LI, NY: AK-47 saved this person's property& maybe his life when burglars broke in!

F

FrontSight

New member
Too bad he missed them both...

Inwood resident opens fire with rifle after break-in
BY JOSEPH MALLIA | joseph.mallia@newsday.com
4:01 PM EST, December 7, 2008
Two burglars chose the wrong house to invade when they broke into an Inwood home early Sunday morning. They were greeted by the resident who opened fire on them with his AK-47-style assault rifle, Nassau police said.

It was 5:32 a.m. Sunday when the male resident, 36, "heard suspicious noises coming from the front door of his home, and armed himself with a Romanian SAR-1 rifle," a variant of the Soviet AK-47 assault weapon, a police report said.

The two men "broke through the front door and were confronted by the victim, who shot four times toward the subjects," the police report said.

The burglars ran off, apparently uninjured, and four rifle shell casings were later found at the house, police said.

One of the men appeared to have been carrying a knife, the resident reported.

Fourth Squad detectives are investigating.
Click to expand...


http://www.newsday.com/news/local/nassau/ny-lirifl1208,0,6988239.story
 
Unfortunately, I'd be surprised if the guy wasn't charged with something. He's within the law as far as I'm concerned but I don't think police in that area are real gun friendly. Not to mention that the only way that gun is legal in NY is if it was purchased pre-ban and grandfathered. I bet he'll have to prove it or lose it.



I LOOOOVEEEE NEEEEWWWW YYYYYYYORK!
 
It's just plain wrong if he ends up on the wrong side of the law because of his actions or choice of weapon. If I were the big cheese in NY I'd shake his hand and congratulate him on a job well done. But I hear NY is fairly antigun. That is why I prefer to live in CO. MAKE MY DAY
 
It's just plain wrong if he ends up on the wrong side of the law...
Click to expand...


I agree. So does the law, technically:

NY Penal Code 35.20 Par 3

" A person in possession or control of, or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of attempted commission of such burglary."


An anti-gun prosecutor only needs that word "reasonable" to at least press charges, if not get a conviction.
 
An anti-gun prosecutor only needs that word "reasonable" to at least press charges, if not get a conviction.
Click to expand...
Yep. And think about it. I'm sure those two innocent young men only wanted directions to the Christian Science reading room.
 
Two points

Too bad he missed them both...
Click to expand...

That is a very incorrect and dangerous attitude for someone who takes responsibility for self-defense. Using lethal force is a final and irreversible option, to be reserved for extreme situations when there are no other options.

Flippant statements like this are not proper. I have a pretty sick sense of humor, and have talked lots of trash, but this statement points to an attitude that is seriously flawed.

I'm glad the homeowner was able to protect himself. I'm glad nobody got hurt, even the bad guys.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has been involved in a self-defense shooting (outside of law enforcement): How much did it cost you in legal bills?

Secondly, choice of weapon: It makes no sense to own, let alone use, a weapon you are not legally allowed to possess, because if you do use it, even in a justifiable self-defense shooting, you'll still get hassled. I hope the weapon was legally possessed.

I think the AK is a fine weapon for home defense, but the homeowner would have been equally able to defend himself with a firearm legal in his jurisdiction, a shotgun or lever-action rifle, for example. I believe the so-called assault weapon bans are unconstitutional, but, regardless, I would only use a legal weapon in self-defense, if possible.

I like reading about other's experiences on this forum, but I think it's important to take the right lessons from them.
 
While I don't know anything about his local laws and I personally would not choose a rifle for HD, I am glad to hear that someone has shown how an assault rifle can be used to defend oneself. Thanks to TV and movies most uniformed people seem to think only bad guys have AK's. I would like to think he did not miss on purpose, but I think it is well that nobody was injured. I can't think of anything that would deter a BG from breaking into someone else's home more than rifle rounds screaming past his head. I bet that all the BG's will be thinking about that before they do that again.
 
AKs are pretty bad HD weapons from an overpenetration standpoint, but I always have my AK ready just in case it is the only thing I can get to at the time...
Or in case my entire city decides that looting is okay...

And all the comments on that news link about people wishing the bad guys died or how they wish someone would try to rob them made me kinda sad... Killing someone because you have to is one thing, but wishing people dead is another ball game altogether...
I guess its too easy to be macho on the Internetz

That said, I personally think two dead BGs with no chance to tell their side of the story is better than two live BGs who come back and sue for "emotional distress" or say they were "surrendering" when shot at...
Then again, I live in VA, not NY...
 
Saw it in the local news and was impressed.

Not to mention that the only way that gun is legal in NY is if it was purchased pre-ban and grandfathered.
Click to expand...

Not so. There are plenty of such weapons in gun shops across Long Island. They are made missing a feature or two in order to get through the NY AWB. High cap mags are also legal as long as manufactured before the date the law became effective hence a thriving market at gun shops in older AK and AR mags.
 
Quote:
Too bad he missed them both...

That is a very incorrect and dangerous attitude for someone who takes responsibility for self-defense. Using lethal force is a final and irreversible option, to be reserved for extreme situations when there are no other options.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion.

Others have the opinion that engaging in criminal anti-social behavior should carry consequences, and while being shot at may or may not discourage this behavior, being shot dead most certainly will.
 
That is a very incorrect and dangerous attitude for someone who takes responsibility for self-defense. Using lethal force is a final and irreversible option, to be reserved for extreme situations when there are no other options.

Flippant statements like this are not proper. I have a pretty sick sense of humor, and have talked lots of trash, but this statement points to an attitude that is seriously flawed.

I'm glad the homeowner was able to protect himself. I'm glad nobody got hurt, even the bad guys.
Click to expand...

I disagree, and it seems that more & more states are disagreeing as well, hence the Castle Doctrine & Make My Day laws...and God Bless Joe Horn!

If he had shot them at least in the foot, then they most likely would be in a jail cell right now instead of free to continue committing these crimes.

For those not in the know, L.I. has had A LOT of home invasions over the past couple of years.

Does anyone really think that these guys will now stop because they got shot at? HA! They will be more nervous next time, but they are not going to get jobs now & become productive members of society, in my honest opinion.

Anyone else here ever face a home invasion? I did about 12 years ago...someone tried breaking in KNOWING that my mom & sis were in the house. They could see them from the outside, so they knew people were home! I was upstairs, heard my mom yelling as they ran up the stairs. We set off the alarm & called 911 and the cops arrived in about 1 minute 45 seconds, and the door they were coming in through was wide open, lock picked & broken, & they had fled the scene.

Until you face that you can't tell me you wouldn't blast those animals to hell, because you have no idea what it feels like at that time, as well as the lingering feelings of vulnerability, fear & violation of your sanctuary, your sacred home.

Believe me, the Castle Law & Make My Day are very, very just & proper, and anyone breaking into a home knowing you are inside more than deserves to get met with high speed projectiles center mass if they won't stop and comply and wait for the police.

Musketeer: You are correct. AK-47's are not illegal in NY as long as they are NY Compliant, which means no Bayonet Lug, no folding or collapsible stock, no flash suppressor, and 10 round mag max (unless pre-ban). I may be slightly off in the exact law, but those are the main ideas.
 
Last edited:
Not so. There are plenty of such weapons in gun shops across Long Island.
Click to expand...


Musketeer: You are correct. AK-47's are not illegal in NY as long as they are NY Compliant,...
Click to expand...

They can only be NY compliant if they were in the state pre-ban. My wording was incorrect, they can be purchased but not imported. The law specifically bans "semi-automatic versions of fully-automatic weapons."


Section V under "miscellaneous"

v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm;
 
Too bad he missed them both...
That is a very incorrect and dangerous attitude for someone who takes responsibility for self-defense. Using lethal force is a final and irreversible option, to be reserved for extreme situations when there are no other options.

Flippant statements like this are not proper. I have a pretty sick sense of humor, and have talked lots of trash, but this statement points to an attitude that is seriously flawed.

I'm glad the homeowner was able to protect himself. I'm glad nobody got hurt, even the bad guys.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has been involved in a self-defense shooting (outside of law enforcement): How much did it cost you in legal bills?

Secondly, choice of weapon: It makes no sense to own, let alone use, a weapon you are not legally allowed to possess, because if you do use it, even in a justifiable self-defense shooting, you'll still get hassled. I hope the weapon was legally possessed.

I think the AK is a fine weapon for home defense, but the homeowner would have been equally able to defend himself with a firearm legal in his jurisdiction, a shotgun or lever-action rifle, for example. I believe the so-called assault weapon bans are unconstitutional, but, regardless, I would only use a legal weapon in self-defense, if possible.

I like reading about other's experiences on this forum, but I think it's important to take the right lessons from them.
Click to expand...




WRONG. He should have hit them, why? because the next house those a holes break into could be some 88 year old Grannie with a bad hip and no hope for response. Does that mean I wish them dead? NO Does that mean I am flippant in my responses? NO, it means we had the chance to remove some scum from the Civil Society and hopefully send them to prison with painful wounds and a life time to think about their choices in life.
Had they died, I would not mourn for them nor comfort their family, they made the choice, and if more homeowners resorted to shooting and hitting these people, the better off we would be.


Don't like that answer? Sorry, I spent a life working for my family to provide safety and comfort, you try to steal it or condone those who do, well like I said, I should hope you get to go to prison for a long time, with a long time to recover from your wounds.
 
They can only be NY compliant if they were in the state pre-ban. My wording was incorrect, they can be purchased but not imported. The law specifically bans "semi-automatic versions of fully-automatic weapons."


Section V under "miscellaneous"

v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm;
Click to expand...

Which is decided by...

I can walk into gun shops across Long Island and see plenty of AK and AR "clones" that are new and NY compliant. Understand that the term "AK-47" is used generically. What makes a weapon a semi auto copy of a full auto weapon? Simply being a semi auto action is not enough.

If those new weapons in shops across NY were not compliant with the law there would have been state action, there can be no doubt of that here.

For those not in the know, L.I. has had A LOT of home invasions over the past couple of years.

Does anyone really think that these guys will now stop because they got shot at? HA! They will be more nervous next time, but they are not going to get jobs now & become productive members of society, in my honest opinion.
Click to expand...

There has been plenty of press on the issue. Personally I believe the majority of these home invasions fall into one of three categories.

1. Actual invasions against occupied dwellings of law abiding citizens when the criminals know people are present. (This is in my opinion the rarest of the three, but still pretty horrifying.)

2. Home invasions against occupied dwellings of law abiding citizens when the criminals thought the dwelling unoccupied. (This was the case for the house across the street where the husband was away for several days with the car they use for travel, leaving the wife at home alone. Even I thought the house was empty when I looked out after hearing the alarm at 2am and saw the main car missing. The alarm scared them off. Probably second most common.)

3. The far and away most common home invasion... druggies stealing from each other. One person in the house deals resulting in their being targeted by others who know cash and drugs are present. Looking closely at many of the reports reveals this.

Of course I advocate being prepared for the worst of the three (case #1) but statistically the best things you can do are to make your presence in the home known and to nut deal drugs. Having a large dog doesn't hurt!
 
I am happy that this law abiding citizen was able to arm himself and protect his home.

Too bad he missed them both...
Click to expand...

I too am unhappy that the homeowner threw four shots downrange and failed to connect with any. The fourth rule of gun safety would suggest that those bullets impacted somewhere and could have posed a risk to innocent bystanders.

I have three guns for HD/SD. The two handguns (Sig P229 and Colt OCP) are both equipped with Lasers. The shotgun (Mossberg JIC) has a Surefire flashlight mounted on the forearm. My rationale for spending a considerable sum per firearm is that these sights and lighting increases my chances of hitting what I am aiming at in highly stressful, potentially low light circumstances. I have a Sig .556 rifle with an Aimpoint on it, but that is not for the rapid response that an home invasion may demand. I also have a Rottweiler, but she is just window dressing if an attacker tries to crash into my home when I am there.

I hope that the homeowner does not suffer from the police and prosecutors after being attacked by the criminal element.
 
Two BG's break into a house apparantly armed with a knife and everyone is quibbling about I wish he had killed them and you shouldnt have that opinion..

1. If you break into my house armed with anything and come in my direction your life is forfet. I will not let you hurt a member of my family to find out what your intentions are.

2. If you shoot someone you shoot to stop, not to wound, not to kill. unfortunatly the only effective place to shoot is Center of Mass this will probably kill the person but it is the most effective.

3. If you wound the subject he will sue you and looking at past cases will probably win if there is no Castle Doctrine.

4. Warning shots are a no no you fire a round you are responsible for that round when it hits the man 4 doors down the block because you missed or were using a inappropriate round..

5. As previously stated what are they going to do when they go to the next house and find someone defenseless can you guarantee they won't kill that person. If they don't intend to harm, Why the knife?

Just my opinion
 
Last edited:
Yah, someone else said their instructor said it best: "You shoot the threat. The floor is not threatening you. The air is not threatening you. The man with the knife is."

Again, too bad he missed, and thank God no innocent neighbors or passers by were hit.
 
Last edited:
I think it's great that an armed citizen was able to deter a felonious invasion of his house. It's a vindication of what we believe as gun owners.

I disagree with the analysis:

...it means we had the chance to remove some scum from the Civil Society...
Click to expand...

That's the wrong mindset for self-defense. A proper mindset is, confronted with an intruder and having identified same, a split-second decision is made as to the level of threat. If lethal force is necessary to avoid a imminent, credible and unavoidable threat of death or great bodily harm, it is deployed efficiently and without injury to others. As soon as the threat is neutralized, the justification for lethal force ends.

The attitude that any burglar deserves immediate execution is not supported by the law. The "Castle Doctrine" can be overcome.

This is mostly a semantic argument. If two guys break into my house armed with a knife, they're probably going to be shot (hopefully with no misses), but not because I think they "deserve" it. I'll do what is required to protect myself, that's all.

Hopefully, I could deter them without resort to lethal force.

I agree with the idea that a miss in such a situation is regrettable, because of the possibility of collateral damage (especially with a rifle). You "own" every round you put downrange. Four misses at point-blank range is a "bolo" for sure.

I'm glad that it seems possible the homeowner was using a legal weapon. He needs to get to the range...
 
I agree with R11 were not here to kill the BG or hunt them down we are here only to protect ourselves and if someone dies in the process so be it but if you want to hunt the criminals then your services are better served elsewhere i.e military or LE.
 
Two BG's break into a house apparantly armed with a knife and everyone is quibbling about I wish he had killed them and you shouldnt have that opinion..
Click to expand...

It is more along the lines of us not wanting to look like a bunch of knuckle dragging, militant militia, vigilantes should the posts here be shown to an undecided person in the middle of the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top