Long Island Man Arrested For Defending Home With AK-47

Well here you go, another case of a man that has NO criminal record, defends himself, his family and property, no one is hurt, yet gets arrested for???????????? Reckless endangerment.

Link to story-Long Island Man Arrested For Defending Home With AK-47

Snippet from article-

George Grier said he had to use his rifle on Sunday night to stop what he thought was going to be an invasion of his Uniondale home by a gang he thought might have been the vicious “MS-13.” He said the whole deal happened as he was about to drive his cousin home.

“I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?’ Grier said.

Grier said the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house.

“He starts threatening my family, my life. ‘Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead.’ So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,” Grier said.

I wonder if the police are now going to post officers at the house? NAAA, probably not. Now that the REAL criminals and gang members know he no longer has his LEGAL and LAWFUL gun, they will be free to do what they will.

Sorry, I would have taken a couple down. You know, use the ol LEO excuse, one of them looked to be moving provocatively. I thought my life was in danger. Where as the citizen actually did no harm to anyone, yet he is under arrest. Oh well, when the police are needed they are just minutes or hours away.

I guess the folks in these cities are going to begin waking up sooner or later.

Be safe folks.

the only thing i can think of him getting arrested for is if his AK-47 was converted to full Auto. Thats 10 years i belive. other wise i think there is not reason to arrest this man. The sad thing is what will happen when he gets home and MS-13 is waiting for him to come back.

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.

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.

reply to post by Brotherman


Yes, there is no way in hell they could get a conviction.

BUT, they did take his gun and now what is he going to protect himself with.

Oh, I wonder if he can buy another gun?

Like I said, I probably would of put a few in em. Make em think next time before threatening me and mine.

reply to post by kozmo


So tell me, if you are threatened away from your home, do you have to retreat to your home?

Ask any LEO if it is a good idea to turn your back on gang members.

Sorry, I could care less about the finer points of law. You have the right to defend youself against acts of aggression. Especially when standing on your own property.

This charge will be thrown out if the DA is smart. Because there is no chance in hell they will get a conviction, ever.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Ignorance of the law is not a defense. This is why it is critically important that each and every individual owning a firearm to know the laws. Sign up and take a CCW course, it covers all of this. His actions led to an escalation of events and he did not attempt to retreat. Whereas I agree that every American should have the right to defend ALL of their property - where the sidewalk ends and the grass begins - current law does not afford that right. Now he will pay for his ignorance in court.

reply to post by kozmo


Well, if his lawyer is good, he will get the DA or police officer to bring into the debate on cross examinations, the law regarding nullification. If it goes that far.

Even if you do not retreat, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt one was not afraid for your life.

That my friend is very hard to do.

I would also like to add, okay, the shots into the ground were dangerous. But so is using tazers. So, instead of using deadly force, this citizen used non lethal persuasion to stop the would be attackers.

Oh how I wish I could argue a case like this.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by saltheart foamfollower]

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I do not disagree with you. However, out in the real world such behavior would not be a risk worth taking. I hold a CCW and have been an NRA Certified instructor for a number of years and I see many holes in the story that could give a good prosecutor enough room to proscute on secondary offenses - criminal menacing and/or unlawful discharge just to name two. It is shameful that we, law abiding citizens, have to go to such ridiculous lengths to operate within the limits of the law when vermin such as these punks clearly operate outside of it.

Want to end crime? Let ALL law-abiding citizens arm themselves. An armed society is a polite society!

I was told by a good friend of mine who is a LEO "if I ever had to shot some one to make sure and drag him in the house"

IMHO I see roll reversal first the gang member was the aggressor by threatening the guy and who ever else but when the victim brandishes a gun and fires it just based soulfully on words then he becomes the aggressor.

He should of told them that he had a gun and wasnt afraid to use it and just loaded the weapon set it on the floor by the couch and waited to see just how big of a set the gang member had. If he enters the hooch its ALPHA MIKE FOXTROT

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


You can't inform the jury of their right to nullify.

Recent court rulings have contributed to the prevention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.

en.wikipedia.org...

This guy sounds nutty and dangerous.

He should have backed up into his house while remaining facing their direction, shut the door, and called the cops. If the 'gang members' then tried to gain entry, he could have shot them to ribbons, but he just sounds like a lunatic, opening fire before anything has happened.

[edit on 7/9/2010 by harpsounds]

I wonder what the police do to a group that are threatening to kill the officers (sarcasm)

They shoot them free and clear.

reply to post by alienreality


The Police are GODS though, you are just a slave.

The police massacring people just for mouthing off is just as bad as any one else doing it, just they are protected so it's rare they are punished.

[edit on 7/9/2010 by harpsounds]

So the guy thinks a group of unarmed men are some gang thats going to invade his home and runs inside to get his gun and call the cops. That all is fine. I think that is the smart thing to do. What makes no sense is why he then runs back outside instead of securing his home and preparing to defend it while he waits for the cops. Running outside with a gun with group of people standing around and escalating the situation not only makes things worse but puts him in the open and in danger if they had been armed. If he had stayed inside defended his home and waited for the cops he would have been fine. Instead he placed himself and others in danger.

Reckless endangerment comes when weilding an AK-47 (which is a serious weapon) in an urban enviroment.

I am 100% for weapon usage on intruders to protect ones self, but being smart about it to me goes hand in hand with that.

If I use a 9mm hand gun to do the same job an AK can do I'm playing it smart because the likelihood of a 9mm round traveling through 4 walls of my house and into my neighbors kids bedroom is a lot less likely than with a 7.62 round. That's after it passes through my intruder.

Would it be reckless endangerment to protect ones suburban house with an RPG? Uhh yeah probably. Do I believe you have the right to own an RPG?
Uhh yeah absolutely.

Use the right tool for the right job.

Now on the other hand if the guy had been wielding a side arm that fits into my "smart" tool scenario and still had it confiscated and arrested, then yes I'm gonna get pissy.

If these guys were really a bunch of MS 13 cholos- this is not over. I heard the Castle Doctrine mentioned in this thread- New York is not one of those states. The castle doctrine has been adopted in about 20 states and authorizes private citizens to use deadly force in the face of a possible felony crime being commited upon them, no longer do they have to retreat instead. I wonder if they murder his whole family as they said they would, will they report on that to? I didnt see any mention of the 20plus tresspassers and what happened with them

Originally posted by snowen20

Would it be reckless endangerment to protect ones suburban house with an RPG? Uhh yeah probably. Do I believe you have the right to own an RPG?
Uhh yeah absolutely.

Use the right tool for the right job.

- An interesting idea.

I guess, instead of indulging in a Final Fantasy, you could avoid the legal Fallout and retreat behind Baldur's Gate. Then, if a Jagged Alliance with Diablo doesn't hold, you could hope, in the Depths of Peril, to be saved from Oblivion by Deus Ex.

“He starts threatening my family, my life. ‘Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead.’ So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,” Grier said.

Yes, that's called reckless endangerment.

According to New York Penal Law:

Pursuant to Penal Law § 120.20, “a person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person”.

Reckless endangerment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor in New York.

Pursuant to Penal Law § 120.25, “a person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person”.

Reckless endangerment in the first degree is a class D felony.

With ANY firearm, it's shoot to kill, not shoot to scare. This man faces a class D felony for this. He did the right thing to call the police, he did the wrong thing to fire a weapon...especially an AK-47.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


From the CBS article:

“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die.

They can charge him with whatever they like. If I were on the grand hury I would say "No bill" and refute the charge ... if I were on a jury in this case I would make an argument to my fellow jurors to nullify the charge and DIRECT the justice department to expunge his record.

We need to show them that they are not our rulers... we are theirs.

reply to post by links234


Especially an AK 47? What is that supposed to mean?

An AN 47 is no different than any other semi automatic rifle.

So, what is the crime for threatening to kill someone? A pat on the back?

Sorry, more than likely, if this man had not had a gun, him and his family would of been just another statistic.

As it is, no one was injured, no one hurt, except for the pride of the gang members.

Funny thing, the article did not even bother to ask whether or not the police were investigating that. Hmmm, I guess threats of violence and murder are okay. Just everyday jokes and stuff.

As I said earlier, if this man goes to trial.

NOT GUILTY. Probably take the jury about 5 minutes.

Realize this people, the trial is there to protect the innocent besides convicting the guilty. Do not let idiotic threats by DA's and assistant DA's persuade you to take ANY charge whatsoever. If they do, you will then be a second class citizen. No right to bear arms, no rights whatsoever.

Funny how NO ONE commenting is even mentioning that this person has no prior criminal behavior. Funny how everyone wants to post their views on what crime he is guilty of.

What, is everyone afraid of standing before your fellow citizens and saying enough is enough.

Oh well, tremble in fear. Me, not so much.