Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: New York man fires gun, arrested in dispute on his lawn

  1. #1
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    New York man fires gun, arrested in dispute on his lawn

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...-his-lawn.html

    "NEW YORK — A homeowner who grabbed a rifle from his house and fired warning shots in a confrontation with a group of men on his lawn faced arraignment on criminal charges Monday as his family said he was defending his home from a threatening mass of strangers."

  2. #2
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    .

    Get off my lawn !!!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  3. #3
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,553
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    Get off my lawn !!!
    ...first response nails it!


  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Sorry, but I think the cops nailed this one. And thank goodness they did.

    Doofi (shooter, the "gun community"/"gun culture" at large) ought to know that warning shots are not a good idea - especially if you let a few off while the muzzle is pointed skyward.

    If the doofus had time to run into his house to grab his rifle he had time to grab the phone and dial 911 then lock the doors and fort up for any possible breaching of the door. Going back outside and shooting a few warning shots not only endangers someone where those bulletrs are going to come back to earth but tends to escalate a shouting match into an all-out shooting match. THere was no need for that, as far as I can determine.

    Those who applaud this sort of recekless behavior might want to determine if they meet the definition of an accessory before the fact to the next doofus who fires off warning shots.

    Yes, my words are harsh. But then i do believe that anyone who attempts to roll back the sucesses and progress that has been made in protecting and recovering gun rights needs to be dealt with harshly. Live with it.

    stay safe.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Yep. No warning shot.

    Stand in the best available defensible location, gun at the ready. State loudly, "Get off my property." Do not shoot unless you are advanced upon. If advanced upon, shoot to stop the guy in front. This will most likely disperse the mob. If not, shoot to stop the new leader. Rinse. Repeat.

    If time and the situation permit, call 911, preferably before you have to fire, staying on the line until the mob disperses or the cops arrive.

    I think the biggest problem with the warning shot is that it doesn't help establish that you had a reasonable fear for your safety. If you really fear for your safety, you shoot AT the threat.

  6. #6
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,553
    Yeah, I think the last two posts are right on. Warning shots are a bad idea.

    Note that 1245A and I were responding to the fact that this story sounds eerily like a scene out of Gran Torino.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by DrMark View Post
    Yeah, I think the last two posts are right on. Warning shots are a bad idea.

    Note that 1245A and I were responding to the fact that this story sounds eerily like a scene out of Gran Torino.
    It started out like the scene in the movie. Maybe Walt knew the JDs (am I dating myself yet?) were armed. But he also knew that warning shots were a waste of good ammunition. And it was a movie where dramatic displays will not get you in jail or the morgue.

    I really do believe that we, as the "gun culture", need to make a clear statement that were do not, in ant way, support brandishing or warning shots. It really must be that when you decide to pull it, you need to be pulling the trigger.

    stay safe.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    288

    Warning shots

    Well the article states that the guy shot into the ground but I agree, no warning shots should've been fired. If the guy would have been in Ky. he could have smoked the iceholes. Sadly he wasn't and will probably go to prison in the hell that is New York.
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

  9. #9
    Regular Member 4angrybadgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by Thos.Jefferson View Post
    Well the article states that the guy shot into the ground but I agree, no warning shots should've been fired. If the guy would have been in Ky. he could have smoked the iceholes. Sadly he wasn't and will probably go to prison in the hell that is New York.
    From the second paragraph in the article (emphasis mine)...
    George Grier, 30, fired rounds into the ground and air from an assault-style rifle after arguing with a large group of men gathered outside his Long Island home Sunday evening, Nassau County police said.
    Those warning shots into the air were unnecessary and endangered innocents. Hopefully he won't face any consequences for the actions to defend his family, just the reckless actions.

  10. #10
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461
    I just saw an interview and he said that he returned outside because his cousin was still in the front yard with 15 "gang members." He didn't say why his cousing didn't go in the house when he did.

  11. #11
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    In the interview on Fox News, the man said that when he and his cousin came outside to leave there were MS13 gang bangers (they flashed tats and gang signs) arguing in his yard. They became angry when he asked them to move along. The gang bangers approached the car and when the cousin got out, surrounded him. The other man was able to slip in to the house. He told his wife to call 911, grabbed his gun and went back to help his cousin. When he came back out, the gang had called for backup and this backup was swarming his yard. He then fired the warning shots to disperse the arriving backups.

    While this was not a good idea, I would not second guess that he was scared to death. I do not know about NY, but in my state, under these circumstances, taking out one or two would probably not get you any jail time if you were truly in fear for your life.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by 4angrybadgers View Post
    From the second paragraph in the article (emphasis mine)...


    Those warning shots into the air were unnecessary and endangered innocents. Hopefully he won't face any consequences for the actions to defend his family, just the reckless actions.
    Sorry ,I just skimmed the article. I must 've missed that.
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern Prince William Co. VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    I Have to Concur

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Sorry, but I think the cops nailed this one. And thank goodness they did.

    Doofi (shooter, the "gun community"/"gun culture" at large) ought to know that warning shots are not a good idea - especially if you let a few off while the muzzle is pointed skyward.

    If the doofus had time to run into his house to grab his rifle he had time to grab the phone and dial 911 then lock the doors and fort up for any possible breaching of the door. Going back outside and shooting a few warning shots not only endangers someone where those bulletrs are going to come back to earth but tends to escalate a shouting match into an all-out shooting match. THere was no need for that, as far as I can determine.

    Those who applaud this sort of recekless behavior might want to determine if they meet the definition of an accessory before the fact to the next doofus who fires off warning shots.

    Yes, my words are harsh. But then i do believe that anyone who attempts to roll back the sucesses and progress that has been made in protecting and recovering gun rights needs to be dealt with harshly. Live with it.

    stay safe.
    I have to concur with this with just reading the report. Of course, the police will investigate and determine if circumstances warranted him discharging his weapon as he did; but I believe he was reckless.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    288

    Don't be so quick to be a bootlicker

    Well ,I've been doing some searching and have found another article and a news clip of this incident and I think the AP article is erronous in that he did not fire into the air. The article and news clip can be found here.
    http://www.libertybelles.org/article...medforlife.htm
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    That is not a link to a news story. Linking that site for factual support would be like linking this one. Both sites are advocacy sites.

    In the linked article is this link: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/...me-with-ak-47/ . It is a link to a news site that reports the warning shots being fired into the ground.

    It doesn't make any difference to my opinion. Warning shots, into the air or into the ground, are foolish. I believe the ones into the ground are more dangerous since they might hit a rock, sending it flying or causing a ricochet. Shots straight up are less dangerous because terminal velocity on the way down is to slow to be very dangerous.

    I'll say again, call 911, keep the gun at the ready (pointed in a safe direction), insist that the gang members leave, do not fire unless they advance and then shoot to stop the guy in front, and remain ready until the cops arrive or the threat completely dissipates. The warning shot was a dangerous half-step. (I won't speak to whether it should be considered criminal.)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    Certainly makes one think about what the appropriate weapon to bring is.... "Get off my lawn..."
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  17. #17
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by rscottie View Post
    In the interview on Fox News, the man said that when he and his cousin came outside to leave there were MS13 gang bangers (they flashed tats and gang signs) arguing in his yard. They became angry when he asked them to move along. The gang bangers approached the car and when the cousin got out, surrounded him. The other man was able to slip in to the house. He told his wife to call 911, grabbed his gun and went back to help his cousin. When he came back out, the gang had called for backup and this backup was swarming his yard. He then fired the warning shots to disperse the arriving backups.

    While this was not a good idea, I would not second guess that he was scared to death. I do not know about NY, but in my state, under these circumstances, taking out one or two would probably not get you any jail time if you were truly in fear for your life.
    With this new information I think the homeowner was justified, even if he should of shot all his warning shots in the ground(or into some gang-bangers). He has every right to go assist his family member.

    Furthermore, this never pull until your gonna shoot stuff is a double standard.
    If brandishing were never appropriate then LEOs would never do it. If brandishing can de-escilate then that would be better than having to shoot someone 30 seconds later.


    20 gang members surround and start a fight with my cousin on my property? = DISPARITY OF FORCE. This guy SHOWED RESTRAINT.

    I would've shot quite a few of them.
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 09-08-2010 at 09:41 PM.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  18. #18
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    Furthermore, this never pull until your gonna shoot stuff is a double standard.
    If brandishing were never appropriate then LEOs would never do it. If brandishing can de-escilate then that would be better than having to shoot someone 30 seconds later.
    I agree completely. And waiting to draw until you are going to fire is just stupid in my opinion. It would put you at a severe disadvantage.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    60

    Drawing a gun is assault with a deadly weapon

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    I agree completely. And waiting to draw until you are going to fire is just stupid in my opinion. It would put you at a severe disadvantage.
    Unless you are a speed draw champion, waiting to draw until you are about to fire is a bad idea. But we should not draw our guns unless we are facing a situation which warrants deadly force. Drawing your gun is an action with more consequences than using harsh words, but with fewer consequences than firing the gun. Especially if you fire the gun before you draw it.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny W View Post
    Unless you are a speed draw champion, waiting to draw until you are about to fire is a bad idea. But we should not draw our guns unless we are facing a situation which warrants deadly force. Drawing your gun is an action with more consequences than using harsh words, but with fewer consequences than firing the gun. Especially if you fire the gun before you draw it.
    Laws vary from State to State, however it seems that there is generally a two-pronged test for an action to be assault: There has to be an unlawful threat, and there has to be the present ability to carry out that threat. Having the gun, drawn or not, meets the second criteria. The question is, "Does the act of drawing the firearm (or holding it in a safe position) constitute a threat?" The answer would depend upon the context.

    If you draw your weapon and hold it safely at your side while a man walks past your house just because you think he is acting hinky, he'd have a case for your having assaulted him.

    If you draw your weapon and hold it safely at your side as a dozen or more folks walk into your yard, saying angry things, then you'd probably have a case that they were committing assault! I'd call their behavior a threat, and a dozen against two sure amounts to "present ability." If you are acting out of genuine and reasonable fear for your safety, then your threat is lawful and does not constitute assault.

    IANAL.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    you make a good point, but why do your sexual choices matter in this situation?

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    IANAL means "I am not a lawyer."

    When saying something that someone might erroneously construe as legal advice, this caveat explains that I am stating my layman's interpretation of the matter. No one should rely on it as professional legal advice. If one's situation dictates the need for legal advice, he should seek out a lawyer, which I am not.

  23. #23
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    In my opinion it was his property and they refused to leave so they were tresspassing with criminal intent. He "should" be allowed to count to 3 and then start dropping gang-bangers. In reality he should have stood there waiting for police as long as they didn't advance on him or his cousin. I am sure the Pieces of Sh1t would have lost their bravado and dispersed once police showed up. Gang-intimidation works because our laws only restrict the law abiding.

    Warning shots waste bullets.

  24. #24
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    you make a good point, but why do your sexual choices matter in this situation?

    Now that's just good comedy.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Laws vary from State to State, however it seems that there is generally a two-pronged test for an action to be assault: There has to be an unlawful threat, and there has to be the present ability to carry out that threat. Having the gun, drawn or not, meets the second criteria. The question is, "Does the act of drawing the firearm (or holding it in a safe position) constitute a threat?" The answer would depend upon the context.

    If you draw your weapon and hold it safely at your side while a man walks past your house just because you think he is acting hinky, he'd have a case for your having assaulted him.

    If you draw your weapon and hold it safely at your side as a dozen or more folks walk into your yard, saying angry things, then you'd probably have a case that they were committing assault! I'd call their behavior a threat, and a dozen against two sure amounts to "present ability." If you are acting out of genuine and reasonable fear for your safety, then your threat is lawful and does not constitute assault.

    IANAL.
    Yes, I would agree that drawing a firearm is not necessarily a threat, but I would say it is not a threat if a reasonable person would believe you are not intending to convey that you will use the firearm. If you are at a gun store and ask to see a gun from the case, the employee pulling it out of the case is not a threat. However if your intention in exposing, drawing, or otherwise bringing attention to the firearm is to notify someone that you are willing to use it, you have threatened or "assaulted" that person. The assault may be justified, just as using the gun to stop an attacker in a way that results in the attacker's death may be justifiable homicide, covered by the affirmative defense of "self defense". But it is still assault. If an ambulance with lights and sirens on runs a red light, they have still run a red light, but it is justified and permitted by law. The actions are the same. If a person randomly draws a gun from a holster and points it at whatever is in front of them, that person will be guilty of assaulting whatever is in front of them. If they happen to draw when someone is threatening them, they will be justified in only that case, even though the actions are exactly the same. Obviously I am not advocating randomly drawing guns because it is very likely to be illegal and dangerous.

    A threat is always a threat, and violence is always violence. The reasons for these actions may justify them in some circumstances, namely when used as a response to similar actions.

    I am also not a lawyer, just a citizen trying to understand the law. I know that the laws vary from state to state, as well as the language those laws use, but the principles are somewhat similar in many cases.
    Last edited by Johnny W; 09-12-2010 at 02:04 PM. Reason: clarification

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •