Retiree That Legally Defended Himself Sentenced to Prison in New York

[chr0naut]

The right to bare arms shall not be infringed. The New York laws are illegal. New York needs to be cleaned out of corrupt judges and lawmakers.      

Registration of a potentially dangerous machine does not mean prevention of the use and ownership of properly registered ones.

You guys do it with automobiles and aircraft and all sorts of things and no-one screams about loss of liberty.

The NY laws are just as legal as any other law or ordinance.

[chr0naut]

Not by a long shot. You'd faint if you knew what would be considered a "massive cache" in the US. 

And as another user has already mentioned, the only thing making them illegal was the unconstitutional tax that he had not paid to the almighty overreaching overlords.

What is unconstitutional about a State levying a tax for something they must administer, compliant with both the Commerce and Due Process clauses?

[chr0naut]

Yet it was the one that lost their life that decided how much they were willing to risk for money. They were willing to risk their life for that money and lost. The shooter had no say in that decision.

Surely that would also be a consideration of the framer of the law and also a consideration of the court in trying to recompense damages (like for instance where the shooter's aim was not perfect, or where there was other collateral from the shot - the law has to protect the innocent bystanders, too).

[BeyondKnowledge]

Surely that would also be a consideration of the framer of the law and also a consideration of the court in trying to recompense damages (like for instance where the shooter's aim was not perfect, or where there was other collateral from the shot - the law has to protect the innocent bystanders, too).

So, you are on favor of holding the robber, or in this case the estate of the robber, responsible for any collateral damage that occures during a crime? I could not agree more.

[chr0naut]

So, you are on favor of holding the robber, or in this case the estate of the robber, responsible for any collateral damage that occures during a crime? I could not agree more.

Neither the shooter, nor the robber, nor their estates, can give someone back their life.

This is a consequence of using deadly force with a ranged weapon. There will be uncompensatable collateral.

Justice should serve them and their families, too.

You can't pretend that everything will always and forever be a simple one good guy vs one bad guy only.

And every killer with a gun justifies it as self defence (unless they are truly insane), it doesn't mean it is. But there is hardly ever evidence enough to to prove their claim as false, so the courts have to accept that it may be true.

The self-defence cop out and the 2nd mean that the bad guys will always be getting away and justice will be hampered.

[BeyondKnowledge]

The self-defece cop out and the 2nd mean that the bad guys will always be getting away and justice will be hampered.

It is not about being sure the bad guy doesn't get away as you put it. It is about the bad guy not killing the robery victim.

[chr0naut]

It is not about being sure the bad guy doesn't get away as you put it. It is about the bad guy not killing the robery victim.

If you had your gun out and ready, and someone went for their sidearm, wouldn't you shoot first?

It takes about 2/10ths of a second for even the best to respond to a direct nerve stimulus. So, any sort of response takes time. More so if you need to assess potential motivation and other situational details.

If the robber was armed and posed that kind of threat, then how the hell did the old guy get one off first?

So, perhaps the robber wasn't armed, and perhaps the robber wanted money and may have left if they got money and didn't want the extra risk of hanging around until law enforcement might arrive?

[PorkChop96]

What is unconstitutional about a State levying a tax for something they must administer, compliant with both the Commerce and Due Process clauses?

"Pay me this ransom for your constitutional rights, or you are not legally allowed to exercise those rights", yeah, what's so unconstitutional about that.......derp derp derp

[andy06shake]

Is this still going with a dude who chose to plead guilty?

Charles Foehner in possession of 26 unlicensed and unregistered weapons, 13,000 rounds of ammunition and 152 large capacity feeding devices, 10 of which were loaded, inside the defendant’s home. Four of the firearms were determined to be assault weapons and nearly all the illegal firearms were fully operational. This stockpile was not a collection of your grandfather’s harmless, inoperable, antique weapons. This was an arsenal of lethal firearms and assault weapons possessed in full violation of New York State law.”

And i think the reason as to why is rather obvious, given the insurmountable evidence.

Additonally choosing to defend yourself unless you are an actual lawyer is a mug's game.

As im sure the judge told him before he chose to proceed.

[quintessentone]

Is this still going with a dude who chose to plead guilty?

And i think the reason as to why is rather obvious, given the insurmountable evidence.

Additonally choosing to defend yourself unless you are an actual lawyer is a mug's game.

As im sure the judge told him before he chose to proceed.

From past experience with someone who hoarded weapons it turned out he had some sort of mental issue with paranoia being forefront. It turned out he thought the Men In Black were surveilling him and his neighbour was in on it. The neighbor called the cops and all his guns were confiscated.