A New York Man is facing manslaughter charges after he did what any normal man trying to protect his family would do – stop a gun wielding burglar form entering his home.
Youssef Abdel-Gawad shot and killed a suspected burglar who was trying to break into his family’s home with four other armed intruders. Police say four accomplices waited in a backyard shed, while one of the burglars, holding a gun, tried to gain entrance into the home. The armed man fired his gun towards the sliding glass door, causing Abdel-Gawad and his two brothers to take action.
The brothers grabbed wooden sticks, and Youssef grabbed a shotgun.
“It is what anyone would do in a situation like this. Someone attacks your house with a gun, you know, fought back, and you know, returned fire, you know, so it is a clear case of self-defense,” said the defendant’s other brother, Karim Abdel-Gawad.
The brothers chased the alleged burglars from the porch, and Youssef fired, striking a 33-year-old man from Roosevelt, New York in the back. The alleged criminal intruder, Jazzmen Bryant, later died of his wounds.
Youssef Abdel-Gawad was then arrested and has been charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, all for doing what any normal person would do – protecting his family.
You really have to love when our criminal justice system gives the criminals more rights than the law-abiding citizens who are just trying to live their lives and protect their families from harm.
typical Cuomo ruled new York for ya.
which is unfortunate.
why hasn’t anyone brought up treason charges for him and Bloomberg considering they swore an oath to office in front of a court judge making it a legally binding verbal contract. while they’re at it bring up the cops on charges of treason too, especially if they signed an affidavit to their position that mentions them serving the constitution first.
Because they spell it c-o-m-m-u-n-i-s-m!!
In many states, he would have committed a felony. Once the intruder retreats and ceases use of deadly force or presenting an imminent threat of use of deadly force, the defender must deescalate from use of deadly force. Once the intruder has exited the premises being defended or has gotten rid of his weapon, then in the eyes of the law, he is no longer in any way presenting a threat. At this point, shooting him is revenge (in the eyes of the law), not defense; the crime is not in progress, and the defender is no longer meeting force with comparable force. Had the defender discharged his weapon at the intruder while the crime was occurring, this would be justifiable use of deadly force (in the eyes of the law in most states). In most states, the justification for use of deadly force is to stop the use of deadly force; if the use of deadly force is not being presented _AT_THAT_MOMENT_, there is not justification for use of deadly force _AT_THAT_MOMENT_.
He could plea temporally insane since his emotions were more in control of him than his logical thought process.
Use the insanity plea with probably result in losing the right to possess firearms.
I understand what you are saying, I was thinking the along the same lines.
The article does state an armed man fired his gun at the sliding glass door.
In today’s world the guy will probably get a lesser charge and lose firearm rights, in the old west, the town would bury the criminal and tell the guy he did what he had to do.
And while it’s not exactly clear, in many of the same jurisdictions and others, if he is not completely INSIDE his home when he fired, with the assailant inside as well, all the “protecting your home and castle” laws go out the window and you are simply a citizen who shot another citizen, subject to the laws of the jurisdiction.
There were were other intruders to contend with so the presentthreat was not removed or negated.
You are correct. You can use deadly force to stop an immediate threat. If the guy was running away and no longer aiming his gun at you, you cannot shoot as the immediate threat has ended. This is pretty consistent nationwide. If you have a gun, you need to know the law in your state! Some states allow deadly force to protect personal property, while others DO NOT.
Agreed once they turn and run the law is no longer on your side. Makes perfect sense to most most logical persons to shoot the bastard that was just trying to break in with a gun. However, common sense is not inline with law especially in New York.
people we’re at the point were self defense is illegal. criminals and tyrants have taken over the justice system. each one of us everyone reading this text needs to start drawing your red lines. you must decide when you will no longer obey any of these corrupt laws. we must stop going to they’re corrupt courtrooms. you must not allow them to throw you away in a cage over nothing. stop leting them steal your money. I mean two years ago I was arrested for taking something simply out of the trash. and when I went to court for that I seen my grandmother there what could they have possibly arrested a little harmless old lady for?, police literally get away with murder. average citizen faces murder charges for self defense. we are in the second American Revolution. start throwing your lines and get right with God.
“start drawing your lines”
You MUST POST warning signs on all entrance doors to the dwelling that state ” NO TRESPASSING INTRUDERS WILL BE SHOT”. Fair warning has then been
established.
A lot of suspicious things about this article – and the case itself. Why were no bullets found in the house? If one is defending oneself inside one’s home, how does one end up shooting the intruder in the back, outside of one’s home?
The article then states “alleged burglarS” with an “S” – meaning that there was more than one burglar – but earlier the article quotes police as stating that the other four men were waiting in the shed. Also, the brother says “someone” meaning one person; not some people.
Also the brother doesn’t exude much confidence when he uses the idiom “you know” three times in one sentence. No, Karim Abdel-Gawad, actually I DON’T know. You’re saying “someone” (one person) attacked your HOUSE with a gun. Meaning he shot at your house? (your words, son. choose them carefully when you’re being interviewed) And then what – you chased him with wooden sticks while your brother shot him in the back? That’s quite courageous of your brother (also quite stupid of you to use a stick to chase a man armed with a gun – who has already shown you that he’s willing to use -albeit just shooting at your house, to quote you). Not too bright. Or else dishonest. Uh huh. Clear case of self-defense.
And words ARE important, Mr. Abdel-Gawad. Choose them wisely – especially when giving a police report, testifying under oath, or even writing an article.
Harry V.
First let me say I support anyone protecting his family or property.
Second let me say I read all of the comments, and I have concluded that the commenters are either govt trolls or they are all mentally retarded.
Shalom.
Rob my house and see if I dont shoot your ass too.
The govt isn’t giving anyone more rights than anyone else considering the govt doesn’t give us rights, God does. That’s why we have a Bill of Rights/Constitution, it exists to protect us in legal form. But it’s also our job to enforce them too. With that said, this man did nothing wrong. In fact, the police who arrested him violated his rights by arresting him unjustly. There are many laws of great constitutional fact that point out things regarding our right to resist unlawful arrests.