What do we think of this man's actions?

[EaglemanBSA]

Shot spotter?

What is the 'Shot Spotter' technology? Is it a 24/7 present-everywhere surveillance system, or?

As far as tactics go, I have mixed feelings about him going outside. More chokepoints inside, reducing their numbers to a much smaller advantage, but waiting at the top of your stairs gets your cars stolen/destroyed, downstairs robbed and possibly your house fired with you in it. If they've done this before, they'd know how to pigeon-hole you in your own house while still being able to exert deadly force on you.

It's likely different in a place like LI, but here in rural OH, it may be more than a few minutes before help arrives, so holing up in the upstairs and waiting for help isn't necessarily always the best option.

 

[Kleanbore]

We've seen a couple of news items in the last year about persons who ended up on the wrong side of the law because they went outside to confront troublemakers and ended up using deadly force. One such incident happened in Texas. I think it likely that the fact that they had gone outside negated their argument of immediate necessity.

A warning shot got a guy arrested in Kansas early this year or late last.

Most people understand that verbal threats do not justify the use of deadly force, anywhere in this country. People who do not understand that had better learn it.

The fact that the people were on his property is really irrelevant. Unless someone enters or tries to enter one's dwelling (or in some sates, auto or place of business), the laws pertaining to self defense generally apply equally on the sidewalk near the ATM and in one's own yard. Had he been threatened at the ATM or in his yard, his case would have turned on what a reasonable person would have believed regarding immediate necessity and imminent danger. However, he successfully avoided such danger--and then chose to go back outside.

It is natural to sympathize with the defendant here, but it is incorrect to say that he has been charged because the incident occurred in New York State.

The specific charges seem excessive to me, but I do think it likely that he will end up convicted of a crime.

I think that Ragnar Danneskjold got it right in saying that going back outside with a gun was both unwise and illegal. It put him in harms way, it may well have prevented him from getting a favorable jury instruction for self defense, and it was not necessary.

Don't get me wrong--my sympathies are with the defendant, in this case.

 

[EaglemanBSA]

Mmm, well put.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by FirearmsEnthusiast: If a gang of 20 were threatening to kill me on my own lawn, I would've mowed them all down after I told them to leave and they didn't comply. Good reason to have a drum magazine.

I don't know enough about New South Wales to comment, but in these United States, such an action would constitute a crime.

What do you guys mean by "not highroad"?

Please go back and read the rules with which you agreed to comply when you registered here.

 

[Sky]

Yep in your yard slashing tires, breaking windows, destroying the flower bed but hey they gonna get tired after awhile and leave.

It is much better to cower in ones home and avoid flying glass from broken windows all the while calling 911 and giving them a blow by blow description of the situation. That way it is taped and on record and hopefully will keep you out of trouble with the legal system. Call insurance later get new windows and carpet.

Ms-13 is nothing compared to getting cross ways with the legal system/government.

Was not to long ago your right of defense was the legally surveyed boundaries of your property; it has shrunk down to a door sill of a house in my life time an will probably shrink further for the kids. It is what it is.

 

[Yo Mama]

Can you imagine if he'd fired those 4 shots into the gang? Imagine the horror of that legal problem.

If he fired those 4 shots into the gang he'd be better off legally showing he was in fear for his life. I'm fine with the warning shots, but not so ok with going outside.

Biggest problem now will be that the family has been disarmed, and the gang will more than likely return.

 

[Russ Jackson]

I don't think we have the entire story here. I also don't think we have heard the end of it. If they arrested the guy and have him behind bars maybe the situation will cool down a bit. The charges will most likely get dropped. 30 people at the guys house something is fishy. The article said they were in his driveway. I might get outside as opposed to being trapped in the house with family. I would have fired a few rounds also. One of those 30 will be coming back sooner or later. This is just round one I think...Russ

 

[Yo Mama]

Yep in your yard slashing tires, breaking windows, destroying the flower bed but hey they gonna get tired after awhile and leave.

It is much better to cower in ones home and avoid flying glass from broken windows all the while calling 911 and giving them a blow by blow description of the situation. That way it is taped and on record and hopefully will keep you out of trouble with the legal system. Call insurance later get new windows and carpet.

I understand what you are trying to say, but the other side is that the tires, windows, and flowers don't put you in immediate danger of bodily harm or death. Going outside only creates an immediate confrontation where these dangers now exist.

Best thing to do is call 911, get family in a safe room, guard the door untill police arrive.

Ms-13 is nothing compared to getting cross ways with the legal system/government.

Was not to long ago your right of defense was the legally surveyed boundaries of your property; it has shrunk down to a door sill of a house in my life time an will probably shrink further for the kids. It is what it is.

You are able to defend your property here in AZ only if it involves your direct safety at the time. Example, carjacking with you or kids in the car. Not allowed is a car thief breaking into my empty car in the garage. I see no problem with this. You are not being limited to where you can defend yourself, but you are limited to when.

This is why by the way that AZ has a law where you are able to defend yourself and if it is a defensive shooting the DA must prove you were wrong and you don't have to prove you were right. This guy in NY will have to defend himself and prove he was in the right which will be hard.

 

[mljdeckard]

Warning shots make it difficult to say that your life was really in danger. If you truly believe your life was in danger, you shot at the threat. This is a case where he effectively fired warning shots, and they probably prevented a tragedy, but now he is in legal grey area. I suspect it will either be bargained down to a small misdemeanor or dismissed.

The real problem is, now he has a well-organized, highly dangerous gang in his neighborhood that knows he uses warning shots first.

 

[Gouranga]

See my whole problem with this is they represented a serious threat to the home owner. They were a large group, they gave him multiple verbal threats, They were trespassing. IMO, there is more than enough reason for him to fear for his life and the lives of those in his home.

He should NOT have to wait for them to start shooting up his home to respond. He stated that he knew they had that shot finding technology. His warning shots could also be considered a desperate cry for help as they make the police not take their time and bump his call to the top of the list.

It is apparent that with the help of the police (more importantly the LAWS), the gang has complete control over the neighborhood. These types of laws really do nothing but help the gang bangers. IMO, the DA and police should have looked at the situation and the circumstances around it and arrested the gang member for trespassing and left the home owner alone.

I understand the idea about going outside hurting you legally but IMO, it is a matter of meeting the threat or waiting for them to start shooting up your house. If you wait inside for them you are banking on them not deciding to squeeze a round or 2 into your home. All it takes is one for you to have to bury your 2 yr old daughter.

 

[ohwell]

No Castle law in New York I think he's required to retreat if he can that would be back in to his house and call 911. If they come in his house thats different but he better not shoot them in the back fleeing. And who is testifing to what? Did he instigate the gang or did they pick his yard for no reason. In most cases if you look like your the instigater your in trouble.

 

[sarge83]

If I am on the jury, he walks.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Gouranga: See my whole problem with this is they represented a serious threat to the home owner.

Certainly a serous potential threat, but while he was inside and they were outside, the 'ol AOJ triangle did not connect.

They were a large group, they gave him multiple verbal threats,

Verbal threats do not constitute imminent danger.

They were trespassing.

Laws vary on what to do with trespassers, from asking them to leave or calling the police to using reasonable, non-deadly force.

He stated that he knew they had that shot finding technology. His warning shots could also be considered a desperate cry for help as they make the police not take their time and bump his call to the top of the list.

It will be interesting to see how that plays out in court, if he does not plead to a lesser charge before it gets that far.

I understand the idea about going outside hurting you legally but IMO, it is a matter of meeting the threat or waiting for them to start shooting up your house.

Legally and tactically.

If you wait inside for them you are banking on them not deciding to squeeze a round or 2 into your home. All it takes is one for you to have to bury your 2 yr old daughter.

Safer inside than outside, if they do start shooting....

 

[dogsoldier0513]

Going BACK outside is what did it. He left the relative SAFETY of his house and KNOWINGLY placed himself in harms' way by doing so. It would be like you being in your car in WallyWorld's parking lot and having someone come up to you screaming expletives. Would you GET OUT OF your car to 'deal with' the individual?

 

[3:00hold]

For what it's worth, and I'm sure many will disagree, I think it's worthwhile to separate the debate into two categories - 1) what should have been done?, and 2) What does the law say you can do?

The two may be the same, or they may not.

In this case maybe going outside was a bad idea tactically as well as legally, but it's hard to say because we know everyone survived. If we were discussing a story where a man and his family were killed because 20 armed gang members stormed the house through multiple entraces, and we learned that they had been standing outside threatening the family first, wouldn't someone suggest that the man could have prevented the death of his family by taking the fight outside the house? We know the outcome, which is that this guy will likely be convicted of something, and no one in the family died. In this case, the no-brainer opinion is that he shouldn't have done it because it was illegal and put his life in danger and the family was not harmed. The beauty of Monday morning quarterbacking. Call 911 is the standard response, and correct, but what's the police response time in NY for 'Someone is threatening me'? It may be the right thing to do, but it also might not solve your immediate problem.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying to ignore the law, but if the law in your area says that before you can act, you must be at such a tactical disadvantage that neither you nor your family could possibly survive (like having a 1 on 20 gunfight in your house), then maybe we need to consider more practical options. Perhaps not every problem can be solved by asking "What does the law allow me to do?"

Therefore, I think the debate should be whether the man really though that's where this was going, and if he did (only if he did), maybe he made the right decision?

 

[Russ Jackson]

He was in danger and had to make some sort of decision. He will have to live with the decision. If the story is true and there are no other facts regaurding the situation he got out lucky as did the gang. It is strange that the gang did not fire back when they heard the shots. I still say there is more to this story. Hard to believe that a gang of 20 or more is hanging around this guys house for no reason. Doesn't add up...Russ

 

[tkopp]

I guess what does it for me is that his family was in the house. If he were alone, bunkering in the house would make a lot of sense, but the natural human reaction is to think 'my family is in the house and I must protect them' and keep the fight from entering the house with his family. When I look at what the man did and ask myself; is this what a reasonable person would do to protect their family? I have to say yes.

On the other hand, I agree with Russ. What were they doing there? Was this the first brush with this crew for our homeowner? Is he a closet dealer moving in on their turf? It is curious they'd display that much force for no reason at all.

 

[ohwell]

Going outside with 20 or so gang members that maybe had guns put him at an extreme tactical disadvantage also his family. he could have been shot much easier outside than if he was bunkered in with his family in a self defense posture in his house. Once he's disposed of, the gang could have rushed in and did whatever with his family. So both tactically and legally I think he made bad choices.

 

[quatin]

I agree, he broke the law as it is currently written. However, there needs to be a new exception in the law or a new law. If a bunch of jack wagons assemble on your lawn and start yelling threats towards you. You are allowed to go outside with a gun and start shooting your lawn. (Not the jack wagons)

Secondly, how many "gang members" were arrested? If there was 20 some odd gang members trespassing on my lawn and creating havoc. I would expect criminal trespassing or at least disturbing the peace.

 

[MikeNice]

Well when I originally heard about this story else where I disagreed with his actions. Now that I know there were more than 5 guys, and they were threatening his family, I look at things a little differently.

If the guys were threatening and advancing I would probably have done something similar. I might have shot at least one of them. I will not wait in fear and pray they don't do something. I don't think you should have to hide and pray they don't start shooting up the house.

Actually if it is five to one, your threatening to kill my family, and you're advancing torward my house, you're catching a bullet. Especially if you have 20 friends coming to back you up.

I would have stood on my porch and told them to leave. If they threaten and continue to advance I would give a second verbal warning. The third warning would be to fire directly in to the one that presented the most imediate threat. Anyone that did not attempt to flee would be next. If they headed for cover or fled I would fall back and find a tacticaly advantageous position in the house. Preferably a second floor position with a good angle.

 

[MikeNice]

Hard to believe that a gang of 20 or more is hanging around this guys house for no reason. Doesn't add up...Russ

I have lived in neighborhoods where it wasn't uncommon to see gangs of ten or fifteen people sitting around. It wasn't even uncommon to have to walk through groups of seven or eight on the way to my apartment.

So I think twenty is probably hyperbole. Yet I don't think it would be too hard to believe five or even ten might be around for little or no reason.

 

[MikeNice]

Here is a link to the AP version of the story. This version says two men were arguing on his front lawn. A group of men converged because of the ones arguing. He asked them to leave and they refused.

Of course the AP compares him to a man that went out and killed somebody in his driveway. It also says he fired shots "in the air." It looks like we aren't going to get a real clear picture of what happen untill the trial.

Most of the reports are rewritings of the AP story. It looks like they are trying to make it look racially motivated.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NY_FRONT_YARD_GUNFIRE_NYOL-?SITE=NYMID&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Maybe he should have just called the police and kept an eye on the situation instead of running outside to start with. From the stories it looks like he initiated the first contact. The energies seemed to be focused on the two men arguing. By inserting himself he switched the focus and put himself and his family in danger's way.

 

[hso]

Is it a 24/7 present-everywhere surveillance system

Where installed, the network of sensors detect the sound of a gunshot and based on the difference in time of detection indicate the location of the source to within a 10 yards or so. This started out as security technology and is now in use in high crime areas to promptly notify LE of the time and approximate location of gunfire

 

[Gouranga]

Legally and tactically.

Quote:
If you wait inside for them you are banking on them not deciding to squeeze a round or 2 into your home. All it takes is one for you to have to bury your 2 yr old daughter.
Safer inside than outside, if they do start shooting....

This is a good point. As far as how he went out. From the article it suggests (depending on the lay of his yard) that he left cover and went face to face counting on the disparity of force (him being armed vs them not) saving him. Chances are they were armed though.

IMO, going out to meet the threat would be tactically sound IF (and that is a big IF), he could do so and not leave cover (say get behind a solid stone column on his front porch or something like that). With that he could give the threat a chance to recognize that they needed to leave, and still maintain a semi-defendable position.

In this situation (speaking tactically not legally) i would prefer to go out, draw the attention from the house in general (and any random occupant) and to myself. You open your lanes of fire while maintaining cover.

Legally, I highly doubt the crowd in his face was unarmed. I highly doubt the police think they were. I highly doubt the DA thinks they were. So the DA is prosecuting a man who WAS faced with a deadly threat (potentially). His actions while illegal, did not cause personal injury and were justified for what someone facing 20+ likely armed thugs would take.

Let me ask you this, would you expect that a police officer put face to face with the same threat would simply retreat into his car or run without drawing a weapon? Prosecutors have the ability to use discretion in prosecuting these cases and IMO, the DA should have warned him, and let him go.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

what i know
Two men menaced a woman in her front yard. She held them off by brandishing a firearm til she could retreat to safety. The judge ruled she had "an absolute right" to have a gun at her home for self defense and threw out a charge of "going armed". I know it was Tennessee and not New York, but disparity of force (numbers), reasonable fear of imminent death or greivous bodily harm, and all that are supposedly based on common Anglo-American law.