guevarian
September 13th, 2010
1:31 pm
Paleo
“OH, and if the “20 gang bangers” did not “rush” Mr. What’s His Name, he did not (in my opinion) have the need to bust any caps.”
Are you making fun of me because I’m black?
paleo-neo-Carlinist
September 13th, 2010
4:31 pm
I’ve never met you. How could I possibly know you are black? Did you attempt to “make fun” of me (Friday) because I am “wise”?
zeus234
September 13th, 2010
8:56 pm
paleo-An AK47 IS 7.62X39mm ,and about as powerful as a 30-30 an M14 is indeed a 7.62 however 7.62×51mm no comparison in range and power. The R700 is 7.62×51. .308
Chagall Guevarian
September 14th, 2010
8:05 am
racist
Divinity
September 14th, 2010
3:09 pm
EXACTLY why we moved the hell out of Long Island. I miss NY, but to get financially raped via taxes (our property taxes ALONE went up to just under $17,000 a year when we left) and then harassed to death if you believe in your God-given rights to protect yourself or insist on the sanctity or your privacy, is just too incompatible with sanity.
Funny how Bloomberg has resigned himself to “lead the charge” against guns and gun rights, yet he employs armed security and I’d be willing to bet he protects his mansions and property with (GASP) guns. (Oh, the horror.)
Apparently the government believes that since it’s gotten away with murder (literally) in terms of opression and trampling on people’s rights, that they can continue to slam people’s backs against the wall with no fear of revolt. It’s unfortunate that they are hell-bent on forcing a violent revolution. Contrary to their arrogant assumptions, you can only rape, plunder and pillage but so much before people have nothing to lose and decide to fight back…and the odds are NOT stacked in their favor.
You’d think the idiots would read a history book or two and try to avoid repeating the same behavior that has destroyed their ilk again and again in generations gone by but alas, wealth/power and intelligence/rationale are NOT synonymous. Perhaps it’s a genetic anomaly/aberrance that results from inbreeding….just sayin’.
NY man arrested for using rifle to defend family from gang | The Barr Code » SpootyLinks.com
September 14th, 2010
4:50 pm
[...] http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/09/10/ny-man-arrested-for-using-rifle-to-defend-family-from-... Posted by Spooty at 4:50 pm Daily Links [...]
Divinity
September 14th, 2010
5:18 pm
@paleo-neo-Carlinist
You are correct that this incident is up to the Nassau County prosecutors and details need to be sorted out but the details that ARE known about what happened, highlight the problems that occur with the assertion that the words “shall not be infringed” are a matter of interpretation.
People have a right to protect themselves and their property. His property was being tresspassed upon, he was in legal possession of his own firearm and fired the rounds into the ground. Unless evidence turns up that contradicts any of these facts, you’d be hard pressed to say that either act was illegal. Of course that doesn’t mean that he will be exonerated. Firing into the air (or anywhere else for that matter) would have been “reckless” in my opinion, given the density of the suburban population but he didn’t do that. Again, what he DID do will be the subject of debate but that would be the case no matter what type of firearm he used.
Are you familiar with the Uniondale/Hempstead area? Have you ever encountered MS-13 gang members? I can’t say that if they were on my front lawn threatening me or my family, I wouldn’t have done the same. That area is a crap hole that is dominated by gangs and violence. It’s the kind of place where you don’t produce a firearm without proving that you aren’t afraid to pull the trigger. I’m not saying that this should be a “standard” response but perhaps the environment wouldn’t be so bad if law enforcement considered the message that such a response to this situation sends to the criminal element of society.
I would have to challenge your comment: ” this is a tricky case, and calls into question the value of video/audio surveilance of citizens.”
The average person is videotaped approximately 64 times a DAY. Such a statistic is an affront to the core principle of liberty. The consequences of government surveillance of citizens FAR outweigh the justifications of such actions. Give an inch and they WILL take a mile and their very actions have served as proof of that fact.
The first step onto that slippery slope always turns into a complete vertical decline. The citizenry lets them use security cameras and next thing you know, they’re chopping up Posse Comitatus and using virtual strip search, naked body (AND radioactive) scanners. Now they’re employing mobile units to preform virtual strip searches of you and your children. What makes that any different than forcing Jews to walk around naked in Nazi Germany? The only difference here is the overt cloaking of that disgusting violation of your basic human right to modesty, in “technological” goggles. It also proves how sacred the principle of privacy over security is as was expressed by Benjamin Franklin when he said:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
bong_jamesbong2001
September 21st, 2010
9:26 am
We learned in law school that the thugs have to be in the act of breaking forcefully into your house before you can shoot them.
The wiser thing to have done would have been to call the cops. But the question is thus raised “Do you have time to properly defend yourself when 20 guys are threatening you on your own lawn, under the current rules?” I guess the Nassau County jury will figure it out.
The real problem is the NY gun laws; they are unconstitutional. Period. The US CONSTITUTION gives the militia (the entire male population old enough to bear weapons) the right to keep and bear arms. There are no exemptions in the CONSTITUTION for the defenseless citizens of NY state or even felons. Under the current setup, Geo. Washington would have been denied an;(unconstitutional) gun license; he was a traitor to the British government.
A government which can’t trust the people can’t be trusted for any reason.