Dad who pluggedprowler spurns deal

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

[Iron Eagle]

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.

That would sure cut down on the posters flaming you. Hell, why raise the bar so high. Drop it to 110 and you will still be close to alone in here.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Why? In your idea of a free country does everyone just do whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it?

As long as they don't bother anybody else, what is wrong with that? A man has a right not to accosted by criminals in his home. A criminal that comes into my home is going out feet first.

Walt

[HairOfTheDog]

It is bizarre to me that the prosecutor is pushing these piddly (to them) charges against this man. The benefit to the safety of anyone to come from this man's short imprisonment is nonexistant, and the consequences to this family of a criminal conviction and lost income is enormous.

[nobdysfool]

Well, as long as we're making up laws, why shouldn't I enforce the "no morons" law? Look how much shorter this thread would be.

Yeah....you wouldn't be here.

[toothless]

How does black shoepolish taste?

[stuartcr]

Thanks

[stuartcr]

Thanks

[Nov3]

That would sure cut down on the posters flaming you.

And those supporting him

[nobdysfool]

I've spent more than 50 years in NYC.

It shows, dude, it shows...

This may be hard for you to grasp, but there are other places in this country where people ARE actually free...NYC ain't one of 'em. Maybe you should get out more....

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

See here, AllSmiles, your point that the law is important and can't just be broken with abandon is well-taken. It's just that so many of us here are not OF NEW YORKER QUALITY quality that we have a hard time identifying with certain of the laws in the Empire State. Thank God we can vote with our feet.

[Iron Eagle]

Don't know, I'll ask the guy who buffs my wing-tips. Once they get out of this thread and back to work! LOL

[Critter]

In your view, the average person should interpret the Bill of Rights on his own

Therein lies your problem. You actually believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights need interpretting. They do not. They are written in plain english. If they were written in chinese or legalese they may need to be interpretted, but the authors, thank goodness, wrote them so that no interpretation is necessary. They say what they mean, and mean what they say, unlike most Marxists.

[algol]

he's been talking about reducing the charges to a level that no longer warrants a jury trial under the law. He's afraif a jury will let Dixon walk, but thinks a judge will sentence him.

Isn't Dixon entitled to demand a trial by jury, no matter how trivial the case? I suppose a judge could deny that request, but that looks like automatic grounds for appeal.

(Just asking.)

[Smedley]

I see! That's brilliant. So in your opinion, each of us should decide which laws are stupid and disregard them. Right? Or are you the only one who knows which laws are stupid? Which laws that carry serious penalties for breaking them do you break?

Actually, disregarding STUPID laws is done all the time. Sometimes the government goes too far and sometimes it is the job of the citizen to let the government know it. I ignore the local gun laws and would shoot an intruder in my house when the law says I must retreat from my own house.

God bless this man. Ignoring a stupid gun law probably saved his child's life.

[Hodar]

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

My,my my ... such nastiness. Before flaming, please take the time to think; it saves bandwidth and prevents you from looking like a fool.

In case you were asleep in American History, and Gov't classes, I'll give you a free refresher. A law that is questionable is CHALLENGED as to it's counstitutionality. Not ignored. Once a law is CHALLENGED and found to be wrong, it is removed from the books. There is a proceedure to this. We all agree that the law, as written is not working. You are championing the choatic proceedure of ignoring laws you don't like. That's not how things are done in a Democracy.

[toothless]

"That's not how things are done in a Democracy."

How exactly do you challenge a law without breaking it?

[Leatherneck_MT]

Our Constitution gaurantees the rights of the Citizens to Keep and Bear arms. To hell with this licensing crap. Ignore the law, break the law if necessary and force them in that respect to CHANGE the law.

Free men (not Freemen) own weapons.
Slaves do not

Semper Fi

[Critter]

Some local freeper ought to do a thread to Freep the Mayor or DA in this area.....

If the NY chapter wants to get something started, outside this DA's house one upcoming weekend, I'll do anything I can to help.

[Zon]

The consensus of opinion here is that if an individual doesn't like the law, he should simply violate it, right?

You are absolutely wrong. What you said is all your rhetoric. Not one person on this thread has even remotely implied that if the burglar didn't like the law that he should simply violate it. On the other hand, staring at a burglar in ones own home it is utterly stupid to aide by any law that would facilitate the burglar in following through with his crime in progress -- which could include the burglar killing one or more of the family members.

[Oberon]

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?

If he and the other citizens of that state allow this law to stand, if a message isn't sent to the powers that be, the next person to pay might pay with a toddler's life.

For that matter, how many have already paid that price?