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

[NorthGA]

"I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I also don't want unregistered guns ..."

Then never move to the south. We have no registration of guns here. Many people are armed; the police assume you are armed when they stop you or you have a car wreck.

One policeman got upset with a lady in our church after she had an accident. She was removing items from her car before the wrecker towed it away, and he mentioned "don't forget your pistol." When she said she did not have one, he got upset and said "what do you mean not having a pistol? Every woman who travels by herself should have a pistol." This not too long ago, but before Tennessee had the concealed carry permits they now have.

I am very happy that I live in a part of the country that thinks more people having guns is a good thing.

[sauropod]

I do not agree with downloading for free something that has a cost attached to it.

However, I am no fan of the RIAA. Weren't they behind the big uproar over the DAT recorders a few years back? I like to make "compilation tapes" so I do not have to switch from CD to CD to listen to what I want to listen to.

No friggin' union should be able to limit my ability to do so.

[stuartcr]

There are lots of ways to subdue large people in small spaces that do not require a handgun, but we won't go there either. While we agree there were no aircraft in 1792, the constitution does give the fed govt the ability to form organizations like the FAA to set guidelines for flight. After 9/11, do you think that any airline that wanted to turn a profit, would allow passengers to bring handguns on-board? I have dealt with crazies the world over, and the kind of people that will fly an airplane into a building, will not be deterred by the thought that a passenger MAY have a gun.

[stuartcr]

Do you honestly believe that after 9/11, any airline is going to allow handguns on passengers?

[wcbtinman]

"Well he DID break the law, apparently..."

If the law in question is un-Constitutional, and I believe this one is, it has no effect, and is null and void.

See Marbury vs Madison.

[demosthenes the elder]

sigh... still that stupid goofy "gay bar' punk song.
and on the parent site (http://www.rathergood.com/) there is no sign of the immigrant song VK video...
what a damn shame.

[harpseal]

My solution is to simply avoid new York City whenever possible. where is the tipping point? That I can not answer but had Al Gore won the election and we faced Dem majorities in the House and Senate we surely would have found the answer to that question.

[tpaine]

I think the underlying question is: What defines a "substantial arbitrary imposition" or "purposeless restraint"?
-sgt-

Common sense.
Infringments on our liberties as outlined in our constitution are fairly obvious to most of us.

Those who quibble on technicalities, have other, - imo usually anticonstitutional, -- political agendas.

[Dead Corpse]

While we agree there were no aircraft in 1792, the constitution does give the fed govt the ability to form organizations like the FAA to set guidelines for flight.

No. It doesn't. Please provide Article and Section that authorizes the government regulatory power over airlines.

After 9/11, do you think that any airline that wanted to turn a profit, would allow passengers to bring handguns on-board?

It could also be argued that the reason so few people are currently flying is that no one feels safe in the air. Some of us are actively boycotting the airlines UNTIL they change their tune on CCW.

I have dealt with crazies the world over, and the kind of people that will fly an airplane into a building, will not be deterred by the thought that a passenger MAY have a gun.

Tell that to the Isreali's. Also, we stopped the carry of firearms by pilots and Air Marshal not too long ago as we had never had an incident of terrorist hijacking. That has changed. So should the federal imposition of regulations on the airlines in this matter. Law-abiding citzens with firearms are more of a deterrent to criminals than you are giving them credit for. Even a "crazy" wouldn't attack a police station. Ever wonder why? Don't think too hard now...

[Dead Corpse]

Do you honestly believe that after 9/11, any airline is going to allow handguns on passengers?

If passangers had their firearms on them, those terrorists would have looked awefully stupid with their boxcutters.

[demosthenes the elder]

interesting angle. I confess to largely ignoring the recent amendments. I see I shall have to look into them after all.

[demosthenes the elder]

well, there IS the crux.
acc. to my brother - a (former) lawyer - the law IN PRACTISE means what the judge says it means.

[SgtofMarines]

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I think that law based on "common sense" is by nature difficult to document. Each man still must decide for himself whether or not any given imposition is substantial, arbitrary, and/or purposeless. Since we will all invariably arrive at different conclusions, it is up to the courts to determine whose definition the general public is expected to follow.

[demosthenes the elder]

A friend of mine (Iranian, btw) pointed out to me shortly after 9/11 that had someone like me been on board the plane that turfed in PA, the passenger revolt might have been more thoroughly successful.
Like me? Oh - always have a 3.5" folder on my hip, always wear steel-toed boots, am a trained knife fighter, and don't really care too much about cuts and bruises. Before 9/11 I always had my knife on my hip when I boarded planes - it was legal back then.

[no-s]

I wonder if the steel-toe boots are still acceptable? "Safety Boots"....

[SgtofMarines]

acc. to my brother - a (former) lawyer - the law IN PRACTISE means what the judge says it means.

I agree with your brother. It all goes back to the "I know it when I see it" argument.

[demosthenes the elder]

mine would probably get me strip-searched, since they are "combat" boots.

[tpaine]

Recent? -- The 14th dates from 1868, and was passed primarily because the south was taking guns away from freed slaves.

[stuartcr]

The power that is granted to the president through ArtII, Sect 2 of the constitution, and that of Art I, the legislative branch, gives the president and congress the power to bring into effect organizations like the DOT. The Department of Transportation, a cabinet-level executive department of the United States government, has, within it's realm the FAA. You must not have been to many major airports lately, they are all still very busy, worldwide, (with the exception of a few choice locales). El Al is an exception to the rule, but even they do not allow munitions in carry-on luggage. By the way, how do you tell that the guy behind you, carrying, is not a crazy? Does suicide mission ring a bell?

[stuartcr]

My guess, is that they would have had guns too, instead of boxcutters.