Topic awaiting preservation: Shoot Intruder go to Jail? (Page 1 of 1)

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

Do you think this guy should get any jail time? Granted he violated the registrtion law, but sentencing is up to the court's discretion. I don't think he should see one second of jail time for this actions.

If he or his family had been killed, we wouldn't have even heard about it. I shudder to think about being faced with the need to protect my new daughter and not being able to do so. If I call the police, they would show up *after*. Which makes me realize that the police *cannot* prevent this kind of crime from happening but they will be adept at dealing the results of it. So what am I supposed to do while I wait for help? Scary.

. . : slicePuzzle

Sorry! I haven't read the article yet...
But the thing is more guns more people dying.
Here in sweden shooting (and killing) an burgular when entering a house is considered as manslaughter.
But sure the whole system is different in USA and there is an nutcase in every corner. In sweden we have an very high welfare taking care of them before they go bad. In USA it's all about insurances! This increases the number of nutcases becauses some people can't afford their rehabliltation. The Soceity in USA is hostile and makes it more harsh for those in need. Then the means to protect you're family from this hostile enviroment increases and I guess the laws must adapt to that.

Sorry again if I make no sense I will read the article later.

It depends what is the 'average' punishment for non-violent gun registration offenders. If the average punishment for non-violent gun registration offenders is a $500 fine and a weekend in jail, that is what he should get. If the average punishment is a year in jail (not likely, as that is the maximum punishment for a misdemeaner) than he should get a year in jail. If the average punishment is 1 year probation then that is what he should get. The fact that someone broke into his house is no excuse for him not to have registered his gun.

Now, should the judge sentence as if Dixon was a violent offender who *also* had an unregistered gun? Definately not. He isn't.

I think back to a story I read about some kids that broke into a man's house and stole a camera, a rifle, some money...and some pot he had growing in his basement. The kids took the (unloaded and fully legal) rifle out onto the road and started pointing it at cars driving by. Apparently they thought it was funny. Somebody called the cops and soon the boys and the stolen goods were in a police station. The cops asked the kids where they got the stuff. They told.

The man got all his stuff back (except the pot) and was charged with growing marijuana.

He was, in all other ways, a respectable, hard-working guy. He had the same job all his adult life. He lived alone, had been growing and smoking his own pot for some 35 years. He never sold it to anyone, it was for his own personal use, and (according to him) he had never even taken the stuff out of his house. He had a totally clean record (not even a speeding ticket). Still, he was convicted and served some 3 days in jail, 1 year probation and a fine.
While I personally think that what one smokes in the privacy of one's own home is his/her own business, I absolutely agree with the judge's decision.

The fact that a crime happened to that man or Mr. Dixon does not excuse their own illegal action.

quote:

---

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

---

That's irresponsible reporting. The whole article is written with the aim to stir your sympathies, not look at the issue logically. Dixon is not being charged (as the article says) for protecting his family. He's being charged for violating the gun registration laws of the state in which he lives.

That makes a great deal of sense, mobrul. I appreciate the very logical approach you outlined. I would add but one thing to the recommendation to stick with the average sentencing and that is to take into considertion this man's family and any jail time would adversely affect them.

Well I'd take it to a jury trial if the DA doesn't let up.

If the DA doesn't drop it after Dixon requests a jury trial, he's looking for some kind of publicity, and boy is he going to get it.

And according to their interview with Dixon on Hannity & Colmes, Dixon was in the process of having his gun licensed in New York. But as the NRA will attest to, the whole NY gun licensing is a sham, the handgun control lobby legislators made sure to include all sorts of legislation that makes getting a license take an average of 2 years after submitting proper paperwork.

Which is, of course, say it with me now... ridiculous.

I can get a concealed handgun license in Texas in less than 3 months.
(we don't need a license to just own a gun, as per the US Constitution)

Oh wait, this is funnier.
----------
Martin Refused Parole As "Danger To Burglars"

Tony Martin, the British farmer jailed for shooting dead a burglar, had his application for parole rejected yesterday. The three members of the Parole Board, who met in London to review his case, gave no reason for turning him down. A friend of Martin's claimed that it was because a probation report branded the 58-year-old "a danger to burglars."
----------

Hilarious Brits.

I think we are ignoring the issue here...it's not about firearms, or the fact that somebody shot someone here...it's about someone illegally entering another persons house. For what intent, is really unimportant. That fact is, that someone was where they were not supposed to be. Period. And they got caught. It is unimportant, of how the 'burglar' was brought down...whether or not the weapon used was a baseball bat, or a bazooka. The fact is, the 'burglar' would not of been injured, had he not been where he was not supposed to be!

You know, the military is allowed to shoot, and kill, tresspassers in areas where they are not supposed to be...and I'm damned sure the 'burglar' in the article that Bugs posted knew that he was tresspassing illegally...in fact, I would say he intentionally did this. So who cares how, and with what, he got injured.

So who really gives a rat's ass if he got shot...the 'burglar' in question was more than willing to run the risk...and he got nailed. He should be lucky he is alive. I can only applaud the man that shot him. Would I do the same? You're damned right I would.

I feel that in this case, the victim is being victimized. As for the registration of the handgun, if it was in process, what was the man supposed to do, threaten the 'burglar' with words? 'Excuse me, I can't shoot you at the moment, my registration has not yet been processed. Can you wait for about a year? Or just maintain that pose, until I find the baseball bat, please.' This is the stupidest case I have heard of in a long time...and frankly, it makes me sick. This is a case, where the letter of the Law is being stuck to, without considering the consequences. I am sure, that when this goes to court, the man will get off...I can't imagine a Judge that would convict someone under these circumstances.

You know, it's really unbelievable. It is not the man's fault, for protecting his family, and his property. It is the 'burglars' fault, for illegally trespassing. It is also not the fault of the man, that his registration had not been processed. The clear facts in this case are :

1) The 'burglar' illegally trespassed.
2) The man had attempted to register the handgun.
3) The man clearly felt threatened, and acted accordingly.
4) He gave the 'burglar' a chance to give up (to solve the confrontation peacefully).

I see no need for a criminal charge against the man, in this case. Clearly, he had done everything possible to remain on the right side of the Law. The state of New York should be charged, for not processing the registration fast enough. As that is clearly as ludicrous, as charging the man for not having the handgun 'properly' registered, I think both charges should be considered offsetting, and dropped.

Hehe...shot the 'burglar' in the groin...nice shot. It's just too bad that the proscecuter is also going 'below the belt' on this one...

Relevant parts of the Article

quote:

---

Dixon used a 9-mm. pistol legally purchased in Florida that he says he was in the process of registering here.

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 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."

Dixon continued, "He ran to me, I shot him and he fell down the stairs..."

---

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 01-24-2003).]

I forgot to add something to my post that I really meant to say. Some others here (WS, genis) mentioned it and reminded me.

IF it really is true that some paperwork was in the mix...that he really was in the process of trying to register his gun (not just kinda thinking about getting around to it one day) then it is the state's fault the gun wasn't registered (for not processing the documents quickly enough).
The judge should definately take that into consideration. If he started the process some time ago (as an uneducated estimate, I'd say previous to 60-90 days??) then the judge should strongly consider dismissing the case.

I think guns should be registered and all state laws should be followed, but the state also has a responsibility to do it in a timely fashion. 60 - 90 days is MORE than enough time for a simple handgun registration...especially if it really was legally registered in Florida.