Posted on 04/08/2003 5:57:45 AM PDT by 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
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.
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
Yeah....you wouldn't be here.
And those supporting him
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....
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.