NY Homeowner Arrested After Killing Two Home Invaders With ‘Illegal’ Gun

Ronald Stolarczyk homeowner buglar shooting killed

courtesy wktv.com

Scenes from life in Governor Cuomo’s SAFE Act paradise: an upstate homeowner has been charged with a felony after he defended himself from two home invaders with what prosecutors are calling an “illegal gun.”

“He told me that when they were coming up the stairs, that as they approached him, that he was scared to death and he thought they were going to kill him. One of the troopers said, ‘did you see anything in their hands?’ He said, ‘I didn’t look at their hands, I just saw them coming at me and I thought to myself, at that point, that it’s either them or me,’ and he just started firing,” (defense attorney Mark) Wolber said.

Ronald Stolarczyk homeowner buglar shooting killed

courtesy wktv.com

The homeowner, 64-year-old Ronald Stolarczyk, shot and killed Patricia Anne Talerico and her nephew, Nicholas Talerico. But Stolarczyk hasn’t been charged with a homicide. At least not yet. What has police concerned is the handgun Stolarczyk used.

…Stolarczyk is charged with felony gun possession because investigators believe he used his deceased father’s gun, which he never registered to himself, to kill the two suspected intruders.

So Stolarczyk’s father either gave or left the handgun in question to his son. Under New York’s famously restrictive gun control laws, the son wasn’t required to undergo a background check to receive the handgun from his father. But he did need to have a pistol permit to legally own the firearm and have it registered in his name.

 

 

Investigators are still, you know, investigating. And as the two home invaders apparently weren’t armed, it’s possible that the local prosecutor may still charge Stolarczyk with manslaughter or even murder in the case.

 

comments

  1. avatar Nanashi says:

    Perfect defendant.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      (for challenging the law)

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        Agreed. He will need to bank rolled to do it I imagine.

        1. avatar OBOB says:

          got a “C” note ready right here!

          the GOA or someone like that should jump on this one!

        2. avatar Hhhhhyeah says:

          Is OBOB gonna donate his “C” note or what?

        3. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          I’m willing to bet that the NRA will be nowhere in sight. They would rather waste money on a TV channel and overpaying board members than helping to fight for the second amendment.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Nanashi,

        That was my very first thought as well.

        1. avatar George N. says:

          Obviously, neither of you have any clue what all the NRA does nationwide. They are the NUMBER ONE supporter of gun ownership and pro-2nd Amendment laws.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      If he was the perfect defendant he would have kept his mouth shut when the cops got there.

      1. avatar John E> says:

        What he said was perfectly appropriate, that he feared for his life. That utterance along justifies the shooting in his home, whether or not NY will play nice is another matter.

        1. avatar Vern Cox says:

          The fact that someone was in his home uninvited justifies him. We’re civilly responsible for the
          safety of our guests but not criminals, unarmed or not.

      2. avatar John Q says:

        You know, I should pen an article for this site specifically aimed at you ignorant ‘Ah knoe mah raghts, fuk yoo poo-leese’ assholes…
        God damn you’re stupid. See John E and Vern Cox’s comments as to how to do it right. In this case, AS STATED IN THE ARTICLE, he was arrested for something the Police would have or did figure out with out the Victim saying a damn word…
        Jesus wept man.

        1. avatar Rothweiler says:

          Never talk to the police. The line in the Miranda warning is true – “Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law.” The police are under zero obligation to record or make notes of anything that would exonerate you but they do note anything that may incriminate you and if the officer or detective makes an inaccurate note about your statement it’s now your word against the police – guess who will be believed 99 times out of 100?
          A great speech from a law professor and a detective who both agree “never talk to a cop”
          https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE

        2. avatar PS says:

          If you think the police would not legally confiscate the gun involved & realize it was not registered to him …

          He was facing the charge regardless of talking to police or not. Talking had nothing to do with it in the State of NY.

  2. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Looks like a good opportunity for the NRA-ILA to do some pro bono work and sue the state over their ridiculous laws and defend this man from tyranny.

    1. avatar jbob says:

      As soon as they realize the potential drawbacks, they’ll drop all charges against him.

      1. avatar OBOB says:

        AND he should still sue for false arrest and mental anguish!

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          No, he will be sued for wrongful death by the heirs, if any, of this family enterprise.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Misread your comment. But, assuming that the pistol was not registered/permitted to him, there was no wrongful arrest. The only time a wrongful arrest case goes anywhere is when the police have no probable cause for the arrest–which they appear to have in spades here.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          Mark is correct, there is no false arrest here. He could still sue for a violation of his rights but with his criminal issue mooted it would have to be bankrolled by someone and there would be little monetary reward even if he won… meaning he would have trouble getting a lawyer to do it, probably.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Mark N., after his father died, during the probation of his estate, was this man advised about these requirements? If not, he had no idea and should demand a jury trial. It should come up on a docket within a thousand years or so.

      2. avatar DavidT says:

        But he’s going to lose the tool his father left him, no way in hell will NY give it back no matter what the outcome of this legal case is. Even if he sues and wins to have it returned it will be lost or already destroyed.

        1. avatar Kevin Fant says:

          It will probably be DESTROYED

    2. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      HAH! The NRA hasn’t defended a 2nd Amendment case in years. They agreed with the bump-stock legislation, they did NOTHING about many of these laws being enacted other than just telling us about it. They spend “their” money on ridiculous salaries for board members and a TV channel. I became a Life member when the NRA was still worthwhile, now I wish I could get my money back!

  3. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    This is going to be a shit storm. The first thing I want to know is; did he know the intruders? Worked a lot of burglaries. Aunt and nephew. Never saw that before.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      If I were the prosecutor, I would seek to preclude any evidence that the homeowner used the firearm in self-defense, since that is neither an element of their case nor a defense to the charge made. In other words, even assuming the shootings were justified, that alone does not justify his possession of an “illegal” firearm. My guess is that unless someone jerk prosecutor wants to “send a message,” the case will be plea bargained down to a misdemeanor–and (not knowing what the laws are in NY) a potential lifetime ownership ban.

      1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

        And you’re the reason that these cities and states get away with these restrictive, unconstitutional laws. This needs to be fought on the grounds that the laws are unconstitutional and hence ILLEGAL!

      2. avatar CrustyOldGeezer says:

        Mark N.?

        HAVE YOU EVER even READ the Entire Constitution, OR the 2nd Amendment?

        That last little bit says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. There are no caveats.

        When NY Ratified the Constitution and ALL 10 AMENDMENTS they SWORE AN OATH to Protect, DEFEND and UPHOLD THE RIGHTS of the People.

        Furthermore….

        The Second was written with the Revolutionary War FRESH IN THE MINDS of the Founders of this nation.

        They cared little for the ‘hunting’ use of weapons.

        Their INTENT WAS MILITARY STYLE, and the NEWEST AND BEST Available to fight the ‘well equipped and Armed ENEMIES OF AMERICA, both foreign and DOMESTIC!

        They KNEW 230 years ago the kind of people that would eventually SEIZE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT!
        They even INCLUDED THE ARMING and EQUIPPING of the MILITIA in a Separate AND DISTINCT Enumerated Power!

        At NO PLACE is ‘registering of weaponry’ mentioned and LIMITATIONS on TYPE or STYLE listed.

        Ghey considered the OWNERSHIP of weapons NONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS!

        The government FEARS any Militia they cannot control!

  4. avatar Sian says:

    It doesn’t matter if they were armed or not.

    If unknown people enter your occupied home by force, one can assume it’s for purposes that can reasonably assumed to end in great bodily harm or death.

    1. avatar The Huscarl says:

      I don’t believe NY is a castle doctrine state.

      1. avatar Jim from LI says:

        Yes, it is.

        1. avatar A says:

          In NY there are no castles only dwellings operated by the state for the subjects.

      2. avatar Kendahl says:

        Every state has castle doctrine. What varies from state to state is how far it extends. Some states go so far as to include your automobile when you are inside. Others limit it to the four walls of your home; set one foot outside and castle doctrine no longer applies.

        Castle doctrine does not mean you are justified in shooting anyone who breaks in. All it does is relieve you of the duty to retreat even if that’s required outside your home. That they broke in is strong evidence in your favor when you claim they were a threat to your life but it’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card. If the prosecutor disapproves of self defense, he can still make the argument that the intruders posed no danger. You stand an excellent chance of a not guilty verdict but it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars (unless you have good self defense insurance) and months to years of uncertainty.

        Stolarczyk’s unregistered gun problem is an example of why there is no upside to having one illegally. At best, you never get caught and never need it for defense. That’s breaking even. If you do need it, you will get caught and stand to be prosecuted for that even if there is nothing else. Where I live, a security guard broke up a robbery at a pharmacy by shooting the shotgun armed robber. The guard didn’t work for the store; he was just a customer at the time. The county attorney (i.e. prosecutor) declined to file charges on the shooting. However, since the city has its own ordinance against carrying concealed handguns without a state permit, the city attorney made noises about prosecuting the guard for that. (The city attorney eventually backed down claiming he couldn’t tell from the surveillance video if the guard’s gun was completely concealed. Personally, I think someone with influence told him to stop making a fool of himself.)

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          “Stolarczyk’s unregistered gun problem is an example of why there is no upside to having one illegally.”

          Unless using it saves your life. Carried by six vs. tried by 12 and all that. Regardless, it’s a sad state of affairs when someone has to choose between being safe from criminals or being safe from the State.

        2. avatar Guesty says:

          California’s Castle Doctrine is very weak, largely due to the fact that we have a complete absence of “Stand Your Ground” provisions that most other states enjoy. We actually have a “duty to retreat” mandate, including in your home. If someone breaks into your house at 3am and you don’t actually see a weapon in his/her hand, you can only call LE as you watch the perp continue to rummage through your things. Best thing you can do is have 911 on the phone in one hand, and a gun (with mounted weapon light) in the other aimed at the perp to keep him/her at bay. And if at all possible, keep the phone also aimed at the perp while recording video. Not only will you have something to give to LE to identify and catch the perp after he/she bolts, but you’ll need indisputable evidence that you genuinely feared for your life if you discharge your weapon. Otherwise, we’re kinda screwed.

          Oh yeah…and don’t forget that whatever weapon is involved will be included in the police reports of the incident. Quite a few of us here in CA keep a “good gun” at the ready during the night, and keep any legally questionable items (note I didn’t say illegal, but questionable, as this state’s labyrinthine and ever-changing patchwork of laws continue to confuse everyone, including LEOs) discretely hidden away in the safe. No need to go through the problems that the NY guy in the article went through.

          BTW, did anyone else notice that the house in the first photo above looks like a tree fell on it? Is this the actual home discussed in the article? What kind of living conditions is this guy dealing with…is it a known druggie neighborhood? I’m thinking we’re not getting the full story here.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          The main upside to “illegal” guns (what a stupid term) is that the jack booted thugs will not know in advance that you have them. Thus, they may just pass your house by, or they may break down your door to rape and pillage without using the proper care, and be shot to death as a result. Powerful upsides, in addition to being a thorn in the side of an overreaching government.

        4. avatar Kendahl says:

          There are two routes to stand your ground. One is a statute. The other is legal precedent. California has been stand your ground since the precedent was set in the nineteenth century. It’s contained in the jury instructions whenever the defendant has made a plausible case for self defense.

        5. avatar Guesty says:

          @Kendahl,

          You are referring to Jury Instructions CALCRIM #505 & #506, which relate to a defendant’s reasonable belief of imminent harm. However, you will note that the text of these instructions convey reminders of the definitions of certain terms as contained within the Penal Code, and provide court case references. They do NOT constitute actual California Law legislated and codified per the State Legislature.

          Every attorney, LEO, and firearms instructor I’ve ever heard discuss this matter has explicitly stated that from a purely legal standpoint within California, you cannot simply “stand your ground” by remaining where you are. If you are approached by someone intent on harming you, and you have the option of moving away, you MUST move away or you will be charged with homicide if you choose to shoot.

        6. avatar Roadrunner says:

          Nj does not have castle doctrine. We have duty to retreat, even at home.

        7. avatar George N. says:

          Kendahl, you are wrong, not every state is a Castle-law state. I live in Washington State and it is NOT a Castle law state. Washington State does have a “no duty to retreat” statute but that is sorely lacking compared to actual Castle laws.

        8. avatar martin says:

          “Unless using it saves your life. Carried by six vs. tried by 12 and all that. Regardless, it’s a sad state of affairs when someone has to choose between being safe from criminals or being safe from the State criminals.”

          There fixed it for you.

        9. avatar CrustyOldGeezer says:

          There have been a few articles lately about Soros and other HATE AMERICA types buying votes for LOCAL and State DA’s.

          Less oversight on elections and DONORS.

          THE SMOLLETT CASE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF corrupt da’S.

    2. avatar HellBilly says:

      It’s NY, self defense is banned.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        No, it is not, in the home. And it was.

        In New York state, ‘Castle Doctrine’ applies, and there is no duty to retreat…

    3. avatar Lisa says:

      Absolutely agree with protecting yourself. If someone is stupid enough to break into your home, they’re aware of what they will do if they come across somebody in the home and it’s not typically to run away.
      I am also aware of what I will do, if I can, if someone breaks into my home. It’s the chance they take.

  5. avatar Sian says:

    Also look at that house. It’s a dump.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      If I was a burglar/robber I don’t imagine I’d be interested in homes that look like that unless I knew there was something unusually valuable there. Why rob dumps when it takes just as much time as wealthier homes?

    2. avatar BLAMMO says:

      It’s not a dump. It’s Utica, NY.

    3. avatar barnbwt says:

      “Oh my God; who would break *in* to this shit!?” –Archer while infiltrating Russia

      It’s good he’s a dump-lord; it’s likely the reason NY thinks they can press these charges & not have a jury revolt. Hopefully he’s too stubborn to take a plea deal & gets a pro-bono attorney (fire up the Stamboulieh/SAF/FPC signal)

  6. avatar Rooftop Voter says:

    This guy saved the taxpayers a lot of money and now they want to fornicate with him. So glad I never wanted to live in NY. I’ll stay in FL.

    Florida, home of the Castle Doctrine aka the Dirty Harry Law.

  7. avatar anarchyst says:

    If there was ever a case for “jury nullification”, this is it…
    If I were on the jury, the defendant would “walk”…

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      More like a case for marching on the jail house to break him out, then onto the local AG’s house, and then back to the jail.

  8. avatar Mark N. says:

    Possession of an unpermitted firearm is a felony? Then why isn’t half of NYC locked up for illegal possession? Oh that’s right, that is the first charge to go away with the plea deal. Just like in Chicago.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      Yeah it’s that thing that real criminals never actually get charged with even though it would be a slamdunk +4 years.

      The Justice/Prison complex would much rather lock up tax evaders and people caught with a half ounce of weed than actual dangerous criminals. They’re a lot easier to manage!

    2. avatar Omer says:

      Actually, something similar to this happened in Chicago. A felon, older guy who hadn’t been arrested in years, shot someone as they were breaking into the felon’s home. Because it was self defense he was not charged with possession of a firearm, he was not charged with anything at all. I don’t think he got the gun back though.

    3. avatar foghorn leghorn says:

      When I lived on Long Island, everyone in the neighborhood had unregistered, ‘illegal’ guns. More than one for most homes

  9. avatar Someone says:

    He should be charged with public endangerment. Not for any idiotic gun registration offense, for his garage door header. Bit of irony on the top is his name – it means something like “little carpenter” in Polish.

  10. avatar tdiinva says:

    He won’t be charged with manslaughter or murder because of the Bernie Goetz precedent. If a NYC jury acquitted Goetz on murder charges an upstate jury would acquit on all charges if the prosecutor went that way. Expect a plea bargain and probation.

  11. avatar Truckman says:

    one of these groups that get so much money better come to this mans aid because there charges are bogus and when people break into your house you do not what they are going to do so you shoot first ask questions later

  12. avatar RCC says:

    Gun free zone says the aunt had over 20 convictions and nephew at least one.

    They also found lots of stolen items including firearms at their apartment. Some items stolen in an earlier burglary from the same house they were shot in. Prosecutors will probably argue entrapment for letting them get in again.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Shit, the guy should’ve just said he wrestled the gun away from them, lol

      When the innocent are arrested for defending their very lives against scumbags allowed to run rampant for their whole existence…can you blame a man like this for not bothering to abide the law? Had he obeyed their rules, he would be dead, and these two thieves would be tormenting someone else as we speak.

      It’s getting to the point that we need to start going after the AGs & DAs who pursue these cases. Maybe not physically, just yet, but the prosecutors responsible for this arrest should be having their lives made hell right now.

    2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      20 convictions

      There reaches a point where some people should just be put down for the health of the entire community.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        I’d like to shake this man’s hand.

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          “three generations of idiots is enough.”

  13. avatar WI Patriot says:

    What a load of crap…

  14. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    May the prosecutor be buried up to his chin in an ant hill. Fireants!! Near a hive of Africanized bees.

    1. avatar Hans says:

      Tim, I like dat idea a lot!

      1. avatar Monte says:

        Oh yea don’t forget the oathbreaker cops in there too

  15. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

    Where were the police when the home invasion was happening? I’m not saying they should be able to stop all crime, that’s unrealistic and attempts to do so destroy liberty for crappy results. My point is they should have some self awareness. I mean what do they want to do, use their inability to stop real crime as a tool to fight victimless crime? Classy.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      That’s basically the tyrant’s MO, tbh

  16. avatar WhiteDevil says:

    But the police are our friends, right? They’ll never enforce illegal and unconstitutional laws against the citizens of this country, right? Or some bullshit like that.

  17. avatar Alan Wayne Rose says:

    Why the haz mat suits? They think the big bad gun’s friends are going to infect them?

    1. avatar Sian says:

      So they don’t contaminate the scene of a homicide investigation.

    2. avatar Juice says:

      They’re wearing Tyvek coveralls so they don’t muck up the scene with their own hair or dna. Not to keep germs out.

    3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      because of the asbestos shingles.

  18. avatar Jeremy D. says:

    Can I ask where the details of the incident came from? All I can find is liberal media not properly explaining the “illegal gun charge”?

  19. avatar Mort says:

    Why is a permit required to exercise a constitutional right? Will a permit be required later to exercise your 4 th, 5 th, 6 th amendment rights? Will a permit be required for freedom of religion next?

    1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      I’m sorry. We’re going to need to see your internet commenting permit.

    2. avatar WARFAB says:

      We’re talking about New Yorkistan. It’s not actually part of the United States anymore and constitutional rights don’t exist there.

  20. avatar Ronald West says:

    Set the man free. He may have gotten the gun from them anyway. To use for protection are someone like them.if They were not invited in then they were trespassing.

  21. Poor old man…

    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Bill of Rights
    English history and common law

  22. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

    He should have thrown the spare meat cleaver at them and when they caught it gunmed them down. Yup, yup,

  23. avatar AaronW says:

    Dan, this isn’t a SAFE Act issue. In New York, we can ‘thank’ our decades-old Sullivan Law for creating nonsense crimes like owning an ‘unregistered, unlicensed’ handgun.
    I don’t think it helps our cause to conflate or confuse the two.

  24. avatar DangerMouse says:

    You know the old saying…”Better judged by twelve than carried by six”.

  25. avatar impared hearing says:

    i donated, hope more do too

  26. avatar olivehead says:

    “One of the troopers said, ‘did you see anything in their hands?’ ”

    Because that is definitely the test that a LEO applies before shooting someone.

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      FBI crime stats say approximately 670 people were killed by “hands, fists, or feet” in 2014.

      How old was the homeowner? How old were the repeat offender intruders?

  27. avatar Michael in AK says:

    Just another reason to vote with your feet since the ballot box isn’t working and no one is ready to go to the cartridge box.

  28. avatar GS650G says:

    Some UK style logic there. The dead perps family will be suing him shortly.

  29. avatar GS650G says:

    This might be a good case to stand in front of the SCOTUS with. They have rarely charged anyone like this and it’s got infringement all over it.

  30. avatar Elizbeth Varder says:

    I am pretty sure he took it from one of the intruders after he karate kicked em.

  31. avatar aaron dorn says:

    I set up a gofundme for the homeowner, all money raised is going to his legal defense. Donate if you can but please share as always! https://www.gofundme.com/legal-fund-for-ronald-stolarczyk-2nd-amendment&rcid=r01-155925288234-f551dde230634af1&pc=ot_co_campmgmt_w

  32. avatar Jasper says:

    Hypothetical question: You and a friend are in a house in NY State. Two home invaders burst in and your friend who is legally armed, pulls a handgun out but is shot by one of the invaders and the friend is badly wounded or dead. You pick up his gun (which obviously you don’t own and aren’t permitted for) and you shoot and kill both of the invaders. Would you be in legal jeopardy for using your friends firearm?

  33. avatar Shimon says:

    I’m sure they were just coming up to tuck him in and wish him sweet dreams.
    Uh huh

  34. avatar james e benning says:

    “He told me that when they were coming up the stairs, that as they approached him, that he was scared to death and he thought they were going to kill him. One of the troopers said, ‘did you see anything in their hands?’ He said, ‘I didn’t look at their hands, ….” NEVER talk to a cop in a situation when they are investigating you. they are there to build a case.

  35. avatar John Lee says:

    If you’re a free American, you have the right to defend your life, your loved ones, and your property. Also, if you live in New Your you’re financing those that want to take your rights away. Sell your house, AND MOVE! No tax base, no Socialism, period. It is your patriotic duty to leave New York,, California, Washington State ANYWHERE they use your tax dollars against you, period. Countless young men and women have given their lives for your rights, and the freedom to use them. You say it’s too difficult to move and start over?? Perhaps you don’t deserve those rights!!

  36. avatar Joseph McCormick says:

    What a joke! In his own home, during an unauthorized break-in by two persons who do not have any conceivable right to be trespassing, and he defends himself?? What next? He should be given a pat on the back for defending himself and/or family or possessions. I hate the loss of life always, but he should have rights in that situstion.

  37. avatar Barry says:

    And, another example of NY prosecutorial common sense for the rest of the sane world to shake their heads at…

  38. avatar George N. says:

    New York should pay the homeowner $10,000 per head for taking the assholes off the streets when the government obviously failed to do so.

  39. avatar Louis Kershner says:

    If The NRA doesnt Defend this man and challenge the gun laws in NY as unconstitutional, then why do I need to renew my membership?

  40. avatar Bruce Probert says:

    permission is not required to exercise a constitutional right. Just another illegal claim to require permission to exercise a constitutional right. It’s time for the judiciary to read the 2nd amendment again and for a change understand what the words shall not be infringed mean. License requirements, license fees, storage requirements, key locks and restrictions on carry and transport are infringements, the words are clear, the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

  41. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    After comparing our CCW permits with two New Yorkers I met at the Nashville NRA meeting, I can say I’m glad I live in kentucky. They had to have every gun they own on the back of their permit cards.
    Freedom is going away in New York state.

  42. avatar Robert Philbrick says:

    Ongoing leftist clankery……old man should have had a THROW DOWN (kitchen knife)
    Dead skanks tell no tales.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email