Charles Foehner, a 67-year-old man from Queens, New York, found himself trapped in a legal nightmare that underscores a disturbing trend in how self-defense cases are handled in blue states. Foehner was sentenced to four years in prison after fatally shooting Cody Gonzalez, who rushed at him allegedly wielding what appeared to be a knife. In a shocking twist, this weapon turned out to be a pen. Still, Foehner had no choice but to react to what he perceived as an immediate threat to his life.
The incident occurred in the early hours of 2023, when Gonzalez, a man with a criminal history that includes 15 arrests and a track record of mental health issues, targeted Foehner. In his attempt to defend himself against the crazed attacker, Foehner used an unlicensed revolver that led to his prosecution. While street crime continues to escalate, the response from the legal system is jarring—charging a senior citizen for protecting himself rather than recognizing the potential victim’s plight.
Foehner’s attorney, Thomas Kenniff, expressed disbelief at the outcome, calling his client a “hero.” Kenniff pointed out that New York’s restrictive gun laws make it exceedingly difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain gun permits, which dramatically impacts their ability to defend themselves. “If we respected people’s constitutional right and provided practical means for citizens to exercise that right, Mr. Foehner would not be in the position he is in today,” Kenniff stated. This assertion highlights a serious flaw in the way self-defense is perceived and penalized in certain jurisdictions.
Moreover, Kenniff’s experience defending another high-profile case in New York—Marine veteran Daniel Penny—emphasizes a concerning trend. Penny faced similar scrutiny after intervening to protect subway passengers from Jordan Neely, a man with a history of violence and mental health struggles. Penny was charged with criminally negligent homicide after Neely died during the confrontation. Despite Foehner and Penny’s actions being rooted in self-defense, both men were treated as criminals rather than as protectors of their communities.
The prevailing sentiment these cases reveal is that in some blue states, criminals seem to have more rights than the citizens they threaten. As the legal pressures mount on individuals like Foehner, it raises questions about the balance of justice. Where is the protection for those who wish to defend themselves against harm? How can a society that champions security and safety turn against those acting in self-defense?
As Foehner navigates his plea deal and impending prison sentence, the stark reality remains: a community that fails to recognize the rights of its citizens will ultimately compromise their safety. The message sent is a contradictory one—criminals are prioritized over victims. “Elections have consequences,” as former President Obama once noted, and in this case, it’s the citizens who bear the brunt of misguided policies.
As more Americans experience such injustices, the question lingers: when will there be a reckoning for a system that puts law-abiding citizens in prison while letting criminals roam free? Under these dire circumstances, many might reconsider their choices regarding residency in states that foster such an unbalanced legal system. In the end, Foehner’s case serves as a cautionary tale for those who prioritize safety and personal defense in a society increasingly willing to penalize self-protective actions.
"*" indicates required fields
