Man arrested for defending his family with an AK-47

  George Grier, of Long Island New York, was arrested after he pulled out an AK-47 and fired four warning shots into the ground because he feared 20 members of an infamous gang were going to make good on their promise to kill his family.

  George Grier faces no gun charges as he legally owned the AK-47 and he has a clean criminal record, yet the police arrested him for felony reckless endangerment–EVEN THOUGH HE FIRED THE SHOTS INTO THE GROUND!

  All the details of this story are not yet known, but if George Grier’s account of the story is accurate, I just don’t see where he wasn’t justified in using this tactic to scare away the intruders.

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.

  A gang of twenty men begin to close in on his house; he runs upstairs and tells his wife to call the police as he grabs his AK-47 and heads back to the door and asks the men to leave his property. So far he seems to have followed the proper procedure–the police are being called and he is now attempting to defuse the situation.

  According to George Grier, this is what happens next:

“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,”

  He and his family have now been threatened by a gang of twenty, yet he does not over-react as he fires four shots into the grass as a warning to the intruders, hoping to scare them away without injury.

  George Grier knew that the sound of gunfire would bring the police to the site within minutes–and his wife had also called the police–so he fired warning shots designed not to endanger the intruders, but to scare them away while at the same time knowing that police were just minutes away.

  And for defending his family–while at the same time–not actually endangering the lives of those that threatened to kill his babies, George Grier is facing endangerment charges because none of the intruders drew a gun on him first.

  George Grier did not act recklessly and he did not endanger the lives of those that said they would kill his family, he acted responsibly when a less calm man might have strafed the intruders with gunfire from the AK-47 and felled them all. And for this he is now going to face charges.

  Once again we are confronted with a case of the perpetrators being haled as the victims here. I can guarantee you that the center of this case–in the media and with the anti-second amendment activists–will revolve around the fact that George Grier waved an AK-47 at the perpetrators–even though he owned it legally–and not the fact that the intruders had threatened the life of Grier’s family.

  But at issue here is not the choice of weapon used to defend one’s self and one’s family–but rather whether or not a person has the right to defend himself.

  I can tell you right now that if I was put in a similar situation, I would have brandished a semi-automatic handgun and acted much the same as did George Grier, nobody is going to threaten the lives of my boys or my wife and not have me respond. I will die defending my family before I live to see them hurt by gang members knowing that I could have done something, but didn’t.

  So, does the weapon of choice come into play here? Would I also be arrested on the same charges as was George Grier because I used a handgun and not an assault rifle?

  I just have this feeling that the reason George Grier was arrested was because of the weapon he chose to defend his family with, and not for the fact that he acted in violation of the law.