There is an interesting case out of Uniondale, New York where a homeowner was arrested for firing a weapon into the grass to scare off what he described as a mob of gang members. George Grier had a lawful AK-47 and confronted what he described were gang members who were threatening him and his family.
Grier confronted five men who he said taunted him to use the gun and were soon joined by a large group of as many as two dozen gang members. He proceeded to fire the warning shots into the grass. The police use ShotSpotter technology that tracks down gunshots and arrested him for a D felony reckless endangerment.
Grier admits that he never saw anyone pull out a gun.
Today, I will be covering in class “the castle doctrine” in torts on when a homeowner can used lethal force in defense of his home. Long Island has previously been the focus of such cases. This is fascinating since 20 gang members could be viewed as producing a reasonable fear in Grier. Just yesterday we discussed the case of Courvoisier v. Raymond, 23 Colo. 113 (1896), where a man chased a group out of his home only to fire when a man approached him outside his home from the stone-throwing mob. It turned out to be a deputy sheriff but the court found that Courvoisier could rely on reasonable mistaken self-defense.
In this case, the alleged mob was likely on Grier’s property and within the curtilage of the home. Assuming the castle doctrine or “make my day laws” do not apply, there remains the question of whether (without the appearance of a gun in the crowd) Grier was acting reasonably in firing the warning shots into the ground. Moreover, the elements of the crime include some relatively high required showings by the prosecution.
I believe the following is the relevant state provision:
§ 120.25 Reckless endangerment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when,
under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he
recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to
another person.
Reckless endangerment in the first degree is a class D felony.
He will likely argue that firing a gun into your lawn is not an act of “reckless endangerment” that “evinc[es] a depraced indifference to human life” Moreover, he can challenge the notion that such an act created “a grave risk of death.”
Source: CBS
Jonathan Turley
Otteray Scribe:
“It is illegal to own a fully automatic rifle without a Class III Federal firearms license”
The rest of your post was great, I just wanted to correct you here. You do not need a Class 3 FFL or any FFL for that matter, to own a fully automatic weapon. You pay a $200 tax stamp, put in for a background check and other paperwork, get your local sheriff to sign off, and then mortgage your home and children to come up with the money to pay for the gun itself. That’s pretty much it.
There’s more context if you read the source article:
….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. ….
…. Nassau County Police Lt. Andrew Mulraine, head of the gang unit, said MS-13 has 2,000 members in the county.
The man’s actions sound reasonable to me, especially if his claim of the uttered threats are true.
“What the hell are we thinking allowing regular folks to possess AK-47s?”
You don’t actually know what an AK-47 is, do you? Or why it’s relevant to preface it with “lawful.” If you did, you wouldn’t be writing hystrically about weapons of mass destruction.
Let me ask you this: would you feel more comfortable if it had been a hunting rifle in this story? If you answered yes, continuations, you don’t know anything about firearms, which is fine, except for the fact you’re writing about them like as if you did.
Actually, reading the provision again I can’t see any way that a warning shot would not full under it, even if the defendant feared for his life, unless there’s a statutory defense providing for it.
Self-defense entitles you to use force against someone who endangers your safety, it is unlikely that it allows you to reckless put others at risk of death, which is exactly what firing a warning shot entails.
Two things here jump out at me.
One: we have only the story of the defendant as to there being a “crowed of gangbangers” outside his house. The exact number of people and any gang affiliation is uncorroborated. “Gang members” is also a racist code word, so he there’s a distinct possibility when the offender says “gang members” he means “black people.” Needless to say, I’m extremely skeptical of the threat the defendant faced.
Two: Assuming the threat was legitimate, firing a warning shot is a prima facie reckless act. Police officers are strictly trained never to fire warning shots, and with good cause. The laws of physics are cruel and bullets can bounce, deflect and otherwise go places the shooter never intended. The defendant may have aimed at the ground, but he could have easily ended up wounding or killing one of the people in the group outside his home.
So, even if the defendant can prove he was in immediate fear of his psychical safety, he could still be found guilty, simply because his action in response was reckless. Ironically, he might have had a stronger defense if he had aimed for and struck one of the “gang bangers” than he does now from his decision to play cowboy.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk6Utpg5JcM&fs=1&hl=en_US]
The “facts” presented are sketchy at best. Were these truly gang members. how did the harassment of this homeowner begin and what part did he play in inciting it? None of this is clear from the facts presented.
That being said and in light of the Professor’s class presentation of the “Castle Doctrine,” my standard would be anyone who enters my house by stealth and uninvited would draw the full force of deterrent I could muster at their own peril. Then again I’ve read to many thrillers whereby once the intruder gains control of you, the danger of torture/death multiplies.
I’ll take a pass on this one until more facts come to light.
tomdarch-
“It’s the weapon of choice from the Taliban to limb-hacking madmen in central Africa to South American drug cartels because it is such a good tool for harming and killing human beings.”
It’s a very good weapon, no doubt. But the reasons it is so ubiquitous are that they are cheap, easy to maintain, easy to use, and the Soviet Union dumped massive numbers of them upon the world for decades.
“We draw a line and say that certain classes of weapons are just too destructive for the average citizen to possess – I say that weapons like AK-47s are well beyond that line, based largely on the number of rounds they can fire,”
Any magazine fed gun can fire lots of rounds. You can even buy 30 round magazines for handguns.
“the fact that those rounds can penetrate several standard construction walls”
So can 00 buckshot. And 9mm ball ammo. And almost any center fire rifle round.
“(and some body armor)”
Almost any rifle round will defeat the type of body armor that cops use. Those vests are designed to stop handgun rounds, not rifle rounds. A round from an AK will go through them, but so would a round from virtually any hunting rifle.
“and just how deadly those rounds can be if they hit someone.”
Hunks of metal fired from guns are deadly period, the AK isn’t particularly deadly. If you had to choose between being shot by an AK or grandpa’s pretty wood-stocked deer rifle, you’d much rather be shot with the AK.
“AK-74s aren’t appropriate for protecting your home and family.”
Why?
Just a couple of thoughts on tomdarch’s comment above. He states,
“…based largely on the number of rounds they can fire, the fact that those rounds can penetrate several standard construction walls (and some body armor) and just how deadly those rounds can be if they hit someone.”
The AK-47 is not much different than an ordinary hunting rifle found in the hands of hunters and sport shooters everywhere. The muzzle velocity of an AK-47 is 2,300 feet per second. The muzzle velocity of a 116-year-old Model 1894 Winchester 30-30 deer rifle is 2,684 feet per second with a 110 grain bullet. A modern deer rifle such as the .270 Winchester has a muzzle velocity of 3,603 feet per second with a 90 grain bullet. There is not much in the way of body armor those rounds will not go through either. The ONLY difference is the magazine. The AK-47 has two standard magazines that hold either 20 or 30 rounds. Most hunting rifles will hold up to five rounds. It is illegal to own a fully automatic rifle without a Class III Federal firearms license, so the privately owned AK-47, like the typical hunting rifle, is semi-automatic. In summary, the average modern deer rifle has a higher muzzle velocity than the AK-47, shoots more accurately and delivers more foot-pounds of energy on the target. You just cannot pull the trigger more than five or six times without reloading.
First of all, we have a big problem when Prof. Turley can write “George Grier had a lawful AK-47…” What the hell are we thinking allowing regular folks to possess AK-47s? If you ask the question, “What is the #1 weapon of mass destruction in the world today?”, a good answer is “the AK-47.” It’s the weapon of choice from the Taliban to limb-hacking madmen in central Africa to South American drug cartels because it is such a good tool for harming and killing human beings. I’m positive that police officers across the country have nightmares about walking into a situation where they have to face off against someone with an AK. We draw a line and say that certain classes of weapons are just too destructive for the average citizen to possess – I say that weapons like AK-47s are well beyond that line, based largely on the number of rounds they can fire, the fact that those rounds can penetrate several standard construction walls (and some body armor) and just how deadly those rounds can be if they hit someone. Scalia can “polish his muzzle” all he wants while he fantasizes about holding an intruder at bay with a handgun in one hand and a phone calling the police with the other. AK-74s aren’t appropriate for protecting your home and family.
—————————-
Tony C. wrote, “No gun owner would ever EXPECT firing rounds into the lawn to produce death in another person…” If he had said “most gun owners,” I’d totally agree. I suspect that most gun owners don’t have much of a clue about how bullets ricochet, what’s buried in a lawn or what bullets do when fired into the air.
Nonetheless, if I was on a jury, and presented with this story, I can’t imagine that I would conclude that firing into his lawn met the standard of “evinc[ing] a depraved indifference to human life”
But more to the point: in order to strengthen your “castle doctrine” defense, can you ask the mob questions? “What do you plan on doing to me or my house?” or “Should I feel threatened by you?” As long as someone in the mob replies, “We’re going to kick your [rear end}” or “Yeah, you should feel threatened by us,” would that give you “license” to fire off a few shots?
If there were 20 cops that all shot 1 unarmed gang banger, you can bet it would be justified, because they were in fear for their safety.
Blouise,
Touche…
Anonymously Yours
I was lucky enough to have been born in Texas…the rest got here when they could…lol…dubya don’t count..
=============================================================
Yes, he does
On the subject of the thread: I don’t own a gun and have no idea how to fire one or clean one or handled one. If I went into a shop to buy one the police could legitimately arrest me for “depraved indifference to human life” …..
This is just part of our indoctrination; if they cannot take away the right to own guns, they will intimidate us out of the right to use them by making bogus arrests at every opportunity. There is a meaning to words and “grave risk” is not just ANY risk, it is a risk that a reasonable person would EXPECT to produce death in another person. No gun owner would ever EXPECT firing rounds into the lawn to produce death in another person, the point here was a WARNING: “This gun is loaded, it works, I know how to use it, and I will defend myself with it.”
Further, if he had a “depraved indifference to human life” he would have fired upon the gang members he feared, not tried to warn them by firing into the ground. Let me also assert that taunting the man to use the gun is a veiled threat in and of itself, it conveys the message that the gang believes the man doesn’t have the courage to use the gun and therefore the gun does not protect him from their actions. As a demonstration of willingness to use the gun, firing into the ground seems like a better way than shooting a person with it.
Good luck, Mr. Grier.
Bastard ought to be glad they weren’t jacking a car in Michigan or on someones property in Texas. There would have been body’s to carry. I wonder how that census worker is doing that got shot by an Attorney in Texas…..she was asked to leave the property….1.2.3.4.ready…..aim….fire….yep….that is what she did…
Gang members and property. Sounds like justifiable indifference to me….But then again…I was lucky enough to have been born in Texas…the rest got here when they could…lol…dubya don’t count..
What happened to the gang members – medals?
Carlyle, a round fired into a lawn would have no chance of a ricochet unless it hit a rock or something similarly hard. The average lawn would absorb the round totally, even if the shot was at a shallow angle. An AK-47 round should penetrate ordinary lawn dirt several inches.
How would a bullet behave if fired into the grass, would there be any danger that it would ricochet and hit any of the gang? I imagine if one replaced the grass with concrete there would be such a danger.
The gang members should be glad the homeowner was not named Bernie Goetz.