Dad who pluggedprowler spurns deal

New York Daily News ^ | 4/08/03 | NANCIE L. KATZ

[kattracks]

A Navy veteran who shot an intruder in his toddler's bedroom decided against pleading guilty to a gun charge yesterday. Ronald Dixon rejected a deal that would have spared him from having to do jail time because he does not want a criminal record, his new attorney said.

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes initially charged Dixon, 27, with possessing an illegal weapon - an unregistered pistol - after he shot a career burglar he found prowling in his Canarsie home on Dec. 14.

Last month, Hynes reduced the charges to misdemeanor attempted weapon possession, which carries a maximum 90-day jail term. Hynes said he would only ask Dixon to serve four weekends in jail in exchange for a guilty plea.

Criminal Court Judge Alvin Yearwood changed that deal to a year's probation.

"After the people reduced the charges, this was put on for possible disposition," Yearwood told Dixon and his new attorney, Joseph Mure, yesterday. But the Jamaican immigrant declined the deal and left the courtroom without comment yesterday.

"That means he would have a criminal conviction, and that is a big concern to us," Mure said afterward.

Dixon gained widespread sympathy after he was charged with a crime. In a tearful interview, Dixon told the Daily News he could not afford to spend any time in jail because he was working seven days a week to support his family and pay his mortgage.

Originally published on April 8, 2003

[demosthenes the elder]

yeah, a round-trip to Atlanta and back, same flight, only enough time on the ground to refuel, but I'm sure I can get some sucker hereabouts to buy it from me for scalper's prices...

[sauropod]

A serious question. In the People's Republic of Maryland, we have a law that says one must "buckle up." It is a State law.

I view it as unconstitutional as it is an infringement on my liberty. I drive all the time w/o a seatbelt. A trivial example, but bear with me.

Similar arguments can be made about other nanny state rules and regulations. I choose to break some of those as well.

But there are consequences for breaking such laws. As a free man I accept the consequences. I expect to be able to argue the case in court. Usually the court does not allow you to do such a thing (overloaded docs).

I choose to live as a free man. Freedom scares people.

At what point does one do more than passively resist the Nanny State? What is the "tipping point?"

And, welcome to FR.

[sauropod]

Am glad to see you two smoke;em peace pipe ;-).

[Joe Hadenuf]

LOL! LOL!

[hellinahandcart]

Holy moly, AllSmiles got vaporized while I was reading the thread. Any clue as to which post did it?

But seriously, when I first heard about this incident I thought "well, maybe THIS will be the case that makes it all the way to the Supreme Court and gets these silly laws overturned here".

Maybe it will. The guy seems perfect for the starring role.

[jmc813]

Does anybody know if Mayor Bloomberg has commented on this case at all?

[SgtofMarines]

Thanks for the welcome.

I'm afraid that is a question that each man must answer for himself. It's a darn good one, too. My own personal take on most state "nanny" laws is that I disagree with them in principle, but I generally abide by them because I can find no Constitutional prohibition on states enacting such laws.

[demosthenes the elder]

whatwhatWHAT???
Admin "zotted" my b*tch?
where, when, how, why?
waaaaaahhhhh! I was enjoying the knuckleage!

[SERE_DOC]

You do not have any idea what you are talking about. He was in the process of registering his weapons and the "process" is too lengthy. He protected his family period, the DA not unlike you is a self serving moron. Drop trou and bend over as much as you like and you will be a statistic like the perp.

The best I can say to you is

It must suck to be you.

[Dead Corpse]

Actually, I don't know the guy, as he is fictitious. I'm just thinking that in his mind, he may not know that you are a fine, upstanding freeper. He may think that you got all your papers from the same guy that gave the terrorists their papers. He may even think that you are a terrorist!! Oh, and I forgot to mention that he may have lost an arm and a leg in VietNam, and can't protect himself, or he could be an 85yr old granny.

Odins beard... you couldn't have made that straw-man any more absurd, could you?

Fine. I'll play.

He is free to feel that I may be a terrorist. Despite having a military flat-top of sandy brown hair, mid-30's, blue eyes, 5'10" 260lbs with 52" chest and 20" arms. Not exaclty a good fit for a profile. Especially since I'm the type of guy who would ask him if he need help getting his carry-on onto the plane. As for being disabled, he still has one hand, he can still shoot. Firearms are awesome equalizers and at 86 years old and a vat, he's probably a stuborn old coot that can outshoot any of you namby-pamby bustards any day. His 84 year young wife next to him can probably still hoist her fathers old double-barrel ifn' she took a mind to.

Care to throw out another one?

FYI, I'm the type of guy who would see it as a compliment if a friend showed up at my house armed. It would mean that he would proudly help defend my home against lawlessness and is the type of guy who does not depend on others for his safety.

[toothless]

"Holy moly, AllSmiles got vaporized while I was reading the thread. Any clue as to which post did it? "

The one where he proposed killing people who are not as smart as him?

[demosthenes the elder]

wow, can't believe I didn't see it the first time...
"HE could be an 85yr old granny."
ah. yeah. sure. and if my granny had wheels she'd be a cart.

nice slapdown on the strawman argument, BTW...

[sauropod]

Nope. Not sure. I do not approve of banning him because he was arguing a point of view, however.

[Dead Corpse]

I aim to please. ;-)

Straw men are occassionally fun, if you have nothing better to do. I'm lucky I've got some time between tests today.

sometimes arguing situational ethics calls for them to nail down all the details, but this one was just goofy.

[stuartcr]

Even straw has it's uses...I guess you didn't see this one's.

[sauropod]

Even his posts are gone...

[Dead Corpse]

Yes. I did. You are arguing from a false premise. If you can't see it, then you weren't paying attention. My Rights do not dissapear because you are uncomfortable with me exercising them.

[SgtofMarines]

Tell that to AllSmiles... :)

[eno_]

It is if some state decides to allow that spectrum band to be used for something other than short-range telephone and permits a 50 KW transmitter on those frequencies.

In Europe they manage to have national sovereignty and continental standards. They didn't even have the kind of problems you posit before the Wall came down. The Republic was designed in part to be a monetary and trade zone. It would probably run better by devolving more policy choices but coordinating the technology aspects.

So in Europe some nations auctioned their 3G spectrum to the highest bidder, and some ran "beauty contests." Turns out the multi-billion dollar auctions were a bad idea. Diversity in these decisions is a good thing, and we could have it without any technology chaos, or maybe even less chaos that what we had with TDMA, iDEN, and all our other cellular funky technologies.

[demosthenes the elder]

dif'rence being, it was site admin what booted dat punk, not JBTs sent by da Guv. Private property, exercise of rights pertaining thereunto, and all that...