NY Liquor Store Owner, Manager Have Guns Seized After Dispute With Employee

judge gavel

Bigstock

One of the biggest objections gun owners have had against the proliferation of poorly crafted “red flag” confiscations laws is their potential for abuse by upset ex spouses, difficult neighbors, or anyone with whom a gun owner may find him or herself in a dispute.

A good illustration of the danger for this kind of abuse took place in a New York State courtroom this week where a judge has issued a final “temporary extreme risk protection order” against the owner of a Rome, New York liquor store and his son.

The confiscation order has resulted in the two men losing their 80 firearms for one year.

The confiscation order was issued after Dominick Lorenzoni posted a video taken by his daughter to Facebook. The video shows his daughter Kayla being fired by liquor store owner Michael DeShane and a verbal confrontation that took place with Michael’s son and store manager, Jason DeShane.

As the Democrat & Chronicle reports . . .

Rome police seized more than 80 firearms after the video was posted Feb. 14 by Dominick Lorenzoni, who said it was taken by his daughter Kayla while she spoke to her former boss, Michael Deshane, about an incident with his son the day before.

The younger Deshane walks in toward the end of the video, tells the employee to leave and launches into a profane rant, which includes a threat to “permanently end s— here” and what sounds like a mumbled death threat.

Here is the NSFW video the woman’s father posted to Facebook. The son comes into view and begins berating the woman at the 9:00 mark.

The elder DeShane was clearly calm and non-threatening during the exchange which took place in November of 2019. But in a subsequent police investigation, evidence of a dispute between father and son was discovered by police.

The video wasn’t the only issue raised in court. Rome police argued the order should be granted for Michael DeShane (the father) also because of a statement given by Jason DeShane in a November police report.

Officer Alexis Perry said she met with Jason DeShane around 9 p.m. on Nov. 30. She said they spoke for about an hour about a domestic dispute with his father a couple days prior.

According to the statement, which was read in court by MacRae, Michael DeShane told his son, “I’ll f—ing kill you.”

When police were questioned under oath as to why they didn’t arrest the elder DeShane regarding the threat, Officer Perry testified that “We didn’t have reasonable cause.”

Jason DeShane apparently also mentioned that his father was either holding a pistol at the time of the exchange or moved it on his desk. Exactly what happened isn’t clear.

Lorenzoni posted the video to Facebook on February 14. The “red flag” order was then issued and police confiscated the 80 firearms on February 19. Police obviously didn’t feel the need to seek a confiscation order when they investigated. It seems to have been the video that caused them to act.

Jason DeShane lived with his father and disputed some of the information in the police report.

The judge concluded even if Jason DeShane disputed that portion of the testimony, he did not deny sections indicating his father created a threat of violence.

“DeShane’s testimony and the supporting affidavit is that he feared for his life and he thought his father was going to kill him at a time when his father had a pistol in his possession,” MacCrae said.

(Michael DeShane’s attorney Nicholas) Passalacqua said they will appeal the decision.

“I’m a firm believer that they looked and said, ‘Well, he lives with dad, how do we bring dad in on this?’” he said. “And they happen to get lucky when they search and see that he was an involved individual in that domestic incident report.”

The order confirming the gun confiscation was issued in New York Supreme Court on Wednesday. Yesterday, the elder DeShane was found dead in his home.

Deputies said the death has been ruled “non-suspicious” and no one has been taken into custody.

An autopsy is pending.

Did any or all of what has been reported justify the gun confiscation order being issued against either the father or the son? You make the call.

comments

  1. avatar Prndll says:

    My call:
    Facebook is the problem here. If people would stay off Facebook/Twitter, there would be far fewer problems.

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      That much is true, should you be posting your firing video (or daughter’s) to Facebook if it wasn’t a public event, isn’t that like a hidden camera? If they threatened her shouldn’t she go to police directly rather than Facebook for judge, jury, and public shaming?

      Seems these two dudes were hotheaded and aggressive. Even so, removing they guns clearly doesn’t remove the risk of harm to the accused, the “victim”, or family. It just provides an easy way to snag the guns and leave the person, without a charge, and still access to plenty of other methods of causing harm. Red flag laws focus on guns for no particular reason other than they are supposed to be the solution to the domestic violence and mass killer problems because family can get the guns taken away, and supposedly, with no guns, no problem right?

  2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Red flag laws always serve the greater good, even when the actual casual linkages are unclear or even fraudulent. People who own guns should understand this and accept it’s ultimate logic that the fault always lies with the gun and it’s potential use. Therefore, people who own guns must understand that they are in a completely different category than people who don’t own guns. The practical reality in this is that people who don’t own guns are more free to make idle threats than people who do own guns. Clearly in a case like this one, the state’s need to protect its citizens from gun violence is more important than the rights of single individuals. If you don’t want to be red flagged you shouldn’t own guns. //sarc//

    1. avatar Fred says:

      Yet an innocent baby is murdered every 5 minutes in America .🤔. That’s ok ❓ It’s a woman’s body + what about the baby ❓

  3. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    I never expect to be red flagged. I try to maintain a low profile. I don’t threaten people. I’m damn sure not a threat to myself. Still. In these times it might not be a bad idea to keep a small battery off premises.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      Cache Well…Cache Often. Leave locations in Will. Tell No Other.

      1. avatar Mercury says:

        Implying that a gun grabber judge won’t subpoena your will and then have you charged with obstruction of justice for the cache(s)? I think we both know that’s exactly how that would go down. You’d probably get charged ex post facto for illegally owning the guns too.

    2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      It is better to expect the unexpected. I live in Wyoming and am a rural recluse that is always reserved if not polite even under verbal assault and I don’t take it for granted that I will not somehow have the equivalent of red flagging happen to me. The fickle finger of fate is just that.

    3. avatar Hush says:

      I believe in love, but you might want to own a gun just in case!

  4. avatar Chief funny talk says:

    Why were the sons guns seized when the dad was the one making threats?
    Kayla and her poppy are busy body’s. Stay the hell out of other people’s domestic squabbling; Mind your business.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Read the article.

      In November, just three months ago, the sun had stated to the police that his dad had said he was going to kill him. And he also said his dad was holding a gun at the time he said that, this is what the sun reported to the police of his own free will.

      Now in the second episode we have evidence of the son making a threat “which includes a threat to “permanently end s— here” and what sounds like a mumbled death threat.”

      The father had his guns taken because his son turned him in for making a death threat last November.

      The son had his guns taken because he was making death threats against the employee.

      It sounds like these two are hotheads and fools, I do question their ability to handle the great responsibility of owning lethal weapons.

      1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        But for the fact that they owned gun—a constitutional right—they could have continued mouthing-off at each other to their heart’s content and no one would have cared and absolutely nothing would have happened to them. Thanks to the impending threat of red-flag laws gun owners are forced to self-censorship. Red-flag laws make gun-owners 2nd class citizens. Which, of course, is their real intent. If you own guns you better watch your mouth bubba.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        to Miner49er
        Since when did Americans lose their civil rights because the spoke loudly at someone? Now I know you don’t support civil rights. Thanks for taking your mask off fascist.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Now don’t be silly, you know you are mischaracterizing the individuals’ speech.

          The father and son did not voice an unpopular opinion, they made specific terroristic threats to kill another citizen and had the means to do so in their immediate possession.

          Our elected representatives have passed all laws for bidding terroristic threatening, a quite reasonable step to provide for Public Safety.

          If you don’t like statutes against terroristic threatening, lobby your congressman or state legislature to repeal the laws.

          And calling me a fascist may give you an emotional true, but it could not be further from the truth. But I’ m glad to help you with your feelz.

  5. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Never warn people you’re going to off em…
    Why give them the chance to retaliate ?
    The laws would consider that a threat, today’s mostly
    P C courts are not your friend, on the other hand, if you’re a viscous felon, then the court is pretty much you’re
    best option to get a stern talking to before they let you go,,, (Liberal states anyone?)

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      The high-viscosity felons are the hardest to catch. Too slippery.

      1. avatar Rando says:

        I dispute your claim. A low-viscosity criminal would be hard to pin down. Conversely, a high-viscosity criminal would be more likely to get stuck.

        It is critical that you be able to rapidly assess how viscous a criminal is.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Oiy. You are correct, sir. What was I thinking? Syence is hard on Fridays. So is maff.

        2. avatar Frank Farkel says:

          Lets try velocity…..shall we?

  6. avatar MyPrettyAR15 says:

    Okay it was a workplace dispute and a disgruntled employee. However the younger Deshane has the manner and tact of an alligator showing the later stages of rabies. In a workplace setting it’s even more important to not lose one’s cool and act professionally. Now the father is dead and the young guy is going to end up with nothing to show for it other than a big mouth. I’m not saying what the cops did in seizing the guns is right because it was an extreme over reaction. No one was ever threatened in that video. No one would be talking about the story today if the younger guy could, I don’t know, let’s call it act like a human being. I mean he obviously had some hand in hiring this woman, he should have thought it through before exploding with rage, especially in a workplace setting. Sadly a lot of lives ruined by some kind of zealous zero tolerance policy.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Clearly, the son is a aggressive nut who shouldn’t be owning weapons. He did indeed, on tape, threaten to kill the employee.

      And dad had he was going to take it because this very same son had turned him into the police back in November, stating that he threatened to kill him while holding a gun in his hand.

      I’m guessing that the police realizes that time that the sun was a hothead and didn’t take dad’s guns. But once they came back in after seeing this video it was clear that they needed to get all the guns out of that household before something bad happened.

      This would be a very bad case for the POTG to take up as a violation of rights. There was a hearing, before a judge, with evidence presented and witness statements. The parties were represented by competent attorneys and the matter was resolved under the statutes applicable in the state.

      1. avatar Rando says:

        I hope it didn’t take this video for the police to realize just how heated the sun is.

      2. avatar MyPrettyAR15 says:

        If the guy had said “I’m going to run you over with my car” would there be a red flag case to take away his car? No? Didn’t think so.

        People say stupid things, online and in real life. We shouldn’t be penalizing people so heavily based on their words. There was no imminent danger here. If we can’t right this as you say then we’re going to keep lowering and lowering the bar for what constitutes a red flag until jay walking is considered a red-flaggable offense.

        There are 2 civil rights involved here, freedom of speech and right to keep and bear arms. They are not intended to be either/or but complimentary. I think the guy is a hot head with the intellectual prowess of low lands gorilla and should maybe have had a different career. Should he have lost his guns over it? I don’t think so. But that’s me.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Correct the 1st Amendment. But times have changed haven’t they? George Carlin would be in jail and his 7 Dirty Words would be erased.

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          The son is a loose cannon. Period. I didn’t see dad in the earlier incident but he was nothing but calm here. I would have fired the son and walked him off the property the moment he walked in and started swearing and pointing fingers in my store.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          In most jurisdictions, if you’re behind the wheel screaming and yelling and shout that you are going to run over someone while reving the engine, you will be charged with terroristic threats.

          Maybe you should research the concept of ‘fighting words’, and I understand their relationship to terroristic threatening statutes.

  7. avatar Roger J says:

    The politicians who write these stupid laws do not care in the least that they are abused by the public or government officials. They can go before the public and say they ‘did something’ and those who are abused will have to live with the minor inconvenience.

  8. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    A number of lessons to be learned here:

    1) Avoid Facebook and related social media sites altogether. Why so many people feel the need to vomit up personal and/or incriminating information for the world to see is beyond my comprehension.

    2) Practice self discipline. There is no need to engage in vulgarity-laced rants to get your point across in a conversation, whether toward a family member, a neighbor, or an employee. This is one of the things that separates a man from a boy (or in today’s society, an overgrown man-child).

    3) How did anyone arrive at the quantity of “80” firearms? All or most of them must have been registered and stored together, else how would the police have known about them? Always keep anything and everything you can private and off the grid, and split up your inventory of all guns, ammo, and parts into at least two separate locations.

    Basic stuff, but not everyone follows the same strategy.

    1. avatar Miles says:

      …”How did anyone arrive at the quantity of “80” firearms? All or most of them must have been registered and stored together, else how would the police have known about them?”…

      Look up New York firearm laws. S 700.00, S 265.01
      Yep. All handguns are registered in that state and a permit is required to buy one.

      And since most people are known to keep all their guns in their houses, I’d bet the police did a complete search of the house to get all the guns.

  9. avatar George WashingtonGl says:

    Yeah…. he wouldn’t have gotten that second f- word outta his filthy mouth if he was talking to me like that…
    I don’t see why the father lost his weapons though…. THAT PART IS BS….. THE OLD MAN NEVER THREATENED ANYBODY….
    That pos though, he deserves to NEVER get his guns back…. he’s a self righteous pos and needs anger management

    1. avatar George WashingtonGl says:

      And ABSOLUTELY he threatened to kill her…. then came back and said he wasn’t kidding….
      I’m not sure what planet everyone else lives on, but that punk mfer needs an attitude adjustment…

    2. avatar Delta795 says:

      Correction:
      The old man never threatened anyone _in the video_ but he was the subject of a domestic call to the police made by the son claiming that the old man made a veiled threat of some kind referring to a gun either in his hand or close at hand. It is quite a stretch but it does give the judge an opening to include him, too.

    3. avatar Miner49er says:

      Read the article, the son had reported his own father to the police in November, stating that his father had threatened to kill him while holding a gun.

      It’s gun owners like these that give law-abiding, reasonable gun owners a bad rep.

    4. avatar RidgeRunner says:

      Agree the son is a POS; he probably learned it in childhood from his Dad, now the son has hand and he’s giving back as good as he ever got. Son needs an attitude adjustment in the worst possible way. Talks tough around a female, needs a good Tennessee ass whuppin (with apologies to DriveBy Truckers)

  10. avatar Delta795 says:

    Are these two the best example of issues “red flag” laws can cause? They (the son in particular) are their own worst enemies here. If they are going to throw hyperbolic insults around at the drop of a hat and allow themselves to be recorded doing it to boot, it’s hard to muster up a lot of sympathy for them.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      IMO the biggest problem with many of the infringements that have been enacted are that they’re generally applied to assholes like this guy’s son or people accused of domestic violence. We should fight all infringements but it really does take the pep out of the step to think of defending those guys. Meanwhile the anti-rights people keep nibbling.

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    Never air your dirty laundry in public…or threaten death in private. OR not have a private stash for yer gat’s!

  12. avatar enuf says:

    Do not threaten people. Not members of your own family, not employees, not anybody. If you do, expect bad shit to happen to you.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      I agree. See you can make sense when you have the tds under control.

  13. avatar Randy Jones says:

    Here’s the thing. If either person truly believes the other person means the death threat and has the capability to carry out the death threat, that could be considered Terroristic Threats, that is enough to get the person which made the threats arrested. Then a Grand Jury can decide if the threats are credible and it can proceed to trial. That’s a 1 to 10 felony in most states. A felony would allow for the firearms to be surrendered or sold.

    Depending on the State, only one side may required knowledge of the recording being made, other states require both parties knowing their is a tape being made (unless there is a court order).

    both people seem to be a little bit of a hot head, the son does for sure. If he was in a place of authority, I believe she could say it was a hostile workplace. The elder began using foul language toward the end. I also do not doubt there was more conflict between the so and the employee prior to the blow up and it seems odd, if she wanted to end the conflict that she would go back in knowing the son would be there and probably not be happy about her talking with the father. The ‘hidden camera does help, but it shows only one side, because she no doubt prepared for this event.

    As they say, there are three side to every story. Hers. his and the truth, which is usually somewhere in between.

  14. avatar George from Alaska says:

    Too much time and type wasted on this hotheads in NY story.
    Practice acting and speaking to people at all times as if you are being recorded. I worked in public safety for years, mostly fire/EMS but some police and that’s how we were trained by the City attorneys in Alaska.

  15. avatar possum says:

    Seized eighty gunms. This is why I don’t put all my eggs. In one basket.

  16. avatar Crabbyoldguy says:

    Prosecutors couldn’t convict back in November or ever. Instead, the red flag allows punishment to be served without a conviction. Does anyone believe the son or remaining family will inherit the confiscated firearms after the year is up?

  17. avatar Gliderguy says:

    So as best as I can tell – LIVES SAVED BY RED FLAG LAWS = -1.

  18. avatar Jason should lose his guns says:

    Sounds like Jason is a real bad apple, throwing Dad under the bus and threatening an ex employee with a reasonable interpretation of violence.

  19. avatar Truckman says:

    because of this stuped young woman and her dad the old man is dead no matter how he died, it is their fault for starting this crap she was fired and went back to try and cause trouble and it ended up costing this man his life

  20. avatar SurfGW says:

    2 probabilities:
    1) they will NEVER get their 80 guns back
    2) this case will be used to reinforce the usefulness of Red Flag laws since the owner and son made death threats and clearly had access to weapons. In a court, that is both means and intent.
    Hope people forget this quickly.

  21. “Red Flag Laws” are bogus Anti-2nd ,4th ,6th amendment leverage to circumvent a U.S. Citizens civil rights…They should be immediately rejected and any government agency that engages in such practice should be held fully responsible for Deprivation/Surpression of Constitutional Rights under color of Law…(P/Os go prison…Agency and local governments suffer fines and compensatory dispensation…Which should be PRO rated at NOT less than 250k $$$$$$$ per event…)

  22. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    Rome Sentinal article has it correct:

    “enough to warrant a Red Flag Law violation, a new law designed to keep firearms out of the hands of people deemed possibly dangerous to themselves or others”

    The laws are intended to take guns from anyone “possibly dangerous”, not probably or likely, but “possibly”, ragardless of what their promoters may claim when trying to get these atrocities past the legislature.

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