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

[Nov3]

This fellow broke the law. He made a conscious decision to do so. Now it's time to pay the piper. Pay like a man. It was worth shooting the intruder, wasn't it?

We need to segregate the losers who don't understand the constitution is to states like New York. Maybe John Carpenter's vision wasn't fiction?

[from occupied ga]

Not if the prosecutor can find 12 nincompoops like 'Allsmiles'.

And that won't be hard in NYC. The vast majority of the serfs there think just like he does or even further to the left - otherwise who caould anyone explain their electing Hitlary and upChuck to the senate?

[ninenot]

but I also don't want unregistered guns in the hands of gang members and lunatics.

Sorry to advise you that your wishes will not be heeded.

MY two cents worth on the rest of your post: you are a weenie.

[nobdysfool]

Look, here in NY we have laws which govern who may and who may not own a handgun. I believe those laws are restrictive and definitely "infringe" upon my right to keep and bear arms. But I wanted a handgun so I complied with the law while voting for political candidates who agree that these laws are too harsh.

The real issue here is this stupid idea that if they can just pass enough laws, criminals won't be able to get guns. They miss the most obvious: criminals don't have respect for laws, ANY law! Criminals by definition do respect or obey the law. Thinkng that laws will prevent criminals from owning guns only serves to disarm law-abiding citizens. the old saying is true: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Maybe that's too simple for the Leftist, the-State-is-my-god, Communist weenies to understand.

Unfortunately, when you just go ahead and comply with stupid laws, you only perpetuate them.

[toothless]

You lick more polish off the jackboot with every reply.

[Zon]

Sounds like consultants as well LOL

Speaking of consultants and politics, consultants create tons of reports and research for politicians and bureaucrats at the request of politicians and bureaucrats. The consultants know what politicians and bureaucrats want and if the consultant wants future work he or she will cater to the politicians and bureaucrats political agenda. Those consultants that have failed character development akin to the politicians and bureaucrats that hire them. That's why they're rightfully labeled parasitical elite -- integrity and honest character don't matter. The illusion of integrity and honesty is everything to them. Thus, in reality they can be swiftly collapsed like a house of cards because the maintain their positions based on the public not revealing and exposing the illusion for what it is.

[Henchman]

Omitted from the story was that Ronald Dixon legally purchased and registerd as required, the firearm in the state he left. He also applied for a permit in NYC.

As a former LE in NYC, I KNOW the City permitted "Target Licenses" with the weapon to be stored on a designated premises and "carry" was to be to an from the range, with certain requirements. I KNOW that those LAUNDERING DRUG MONEY HAD SUCHPERMITS. Prove if they were enroute to a range! Was it really tARGET SHOOTING, OR PROTECTING DRUG MONEY?

So, Ronald Dixon, was denied a pistol permit that others use to protect ill gotten gains?

As long as Ronald Dixon was a legal immigrant, I have no problem with him. If he entered illegally, nail him to the wall.

[ninenot]

Your collective take on the situation has an underlying premise which is faulty--that premise being that "law is inherently correct" by virtue of the fact that it is a law.

Well, slavery was legal, too. Abortion is legal now. Much of what Hitler's regime did was sanctioned by German law.

So cling to your belief that law, once written, is perfectly good. You'd make great bureaucratic drones.

[sauropod]

Just like Maryland.

[ninenot]

Stupid laws should be disregarded. Unconstitutional laws should be broken.

Summed more accurately in post 19 of Terrell.

Laws against common morals are to be broken.

It is common morality that self-defense (properly understood) is an INALIENABLE RIGHT. That's what the 2ndA was written about.

[ninenot]

OK, I'll take you up on that.

In Wisconsin, it is against the law to carry a loaded weapon in your vehicle. "Loaded" means that the magazine has rounds and is inserted.

I do it every day.

[ninenot]

It is rather significant that the presiding judge--who understands politics---has offered just probation, no jail-time, to the defendant. He knows what will happen if it goes to a jury-nullification situation, and the consequences for the rest of the NYC laws on the topic.

[stuartcr]

What I was getting at is if I were to move to Brooklyn, or even NY state, with my pistol, bought legally in another state, am I required to register it? If I didn't, is it an illegal weapon?

[nobdysfool]

So you decide which laws are stupid and you feel free to violate them. Right? Should everyone do that because if so, I have long felt that people with IQs below 130 should be put down for the general good.

Remind me to never come to New York, if that's the way you feel. OTOH, since my IQ is above your threshhold, I guess you're not getting rid of me that easily.

That is a stupid, thoughtless statement, and you damn well that's not what I meant. The mindset you employ is that while it's a stupid law, it's not my problem, so I'll just be a good little sheep and comply with it, and let someone else deal with getting it changed.

People with IQ's below 130 should be put down for the general good? You, sir, could not possibly have an IQ above that level and make such an assinine statement. That remark places your IQ somewhere in the lower 2 digit range.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

This IS just a rhetorical jest, isn't it? Surely you aren't elitist regarding intelligence? Please say it isn't so!