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

[ninenot]

Plug the hole with body parts of the perp you shoot.

[tpaine]

compared to 1-10, the 14th is recent, yes.
-dte-


Lessee.. - An amendment passed 77 years after the first 10; -
-- is considered 'recent' 135 years later.

Now thats quibbling.

[Dead Corpse]

You just don't get it do you.

Too bad.

[SgtofMarines]

Our constitution is not 'difficult' at all, if you agree with its basic principle, - maximum individual freedom.

I do.

You are operating on a false premise, that "we will all invariably arrive at different conclusions"... -- Why would we, given that we all want individual freedom, living in a free constitutional republic?

We will, even though we may all (most of us, anyway) want maximum individual freedom. People will differ as to where that line is drawn when, once crossed, they feel that their freedom has been encroached on by another's. There is no Utopia.

[stuartcr]

Of course there are acceptable losses, and I would hope that anyone on a plane with terrorists NOT armed with guns, would do something...not unlike those over PA. As I said, if there are no guns, which the 9/11 group did not have, no one would get shot, either intentionally, or by mistake.

[SgtofMarines]

As I stated, I doubt any airline that wanted to turn a profit, would allow guns on-board...too hard to tell the good from the bad.

Now, that may be true, but it should be up to the airlines to make that call. This is not something that should be imposed on them by the federal government. I should clarify, I am only discussing domestic flights in this context.

[demosthenes the elder]

and if there WERE guns, in the hands of US citizens, there would be some terrorists with aftermarket airconditioning in their heads - whether or not the terrorists also had guns.
Note: US CITIZENS.
As in: must have US papers to be permitted to carry guns on to a plane. Papers of certification and marksmanship from an FAA-mandated training program would not be a bad idea either... say: one run by the NRA/military.
Makes it a little difficult for Saudi religious fanatics to meet the criteria, don't it?

[stuartcr]

Take it up with your congressman. If you can't handle the way life and the world is, sorry. Learn to adapt.

[stuartcr]

Not if they had the same passports, driver's licenses, flight licenses, etc. that the terrorists had. Not hard to obtain any paperwork with enough money.

[tpaine]

Whatever...


-- And you're quibbling as to a 'Utopia', no one here said there is one.

[demosthenes the elder]

I have so done and continue so to do. The bit about the congressmen, that is.
So, let me see if I understand you clearly: Your philosophy and model of civil ethics and duty is to bend over for wrongs if they are too big to fight without inconvenience?

[demosthenes the elder]

well, it is true that the damned INS needs to start doing its damned job.

[SgtofMarines]

Whatever?

That's not exactly the well-reasoned, detailed response I was expecting from you. I'm disappointed. (Seriously)

[demosthenes the elder]

on the other hand, if the list of plane-certified passengers was kept by the NRA (as opposed to a government agency) and could be accessed AT THE BOARDING RAMP to compare passenger ID and face to the database, the terrorists'd be S.O.L.

[Dead Corpse]

If you can't handle the way life and the world is, sorry. Learn to adapt.

Be a good little slave and learn to love the squirrel cage?

Not to damn likely there.

[Zon]

Tell that to AllSmiles... :)

Posting to FreeRepublic is a privilege, not a right. If you don't understand the difference you may soon. You probably misinterpreted that sentence.

[SgtofMarines]

Take it easy, big guy. I was just cracking a joke.

[bc2]

keep me posted. I live in Rochester and have never gone to NYC for this very reason, but I might make an exception if we are going to get some much needed press over this. The time for talk is over. The time to start pulling the wool from the public's eyes is now.

I will travel the 5 hours from Rochester to NYC to protest outside of the DA's house if someone can put me up for the night.

feel free to FRmail me. Thank you.

[Roscoe]

"The individual states have the right to pass ANY laws they want"

Wrong again.

[Iron Eagle]

The law prohibiting firearms on airplanes is perhaps not stupid, but it is unconstitutional.

I'd be interested in hearing the Constitutional analysis behind that assertion.