Long Island Man Arrested For Defending Home With AK-47

[MaggieD]

I really wish posters here would drop the stupid suggestions that the cops are never wrong and that the people must demonstrate their innocence. The People are not the ones who are restricted, it's the government. My comments remain true, and in fact no where close to this retarded and idiotic statement of yours I've quoted here. The State still has to prove it. You are the ones (government) that have to show there weren't those people there, you (government) have to show that he used his gun improperly when confronted with threats to his person and property. If the State wants a crime, the State must prove a crime. That is a statement of FACT. Whether you want to get all bent out of shape and pissy over it or not. That is a statement of fact. What we don't need is intellectually dishonest, misleading, and corrosive arguments like pretending that statements of fact are somehow conspiracy theories because you don't want the attention on the State or its law enforcement because of your personal bias on the issue. Also another statement of fact.

In my town, I'd get arrested for firing a gun within city limits, at the very least. Anyone with a brain cell working knows you don't go outside, confront a group of thugs, and start firing into the grass - into the air - or anywhere else. It is reckless endangerment, if that's the charge. Makes perfect sense to me. In New York, you can't start shootin' up the place because 20 people are standing in your driveway. He was wrong. It is not normal behavior to see a group of guys gathering, run inside and get your gun and start shooting -- no matter what they said to him. You go inside, protect your family, call the police, aim your AK47 at the doors/windows, and wait. Standing on your porch firing shots into the lawn or anyplace else is just plain stoooopid.

 

[Ikari]

In my town, I'd get arrested for firing a gun within city limits, at the very least. Anyone with a brain cell working knows you don't go outside, confront a group of thugs, and start firing into the grass - into the air - or anywhere else. It is reckless endangerment, if that's the charge. Makes perfect sense to me. In New York, you can't start shootin' up the place because 20 people are standing in your driveway. He was wrong. It is not normal behavior to see a group of guys gathering, run inside and get your gun and start shooting -- no matter what they said to him. You go inside, protect your family, call the police, aim your AK47 at the doors/windows, and wait. Standing on your porch firing shots into the lawn or anyplace else is just plain stoooopid.

Well my post really had nothing to do with your response here; but we'll give it a go. There are many laws on the books which make it near impossible to defend yourself; those aren't just laws. You should be more than free to confront trespassers on your property; particularly if they mean harm to you, your family, or your property. The shooting into the ground is a specific, thought out, and measured action and thus is not reckless endangerment. He meant to shoot in their direction to scare them off. It is in fact normal and reasonable behavior to confront a group of would be criminals threatening you or your property in order to prevent that threat from becoming reality. It is unreasonable and plain stoooooopid to say that someone has no right or proper power to defend themselves, their property, or their effects from outside threats.

 

[MaggieD]

Well my post really had nothing to do with your response here; but we'll give it a go. There are many laws on the books which make it near impossible to defend yourself; those aren't just laws. You should be more than free to confront trespassers on your property; particularly if they mean harm to you, your family, or your property. The shooting into the ground is a specific, thought out, and measured action and thus is not reckless endangerment. He meant to shoot in their direction to scare them off. It is in fact normal and reasonable behavior to confront a group of would be criminals threatening you or your property in order to prevent that threat from becoming reality. It is unreasonable and plain stoooooopid to say that someone has no right or proper power to defend themselves, their property, or their effects from outside threats.

In states without stand your ground laws, one does not have the right to defend their property with deadly force. I don't believe NY is is one of those. Ikari, if this guy really believed this crowd of gangsters was a threat, why would he, one person, go out on his porch and fire his gun? Pretty likely to get a person killed (and their family killed, for that matter) as three or four in the crowd pulled out theirs and capped him a dozen times. Makes no sense.

I see you're from Colorado. I think where one lives makes a big difference on how one would approach such a threat. If these 15 or whatever number gangsters represent a real, bona fide threat to me and my family a rational person is not going to be standing up on the porch and firing a few rounds into the grass. He'll either seek safety. Or he'll make his last stand. There's more to this story.

Whenever a person fires a gun in self defense, they can expect to be questionned by the police department and possibly charged. Goes with the territory.

 

[OscarB63]

In states without stand your ground laws, one does not have the right to defend their property with deadly force. I don't believe NY is is one of those. Ikari, if this guy really believed this crowd of gangsters was a threat, why would he, one person, go out on his porch and fire his gun? Pretty likely to get a person killed (and their family killed, for that matter) as three or four in the crowd pulled out theirs and capped him a dozen times. Makes no sense.

I see you're from Colorado. I think where one lives makes a big difference on how one would approach such a threat. If these 15 or whatever number gangsters represent a real, bona fide threat to me and my family a rational person is not going to be standing up on the porch and firing a few rounds into the grass. He'll either seek safety. Or he'll make his last stand. There's more to this story.

Whenever a person fires a gun in self defense, they can expect to be questionned by the police department and possibly charged. Goes with the territory.

that's why i have several big ass dogs. my guns are for back-up in case anyone get past the first line of defense. dogs chew em up and I take care of the rest.

 

[Ikari]

In states without stand your ground laws, one does not have the right to defend their property with deadly force. I don't believe NY is is one of those. Ikari, if this guy really believed this crowd of gangsters was a threat, why would he, one person, go out on his porch and fire his gun? Pretty likely to get a person killed (and their family killed, for that matter) as three or four in the crowd pulled out theirs and capped him a dozen times. Makes no sense.

If he thought that this group of gangsters were a threat, why wouldn't he go out on his porch with a gun? You can sit inside and wait the 20 minutes it may take for police to get there, or you can defend your life and property; the choice is yours. But you have no idea what they're gonna do and within that time it takes the police to get there; you may be SOL. It's best to be able to defend yourself than rely on others to protect you. If you can go outside with a gun and inspire the would be criminals to run away, you've gone a long ways better in protecting your family than hiding behind your couch praying that the cops get there in time will ever do for you.

I see you're from Colorado. I think where one lives makes a big difference on how one would approach such a threat. If these 15 or whatever number gangsters represent a real, bona fide threat to me and my family a rational person is not going to be standing up on the porch and firing a few rounds into the grass. He'll either seek safety. Or he'll make his last stand. There's more to this story.

I wouldn't put those rounds into the grass, that's for sure. But he should be more than free to do so. It's a scare tactic at that point. Showing that he's willing to fire and if they don't disperse there's going to be reprocussions. Giving the criminal the benefit of the doubt, as this man did, may not be the best of all choices; but it is a choice he must be free to make.

Whenever a person fires a gun in self defense, they can expect to be questionned by the police department and possibly charged. Goes with the territory.

And as I said in the original post you quoted, it is up to the State to prove wrong doing. He is not assumed guilty.

 

[MaggieD]

And as I said in the original post you quoted, it is up to the State to prove wrong doing. He is not assumed guilty.

I agree with that. I take exception to any thought that the fact he was arrested and charged was somehow a miscarriage of justice. He was charged with reckless endangerment. If I'd done the same thing, I would not be at all surprised to be so charged. As I said, I think it goes with the territory. The state has to prove him guilty. No argument there.

More than likely charges will be dropped. But arresting him? I have no problems with that. Gotta' sort everything out. JMHO.

 

[Ikari]

I agree with that. I take exception to any thought that the fact he was arrested and charged was somehow a miscarriage of justice. He was charged with reckless endangerment. If I'd done the same thing, I would not be at all surprised to be so charged. As I said, I think it goes with the territory. The state has to prove him guilty. No argument there.

More than likely charges will be dropped. But arresting him? I have no problems with that. Gotta' sort everything out. JMHO.

I believe it is unjust laws which prevent a man from defending his life and property from threats against them. However, the post of mine you originally quoted stated simply that it's up to the State to prove guilt (which is why I said your post did not follow mine). The man is not assumed guilty (which some of y'all have been doing; which is fine so long as you aren't a government agent), if they want to prove reckless endangerment or whatever other BS law they have; they have to show that he was not under that threat and prove that he discharged his firearm recklessly and without cause. I do not believe firing into the ground is reckless endangerment, however, less you mean to take the ground as a protected species of sorts. Firing into the air, or at houses....ok. But the ground is the ground and people don't live there. Unless you count the mole-people; but they don't count cause they're icky.

 

[Caine]

If he thought that this group of gangsters were a threat, why wouldn't he go out on his porch with a gun? You can sit inside and wait the 20 minutes it may take for police to get there, or you can defend your life and property;

If he waited 20 minutes without having to fire a round at someone making entry to his home....... then obviously there wasn't a need to use lethal force to begin with.

:failpail:

 

[Caine]

I really wish posters here would drop the stupid suggestions that the cops are never wrong and that the people must demonstrate their innocence.

I didn't say that. I said we don't have trials by media.... unlike what this defense attorney is trying to do we have trials in a.......................(i did this once already, but I don't think you read it)

C O U R T OF L A W

To think this news report has all of the answers to the situation is quite retarded. Very Dee Dee Dee.

As I said before, Police Agencies usually STFU until trial. Its defendants and their camera time attorneys that like to try the case in the media before it ever goes to court. The media, a one sided place.
There might be a whole lot more to the story than what the man and his defense attorney want the public to know.

The State still has to prove it. You are the ones (government) that have to show there weren't those people there, you (government) have to show that he used his gun improperly when confronted with threats to his person and property. If the State wants a crime, the State must prove a crime. That is a statement of FACT. Whether you want to get all bent out of shape and pissy over it or not. That is a statement of fact. What we don't need is intellectually dishonest, misleading, and corrosive arguments like pretending that statements of fact are somehow conspiracy theories because you don't want the attention on the State or its law enforcement because of your personal bias on the issue. Also another statement of fact.

The conspiracy theory is thinking that all the information in relation to this case is out there, and that these police are overstepping their boundaries without knowing what they know, and without the case having actually went to trial in a.....

(read big red letters above).