N.Y. neighbor charged in convicted felon's ambush of firefighters
By The Associated Press
Published: Friday, Dec. 28, 2012, 8:02 p.m.
WEBSTER, N.Y. — The neighbor of a convicted felon who ambushed firefighters on Christmas Eve, killing two, bought the guns for him and lied to the seller, knowing that he was not allowed to have them, authorities said Friday.
William Spengler had picked out the semiautomatic rifle and shotgun used in the ambush and went to the sporting goods store with the neighbor when she bought them for him, U.S. Attorney William Hochul said.
The neighbor, Dawn Nguyen of Rochester, was arrested on Friday. She faces a federal charge of knowingly making a false statement for signing a form indicating that she would be the legal owner of the guns, Hochul said.
She also was charged with a state count of filing a falsified business record, state police senior investigator James Newell said.
Shortly before her arrest, Nguyen said she did not want to talk about Spengler. A number listed in the name of her lawyer, David Palmiere, was disconnected.
The charges stem from the purchase of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun that Spengler had with him Monday when firefighters Michael Chiapperini and Tomasz Kaczowka were gunned down. Three other people were wounded before Spengler, 62, killed himself. He also had a .38-caliber revolver, but Nguyen is not connected to that gun, Newell said.
Late Monday, Nguyen told police that she had bought the guns for personal protection and that they were stolen from her vehicle, though she never reported the theft.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- California man named as bitcoin creator denies involvement
- El Nino could bring relief to U.S.
- Traffic cameras rejected in Ohio ruling
- Health marketplace targets not signing up, survey shows
- 5 more Duke Energy plants cited
- United sizes up overstuffed carry-ons
- Estranged wife accuses congressman of shoving her
- Veterans take battle over cross right to high court
- Former National Security Agency contractor Snowden’s leaks to cost billions, take years to fix
- Holocaust survivor sues Germany in looted art claim
- Too few pilots or too little pay?