Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

OakRidgeStars wrote:Cops told Guzman he was very cooperative...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.

He's screwed.

He thought the police were on his side (he was wrong), so he cooperated. They asked questions and he answered at least the single question that will convict him. Baring a public outcry forcing the prosecutor to drop the case, it is over before it began.

Lessons learned.

1. If you are going to fire a firearm, it had better be at someone because they are trying to kill you. There is no such thing as a legal "warning shot."

2. Assuming the cops are on your side could cost you your freedom.

3. Answering questions is a bad idea. What are you possibly going to say that will change the cops mind? Nothing, save it for court.

Edit: I thought this needed to be added:

What he's initially charged with - A D felony reckless endangerment

Yeah, he made the mistake of thinking the police would be on his side. Maybe in a freer state they would be, but in New York? You'll get what's coming to you, filthy prole.

gunderwood wrote:

OakRidgeStars wrote:Cops told Guzman he was very cooperative...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.

He's screwed.

He thought the police were on his side (he was wrong), so he cooperated. They asked questions and he answered at least the single question that will convict him. Baring a public outcry forcing the prosecutor to drop the case, it is over before it began.

Lessons learned.

1. If you are going to fire a firearm, it had better be at someone because they are trying to kill you. There is no such thing as a legal "warning shot."

2. Assuming the cops are on your side could cost you your freedom.

3. Answering questions is a bad idea. What are you possibly going to say that will change the cops mind? Nothing, save it for court.

Edit: I thought this needed to be added:

What he's initially charged with - A D felony reckless endangerment

You forgot:

4) MS-13 will return to kill his family and babies in retaliation.

But, yeah, he's screwed.

We hear it over and over again in these posts: 1. What part of the law do you not understand 2. The law is the law. 3. If you have nothing to hide what are you afraid of? It's odd how those 3 statements become non-operative when the issue impinges on certain issues. I take it that some people are arguing for police discretion in this incident? I don't have a problem with that, except it means while the law is the law, it my not be enforced in the same way in every case. Of course that opens the police and individual patrolmen to the charge of unequal treatment based on whatever.

Some of us have also gone off half-cocked without really knowing the whole story. One, the weapon in question is not an assault rifle since it's a semi-auto look alike. Two, I'm curious, 20 members of MS-13 show up out of the clear blue with nary a weapon of any kind in sight? That makes no sense. On a dark night who concluded that no weapons were shown by anyone of 20 people? Three, does this even sound like MS-13? How did a suspicion or allegation become fact? Four and most important, an arrest does not equal a prosecution or a conviction. The homeowner is presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury of his peers (You all do remember that, don't you?).

I do, however, agree in encounters with law enforcement that one should never volunteer more information than is required by law. That's not to say that's because police are out to get you, it's more like it's the protection afforded to us by that pesky Constitution. Silence until you speak with a lawyer guarantees that you will not inadvertently incriminate yourself, or open up lines of questioning you did not intend.

Instead of FIRE, AIM, READY, we ought to see what did happen, why it happened, and what does happen. If it turns out after an investigation that the homeowner was threatened by MS-13 gang members, or anyone else, the homeowner will not be prosecuted. If some boneheaded prosecutor tried, no jury would convict.
Gat6

Quote of the day: "A freedom, not exercised is no freedom at all."

And this is why I don't, and won't ever, live in New York City. The same thing would probably happen to him if he were in San Francisco.

Gatlingun6 is right, let's see how this unfolds before we judge further.

Jim, did you read the same article as everyone else?

gatlingun6 wrote:We hear it over and over again in these posts: 1. What part of the law do you not understand 2. The law is the law. 3. If you have nothing to hide what are you afraid of? It's odd how those 3 statements become non-operative when the issue impinges on certain issues. I take it that some people are arguing for police discretion in this incident?

I don't think anyone said anything about police discretion. I was pointing out that if he didn't cooperate, his lawyer would probably be able to get him off. However, he did and he made incriminating statements thinking the police were asking so they could prosecute the "MS-13 gang." He assumed wrong. They will likely plea bargain with him down to some misdemeanor, but that still sucks. If it goes to trial, he likely will be a felony when it is over.

gatlingun6 wrote:Some of us have also gone off half-cocked without really knowing the whole story. One, the weapon in question is not an assault rifle since it's a semi-auto look alike. Two, I'm curious, 20 members of MS-13 show up out of the clear blue with nary a weapon of any kind in sight? That makes no sense. On a dark night who concluded that no weapons were shown by anyone of 20 people? Three, does this even sound like MS-13? How did a suspicion or allegation become fact? Four and most important, an arrest does not equal a prosecution or a conviction. The homeowner is presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury of his peers (You all do remember that, don't you?).

How has anyone gone off half-cocked besides you?

1. The status of the firearm is a non-issue in this case. The police stated the firearm was legal. The charges being brought against him have nothing to do with status of the firearm. They have have everything to do with his decision to fire warning shots into the yard. That is what he is being charged with, nothing to do with an "evil" rifle.

And so I fired four warning shots into the grass...What he's initially charged with - A D felony reckless endangerment

2. That is curious, but gangs often do hang in large groups. The news story doesn't provide much background info. It was the guy being charged who claimed they were MS-13 and that they didn't show any weapons. This is the reason you don't take to police without a lawyer. He assumed incorrectly that they were asking the questions to charge the "MS-13" members, when in fact they were questioning him so they could charge him. He apparently said they showed no weapons, all 20 of them.

Grier said he never saw anyone pull out a gun, so a court would have to decide on firing the gun.

3. The guy being charged claimed they were. The story provides no other evidence or quotes to prove or disprove the MS-13 connection. Their actual status is unknown.

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."

4. Yes, he is not guilty yet as he has not been convicted. He should be treated as innocent until that point. However, he talked and it looks pretty clear that he talked himself into a felony charge. Some parts of the story seem odd and likely are being presented from a pro-defendant position. Prosecutors do the exact opposite when they case isn't as strong as they would like. I don't think anyone is suggesting he be treated as guilty, but rather that the best evidence the prosecutor could possibly have he gave them (his testimony). By talking, his testimony will be in the trial. Keeping silent isn't an option.

If he is singing like a bird, it is either because his lawyer is incompetent or because he has no choice. His likely options are to push the MS-13 public outrage buttons or become a felon. His lawyer seems to understand this and is having him sing. If only he hadn't talked...

gatlingun6 wrote:I do, however, agree in encounters with law enforcement that one should never volunteer more information than is required by law. That's not to say that's because police are out to get you, it's more like it's the protection afforded to us by that pesky Constitution. Silence until you speak with a lawyer guarantees that you will not inadvertently incriminate yourself, or open up lines of questioning you did not intend.

Clearly in this case they were out to get him. They asked specific questions, which he answered and in doing so incriminated himself. They weren't asking him those questions for his health. As far as the police are concerned, they caught a criminal.

gatlingun6 wrote:Instead of FIRE, AIM, READY, we ought to see what did happen, why it happened, and what does happen. If it turns out after an investigation that the homeowner was threatened by MS-13 gang members, or anyone else, the homeowner will not be prosecuted. If some boneheaded prosecutor tried, no jury would convict.

Again, the charges have nothing to do with their status as MS-13 or not. He fired shots towards a group of people who where not meeting the legal definition of a threat. Yes, they were saying they would kill him, but the law says that isn't enough. He admitted to it too. INAL, but unless there is a public outcry, he is toast. In fact, that is the whole reason he and his lawyer are out giving quotes to the papers. Prosecutors do that when they need to convict someone in the media and defense attorney's do it when they need public outrage. If his case was as sound as you claim, his lawyer would have him shut up and wait for trial. If he had a sound case, that is the smart thing to do. He doesn't and only public outrage (against MS-13) can possibly save him, thus, they are out talking up a storm. The police and prosecutor are not because they think this case is over already.

OakRidgeStars wrote:

CowboyT wrote:Gatlingun6 is right...

I just searched the entire forum, and those words have never been uttered here before

Yes, but to be fair to CowboyT, it was in reference to treating him as innocent until proven guilty...something which I think everyone assumed. People were pointing out that with his testimony (gathered at the scene), rightly or wrongly, he is in trouble. Nothing sells a jury like a confession.

gunderwood wrote:

OakRidgeStars wrote:

CowboyT wrote:Gatlingun6 is right...

I just searched the entire forum, and those words have never been uttered here before

Yes, but to be fair to CowboyT, it was in reference to treating him as innocent until proven guilty...something which I think everyone assumed. People were pointing out that with his testimony (gathered at the scene), rightly or wrongly, he is in trouble. Nothing sells a jury like a confession.

Talk about bounding to conclusions? I'm not going to repeat all of your post. However, for all the certainty you expressed your post is relies on the indefinite "probably, likely, pretty clear, and possibly" whenever you attempted to make your case. Then there's "Clearly the police were out to get him": Really? Based on what evidence? Do you have something against police and prosecutors in general, or these particular police and prosecutors? What would you have wanted the officers to do having arrived at the location where a weapon was just discharged? Btw your definition of what does not constitute a threat does not conform to New York

gatlingun6 wrote:Talk about bounding to conclusions? I'm not going to repeat all of your post. However, for all the certainty you expressed your post is relies on the indefinite "probably, likely, pretty clear, and possibly" whenever you attempted to make your case. Then there's "Clearly the police were out to get him": Really? Based on what evidence? Do you have something against police and prosecutors in general, or these particular police and prosecutors? What would you have wanted the officers to do having arrived at the location where a weapon was just discharged? Btw your definition of what does not constitute a threat does not conform to New York

I see some trolls never change...

You didn't even read the article or your reading comprehension is awful. The evidence for such when you start asking simple questions the article already answered.

Based on the evidence they charged him with a felony and sent him to jail while not touching those who verbally threatened his life. At what point am I allowed to presume the defendant in question realized this? When they handcuffed him? When they read him his rights? When they put him in the patrol car? When they booked him? Charged him?

The New York police agree with me not you. Otherwise, why did they arrest and charge him? If you have some evidence to back up your claim, I'd like to see it. Never mind, I forgot who I was talking too.

Almost forgot...

We call that prose. You should try it sometime. That is a dirty debate trick to overload your opponent with questions that are just barely relevant. It usually only works with novice judges (or in this case inattentive readers) who presume you are actually saying something the other side can't refute simply because you asked so many questions (most of which people just ignore). Try piecing together a single coherent thought for at least a paragraph, perhaps two and you will find the need for it. Prose really isn't needed when all you do is piece together a bunch of angry questions.

I know, I know, the first reaction to the previous sentence will be: "I don't only use questions!" Which leads me into...

Clearly ( ) the above post is one of your better ones since it actually contains some statements. Yes, you don't only use questions, but usually ( ) that is all you add to a discussion, angry questions. That isn't an absolute, it is a generalization and when doing so it is wise to acknowledge the fact that it isn't absolute. Generalizations, categorization, etc. are useful tools, but not every member of a group will exhibit all attributes of that group. E.g. it is generally safe to assume that most pro-gun people will own one. However, there are certainly exceptions to that generalization. Thus, instead of saying with absolute certainty that is so, I say it with a modifier which acknowledges the uncertainty and probabilistic nature of the real world.

Obviously ( ), following coherent threads of thought is difficult for you. It it can't fit in one sentence, you fail to comprehend it. As evidence of this fact I can cite virtually ( ) any or your posts. Generally ( ), you will find that you ask simple, accusatory questions clearly ( ) answered in the original post or article. It seems likely ( ) to me that is because your intention is to troll, not add to the discussion. Usually ( ), it is considered trolling whenever someone posts a non-coherent string of questions which probably ( ) is designed to just stir the pot. Of course ( ), it could also satisfy a small mind.

Seems pretty clear ( ) to me.

Tell me Garret what do you realy think of the return of gatlingun6 and his vain attempt to screw with our minds.
Bill

gunderwood wrote:

gatlingun6 wrote:Talk about bounding to conclusions? I'm not going to repeat all of your post. However, for all the certainty you expressed your post is relies on the indefinite "probably, likely, pretty clear, and possibly" whenever you attempted to make your case. Then there's "Clearly the police were out to get him": Really? Based on what evidence? Do you have something against police and prosecutors in general, or these particular police and prosecutors? What would you have wanted the officers to do having arrived at the location where a weapon was just discharged? Btw your definition of what does not constitute a threat does not conform to New York

I see some trolls never change...

You didn't even read the article or your reading comprehension is awful. The evidence for such when you start asking simple questions the article already answered.

Based on the evidence they charged him with a felony and sent him to jail while not touching those who verbally threatened his life. At what point am I allowed to presume the defendant in question realized this? When they handcuffed him? When they read him his rights? When they put him in the patrol car? When they booked him? Charged him?

The New York police agree with me not you. Otherwise, why did they arrest and charge him? If you have some evidence to back up your claim, I'd like to see it. Never mind, I forgot who I was talking too.

Gunderwood
At the risk of being redundant, for the last time. You obviously read an account that no one else read, and you did a whole lot of assuming. Here's a different approach. What don't we know about this incident?
1. When did the police arrive at Grier's house? We don't know the article says later. Was that minutes or hours later? We don't know
2. Where were the gang members when the police arrived? We don't know there is no mention of what or who the police found when they arrived.
3. Were these guys members of MS13? We don't know since the article gave no indication that anyone was identified at the scene, or that Grier gave a description of anyone.
4. What was the sequence of events with Grier after the police arrived? We don't know because the article did not give a transcript of what happened when they arrived at the Grier house.
5. Was Grier jailed and later released on bail? We don't know. The reporters used the term jailed, but was this in the sense of taken down to the station, booked and released on his own recognizance? Again, we don't know the reporters did not have the blotter report
6. What did Grier's wife say to the police, or did she say anything about the incident. We don't know because the report says nothing about her.
7. Will Grier be prosecuted as charged? We don't know since there's nothing in the article from the prosecutors office.
8. Were the police clearly out to get Grier? We don't know except to say that there is nothing in the report to indicate that this is in any way true
9. Did the news report give a complete accounting of everything they knew when the news took to the air? We don't know, but we do know that TV news typically does not go into any real depth about reports.
So what do we know?
1. Grier was charged with reckless endangerment for discharging a firearm and arrested. Exactly why was he charged? We really don't know. Was it because Grier provided the evidence himself? Did shot spotter do it? Did someone else provide corroborating
testimony?
2. Is communicating a threat without bodily physical harm a crime in New York State? Under specified circumstances yes as stated in the New York State criminal code.
3. Is Grier guilty of a crime? No

What this shows is shoddy reporting with an eye towards the sensational and a failure to report all that was known at the time. If this was enough to warrant your strong anti-police diatribe against police officers of whom you know exactly nothing, so be it. Me? In a none life threatening situation, I prefer to wait until a target is clearly defined before I shoot.
Gat6

Well, aside from the shooter not pleading the 5th as he probably should have...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#cite_ref-9

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PE ... 35.20.html

gatlingun6 wrote:In a none life threatening situation, I prefer to wait until a target is clearly defined before I shoot.

I don't know where you come from, but around here we call that murder.


Edit: Trying not to be picky, but is should be non-life, not "none life." Your target only lacks life after you murder them.