Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dad who pluggedprowler spurns deal
New York Daily News ^ | 4/08/03 | NANCIE L. KATZ

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


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 1,141-1,149 next last
To: Critter
The Constitution being the supreme law of the land, all laws repugnant to it are null and void.

Fine, we live in a Counsitutional Republic. And please feel free to break every single law you feel is against the counstitution. The Counstitution doesn't say a thing about a speed limit, or DUI. Knock youself out. Hopefully, the DA will chose to ignore those laws you break when they pertain to you. As for me, I'll follow the laws; and when the law and I run into a conflict, I'll work to change the law within the confines of the established court system.

201 posted on 04/08/2003 8:44:12 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: AllSmiles
Stupid laws should be disregarded, as they are every single day by millions of people.
202 posted on 04/08/2003 8:44:40 AM PDT by BJungNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
It doesn't take a liar, I mean lawyer to understand the 2nd amendment. The 5th column may have made you believe it does, but that doesn't make it so.

The DA, being educated in law, should be the first to see the violation. He does (correct me if I'm wrong) take an oath to uphold the Constitution, so prosecuting a case based on an unconstitutional law is a violation of that oath. If he is not expected to understand the meaning of the Constitution, why is he asked to take that oath?

The supreme court has not directly taken on the issue, so it stands to reason that he has to use his judgement. His judgement HAS to be based on the simple wording of the 2nd and not on some contrived, leftist "interpretation" which the 2nd does not need. It is written in simple english, no interpretation necessary.

203 posted on 04/08/2003 8:44:45 AM PDT by Critter (Going back to sleep til the next revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Hynes said he would only ask Dixon to serve four weekends in jail in exchange for a guilty plea.

What that tells me is that the DA is looking for a quick resolution to the case. He doesn't want to prosecute it because he knows that a jury would be sympathetic to a guy just trying to protect his child -- and that's exactly how a defense attorney would present it. He feared for his life -- or his child. Either way, he wins. He was smart to spurn the deal. Let the DA do the heavy lifting -- and lose.
204 posted on 04/08/2003 8:45:32 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
He was worried about impurifying our precious bodily fluids!
205 posted on 04/08/2003 8:45:49 AM PDT by Nov3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Well minds think alike. :)
206 posted on 04/08/2003 8:46:41 AM PDT by Critter (Going back to sleep til the next revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
well...
THIS damnyankee (and his parents, for that matter) settled in the South (Quitman, GA) because he likes the lack of such socialistic legal folderol.
But you are sooooo right: Far too many carpetbaggers come down and try to drag their socialist baggage with 'em.

(Joke I heard recently: How are damnyankees like hemmorhoids? Once they come down they never go back up!)
207 posted on 04/08/2003 8:47:12 AM PDT by demosthenes the elder (The Jesuits TRAINED me - they didn't TAME me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: demosthenes the elder
As you were. I don't need the hassle of the resultant investigation.
208 posted on 04/08/2003 8:47:12 AM PDT by SgtofMarines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: SgtofMarines
BUY ME A TICKET.
I have nothing better to do right now.
209 posted on 04/08/2003 8:47:55 AM PDT by demosthenes the elder (The Jesuits TRAINED me - they didn't TAME me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Critter
But the DA also took an oath to uphold the law. We all agree that the law, in it's present form is (seriously) flawed. I think it's intention is good (account for gun in the hands of gangs, felons, and assorted crimials) and the punishment phase is a good thing (if found where they are forbidden, make them pay). But, when a person who has no reason to be denied a weapon (ie without criminal conviction) has a weapon in his home (ie home protection) an exclusion clause should kick in. Whether the exclusion clause is 'self defense', 'protection of property', or something else is a matter for the courts to decide.

I do hope the counstitutionality of this law is challenged, as it appears grievously violated in this case.

210 posted on 04/08/2003 8:50:32 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Bad idea. There are already entirely too many people with Allsmiles' attitude who leave NY, NJ, and MA because their socialist ideas and socialist politicians have screwed up the economy

Good point. I had to spend 4 weeks working in Rochester, NY recently, and I was amazed at what a depressing place it was. I walked out of a Cracker Barrel restaurant because they didn't have a smoking section, despite having a big smoky fireplace in the dining room. I was very glad I didn't live in the Peoples' Democratic Republic of New York....

211 posted on 04/08/2003 8:51:13 AM PDT by nobdysfool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan
About stupid laws... "I don't want to hear this from anyone unless they've demonstrated their commitment to this principle by trying to board a domestic flight while carrying a firearm. Let me know how it works out..." I hate repeating myself.
212 posted on 04/08/2003 8:51:14 AM PDT by SgtofMarines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: AllSmiles
I have long felt that people with IQs below 130 should be put down for the general good.

Spoken like a typical IQ 131 liberal elitist.

They remind me of teenagers, who know so much more than they did when they were little kids that they suffer the delusion that they now know everything. These fools confuse having an IQ higher than average with being a genius, when they're really a sigma or two short.

Your comment reveals you.

213 posted on 04/08/2003 8:53:10 AM PDT by algol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: demosthenes the elder
damnyankee

I see that you have the terminology correct. (The difference between a yankee and a damnyankess is that the former comes and goes back to yankee land. The latter stays)

If any place needs a regime change it's NY. You reckon we could get a B1 to drop 8000 lb of bombs on the mayor's palace? (ooo I didn't say that)

214 posted on 04/08/2003 8:54:04 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Twice a criminal.

Pretty soon you'll be tearing the tags off mattresses ... then its chaos.

215 posted on 04/08/2003 8:54:15 AM PDT by Smedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
See what happens when you put irresponsible lawyers in positions of responsibility.
216 posted on 04/08/2003 8:54:18 AM PDT by ampat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

I would have bet a million $$ (if I had it) that the "the law is the law" contingent was going to show up on this thread. 30

Each person of the contingent has a vested interest in status quo establishment politics. You already know this so I post it for others who may not.

How is it that people and society in general have prospered and increased their well being for decades yet the politicians and bureaucrats say we must have another 3,000 laws and regulations each year... That without them people and society face "disaster". People and society have done quite well without next year's 3,000 new federal laws and regulations. Why all of a sudden can people and society not continue to do quite well without them? The fact is, they'd be better off without 99% of them.

So who really benefits from 3,000 new laws and regulations each year? -- not to mention state laws and regulations. Politicians and bureaucrats. They create boogieman problems and with a complicit media towing their boogieman problems cast a net of false fear and unwarranted despair in people.

Quite literally, they create problems where none exist. They're sick in that they chose to frighten people and foist false despair on them and do that to collect their unearned paychecks. Their job security is predicated on deceiving as many people as possible.

Voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil. How can so many people thinking they're right be so wrong?

Wake up! Politics is not the solution -- politics is the problem.

Who are the producers?
Who are the parasites?
Praise the value producers --
ostracizing the parasitical value destroyers.

217 posted on 04/08/2003 8:54:19 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: SgtofMarines
tsk.
shouldn't say it if you don't mean it.
teasing is uncouth.

as a side note: I have been wondering what they'd do if (the next time I have a reason to get on a plane, sometime in the indeterminate future) I showed up wearing an armor-grade chainmail sark. I mean, it ain't a weapon. It makes me boxcutter-proof. I'd think a rational airline security poofter would consider a passenger so armored to be an anti-terrorist asset... but I somehow doubt they'd be happy to see me so attired.
218 posted on 04/08/2003 8:54:27 AM PDT by demosthenes the elder (The Jesuits TRAINED me - they didn't TAME me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: demosthenes the elder
It is not my job to prove your dedication to principle. Buy your own.

For the record, if you do, and you challenge your arrest on Constitutional grounds, I very sincerely hope you win.

219 posted on 04/08/2003 8:54:29 AM PDT by SgtofMarines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This man is a hero, not a criminal.
220 posted on 04/08/2003 8:55:11 AM PDT by seams2me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 1,141-1,149 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson