"Long Island Man Arrested For Defending Home With AK-47," New York CBSLocal.com tells us.*
What happened?
Five men accosted George Grier at his house. From all appearances and their behavior, he said he feared they were MS-13 gang members. He said he told his wife to call the police, retrieved his gun from upstairs and asked the men to leave.
Then what happened?
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 said they threatened to "kill your family and your babies" and "20 others guys [came] rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass.”
He said he knew Nassau County Police ( a topic for another day) used ShotSpotter ( another topic for another day) and it would likely hasten their arrival.
The result? Grier, who lawfully owned the gun and has no criminal record, was arrested and charged with felony reckless endangerment. If convicted, he will become a "prohibited person," and that's assuming current charges have not already "legally" compelled him to relinquish all firearms. His home defense firearm has no doubt been impounded, and that cannot be unnoticed by those he says threatened him.
Perhaps his attorney has correctly judged public sentiment, and being open and candid with both police and the media will work in his favor. But if I had to second-guess his actions, I'd agree with those who advise clamming up.
Here's what I won't second-guess, although I note many in the "gun community" are doing just that: Grier's on-the-spot decision to fire warning shots into the ground. I've read critiques that one should never do this, either shoot the attacker(s) or don't, and read the rationale that unless and until the mob pulls a weapon you have no "legal" cause, and all of these seem easy calls to make from places of reflection, comfort and safety. We weren't out there with Grier on his lawn, with a pack in front of him and his family behind, adrenalin coursing through him as "fight or flight" competed with...what, exactly? Anyone who thinks there's a one-size-fits-all solution for every unfolding and fluid defense scenario might want to reexamine that conviction.
If his account is true, he had 20+ angry, scary young men in front of his house threatening him and his family, contemptuous that he would have the nerve to defend himself with his gun. Does anyone doubt the most dangerous enemy can be one that does not fear you?
We all know about the Tueller drill, right, and that an attacker can cover 21 feet in a second-and-a-half? Now envision a mob closer to you than that, obviously from their scornful bravado working up their nerve. Would you bet your life--and the lives of your family--that no one would make the snap decision to rush you, and that the rest wouldn't immediately follow?
Maybe you could just retreat inside and wait for the police? Again, you're dealing with an angry mob. What if they don't wait? If they don't, you'll now be faced with having to shoot into more than the ground.
And since when does a free family have to submit to becoming hostages in their own home?
Grier didn't fire into the air and endanger the surrounding community. He didn't fire into the crowd because--well, I can't say for sure, but if he's the good family man he appears to be, probably for the same reason a lot of us might not have--we have powerful internal prohibitions against taking human life. If they had charged, he may have fired into them, but it would probably have taken that catalyst, and based on Tueller, may have been too late anyway.
True, what he did was not "by the book." I can't say I know of any professional who teaches firing warning shots. But it worked and nobody was hurt.
Except for George Grier and his family.
If the facts of his case establish what he's told CBS News, he deserves our support, and the support of gun rights ( and other) organizations.
As an aside, note that CBS made sure to emphasize an "AK-47" was used, but nowhere clarified whether or not it was a semiautomatic variant. No surprise there. Regardless, this scenario does answer the frequent challenge from the antis about why anyone would need a firearm capable of accepting standard-capacity magazines.
Also see: " Long Island man could be disarmed for life" by Jennifer Freeman of Liberty Belles.
examiner.com |
