NY Man Arrested for Defending Home With AK47 - Polidicks

That's pretty fucking scary. Should have just killed them, fucking waste of space.

I think he's innocent. I wouldn't wait until the gang was already in my house or attacking me, I'd rather fire into the lawn (where the bullets would embed and not ricochet) and scare them off before they have the chance to do any harm. The man was in fear for his life and the lives of his family, it wasn't a group of 4 men dicking around, it was 20+ men, who could have been armed. Better to be safe than sorry in this situation. He's no criminal. He's just a husband and father who didn't want shit to happen to him, his property, or his family. He cooperated with police, and din't endanger anyone.

[QUOTE=Timebomb757;24687208]Guy deserved it for doing it wrong. Unless they were either visibly armed, attacking him, or actually IN his house, he shouldn't have pulled the trigger.[/QUOTE] Herp derp, I have a gun and I'm surrounded by a huge crowd of armed people. Let's not warn them or anything, because clearly an unarmed crowd is no threat whatsoever...

Another victory agianst the bandits! Free Stalkers, unite! /I stopid

[QUOTE=clanratc;24687764]Bullshit charges. I'm not sure about NY or US laws, but your driveway still counts as your property, doesn't it? If so, then he was defending his own property and his family.[/QUOTE] Basically any state north of Maryland, except Pennsylvania (minus Philadelphia) it's illegal to protect yourself in your own home with your own weapon. Unless they pull a gun on you, you cannot shoot an intruder. You can only use physical force. - That's the generic overview of the law, but each state has their own variation.

Only in America.

[QUOTE=faze;24687364] Randomly shooting a weapon into the ground when not being threatened is one thing... But doing it out of defense is acceptable. What you said is not in any way a comparison.[/QUOTE] Absolutely not. In a defense situation you either shoot at the person/person or you do not shoot at all. It was obvious that this man was not in enough danger to use his weapon and was rightfully punished for it. He should have called the police and hunkered down in his home until they showed up. The only time he should have fired is if the subjects displayed some sort of weapon or attempted to gain entry into his home. Verbal threats alone do NOT constitute the use of lethal force. By using the weapon - even though he was shooting the ground - he instantly elevated to lethal force.

[QUOTE=thirty9th;24687324]This. Then an opposing council doesn't have shit on you unless you didn't have a license for the weapon.[/QUOTE] Don't need a license for a semi-auto rifle. Basically gun laws work like this... Pistols need to be registered, this is the same in all states, and require a waiting period, usually one week. Rifles can be purchased and taken home the same day, and don't need to be registered. Pistols require a carry permit in most states, and some states it's almost impossible to get a carry permit. Fully automatic weapons require you to pay for a full auto license. Maryland is $200 for a lifetime. Not sure about other states.

If there were 20+ men threatening to kill my family, possibly from a highly dangerous gang, and I had a gun, I wouldn't have even had the restraint to warn them. This guy did exactly what was right. They were on his property in the eyes of the law and they refused to leave it while threatening to enter his house. I wouldn't wait till they came inside in any case - what if they pulled a pistol or knife and managed to get a hit?

[QUOTE=HkSniper;24688174]Absolutely not. In a defense situation you either shoot at the person/person or you do not shoot at all. It was obvious that this man was not in enough danger to use his weapon and was rightfully punished for it. He should have called the police and hunkered down in his home until they showed up. The only time he should have fired is if the subjects displayed some sort of weapon or attempted to gain entry into his home. Verbal threats alone do NOT constitute the use of lethal force. By using the weapon - even though he was shooting the ground - he instantly elevated to lethal force.[/QUOTE] Twenty people threatening mine and my family's lives. I'd shoot at something. You would too. [editline]11:50AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Jon27;24688204]If there were 20+ men threatening to kill my family, possibly from a highly dangerous gang, and I had a gun, I wouldn't have even had the restraint to warn them. This guy did exactly what was right. They were on his property in the eyes of the law and they refused to leave it while threatening to enter his house. I wouldn't wait till they came inside in any case - what if they pulled a pistol or knife and managed to get a hit?[/QUOTE] This.

[QUOTE=Timebomb757;24687208]Guy deserved it for doing it wrong. Unless they were either visibly armed, attacking him, or actually IN his house, he shouldn't have pulled the trigger.[/QUOTE] This guy is speaking the truth and rated dumb. You guys are obviously just on the hearts bandwagon at the minute, but take a moment to look at the situation.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;24688163]Only in America.[/QUOTE] And England. Boston is worse, if your home is invaded, by law you must leave the house and call the police. [editline]11:52AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Clunj;24688214]This guy is speaking the truth and rated dumb. You guys are obviously just on the hearts bandwagon at the minute, but take a moment to look at the situation.[/QUOTE] No one's on a hearts bandwagon. Gang members threatening him and his family's lives - he shot the ground to scare them off. He was perfectly justified. His property, his decision. The judicial system can go fuck itself in the ass with a rusty dagger..

[QUOTE=faze;24688210]Twenty people threatening mine and my family's lives. I'd shoot at something. You would too.[/QUOTE] Uh. No. I would not. Nor would any other person with any shred of knowledge of the law. You only use your weapon when you feel you are in danger. Verbal threats are not a danger. No matter how many people it is coming from. Unless they tried gaining entry into his house or were actually attacking him - he was in the wrong according to the law and was punished accordingly. I can't believe there are people on this board that would actually shoot someone for spewing probably empty threats at them. He could have easily had them all charged for NUMEROUS charges - but instead he decided to escalate it to the improper level and now has been punished. Also - no. Not his property. Not his decision. You can not randomly shoot at people on your property for non-defense purposes either.

[QUOTE=faze;24687364]They were endangering him and his family.[/QUOTE] I agree. And if it is applicable, they should be charged too. [QUOTE=faze;24687364]Randomly shooting a weapon into the ground when not being threatened is one thing... But doing it out of defense is acceptable. What you said is not in any way a comparison.[/QUOTE] No, it wasn't meant to be either. Read my post again.

[QUOTE=Foda;24687587]I thought NY had a Castle Doctrine...[/QUOTE] [quote]As of the 28th of May, 2010, 31 States have some form of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own[/quote] Apparently it doesn't, even if it did the gang members would have to be inside the "Castle".

[QUOTE=gparent;24687144]He should've stayed inside and shot only if they tried entering. Would've avoided this entirely. I'm guessing he'll be found innocent, but the charges aren't without backing.[/QUOTE] These things are very easy to say in hindsight but in the heat of the moment you don't always think the best possible thing you could do..

If it would happen to me, I'd blow their heads off as soon as they'd threaten me from a distance, pull out a weapon or come at my house's doorstep. I don't give a shit if I would end up in jail for God knows how long, it is an act of self defense and I have every right to do so!

[QUOTE=gparent;24687144]He should've stayed inside and shot only if they tried entering. Would've avoided this entirely. I'm guessing he'll be found innocent, but the charges aren't without backing.[/QUOTE] This, although you can't be in your house all the time. There's no charges this guy can be convicted on, other than if the AK47 was actually a full auto Rifle, which I think IS illegal, unless you have necessary licenses There's also laws to protect citizens such as: "A person is justified in using threats or force to the degree they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop another person's imminent use of unlawful force." That's pretty vague but to the advantage of those in the right (For once)

I don't know, that's kind of a shitty situation. I can see both sides of the argument; having a gang of twenty guys outside your house threatening you puts a lot of pressure on, I'm sure, but firing the weapon probably wasn't the best of ideas. Although, it is implied that he did it to alert the ShotSpotter system... I hope the court takes that into consideration. [quote=TheTalon]other than if the AK47 was actually a full auto Rifle, which I think IS illegal, unless you have necessary licenses[/quote] Automatic weapons are legal in the US with the proper tax stamp. That said, I don't really know anything about the gun laws in NY, so I'm not sure if it applies here.

Why does a civilian own a god damn assault rifle?

[QUOTE=Paravin;24689070]Why does a civilian own a god damn assault rifle?[/QUOTE] My friend has a rocket launcher.

I would have barricaded my family in a room, sat at the top of the stairs with that rifle and called the police. If one of those fuckers tried to come up the stairs I would have slotted them. So, yeah he did over-react.

[QUOTE=lawl;24688477]These things are very easy to say in hindsight but in the heat of the moment you don't always think the best possible thing you could do..[/QUOTE] If 20 men wanting to beat the living shit out of me were in front of my house, the last thing I'd think about doing in 'the heat of the moment' is to go outside right where they are and have a nice talk. [editline]12:54PM[/editline] [QUOTE=croguy;24688707]If it would happen to me, I'd blow their heads off as soon as they'd threaten me from a distance, pull out a weapon or come at my house's doorstep.[/QUOTE] Move to Texas. [QUOTE=croguy;24688707]I don't give a shit if I would end up in jail for God knows how long, it is an act of self defense and I have every right to do so![/QUOTE] Contradiction here.

I thought Americans had the right to bear arms.

in the world of gparent/timebomb, it is a fantasy of rainbows and carebears really no, he just shot at fucking dirt because he was threatened by MS13 thugs who are known for beating the living shit out of people.

[QUOTE=gparent;24689239]Move to Texas. [B]My country's laws state that I'm allowed to use lethal force if I'm in this kind of a situation.[/B] Contradiction here. [B]I'd probably end up in jail after I'd get sued by some prick that was in the group due to the wonders of Croatian court system.[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Paravin;24689070]Why does a civilian own a god damn assault rifle?[/QUOTE] He doesn't. He owns a semi-automatic variant of a well-known assault rifle. The semi-auto part negates the status of assault rifle; an AR has to be selective fire. Basically he just has a high capacity rifle.

If he wanted to warn the police why not tell the wife to ring them instead of shooting.

[QUOTE=markg06;24689457]If he wanted to warn the police why not tell the wife to ring them instead of shooting.[/QUOTE] He did. I'm sure gunshots got them there faster, though. I really don't see what the big issue is, he shot at the ground, the ground isn't an easy thing to miss so why reckless endangerment charges? Even with a gun it's hard to take on 20+ people, if he hadn't done that it may well have escalated into the 20 of them beating him to a bloody pulp. Besides, if you aren't if fear for your life when 20 people are in front of you threatening you and your family, then you are batshit insane.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;24689299]in the world of gparent/timebomb, it is a fantasy of rainbows and carebears [/QUOTE] How is it a fantasy to stay in your house when you're being attacked by a gang? It's fucking common sense! You shoot if they try to come in, you don't go outside and hang out in the doorway. [QUOTE=croguy]I'd probably end up in jail after I'd get sued by some prick that was in the group due to the wonders of Croatian court system.[/QUOTE] If you had the right to do it, you wouldn't be in jail. What you meant to say was "I _should_ have the right to do so!", and I'd agree with you there.