Long Island, N.Y. man arrested for defending home against MS-13 gang with AK-47.

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.

“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,” Lewis said.

Grier said he knew Nassau County Police employ the hi-tech “ShotSpotter” technology in his area and that the shooting would bring police in minutes. Cops told Guzman he was very cooperative.

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.

Source: CBS New York



 

  • Bill

    “When the foeman bares his steel
    We uncomfortable feel”

    It is of course much easier, not to mention less dangerous, to arrest a citizen and taxpayer in fear of his and his familys lives than to go after armed criminal scum. There is no need whatsoever for police like that!

  • Bart Berger

    Its sad day when a man, a very ballsy man, stands up to this particular gang, and the state arrests him. What is this country coming to when hoodlums whose idea of a good time is to use a machete on someone are the victims.

  • Eric

    If a gun is on a banned list, it probably isn’t prudent to use it for self-defense (a very public activity in the “Aftermath” phase of conflict), but I appreciate the previous postings on “spirit” vs. “letter” of the law, which appears to be an ever growing point of tension in our increasingly polarized society. In particular, this problem of law enforcement avoiding violent criminals, especially hyper-violent gangs, and focusing on “busting-citizens-on-technicalities” is not new nor is it a vague concept. There are a number of cases where this is quantified by social scientists, such as Gary Kleck and John Lott, Jr. in the U.S. and Gary Mauser in Canada (see the JOURNAL ON FIREARMS AND PUBLIC POLICY, http://www.saf.org). There are also examples in case law. In California, there is a concept utilized by some defense attorneys (for both ethical and unethical defense strategies) called the “148 Personality,” which is about a certain type of cop who theoretically tends to arrest citizens in technical violations instead of focusing on dangerous criminals who are clearly a threat to both specific individuals, and, therefore, to the greater community at large as well. The “148 Personality” is named after Penal Code Section 148, which is titled, “Resisting or Interfering.” The term, “resisting,” applies to obvious resisting arrest situations, from passive to active to aggravated, while the term “interfering” refers to “interfering with an investigation.” The original intent of the law, according to one point of view interpreting the California Peace Officers’ Legal Sourcebook, is to provide law enforcement with a charge against those who impair an officer from carrying out her or his investigation. Unfortunately, because of its inherent “vagueness,” it has been misused, especially when citizens engage in “contempt-of-cop” (e.g., verbal abuse, which Courts generally state a cop should expect) or “ask why?” too much (which Courts also find a cop should expect) and offend and/or irritate the ego of the (inexperienced or unprofessional) officer. Here “148” tends to collide with the 1st Amendment as well as the 4th and 5th, so there is considerable legal debate about this. However, this concept can also be potentially applied to this article because the “148” concept may be extended to potentially explain a type of personality attracted to law enforcement, who likes to enforce technical rules over advancing the interest of public safety and justice. In practice, the “148 Personality” may be “discovered” when a defense attorney reviews the arrest records of officers who have a “large number” of “148″ cases. In the trials where an officer has hundreds or even thousands of 148 charges against suspects over the officer’s career, defense attorneys can assert a “case theory” which shows a bias toward “easy” arrests (i.e., law abiding citizens busted on technicalities) instead of “hard/dangerous” arrests (i.e., gangsters w/guns). Essentially, many defense attorneys have successfully asserted the “148 Personality” is a cop who is a bully and a coward looking to “get-back-at-society,” perhaps because they were the kid who themselves were bullied on the school ground or at home. Applying this to the criminalization of firearms, which most of the public still believes is a constitutional right, but, is often greatly limited by local laws, the “148 Personality” (if it exists) would have a “fool’s paradise” in intense gun ban environments, such as New York or California. Here “spirit” (e.g., “Does this serve the ‘cause’ of justice?”) vs. “letter” (“AK on the banned list”) of the law is the new “ground zero” of controversy, essentially a new “Roe v. Wade.” Obviously, as time goes forward, and society tends towards more government control in the name of “public safety,” this will likely be a growing, major issue, and the public needs to get more involved rather than leaving it up to the so-called “experts” (as academics tend to be “anti-freedom” as well as “anti-gun”), or we will certainly end up like England, France, … Russia or even, potentially, Germany in the “utopia” between 1938-1941, were “freedom was traded for security” and the only freedom which remained was for the rich and powerful, as in the “State of Nature.” The price of freedom is vigilance, and lawfully —and peacefully— changing the law back to its intended purpose of protecting life, liberty and happiness of good people as opposed to protecting thugs, wither in pin-striped suits or “wife-beater” T-shirts, will likely be a growing priority in the future as well, but a battle which will be very difficult given the power, relentlessness, and ideology of the political Left which controls much of Media, Government, and Big Business.

  • Chris

    These types of crimes involving a high number of bad guys prove just how useful it is to have the firepower only, “assault weapons,” can provide. Meanwhile, the media and antis further demonize these tools claiming they have no real use. I can assure you things would have went a lot worse for this man defending his family if he tried to rely on martial arts, pepper spray, tazers, cops, etc.

  • Eric

    Chris, I fully agree…

  • jsa

    It appears after reading the full article that he was arrested for not for having the gun but for firing it without an absolute threat on his life. It they had brandished a weapon or fired on him, then self defense could have been proven easier and then he should have shot to kill. But, shooting into the ground without the clear intent of the gang landed him where he is.

    From the article:
    “Police determined Grier had the gun legally. He has no criminal record. And so he was not charged for the weapon.”

    “You may think a person has the right to defend their home. But the law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force. Grier said he never saw anyone pull out a gun, so a court would have to decide on firing the gun.”

  • Jay C. (in Florida)

    His only mistake (and poor judgement) was to fire a warning shot. Once the decision to use deadly force is made, you must shoot to kill only if there is an iminent threat. If not, then use sound judgement people. This is another example of a scared individual with poor knowledge on the use of force (deadly force).