[Drizzt]

Hero dad under the gun

Faces trial after shooting intruder

By PATRICE O'SHAUGHNESSY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER


Protective Dad: Ronald Dixon's use of an unlicensed gun to protect his son, Kyle, when a burglar broke into their Canarsie home could land the ex-Navy man in prison.

Ronald Dixon froze in fear when he saw an intruder enter his toddler son's bedroom, and his heart pounded wildly after he fired two shots in a confrontation with the stranger. Later, upset that he might have taken a life, Dixon shook as the wounded man lay in his driveway.
The encounter was only the beginning of an emotional upheaval for the soft-spoken Brooklyn computer engineer.

A month later, Dixon's feelings still swing from relief when he smiles at his son, to terror about what could have happened, to dread about possibly serving time because he used an unlicensed gun.

"The only thing I could think about was my family - there was no telling what he would do to my children or girlfriend," Dixon said in an interview last week.

"If I have to go to jail on the weekends, I couldn't work," he added, his voice cracking. "I couldn't pay my mortgage."

On Dec. 14, Dixon shot a career burglar who allegedly broke into his Canarsie house. Dixon used a 9-mm. pistol legally purchased in Florida that he says he was in the process of registering here.

Long criminal record

Ivan Thompson, 40, who has a 14-page rap sheet for burglary and larceny, was wounded in the chest and groin. He is being held on $75,000 bail in a mental observation unit on Rikers Island, charged with burglary and criminal trespass.

Dixon, who holds two computer jobs, was charged with misdemeanor gun possession, and the Brooklyn district attorney offered him a plea bargain that would require four weekends on Rikers.

But Dixon's lawyer said any amount of time behind bars is unacceptable.

"Mr. Dixon is clearly a victim, and his family continues to suffer from what happened," said the lawyer, Andrew Friedman. "If necessary, we'll let a jury of his peers decide."

Dixon could get up to a year in jail if convicted.

District Attorney Charles Hynes is in the difficult position of prosecuting a hardworking, law-abiding Navy veteran for defending his family and home.

But there were 486 shootings in Brooklyn last year, and the borough remains awash in illegal firearms. A spokesman said Hynes cannot condone the use of an unlicensed gun.

"That doesn't mean the prosecution should go full steam ahead," said Friedman. "There has to be some common sense involved."

Dixon, 27, clutched a balled-up tissue, and his eyes filled at nearly every mention of his son, Kyle, who will turn 2 years old next month, and daughter, Brittany, 8.

"I work seven days a week. I have been doing it for three years, because I wanted a safe haven for my family," he said.

"Sometimes the kids are asleep by the time I get home, and they go to the baby-sitter and school before I get up. The great part is Mondays and Wednesdays, I pick them up at the baby-sitter's - my girlfriend goes to school - and I spend time with them."

Dixon came to the U.S. from Jamaica after graduating high school and served in the Navy from 1994 to 1997, in weapons ordnance.

He works as a network engineer at Carnegie Hall, Monday to Friday, and on weekends at a Wall Street financial firm.

He and his girlfriend, Tricia Best, and their children moved into the brick house in Canarsie in June.

"It was a very quiet neighborhood - maybe too quiet," Dixon said.

At 7:30 a.m. on a Saturday five weeks ago, Dixon was home in bed because he had called in sick. It was almost time for Kyle to wake up and run down the hall to his parents' room to watch his "Barney" video.

"I was supposed to be at work the night before, and would have gotten home about noon," Dixon recalled. "I was not totally asleep, and I heard a squeak in the floorboard. I opened my eyes and see a person snooping around, peeping around outside my bedroom.

"The only thing I could think of was my family. I didn't want to move, until he went to my son's room, and he went in."

Dixon said Best called 911, and he got his weapon from a closet and slowly crept up to the room. He said he saw Thompson rifling through dresser drawers.

"I went in ... I looked in his face, I didn't know this guy, I was so shocked ... In a nervous voice I said, 'What are you doing in my house?' and he ran toward me, yelling, 'Come upstairs!' like there were other people with him. I shot him 'cause I thought more people were in the house."

Shots and screams

Dixon continued, "He ran to me, I shot him and he fell down the stairs. My daughter started screaming - she had thought I got shot. My son was not in his room, he had been sleeping in my daughter's bed."

After the police arrived, Dixon looked outside.

"I saw him lying there, I saw him looking at me, I was nervous, shaking. I've never been in any type of trouble. I only fired a gun in Navy training.

"I very much felt bad that he got hurt. I was worried if he died. I wasn't hoping for that."

Dixon was taken to the 69th Precinct, and then sped through Central Booking.

"Everyone I came across was sympathetic," he said. "The court officer said he would have done the same thing."

He found out that the intruder, Thompson, has a long record of break-ins and burglaries.

Fearful at home

He said the thought of someone invading his home still terrifies him and his children.

"My children are not comfortable being downstairs by themselves."

He shook his head and said that all he ever wanted was just a good life, and he thought buying the house was the first step.

"I thought that house would give me a safe haven. Now I'm thinking if I didn't buy this house this never would have happened."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/52803p-49473c.html

[Blackhawk]

Dixon used a 9-mm. pistol legally purchased in Florida that he says he was in the process of registering here. Great! No intent to violate the law. Just inadvertence. Take it to the jury! :neener:

edited: neeners need colons on both sides. :uhoh:

[madmike]

Another man who deserves a medal.

Write some letters, folks.

[DeltaElite]

I hope it all works out for him.

Unfortunately when you move to a fascist state, you live under a fascist rule. :mad:

[Skunkabilly]

Unlicensed? Do they need be in NY?

[Bob Locke]

:cuss:

Take it to the jury. I just can't see 12 people ALL coming to the conclusion that this man acted wrongly.

If they do, time to move to a place where your family can actually be safe.

[NewShooter78]

Absolutly, utter, nonesense! This man was trying to protect his family and property, and now he's the one being booked! ***!

[Master Blaster]

But there were 486 shootings in Brooklyn last year, and the borough remains awash in illegal firearms. A spokesman said Hynes cannot condone the use of an unlicensed gun.

This is very telling, according to the Law/ AG in New Yaaark, there is no difference between the law abiding defending themselves, and the habitual crimminal crack dealer shooting his competitors.

Thats why they have a crime problem, they cannot tell the difference between a law abiding citizen and a crimminal.

Idiots, time to move.

Just curious, does the gun need to take a test??:rolleyes:

[foghornl]

Not to wish violence on anyone, but I would REALLY like to see some of these idiot prosecutors have to make the same choices that Dad made, under the same circumstances. i.e. Career BG running down the hall toward HIS kids, gun in hand. Let us see what he chooses to do


:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

[Byron Quick]

Not to wish violence on anyone, but I would REALLY like to see some of these idiot prosecutors have to make the same choices that Dad made, under the same circumstances. i.e. Career BG running down the hall toward HIS kids, gun in hand. Let us see what he chooses to do

I understand your sentiments but there are many problems with your scenario:

1) The prosecutor will be one of the privileged elite who actually possesses a NYC CHL.

2) The licensing of his firearms will be expedited by the bureaucracy instead of hindered.

3) His apartment will be in a secure highrise or his house will be in a gated community.

4) If by some mischance, he were to shoot a burglar with an unlicensed handgun, the investigating police would fail to note that the handgun was unlicensed. If the prosecutor had recently peed in those cops' coffee then the DA's office would decline to prosecute.

Justice in America.

[armedbutnotdangerous]

At the risk of getting in the way of the flamethrower; there was
no weapon mentioned.

I'm not saying I might not have done the same thing (a threat to your kids is to be taken seriously), but this is border-line for justifiable use of deadly physical force (especially here in NY).

Again, don't go for the Sterno right away, I'm just playing devil's
advocate.

Steve.

[critter]

Perp in kids room! Never mind even LOOKING to see if he has a weapon or not. BLOW HIS A## out in the yard-multiple times if necessary!!!

GIVE THIS GUY THE COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD!!!!!!!!!!!

[Byron Quick]

but this is border-line for justifiable use of deadly physical force (especially here in NY).


It's not border-line in Georgia...not with forcible entry by someone who does not reside in that residence-and the unarmed or armed status of the criminal is absolutely immaterial. And that's in the statutes.

It's good to live in a fairly free state.

[DeltaElite]

Here in Az all you need is to be in fear for the safety of yourself or another, to use lethal force.
So he would be in the clear here, since obviously his son and he were in fear for their safety.
We also don't have any fascist registration laws.
I just don't see how people can live under gun laws like that.
I sure couldn't.

[anchored]

So is he being prosecuted for shooting the guy, or for having an unregistered gun? If it's for having an unregistered gun, and he had a gun and it wasn't registered, what's there for a jury not to agree on? If he broke a law, why shouldn't the prosecutor, whose job is to enforce the law, not prosecute. Am I being too skeptical when I wonder if "it's in the process of being registered" equates to "I only had 2 beers?"

[2nd Amendment]

Because it is an absurd law? Because the neighborhood, by their own admission, is swamped with a criminal element they can't deal with but they'll prosecute a citizen defending his life based on a technicality?

One could hope for jury nullification, but probably not in New Yuck.

[CZ-75]

Heard Sean Hannity mention this incident on the radio. He was mighty POed about it and was thinking about starting a legal defense fund for the guy.

[dinosaur]

Byron, so you know Charlie Hynes I guess. He did have a house in a gated community, Breezy Point. When Rev. Al threatened to picket there (fat chance gettin through the gate Al) we along with their private security used to sit on it.

Not related to this particular topic but I hear Bloomberg blew his stack last night when the Rolling Stones lit up on stage.:evil: :D

[LIProgun]

No weapon was necessary for Dixon to use deadly physical force. In NYS, DPF is justified for a householder to terminate a burglary or attempted burglary. See NYS Penal Law section 35.20 (3).

In other regards, Dixon was prosecuted under PL 265.01, Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree - A class A misdemeanor. Normally, possession of an unlicensed, loaded handgun is a felony (CPW 3rd Degree), but there is an exemption in that section for possession in one's home or place of business.

Simply put, the rule in New York State is that handgun possession is illegal unless you are somehow fall within an exemption. There are exemptions for cops, handgun licensees, and others. Sure it stinks, but that is the infamous Sullivan Law which New Yorkers have lived with since 1911. And since the rich and famous get their carry licenses, and the unwashed urban masses like gun control, it is going to stay that way for the foreseeable future.

[falconer]

What are the provisions in NY for moving there and having guns? If he was in the process of registering them and was just waiting on a bureaucrat to finalize paperwork, then it really wasn't his intention to violate the handgun registration law.

Can't be a crime without intent right?

[anchored]

Sure it can, lots of crimes, usually misdemeanors, do not require intent as an element. Speeding, for example.

[Intune]

"I shot him 'cause I thought more people were in the house."

NOT the words you want to use after shooting someone. "Fear for my life, going after the kids next, etc..." The DA wants to make an example of him.

[LIProgun]

Falconer, as anchored correctly stated, intent is not a requirement for many crimes. And not just misdemeanors. For example, NY's CPW-3 makes it a felony to possess a loaded handgun. There is no requirement that the possession be intentional, or even knowing.

Also, one moving to NY cannot bring the handguns into the state until he or she is licensed. The guns either have to remain out of state until one is licensed, or before moving you can ship them to an in-state handgun dealer who holds them until the owner is licensed. One could also try immediately surrendering them for storage to the PD or sheriff where one resides upon entering the state, as there is an exception for possession while surrendering a handgun (NYS PL 265.20 (a) (1) (f)). There are obvious risks associated with the latter course of action, and I wouldn't recommend it.

Intune, I can't argue with anything you said. Mr. Dixon, however, was probably just being honest, foolishly believing that because he did the right thing, and because he is a good guy, he had nothing to fear. My point was simply that legally speaking, he was completely justified under NY law, and did not need to fear for his life to use DPF.

[armedbutnotdangerous]

LIProgun;
I sit corrected. The justification was there. Time to read the Penal
Code again.:D

Steve.

[Peetmoss]

IMNSHO this guy seems to be a decent citizen who was protecting his family. If this is the case he should be told that we know it sucks but you need to register your handguns in NY. Now here's your permit, and remember register any other guns you have and have a nice day sir.

[Monkeyleg]

Fox's "Hannity and Colmes" had Mr. Dixon and his attorney on the show. Even the ultra-liberal, gun-hating Alan Colmes thought this was a travesty.

This, unfortunately, was the best press the pro-self-defense people have ever received. It shined a spotlight on the anti's, and those cockroaches scurried so fast that there was nobody to back up their side on Fox.

I think the DA will drop all charges.

Next step: hang the DA.

[DadOfThree]

Just heard Sean Hannity's radio program. The DA refused to be interviewed and told Sean's people that he will not comment on the case if they call again. Doesn't sound like he is intending to drop the case to me. Sean asked the attorney how the guy was set for money, and he said that it wasn't an issue. He was taking the case for free.
At the risk of getting in the way of the flamethrower; there was no weapon mentioned
I agree with critter. If he breaks into my house and I catch him going into my kid's room, he just committed suicide.
Of course, there are mother grizzly bears that think I go overboard in protecting my kids :D :D :D

[Tim Burke]

My wife saw this, and wanted to know how many of my guns were unregistered.
I told her all of them.:eek:
Then I explained that we don't live in place that requires registration, nor will we.

[casual]

Just to clarify a couple of points.

Intent is always a necessary element of a crime. In this case the only intent needed is that the defendant intended to possess the gun, not that he knew it was a crime to do so.

A felony, by definition, is a crime for which you can spend a year or more in jail. A misdemeanor is a crime for which you can spend up to a year in jail. Minor traffic offenses fall in a different category. These are petty offenses for which you can only be assessed a fine as punishment. Therefore, no proof of intent is necessary as a defendant's liberty is not at stake.

[12GA]

In 1980, New York State passed a law mandating a mandatory minimum one-year jail sentence for possession of an illegal (read unregistered), unloaded gun; two and one-third to seven years for possession of an illegal loaded gun; and five to fifteen years if the gun is used for a felony crime such as robbery. Does'nt this mean that he's facing a minimum of 2 1/3 years?

[LIProgun]

Casual, intent is simply not required for all crimes in New York and other states. In NY, culpability is divided into four mental states: Intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and criminal negligence." See PL 15.05

Further, the minimal requirement for criminal liability in NY is the performance of conduct which includes a "voluntary act." A voluntary act includes the possession of property if the actor was aware of his physical possession or control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate it. See PL 15.00, 15.10.

NY has crimes of "strict liablity." If such conduct is all that is required for the commission of an offense, or if the offense does not require a culpable mental state, the offense is one of strict liablity. See PL 15.10.

When a given offense requires a particular culpable mental state, such mental state is ordinarily stated in the statute by using the terms intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or criminal negligence, or with terms like "with intent to defraud" or "knowing it to be false." See PL 15.15 (1).

However, if no culpable mental state is expressed in the statute, one may still be implied. If the statute does not clearly indicate a legislative intent to impose strict liability, it should be construed as defining a crime of mental culpability. See PL 15.15 (2).

The statute at issue (CPW-4) specifies levels of culpability for some offenses. For example, possession of a dangerous knife requires intent to use unlawfully against another to fall within the statute. Possession exploding ammo must be knowing. There is no stated culpability required for illegal possession of a handgun.

New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has held that criminal possession of a weapon is a strict liability offense. See, e.g., People v. Saunders, 624 N.Y.S.2d 568 (1995) The only thing required to be proven is a voluntary, aware act of the possession of a weapon, with the additional feature of operability of the firearm. Intent need not be proven because it is not an element of the crime. See also People v. Davis, 1981, 112 Misc.2d 138, 446 N.Y.S.2d 159 (NYC Crim Court 1981) ("This section, providing that person is guilty of criminal possession of weapon in fourth degree when he possesses any firearm, etc., does not require mental culpability as element of offense.").

However, there is intermediate appellate authority holds that "although intent is not, by this section, a necessary ingredient of offense of possession of weapon and dangerous instruments and appliances, where there is evidence that defendant's possession of the weapon might have been innocent, the jury should be instructed that it might find that such possession was innocent." People v. Trucchio (2 Dept. 1975) 47 A.D.2d 934, 367 N.Y.S.2d 76.

If anybody can cite any relevant authority to the contrary, I would be grateful to learn of it.

[jimpeel]

This is a prime example of the death of motive in America.

American jurisprudence is predicated on three tenets of law for a conviction: means, motive, and opportunity. The problem is that the prosecutors of this nation -- with the willing help of legislators writing bad laws, juries, and judges -- have removed motive as a requisite for a conviction.

This has become rampant in our judicial system and needs to be addressed. Yes, this guy had the means to do great harm. Yes, this guy had the opportunity to do great harm. What, however, was his motive in having this firearm in the first place?

We have become a nation that is so steeped in a vengance mentality -- where "someone must pay" for every transgression -- that we have lost sight of the very thing that made this country great -- justice.

There are no accidents anymore. Someone must pay.

There is no blame for the perpetrator yet someone must pay.

In a nation that was founded on the premise that the sins of the father shall not be visited upon the son, we now visit the sins of the son upon the father. "Your children did something bad, regardless of your best eforts to raise them properly, so we are sending you to jail in his stead."

We have indeed gone mad in this nation.

[jimpeel]

Don't forget that for a person to lose their right to own/possess/use a firearm they need only be convicted of a crime for which the punishment could have resulted in a sentence of one year or greater REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL SENTENCE.