UNIONDALE, N.Y. (CBS 2) — He was arrested for protecting his property and family. But it’s how the Long Island man did it that police say crossed the line. He got an AK-47 assault rifle, pulled the trigger and he ended up in jail, reports CBS 2’s Pablo Guzman.
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.
Grier was later arrested. John Lewis is Grier’s attorney. Grier also said he was afraid the gang outside his house was the dreaded MS-13. And Nassau County Police Lt. Andrew Mulraine, head of the gang unit, said MS-13 has 2,000 members in the county.
“They’re probably the most organized. They almost have a military hierarchy within the gang, so they are the most organized gang we encounter on a daily basis,” Mulraine said. Police determined Grier had the gun legally. He has no criminal record. And so he was not charged for the weapon.
I don’t know who will get the most mileage from this story, gun nuts or anti-gun nuts, but there is definitely something fishy about this. Maybe it’s time to move, let the gang bangers have it.
A single shot is a warning. Four shots is excessive and therefore goes into the category of unlawful discharge of a firearm.
It is a fine line situation. Another example is say you are in a fight. You beat the guy down to the ground and walk away. THAT is self-defence. But if you keep beating the guy while down, becomes felony assault and battery as the guy is now down and defenseless.
Knock him down, OK. Keep beating, Crime.
One shot, OK, warning at best. Four, crime.
It has nothing to do with protection or gun rights or restrictions. It is about going from the proper to the excessive.
The real concern is WHY does he have an AK, munitions for it and then uses it for home defence? I could see having one as a collector, but for home defence, that signals someone with issues.
Cursor_
NY gun laws suck flat out. If the gang was actually in their house and he used he firearm the end results would be the same. In New York you have to use EVERY means of egress to avoid using your firearm for protection. That also would mean that if you had no other means of escape except climbing out a high story window to a ledge to avoid using the firearm you must climb out the window. The only time your actually allowed to use your firearm is if the bad person has actually done physical harm to yourself and you have no windows and no way around the person, then your allowed to use your firearm. But if it comes to that level do yourself a favor, don’t stop firing until the clip is empty, don’t stop for ammo efficiency and pray that all your shots hit the front of the bad person. Pray you kill them and pray they have no family who will be allowed to sue you for wrongful death even though the criminal was trespassing and causing bodily harm.
NY is one of the most Ephed up parts of the US for gun rights. The NY legislature even fails to protect the privacy rights of those who are registered to legally carry firearms in the state, the allowed a jackass to post the names and addresses of every person with a permit in the state. Nothing like posting a shopping list for criminals to survey and rob from when they know your not at home.
If my neighbor discharged a weapon 4 times, I wouldn’t mind the police taking him downtown to ask some questions after the incident was over.
I’ve read more comments and feel it necessary to give a little more to the story. I have worked in Hempstead, NY. I have seen MS-13. They recruit ELEMENTARY kids from the school play grounds while standing in the church parking lot that borders the fence.
MS-13 does not typically run to guns to kill, they prefer using blades, up close and personal. MS-13 is more of the type who will wait until this joker gets out and then break/sneak into the house and kill his family in front of him while he watches bound and gagged. MS-13 is nothing to mess with and nobody to threaten with a firearm, even in self defense.
This story is not a joke, its a reflection and a sliver of what everyone in those neighborhoods live with every day. Its a story of how the system is failing. It is sad how wide and broad the systematic failure is of the system to protect the citizens.
Nobody in these comments including myself has any room to pass judgment nor should we pass judgment on this individual, we were not the ones in this situation.
Nitroneo-when you say system, you should say government. It’s the laws they pass that give incentives to criminals and arrest innocents. But those same politicians have security up the ass, paid for with this man’s tax dollars.
There’s no way in hell I’d ever live in NY. New hampshire baby. Live free or die. Open carry laws and no MS b1tches around because NH don’t play that.
” I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?’ Grier said.”
Ha. I’m sure it was said, just like that.
That’s what happens in New York, this is what happens in Arizona:
“Sept 5th – The intruder who punched out a Chandler man while stealing beer at a keg party picked the wrong victim.
The man, who had been attempting to defend his wife during the beer theft, had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Fearing for his life and under attack, he pulled out a gun and fatally shot two men believed by police to be gang members early Sunday morning.
“People in Arizona carry guns,” said Detective David Ramer, a Chandler police spokesman. “You better be careful about who you are picking on.”
– http://azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/09/05/20100905chandler-shooting-two-dead.html
hasta la vista scumbags
GF==nice link but totally unrelated to the facts of the NY incident. I’m curious about the other 7 people (gang members?) arrested and charged.
Gangs: we declare ourselves to be outlaws and an active threat to society. They should be hunted down like Al Quaida. “War on Scum.” Will the errors and excesses be any worse than the errors and excesses caused by their existence now?
“People in Arizona carry guns,” said Detective David Ramer, a Chandler police spokesman. “You better be careful about who you are picking on.”
That is the best quote I have read all week.
That’s normal every day law as it’s been in most of the country for the majority of it’s existence. There’s no story here.
You’re almost never legally allowed to fire “outside” your house at someone at a distance, JUST because they’re verbally taunting you, even IF they’re posturing/threatening you. You can never use gunfire to repel insults. That’s never been legal. Now if someone pulled a gun and pointed it AT HIM, he could reasonably fire back. Or if someone ran at him with a knife. But just bullshit talk, you can’t fire your weapon for that…never been able to do that.
Made up story.
Not one more traffic ticket should be issued until 2000 MS13 Gang scum are hunted down and forced onto the next leaking boat to Central America. BTW, these guys didn’t cross the Canadian border, the crybaby liberal(s) here are well to remember this.
Unless these “gang” members had entered his house, and he had no ability/option to get his family and himself away, then he does not have the ability to just shoot them. Sure, emotionally we can see his reasons, but in Colorado (for example) the law is pretty clear about when the use of deadly force is justifiable. He should have locked his doors, stayed inside, and gotten his family into an area he could protect if these “gang” members had entered his house. Even if they are on his property, the use of deadly force isn’t justifiable unless the potential victim has no ability to flee and is being attacked (physically, words don’t count) (we don’t’ want to get into any kind of minority report / thought crimes here). He should have just waited for the police to handle the situation while they were outside, and only taken action if they came inside.
My thoughts and opinions. (from how I understand the law. I am not a lawyer)
Farmer==I’ll take your thoughts and opinion as one issue but your understanding of the law as a separate category? On “the law” you successfully regurgitated what the article and several others have posted here==aka, a waste of time. The blog is indeed for: your opinion, your OPINION on the law or fact pattern.
Do you have any ideas of your own you’d like to share?
“Do you have any ideas of your own you’d like to share?”
I did.
“He should have just waited for the police to handle the situation while they were outside, and only taken action if they came inside.”
Pass out free guns and ammo to all registered voters. Enact a tax credit for everyone killed who even looks like a gang Banger.
Father–in fairness, I did miss that minor bit, but really the question has to remain: is that your own personal opinion of the equities and moralities involved, or again, just the application of the law that was already well established?
Do you personally think that gangs of strangers should be able to stand in your driveway and threaten to kill you and your family and your only “proper” ((as opposed to lawful)) response would be to hide? Is that justice or a well functioning society in your mind? Or, in your heart of hearts would you like to spray that scum with your AK-47?
Remember when?
Unfortunately ‘Erik the Bruce’ after being arrested for a felony the police can confiscate all his firearms. If convicted on a felony arrest he is never allowed to own or posses a firearm ever again.
Regardless of what state the family moves to this feat of his will haunt him forever. Every time he even attempts to apply for legal ownership of a firearm, the fed’s database will flag him and permission will be denied. It is unfortunate as it will force him to further his career into criminal activities by illegally acquiring a firearm for future protection of his family, if they survive this ordeal.
Agreed that in areas where we have criminal organizations such as MS-13 there should be no traffic citations issued until the streets are made safe again. That would be a “Leave it to Beaver” land of utopia where the word of Ward would teach all the lessons we would need or use in life. Haa, haa…
I love these wacko libs yelling about the “patriot act” and Bush for 8 years and as soon as the govt wants to take away their ability to protect themselves and their family from criminals or an oppressive government (the real reason the 2nd amendment exists) they’re like “ok sure, no prob”
If there’s 20 or so gang members around my house threatening to kill my children, the police can come pick them up by the 5.56 holes in their bodies. The guy didn’t have 30-40 minutes to wait until the cops put down their donuts and prostitutes to come help
Bobbo: That is how I feel. In today’s society it is very easy to get “screwed” by acting emotionally by some situations, so acting logically is usually my first thought, though that is not always easy to do.
“Do you personally think that gangs of strangers should be able to stand in your driveway and threaten to kill you and your family and your only “proper” ((as opposed to lawful)) response would be to hide? Is that justice or a well functioning society in your mind? Or, in your heart of hearts would you like to spray that scum with your AK-47?”
It does suck that the actions one can take seem limited when dealing with gangs of strangers yelling threats on your driveway, but other than pissing the owner off, and causing him some fear, I don’t think it is prudent to escalate the situation with a firearm. If I remember correctly, he did the right thing in calling 911 , what was the point of confronting them with a firearm? Where they now at his door, or still on his driveway? Why give a warning shot? If you plan on grabbing a firearm, then properly use it. Giving a warning shot defeats the purpose. What would have happened if the warning shot he fired hit a rock, and then ricocheted into a neighbors window and killed one of them? Owning a firearm comes with responsibility. Like I said, if they had come into his house, then yes, unload that magazine, and have another, or many, ready. (always important to have more than 1 magazine ready)
No matter the situation (staying inside, or going outside with a firearm like he did), the owner is put into a situation that is bad for him. If he stayed inside, and the cops came, the gang of strangers would want to get revenge if they got arrested or they just felt like he disrespected them. Going outside with a firearm again leads to a bad situation for him, as now the gang of strangers will want revenge for threatening them (how dare he as I am sure they are thinking). At least staying inside would have resulted in him not getting arrested, and thus not being away from his family, and what ever legal issue he will have to go through. Either way, the chances of this gang of strangers to now enter his house are higher, and he might not be there to protect his family.
It’s one thing to hunt down gang bangers. It’s another to stand your ground and defend your property and family and life. My name ain’t Jodie Foster and I don’t own a panic room. And like I said before I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. And if every peaceful person espoused those views than the criminals would run out of victims. That goes for government gangs as well as gang bangers.
Farmer, I think the point of different most of us are having with you is that you actually think that the gang bangers lives are important. Thats admirable but not realistic.
Here is the thing, I am a small person, only 5 foot 5, and never was very muscular. Several large people coming to my house threatening to kill me and my family is an immediate threat to my life. In a fair fight I would be dead in the 20 to 30 minutes it takes the cops to get to the house, and probably my family raped and killed too. Allot can happen in 20 minutes, especially with a large group of people who don’t care about the law.
In the liberal fantasy land, I would have no way to defend myself. The gang members would probably kill me and my family, the cops might arrive in time to catch them in the act, but they would probably just make a run for it, and most would get away, and since most murders in this world are never prosecuted, the people who did this would never pay for it.
This guy was facing a situation of 5 vs 1, he was at his house. The gang members had already made their intention to kill him and his family known, and apparently had the means to make good on their threat. Waiting for the gang members to fire the first shot, or “draw a gun” (which happens much faster than you think), is paramount to turning the gun on yourself. Modern weapons are very accurate at close range, and often the one who fires first is the victor. This isn’t an action movie where everything is happening in slow motion.
A warning was given to leave the property, that was the right thing to do in this situation, but when the gang members made it clear they intended to ignore this warning, their lives became forfeit. In my opinion the owner then should be allowed to kill every one of them that are not actively running away.
I know this sounds heartless, but defending ones family is probably the most important thing that a father and husband can do.
If this is illegal, then the law is wrong, and the politicians who made the law should be run out of town.
Bob: “Farmer, I think the point of different most of us are having with you is that you actually think that the gang bangers lives are important. Thats admirable but not realistic.”
I never said that. I think they are scum, and if they entered or attempted to enter the house, (trying to kick down the door) should be confronted with appropriate force. (i.e. a firearm with many bullets). That being said, I think it is important to protect yourself and your family in multiple ways, both legally and physically.
“The gang members had already made their intention to kill him and his family known, and apparently had the means to make good on their threat. ”
We were not there so we don’t know if the situation was truly going/leading to being physical. We don’t know if these were actual gang bangers. They could have been kids who have attitudes and just didn’t like the owner. If they were actual gang bangers then I suspect they would have actually pulled out some guns long before this guy got his gun, or right when he came outside with his AK, nothing like this in the story. If they did, then the guy would have never fired off warning shots.
Bob / Bobbo: Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you both in many of the things you say. I think things would be a lot better if the majority of citizens carried (open or concealed) firearms in public. However, this requires that these people have a level of restraint over their emotions and just don’t start blowing people away cause they think they are gang bangers, or somebody who yells threats.
I think my focus in my response was to explain why I think he should have done things differently to protect himself and his family. (both physically and legally). If they had attempted or did enter his house, then fill them with bullets.
Farmer (not Father as my eyes betrayed me) = Good–you have much more thought behind the one sentence in 10 that you initially posted.
I will note my own “seeming” inconsistent position on guns/safety. I think “statistically” all (ie==ALL) of us and our families would be safer if guns were illegal, and after a due course of confiscation and what not, their actually presence in society were reduced to near zero, to the point that even cops did not wear them.
And yet here I “fantasize” about blowing this scum away. It would be inconsistent were the two hypotheticals the same, but they aren’t. I believe we would all be safer if guns were gone. I believe that if you do have a gun and are going to use it, then you are safer to blow the scum away rather than inform them you are armed. Does anyone here think the armed patriot is a hindrance to the M-13 or more a challenge?
AND MORE TO THE POINT, we are told these particular scum prefer using knives to guns. Holy Crap!!! Theres a nice trump card to the normal guns dont protect us argument. Who is funding M-13?===the NRA????? Ha, ha.
Yea, society in a shit hole==gangs running wild and citizens reduced to defending themselves wild west style. AND fyi freedom lovers, trap guns illegal everywhere too which I’ve always thought was wrong as long as the owner takes on the responsibility of killing innocent visitors to their property. Nice infra red activated systems out there.
Yes, quite a downward spiral. Would be nice to follow this story “for developments.”
Sounds like we lost the war with somebody.
Two last thoughts: 1. I don’t promote violence as the first or only solution to any problem, of course it should be the last. But each individual has the right to determine when it should come to violence to defend oneself, ones family and property. The law is b.s. How can some government official tell you what you can and cannot do on your own property?
2. I bet you dollars to donuts the cops take two to three times longer to respond to the 911 call his wife made than to the technology they use to locate a gun going off. My advice to this man is to leave NY. Fighting a gang of thugs is hard enough without having to fight the government for the right to defend yourself at the same time.
The arresting officer should be reprimanded or fired, depending on if this is his first time infringing a citizen’s God-given right to self defense.
The idea that four warning shots were “excessive” is ludicrous under the circumstances.
Russia has much better home defense weapons than an AK-47 which is really only good for killing large amounts of people in war.
I suggest the Saiga-12 shotgun. Unfortunately due to laws in the USA the Saiga-12K is unavailable, but a more conservative model with a hunting stock and long barrel can be found, though they’re in much demand. Having a shotgun that uses magazines gives you a lot of firepower without the hassle of reloading compared to a tube-fed design.
#60
Leave NY and go where? You’ll get almost the same response from the Police wherever you go. You CAN’T decide if you want to live or not. If you do, you’re going to jail and not the criminals. Face it, we’re screwed in US.
I am sure, the result of this situation will be different if he was a white man protecting his family with AK-47.
Just imagine if right to bear arms was take away.
Too many people are commenting that have never been in his shoes. If a gangbanger threatens you and/or your families lives, you’d better take it seriously. The problem is that even had he killed all those gang members that were present that night, there would be 100 more knocking down his door a couple of hours later. The only way he could protect his family is to immediately leave because the cops are completely incapable of protecting them.