Post
“I think I should be penalized for having the unlicensed guns. But four years? I mean, I could be dead by then,” he said.
His wife, Jenny, is devastated. “I feel like I’m losing my best friend,” she said.
As he prepares to turn himself in, Foehner is grappling with the reality of his situation.
“I can’t live in the future,” he said. “I have to get through this one day at a time. It’s tough.”
But as we say goodbye, his sense of humor shines through.
“At least I won’t have to pay taxes for four years,” he quipped.
It’s a small comfort for a man who is about to lose his freedom, his home, and his beloved dog.
But in this city where the scales of justice are so wildly out of balance, it’s not surprising that a retired doorman is facing a four-year sentence while real criminals walk free.
Goodnight, New York. And good luck, Charles Foehner.
Olga Ginzburg for the N.Y. Post
The case of Charles Foehner, a self-proclaimed doomsday prepper, has sparked controversy and outrage among many who believe that his punishment does not fit the crime. Foehner, at 67 years old with no criminal record, admitted to having a stockpile of weapons and has been sentenced to four years in prison.
Foehner’s wife, Jenny, expressed her devastation at the situation, especially since their social security benefits will stop while he is in jail and she has recently lost her job. The couple has set up an online fundraiser to help with the costs of his defense, but the future remains uncertain for them.
Many argue that Foehner’s punishment is unjust, especially considering other cases where violent offenders have been given leniency. For example, David Mazariegos, who beat a man to death in the subway, was given a taxpayer-funded art diversion program despite having open felony cases. Similarly, William Credle, who allegedly sexually assaulted a 14-year-old and went on to rape a 15-year-old, was ordered to undergo mental health treatment.
Governor Hochul has the power to pardon Foehner, but he does not hold out hope for that. Despite his guilt over the situation, Foehner believes that sending him to prison is not the answer.
In conclusion, the case of Charles Foehner raises questions about the fairness of the justice system and the need for reform. Sending a non-violent offender like Foehner to prison for four years seems excessive and does not serve the interests of justice. It is a stark reminder of the flaws in the system that need to be addressed.
