Quoted:
IN before the DUPE POLICE.

Quoted:
If it's time to pull the trigger, it is not time to aim at the ground...

Quoted:
If it's time to pull the trigger, it is not time to aim at the ground...

Quoted:







So the police can arrest him for murder?  Poor guy can't win. Either the govt gets him or you know the gang members will pay him another visit on another day...

Quoted:


He wasn't arrested for murder.
 

Quoted:
Man, this country is getting so warped. Stories like this is why people more and more hate cops.

Basically several gang members are threatening a man, more come rushing around the corner. The man tells his wife to call police and fires 4 warning shots into the lawn. The cops come and arrest the man who legally owned the AK-47 and has no criminal record. The cops arrest the man for discharging the weapon. WTF do they want? Would they have preferred to pick up up his body later if he let the gang invade his home?

The cops there also have ShotSpotter that will tell them within 35' where a shot was fired. Never heard of police agencies using that. Sounds like a bad area. And they arrest probably the only man on the block that doesn't have a criminal record.

Video interview of gun owner:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/07/long-island-man-arrested-for-defending-home-with-ak-47/

Quoted:
This is one of those things, where I'm really going to have to hear the cops side of it before I comment.

I've been burned one too many times, supporting a home owner that I later learned was an IDIOT when more details came out.

Quoted:
If it's time to pull the trigger, it is not time to aim at the ground...

Quoted:


He was not, but that reply was in response to the suggestion that if was time to shoot, he should not have shot into the ground, suggesting he should have shot the gang member(s) or the shooter was premature to fire at all. In light of the hostile legal environment for gun owners, I'm saying he may have been arrested for murder had he shot the gang members, even if in self defense.

Quoted:


Very true, but...... often I think cops forget that they usually get to the scene AFTER the crime has occurred. Yet, many feel armed citizens are a threat to them and support disarming people.

It sounded like there were a crap load of gang bangers there. In that case, are you sure shooting a few warning rounds in this case was that bad of an idea?

Quoted:







He was not, but that reply was in response to the suggestion that if was time to shoot, he should not have shot into the ground, suggesting he should have shot the gang member(s) or the shooter was premature to fire at all. In light of the hostile legal environment for gun owners, I'm saying he may have been arrested for murder had he shot the gang members, even if in self defense.

Quoted:
EVERYONE REPEAT AFTER ME...

"The 'Justice System' no longer has ANYTHING to do with 'justice' for victims, nor does it have anything to do with truly deterring criminal acts."  

The judicial system exists to expand its own scope and power. Lawyers exist NOT to make the law understandable to the common lay person, but to further complicate the law and therefore, ensure their own existence and financial well-being. The "police state" and the courts now effectively exist to PROTECT CRIMINALS from the natural and REAL justice that the public at-large desires. It's been this way for a while now. The "machine" is HUGE and it's hungry (for your rights and your money). The only way for this machine to be tamed is for it to be broken-down and for the people to keep it small and limited (as it was in the early years of this great country). That's because the power players are all invested in keeping things as they are, and even moving them ahead. The police state as an entity has LITTLE interest in limiting or starving itself. Becoming smaller, simpleer, and more JUST... therefore goes against the its own instincts.

*** NOTE *** there are obviously individual players (leo's, judges, and even a few lawyers) who do not subscribe to the above notion and to no operate with it as their goal. Nevertheless... the system is what it is –– and there are FAR too few of those "rebels" too change it.

§ 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A  person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to  the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or
(b)  The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing  the  incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat  by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly  physical  force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she  knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii)  a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20. (see below)

§  35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

Quoted:
Never fire warning shots, some states consider warning shots deadly force. If you have to fire a warning shot, chances are you are in fear for your life...

Skip to 0:55 in the video below.

Judicious Use of Force.

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/uniondale-man-cops-dispute-account-of-shooting-1.2270253

Uniondale man, cops dispute account of shooting

September 7, 2010 By MATTHEW CHAYES  [email protected]

A Uniondale man facing criminal charges for repeatedly firing his legally owned rifle into his front lawn says he was only trying to scare off a group of men who were menacing his family.

Speaking outside the home where he's lived all his life, the man, George M. Grier, 30, recalled how he went inside to retrieve the gun on Sunday night because the men, who were on the sidewalk in front of his house, were loudly arguing and appeared on the verge of violence after he asked them to move down the block.

" 'You're dead! Your family's dead!' " Grier, who works for a delivery company, recalled one of the strangers saying to him when he returned with the gun. Soon after, he fired what he called "warning shots," he said.

During the dispute, several of the men tried to incite his cousin to fight with them. Grier said he didn't know any of the men or the reason they congregated near his house.

He opened fire, he says, when about 15 additional men came charging toward his home.

But police, who charged Grier with felony reckless endangerment and misdemeanor possession of a dangerous weapon, question his version of events. They say Grier and his cousin had a verbal dispute with the men for arguing in front of his house. Police say he shouldn't have used a gun to try to settle what had been a verbal dispute.

Referring to the actions of the original three men, the department's chief spokesman, Det. Lt. Kevin Smith, said, "No punches are thrown. No weapons are displayed." No arrests were made besides Grier.

Smith says the police also have witnesses who contradict Grier's account, though Smith declined to elaborate. He says Grier should have called 911. Grier said, in an interview, he asked his wife to do so, though his two-page statement to police doesn't reference the request to call 911.

Smith says Grier created a hazard for the neighborhood by firing into the ground because the shot could have ricocheted and struck others.

Grier's defense attorney, John R. Lewis Jr. of Farmingdale, said he believes the facts of what happened Sunday evening don't support the charges.

"Firing into the ground causes no risk of anyone's death," he said. "He's justified in defending his family."

Grier said he had first wanted the men to move away from his house because his wife, Ylana, was sleeping inside.

Lewis added: "His conduct doesn't rise to the level of what he was charged with, from a legal perspective. Morally, I don't think he should have been charged."

Grier said he's had the gun, listed in court papers as an "RU Arms rifle, model SA/CUGIR," for about three years and practices at a firing range.

Quoted:
Also keep in mind fellas, according to police the homeowner and his cousin had an argument outside with the gang members before he went and fetched his AK.