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
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.
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.
I do hope the counstitutionality of this law is challenged, as it appears grievously violated in this case.
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....
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.
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)
Pretty soon you'll be tearing the tags off mattresses ... then its chaos.
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.
For the record, if you do, and you challenge your arrest on Constitutional grounds, I very sincerely hope you win.
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.