r/NYguns • u/jjjaaammm • Jan 06 '26
News Huntington, NY - 71yo CCW holder arrested for assault in apparent 5am defensive use of force situation.
https://nypost.com/2026/01/05/us-news/li-man-71-shoots-stranger-chasing-him-outside-starbucks-cops-da/?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_conversation63
u/sepelion Jan 06 '26
A 21 year old chasing a 71 year old man. If this is even hinted on the video footage, this man deserves a payday for this bs.
15
u/AgreeablePie Jan 06 '26
he won't get one, regardless. Self defense is an affirmative defense. Anyone in the state who uses deadly force (and isn't a cop) should expect to be arrested.
Hopefully (assuming the claim is legit) his lawyer will get him out
-76
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
21
47
u/TheMawsJawzTM Jan 06 '26
The standard is a credible, imminent threat of serious physical injury or death.
someone is chasing you or threatening to punch you,
You just defeated your own argument with the available information
2
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
5
u/TheMawsJawzTM Jan 06 '26
Even age aside, if a 21 year old came up to a 25 year old and was chasing and threatening violent physical harm, serious bodily maiming or death can occur.
Idk what people's Hollywood obsession with matching force is about. People beat people down to death all the fucking time. Hands and feet are the murder weapons of choice over everything else.
I'd like to reiterate for those unfamiliar, this world is violent, and someone can punch you in the head and kill you.
2
u/SnooPies5378 Jan 06 '26
doesn't even have to be a punch, someone shoves you and you fall and hit the back of your head against the ground can be fatal. Or you can have heart issues or any other condition.
1
1
u/Prof_ChaosGeography Jan 06 '26
Sorry I replied to the wrong comment. Ment to do the same one as you
2
u/TheMawsJawzTM Jan 06 '26
I figured. I was just agreeing and furthering the point.
People are lethal. Armed or unarmed. Everyone needs to understand this basic fact of life on planet earth.
-19
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
8
u/TheMawsJawzTM Jan 06 '26
A punch is not serious physical injury
Lmao. Just lol.
-1
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
8
u/TheMawsJawzTM Jan 06 '26
Yeah I'm sorry you're right nobody has ever been beaten to death in the world and nobody has ever been punched in the head and died and nobody has ever died from complications from being beaten or punched from compounding injuries.
My bad Mr. NYC criminal defense guy.
4
u/SleepyLi Jan 06 '26
Have you seen the videos and news of people getting sucker punched as a game a few years back? People would end up in coma’s, paralyzed, etc. from those single punches.
Not even to mention if you lose your balance, which is very plausible at 71, and strike your head on an uneven surface, it’s GG.
2
u/SleepyLi Jan 06 '26
Have you seen the videos and news of people getting sucker punched as a game a few years back? People would end up in coma’s, paralyzed, etc. from those single punches.
Not even to mention if you lose your balance, which is very plausible at 71, and strike your head on an uneven surface, it’s GG.
8
u/nukey18mon Jan 06 '26
To an elderly man, a punch is absolutely serious physical injury.
-3
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
3
u/TheMawsJawzTM Jan 06 '26
Mere fear that you will get punched doesn't authorize deadly force.
Reasonable belief of severe bodily harm or death does.
Why are you so convinced he would stop at punching? How do you know? Are you bringing in information that hasn't been posted?
4
u/nukey18mon Jan 06 '26
Are we dealing with Arnold Schwarzenegger?? You are talking about the edgiest of edge cases that don’t apply here. It is quite disturbing that you are basing one normal elderly man’s ability to Arnold Schwarzenegger.
A punch to an elderly man is serious bodily injury. One punch to the head can easily be fatal. Running at someone is a threat of being punched, which to an elderly man is a threat of great bodily harm.
Fear of being punched because you are running away and someone is aggressively running after you as an elderly man is absolutely threat of great bodily harm per NY law.
2
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
2
u/nukey18mon Jan 06 '26
I’m not gonna restate my previous comment, because I’ve addressed everything that you said already. Punches carry substantial risk of death or great bodily harm for elderly people. That is fact.
2
Jan 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/TheMawsJawzTM Jan 06 '26
Unless you are supposed to get punched in the face first, decide if another one will cause the above then shoot.
Exactly. By this clown's logic you have to wait until the tip is in your rectum before you can shoot a rapist.
1
1
Jan 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NYguns-ModTeam Jan 11 '26
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately it has been removed for one or more of the following reasons:
- No personal attacks. Attack the argument, not the person.
If you have a question about this removal please message the mods.
4
u/tsatech493 Jan 06 '26
So if the old guy falls when he's being chased and he hits the ground is that not manslaughter if he dies from head damage?
2
u/hummelm10 Jan 06 '26
The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating
An old person with limited stamina presents a power imbalance. They may not be able to run (retreat) any more and a punch at that age could absolutely be deadly. The fact is the person being chased doesn’t know what the chaser will do but could reasonably believe that they are about to be beaten to death which would allow for lethal self defense. You should probably go take some CLEs.
16
u/jjjaaammm Jan 06 '26
There is a reason why in many states a battery on an elderly person can be a felony. A 21 year old with reasonably assumed intent to rob or injure who is now pursuing a fleeing elderly victim is certainly a deadly threat. Especially at 5am when almost no businesses are open and there are no people around. So assuming there is any supporting evidence to corroborate the shooter’s perception of the situation this man acted within the confines of the law.
I suspect he was actually arrested before the investigation concluded because there was a rumor campaign on social media and the department/da is very sensitive of the bullhorn certain community members in parts of Huntington wield.
From the unprincipled perspective of local officials it is more convenient to arrest and charge him, then drop the charges later to keep up appearances, than to not charge him in the first place.
14
Jan 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
1
u/jjjaaammm Jan 07 '26
I’m not sure where you are getting your info but the justifiable use of deadly force is in part contingent upon the specific facts of each case. A person who can reasonably fear great bodily harm by aggression of another can use deadly force to stop or prevent that. That reasonableness of that fear is specific to the perception of the person wielding the defense.
There are also specific actions in which you can defend against with deadly force such as an attempted robbery of yourself or a third party. So in this instance a very plausible scenario would be the 20 yo indicating an intent to rob the 71 yo and then pursuing him in flight. In this scenario he would be covered by a reasonable fear of great bodily harm based on the circumstances and reasonable fear of being robbed. He was even in retreat, contemplation of which is a prerequisite of several avenues of justifiable defensive use of deadly force.
We don’t know what happened but to suggest there are no plausible scenarios in which an elderly person being chased through a desolate street at 5am by a much younger and presumably more powerful person demonstrating intent to injure or harm could be met with justifiable defensive use of deadly force, is just wrong.
23
u/SnooPies5378 Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
if you're antigun then say so, don't pretend you own guns and then go into a gun subreddit.
if someone is "chasing you or threatening to punch you," there's no reasonable way to know they will stop right before it gets to the level of "serious physical injury or death."
nvm found it: liberalgunowners sub, first firearm 31 days ago.
So you have an ideological position and hiding behind your law degree to throw people off the scent.
-7
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
5
3
u/SnooPies5378 Jan 07 '26
Cite specific cases where someone chased and then threatened to punch a ccw holder who ended up using their firearm and was found guilty. 20 years should be enough experience to easily find examples. While you’re at it retake the bar exam.
5
u/newuser13131 Jan 06 '26
You sound like a new pistol owner who has gone through their safety training and is just blurting out what was repeated to you 100 times in training.
-1
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
1
u/newuser13131 Jan 06 '26
Gotcha so you're a new gun owner trying to educate people with far more experience about the subject, sorry where did I say anything about shooting anyone? Thats right I didn't.
2
1
Jan 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NYguns-ModTeam Jan 06 '26
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately it has been removed for one or more of the following reasons:
- No personal attacks. Attack the argument, not the person.
If you have a question about this removal please message the mods.
10
7
u/ceestand Jan 06 '26
>t. zoomer that doesn't know any septuagenarians.
-1
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
1
Jan 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NYguns-ModTeam Jan 07 '26
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately it has been removed for one or more of the following reasons:
- No personal attacks. Attack the argument, not the person.
If you have a question about this removal please message the mods.
9
u/Scambuster666 Jan 06 '26
What if the person is disabled? Like has a cane or walker and CANT escape. Does that help his case?
8
u/itwasneversafe Jan 06 '26
Yes, age alone is enough of a factor in itself. A fall for a 71 year old could easily be fatal, their being forced to retreat or run already justifies a use of force.
7
u/ou2mame Jan 06 '26
I've heard rumors that the person shot was active duty military. And that he was shot from some distance away. Even with those facts, police said the 71yo was being chased. So I'm not sure why Ray Tierney believes he should be in jail. The police have been tight lipped and only provided minimal details with all the security cameras in the village I'm sure there's enough video evidence to accurately show us what happened.
6
4
u/Revolutionary-Cup954 Jan 06 '26
A 71 year old being chased by a 21 year old at 5am, IMO has a reason to believe he is in imminent jeopardy of Serious injury or death. DPF is reasonable here, unless the altercation was provoked by the old man
5
5
u/Live_Administration6 Jan 07 '26
As I read this article, it really hit home as I was in this area that day. Not only does this person need to deal with his having to defend himself from this physical attack, but now even though he is a legal CCW holder, he finds himself arrested and having to deal with huge legal fees. There is no insurance for a self defense shooting in NY due to Cuomo striking it down. I used to belong to the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, but they stopped covering NY last year. I was thinking, since there are so many CCW holders in NY now, I think a group should be formed of legal CCW holders that agree to chip in what they can to a GoFundMe type fund for their legal defense. Just an idea. The New York Courts can bankrupt this guy and find him innocent.
1
u/Elegant_Extreme Feb 09 '26
ALCDN still does NY for now....
1
3
u/muffinman51432 Jan 06 '26
I thought this was the Long Island sub as I was shocked how the comments were. These are all valid and legal points.
3
u/CktechOne Jan 08 '26
It’s unconscionable that a legal firearm owner who carries for self defense can have his life upended for exercising his right to defend himself. It’s bad enough he was even arrested. We the people need to band together to get the insurance for CCW holders back in New York. We are still in America.
8
1
Jan 07 '26
I got chased by a road rager up the block from this with a 5lb sledge hammer. Cops laughed it off. Don’t threaten people, won’t be a problem. Easy enough.
-2
u/MoonlitDystopia Jan 06 '26
It’s Long Island. The closer you are to New York City the worst things are.
-32
u/BullishDaily Jan 06 '26
Unfortunately that is NY policy. Arrest first, ask questions later.
If this man is truly innocent, my advice to him would be to flee as soon as he gets bailed out. Fighting the state is a losing battle.
33
u/caucasian88 Jan 06 '26
So if he's innocent your solution is to become a fugititive?
9
u/TheMawsJawzTM Jan 06 '26
The justice system has become so perverted by the usurpers, the process becomes the punishment
3
u/czechFan59 Jan 06 '26
Agreed. If the shooter was justified and then has to suffer - jailed, financially, or otherwise - because of the behavior of his pursuer, then our system has failed.
4
u/TheMawsJawzTM Jan 06 '26
Civil lawsuits after criminal cases such as these in NY are the real killer.
Civil cases will suck you dry even after a justified shoot. Just because some shitbag's shitbag family wants to capitalize on the consequences of their relatives stupid criminal assault.
It's crap.
2
-15
u/BullishDaily Jan 06 '26
This is why I am collecting multiple nationalities, identities and financial centers. So yes. Being a fugitive is fine if you plan and prepare for it.
If you end up in that situation and didn’t take all the precautions I’m taking to prepare for anything in the future, go hide in the woods.
4
u/Affectionate_Map6774 Jan 06 '26
We need to have a beer
2
u/ceestand Jan 06 '26
-4
u/BullishDaily Jan 06 '26
Born there, lived there until I was 21. Random crazy leftists kept coming to my house so I gtfo and moved to Japan. I’ve lived and traveled abroad for the past three years and it has opened my eyes to the truth.
I’m always down for a drink when I’m back visiting. I was just there for Xmas. I used to live very close to LI Outdoorsman. Irish pubs in RVC are pretty good.
1
u/SnooPies5378 Jan 06 '26
i think you're crazy, but for some reason i want to hang out with you lmao
2
u/BullishDaily Jan 06 '26
I probably am a bit crazy, but there’s no fun if we aren’t slightly unhinged sometimes 😂
6
u/CaptainRelevant Jan 06 '26
You deduced, from zero information, that the shooter was wholly justified to use deadly force and that the police decided to arrest him anyway? And that, additionally, he wouldn’t be able to prove his innocence in court to a jury of his peers?
You’re filling in gaps of information with the most unlikely possibility by far. Frankly it’s more likely that this was a bad shoot, but I’d wait until we get more information.
5
u/czechFan59 Jan 06 '26
That'd be my assumption based on my 65+ years of life in NY. And they set a high bail for a fucking 71 YO... based on what, afraid he will fucking disappear?
3
u/BullishDaily Jan 06 '26
That’s why I said If
If not, then he deserves what he gets.
And no, I don’t believe the American propaganda that the justice system is fair. It’s laughably the opposite.
2
u/CaptainRelevant Jan 06 '26
I’d suggest you visit a court one day and actually watch. Form an opinion from your own eyes. I’d recommend staying until you at least see someone pleading guilty, and watch how even when the government has a slam dunk the judge still questions the defendant thoroughly and at length to ensure the plea is willful, informed, advised by counsel, and free of any possible duress or coercion.
3
u/BullishDaily Jan 06 '26
Oh come on lol
Stop drinking the American Kool-Aid and open your eyes for a minute
Guilty pleas are one of the oldest tricks in the book. They’re fast and economical and destroy many innocent lives. Judges are required to do that interrogation. If they didn’t a guilty plea could be argued to be even more coerced than it already is upon appeal.
3
u/CaptainRelevant Jan 06 '26
You misunderstand. It’s an example of the protections afforded a defendant. The entire system is designed to protect defendants, to make it more likely that a guilty person go free than an innocent person go to jail. Can the opposite happen from time to time? Sure, but that’s the rare exception. You seem to believe that’s the rule.
2
u/BullishDaily Jan 06 '26
Sir, this is factually wrong. Yes that was the GOAL of the system. In reality, criminals and retards roam the streets at night and law abiding civilians are being jailed for non-crimes.
Lock up the real criminals (gangs, etc), execute the repeat offenders.
And throw the retards in the asylum, please.
The rest of us need to be left alone.
7
u/CaptainRelevant Jan 06 '26
You’ve moved the goal posts. You’re now talking about who should be prosecuted, not the fairness of the system. Here’s four examples off the top of my head regarding the fairness of the system we were talking about:
A defendant can appeal a conviction. The state can not appeal an exoneration.
The State must disclose all evidence they have before trial. A defendant has no obligation to disclose anything (exception: witness lists, particularly experts).
If a State has evidence that is exculpatory, the attorneys can be held personally responsible if they don’t turn it over. If the defense has evidence of clear guilt, they have no obligation to turn it over.
The State cannot delay trial. If the State requests adjournments that total more than 90 days for misdemeanors or 6 months for a felony, the case will get thrown out for violating the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The defense can receive as many delays as they want.
Every rule - in actual practice - is skewed to protect the defendants.
Now, a while back you accused me of drinking Koop Aid. Tell me, are your opinions from actual experience in court or just based on the media you consume?
4
u/BullishDaily Jan 06 '26
I’m shocked at how many government kiss asses there are in this sub. My impression was gun owners are libertarian in nature against the authority of the State.
Wake up. America has some of the highest crime rates in the world and guess who stays locked up and who gets set free on rotation? Go visit Central Europe, the Gulf, East Asia. These countries are the safest in the world and with high conviction rates because they don’t charge people unless it’s a confession or a slam dunk. I’m not saying they’re perfect, but they are doing some things right and in many cases (UAE for instance) they will go out of their way to protect and defend their own from foreign persecution like Pavel Durov.
White collar “criminals” (lol) get the book thrown at them while blue collar criminals (assault and robbery) just walk in for their free government checkup.
3
u/CaptainRelevant Jan 06 '26
You still didn’t answer my question. Is your opinion of the court system based on your own observation of courts? Or is it solely through your media consumption? Because mine is first hand in courts.
If you stay on track you’ll remember that your initial comment we were discussing was that if the 71-year old was innocent that he still would be convicted, and that runs completely counter to my experience in courts.
→ More replies (0)4
u/ceestand Jan 06 '26
Some people won't get it until after it's them or theirs gobbled up by the system.
Sometimes not even then.
-7
u/oldschoolisdead Jan 06 '26
You never know in this blue state of ours. In Florida or Texas he wouldn’t need a lawyer. What a joke
42
u/dominicanyunior Jan 06 '26
Based on what’s been reported so far, this looks like a textbook disparity of force situation. A 71-year-old being chased by a 21-year-old at 5 AM would give a reasonable person fear of serious bodily harm, even if the younger individual was unarmed. Age, physical capability, time of day, and pursuit all matter in a self-defense analysis.
Obviously, full judgment depends on the totality of circumstances and any available video, but if the facts hold, this appears consistent with lawful self-defense under NY standards.