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]

beware of hindsight: not only is it NOT always 20-20, it sometimes sees things through a distinctly rosy haze.
Case in point: There are those strange creatures who question the wisdom of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[demosthenes the elder]

speaking of axes... how and where did roscoe pee in your cereal to produce such weary and tested animus in you?

[Dead Corpse]

On a couple years worth of these very same threads. Same arguments from him time after time. He's a small time California paper shuffler with delusions of legal competence.

He's also never met a law he thought was unjust or unConstitutional. Any action voted on by a legislature is automaticly good law in his eyes.

Talk with him a while. You'll see what I mean.

[SgtofMarines]

I certainly understand that not everybody reads the Second Amendment in the same way. This entire thread, and many others, can attest to this fact. Allow me to re-post it here for reference:

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.

While you devote much of your post to the definition of the word "militia," I believe it to be one of the less significant words in the amendment. I find the word "people" to have much greater impact when attempting to discern the true nature of the Second Amendment. The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the insistent, declatory portion of the amendment. I feel that the "Militia" phrase should not be construed as a modifier for the command that follows.

The word that we really must explicitly define is "people." Does "people" refer solely to the militia (well-regulated or not, whomever they may be), or does the word "people" refer to all the people, as it does in the First Amendment? I choose the latter.

I too, feel that rights are not absolute. And indeed, I think that you will find very few people who would argue that felons and sociopaths are deserving of firearm ownership. I further believe that just because I have a firearm on my person, I am not automatically entitled to threaten your well-being with it. This in and of itself demonstrates acceptance of the belief that not all rights are absolute. My carrying of a weapon, however, in no way constitutes a threat to anyone else, unless I first am assaulted.

Now, as to permits, background checks, etc.... You are right insofar as the burden is on the Government. If they cannot prove you are unfit (instant background check), then (IMO) you have the right to carry - no ifs, ands, or buts. As you said, the issue is certainly arguable, or there wouldn't be so much fuss about it.

[Zon]

I am very mindful of hindsight. Is there something in my post that you think is not honest or respectful of individual rights? I ask because honesty is key. That we have the government we have that has gone so far off course from the one the founders created is a product of irrationality and dishonesty. Changing the laws via the "system" is almost completely useless. Politicians create dozens of unconstitutional laws before even considering repealing an unconstitutional law. That is not a system -- it's a cluster fu*k of deception irrationality, fraud and abuse.

[Dead Corpse]

A well regulated breakfast, being necessary to a balanced diet, the right of the people to keep and bear milk, shall not be infringed.

Makes perfect sense to me either way.

[Dead Corpse]

Some see the imposition of the background check as an infringement of their privacy, or to put that another way... theft of your personal information. Others see it as an accusation to which no other proof from the accuser is required, but that the accused must prove himself innocent. A complete reversal of our "innocent until proven guilty" basis for our criminal justice proceedings.

[SgtofMarines]

No, wait... does that mean I can only have milk with breakfast? And a balanced one, at that?

[Zon]

LOL!!

That's a good one. :)

[demosthenes the elder]

Oh, I don't disagree with you that our present government is a bastardized socialized perversion of the Constitutional Republic it was founded to be.
I do not disagree that the Constitution needs to be translated into modern English - VERY carefully.
I just urge caution about hindsight, and its application to correct the founders' "mistakes"

[Dead Corpse]

Point of contention. Rights, by definition, ARE absolute.

However, any consequences stemming from the exercise of those Rights is entirely the actors burden to answer for.

You do, quite literally, have a right to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater. But only if there is a fire. If there isn't, you owe everyone in the theater the price of a new ticket as well as compensation for any damages done by panic.

[demosthenes the elder]

Talk with him a while. You'll see what I mean. no thank you. I am human. One of the lovely things about being human is the ability to learn from the mistakes of others ;)

[Dead Corpse]

Sorry Sarge, I was only trying to point out the logic of the sentance structure.

I'm sure bagels and orange juice would not fall under current FDA Fat Control Laws. "You can have my juicer when you pry it from my cold dead fingers".

[tpaine]

how and where did roscoe pee in your cereal to produce such weary and tested animus in you?
-dte-


Roscoe has been 'peeing' on our free republics basic principles since his first post, years ago.
He's FR's foremost juvenile gameplayer, whose only true agenda is disruption.

[Dead Corpse]

Yes. But one should always judge for ones self as well. Who knows, you may be the one person who could finally get through to him.

I can always hope can't I?

[Zon]

I mentioned that the founders made mistakes just to get it out that the constitution they authored wasn't the end-all-be-all. The Point is that it can be improved. But only only by applying fully integrated honesty will it be an actual/real improvement for all people.

[demosthenes the elder]

yes, but please do not hold your breath. his opening comments on this thread irked me a bit.
I tend to rub raw rather readily.

[SgtofMarines]

On the background check: I can see why some would feel that way. I, for one, would concede this reltively minor intrusion to ensure that those devoid of some civil rights, i.e. rapists and thugs on parole who received too light a sentence in the first place, are not back on the block with a "nine" in their pocket - until something better is in place.

On rights: I agree with the principle that rights are absolute by definition. I worded my post poorly in an attempt to get it out in a timely manner. I believe that society should exact a toll from those who abuse their rights, and it should be expected.

[algol]

Very few things, like environmental regulation, telecom, spectrum, highways, etc. would get even incrementally more chaotic if more responsibility was devolved to the states.

I'm inclined to small-l libertarian myself, but I grew up in Canada. With the example of Quebec perversely doing everything its own, different, way wherever it could, I'm a little wary of the assumption you make.

On the other hand, Quebec is French, which goes a long way to explaining it.

[demosthenes the elder]

bad storms rolling in. must go offline NOW
please keep discussing - I'll be back when able