TexasCHLforum.com

A New York man was arrested for defending his family and home from upwards of 20 gang bangers. He was apparently arrested because he used an AK-47.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/07/ ... ment-22173

I thought it sounded like another case of warning shots. This was definitely not a good situation, but with twenty or more to one odds, depending on NY's laws on disparity, he might have been justified in shooting them all if any of them got close enough. Probably not, but maybe. Anyway you look at it, though, it will not be a good place to live from here on out after this incident for this man and his family.

New York, the "other" Kalifornia.

C-dub wrote:I thought it sounded like another case of warning shots. This was definitely not a good situation, but with twenty or more to one odds, depending on NY's laws on disparity, he might have been justified in shooting them all if any of them got close enough. Probably not, but maybe. Anyway you look at it, though, it will not be a good place to live from here on out after this incident for this man and his family.

If there were 20 gang members threatening him and his family, it wasn't a good place to live before he was arrested.

According to the article, there are thousands of MS 13 gang members in that county (and who knows how many thousands of criminals who belong to other gangs) but it looks like the police there are too busy arresting homeowners who defend their families from gangs to do anything about the gangs.

Wow! Makes me thankful that I live in Texas and that I know that warning shots were strongly discouraged in my CHL class.

it's much easier to arrest a relatively decent guy breaking a bad gun law than it is to arrest hundreds of armed gang members.

law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force

ahhh "flaws" i mean laws in new york is one of MANY reasons i moved here.
20 gang members VS 1 home owner..... C'mon MAN!

Though the media is pushing the AK part, it was the warning shots that got him in trouble.

His lawyer is saying that you have to show "depraved indifference" to human life to be convicted. Not sure even a NY jury could see warning shots to protect your family from gang bangers as depraved indifference. Its going to be a rough ride, but he should win. I hope.

The most fascinating part of the article to me is the reference to the “ShotSpotter” technology that allows police to know when a gunshot is fired and to pinpoint the location to 35 feet. Amazing! Here's a video I found about it.

nitrogen wrote:it's much easier to arrest a relatively decent guy breaking a bad gun law than it is to arrest hundreds of armed gang members.

It's New York so another possibility is they could be on the take.

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.

Did he actually expect the gang members to respect his request to vacate his lawn? I would have ushered my family to the centermost area of the house, called 911, and then monitored their activities to see if they were advancing or drawing weapons. If they were just congregating, I would have let the police deal with them; if they were advancing and drawing weapons, I would defend my home with non-warning shots.

He was greatly outnumbered and probably outgunned by an army that was seemingly looking for a battlefront; he's lucky that >20 gang members didn't start shooting back killing him and his family.

Embalmo

Hoi Polloi wrote:The most fascinating part of the article to me is the reference to the “ShotSpotter” technology that allows police to know when a gunshot is fired and to pinpoint the location to 35 feet. Amazing! Here's a video I found about it.

Holy Cow! I saw that referenced in a tv show I watch and thought; "Yeah, right!, That is ridiculous." Now I stand corrected. We are living the science fiction of my youth, I guess. Sorry, now back to the subject. I am so glad I live in Texas. I hope he gets off. I agree the cops looked this one over and decided it was a lot easier to arrest the homeowner than rile up all those gang members. Sooo, who do they protect again?

TexasGal wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote: Sooo, who do they protect again?

If I had 2000 gang members who don't care about the law, I might be safer in a cell by myself for a while after I had shot at them.

flb_78 wrote:

TexasGal wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote: Sooo, who do they protect again?

If I had 2000 gang members who don't care about the law, I might be safer in a cell by myself for a while after I had shot at them.

Gangs can get at you when you're in jail. They can also get at your wife and daughters on the outside.

They only way good people are going to win is start treating the gang members as enemy combatants, because they are. I heard scuttlebutt saying one of the big differences between Mississippi and Louisiana post-Katrina is some people in MS didn't let a crises go to waste, and took care of some long standing problems. No proof because supposedly they were smart enough to value opsec more than a 911 call, but General Patton's NSFW quote about winning wars springs to mind.

Found some interesting background info about the prosecutor's office that has this case:

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=37819" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;