Hero dad under the gun

[DinoDoc]

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/sto...3p-49473c.html

It's been a long time since we had a gun thread.

[monkspider]

I will make my token statement renouncing guns, but pragmatically accepting that attempting to remove them from our society is an impossibilty for the time being.

[The Mad Monk]

It's all over the radio here. Most people say he shouldn't be prosecuted, he should be given a medal.

[Dis]

send that punk to the chair. people shouldn't be using guns.

the guy was a burgler, not a kidnapper or rapist.

The homeowner should have let the burglar steal his stuff and leave with no confrontaion. The guy is no injured in the groin and may possibley not be able to have children. Think of the poor burglar trying to make a living and feed his many children.

[orange]

great anti-troll

Each circumstance is different...was purchased legally and he used in defence...so he shouldn't have to serve time

[Inverse Icarus]

this man has children, and a girlfriend sleeping at the house?

SINNER!

[DRoseDARs]

For someone who is Navy-trained, his actions in the heat of the moment seemed too emotionally driven...100% understandable. Although I support anti-gun legislation, even repealing the 2nd amendment, I recognize that such developments simply aren't possible in the forseeable future, especially in light of incidents like this. This was one of those rare times where a civilian owning a gun was a good thing. He couldn't have known what kind of weapon the burgler might have been carrying or what he might have done with it.

Diss, I'm fairly certain most burglers ARE NOT unarmed; I'm certain most do carry potentially lethal weapons (re:guns or knives). Dixon simply could not have known what Ivan had in mind for him when he rushed him. What if the 8 yr old girl had been in the hall? Dad might have accidentally hit her (unlikely given his training) or the burgler might have harmed her or held her hostage.

As far as what should happen to Dixon: Well, he has an unlicensed gun in his home. He will receive punishment for that, he must. Trying to get licensed or not, it was unlicensed when it was used. But given the role it played, a judge/jury will be lenient. I doubt jail time will be given, or at least I would hope not, but a hefty fine is in Dixon's future. Make no mistake: the public will shower him with praise for his actions, so people will probably give him some help in offsetting fines and legal dues. Coins are the only medals he should be getting I feel, but maybe the Navy will give him a nod.

[Skanky Burns]

Sure Uber.

[Alexander's Horse]

You can't shoot burglars.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
You can't shoot burglars.

legally, correct. :burp:

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
You can't shoot burglars.

Yes you can.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Yes you can.

if a man walks into your house, grabs a tv, and walks out, you're not allowed to shoot him under the law.

legally, it's only self defense if he has threatened your life first. if you shoot him while he's lugging a TV, or worse, in the back, then you're guilty bro.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yep, inside the house, there's a presumption of the burglar being a threat. Since most burglars actually go after empty premises, ones that break in "live" are presumed to have anticipated the possibility of confrontation with the occupants, and to be prepared in some manner to handle that confrontation.

Most states in the US draw the line at things like the guy fleeing outside with your property - if he's no longer a proximate threat to your or someone else's safety, the legal authority to use deadly force ends. If the guy is in your house, or in the process of forcing his way in, though, he's yours since there's a presumptive intent to cause harm to the occupants.


DroseDARs - just because he's ex-Navy doesn't mean squat. It's not like he was a SEAL, or SP or something where handling firearms was routine.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Yep, inside the house, there's a presumption of the burglar being a threat. Since most burglars actually go after empty premises, ones that break in "live" are presumed to have anticipated the possibility of confrontation with the occupants, and to be prepared in some manner to handle that confrontation.

Most states in the US draw the line at things like the guy fleeing outside with your property - if he's no longer a proximate threat to your or someone else's safety, the legal authority to use deadly force ends. If the guy is in your house, or in the process of forcing his way in, though, he's yours since there's a presumptive intent to cause harm to the occupants.


DroseDARs - just because he's ex-Navy doesn't mean squat. It's not like he was a SEAL, or SP or something where handling firearms was routine.

interesting, never learned that in my highschool law class. learn something new everyday i suppose.

guess i might as well sleep for the next 23 hours. not learning anything else today.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I caught someone trying to break into my house once, when my daughter was barely a year old.

The mere appearance of an M-4 carbine (civilian CAR-15 version) with a 30 round clip aimed directly at his head was sufficient to deter him from continuing to force his way in.

Actual use of force was totally unecessary, but you'd have to wonder what kind of loose screws they guy would have had to have if he'd been inclined to force the issue?

[Dis]

in case it wasn't obvious about my first post, well you get the picture.


Well the guy did move towards him (allegedly), so I can see firing in that situation. But if he made no hostile action, I would never shoot anyone.

[Alexander's Horse]

You can only shoot a burglar here if your life is threatened by the burglar. The onus is on you to prove it. You also have to prove that you didn't have the weapon ready - that shows pre meditation to shoot intruders, which is a big no, no.

There's a principle called reasonable force involved. Basically protecting property is not seen as a defensible reason to endanger human life, including that of a burglar.

Same goes with trespass. You can't shoot trespassers. Police here can't even arrest them unless they can prove they were up to no good (or so my neighbour, a policeman, was telling me). They can ask a trespasser to move on and arrrest them if they disobey but not if they obey. This is a big problem for our police.

[Az]

Can I say "freeze or I shoot", and then shoot him, like the police do?

[David Floyd]

I will make my token statement renouncing guns, but pragmatically accepting that attempting to remove them from our society is an impossibilty for the time being.

But without his gun, the victim might have been robbed, or even hurt. Unacceptable.

AH,

You can only shoot a burglar here if your life is threatened by the burglar. The onus is on you to prove it. You also have to prove that you didn't have the weapon ready - that shows pre meditation to shoot intruders, which is a big no, no.

Untrue. The mere fact that the burglar is in your house provides an implied threat to your life/safety. Maybe in Australia that's the case, but that's a silly law.

Further, the law can't tell you where to have your gun in your own house. If you want to wear a shoulder holster while watching TV, and someone happens to break in, and you calmly pull out your handgun and cap his ass, you're not gonna get charged. At least not here in Texas.

Basically protecting property is not seen as a defensible reason to endanger human life, including that of a burglar.

If the burglar is in your house, it is. You can also shoot someone to prevent, say, a carjacking.

[Dis]

err laws in the U.S. may be different than laws in Australia there AH

I do think you can shoot someone who is on your property if they are breaking and entering. Hell in some states you can shoot them even if they are just tresspassing.

[David Floyd]

I do think you can shoot someone who is on your property if they are breaking and entering.

Sure. Why couldn't you?

Never heard of shooting someone for trespassing, though.

[Az]

This is a hard decision for me. I am not sure, yet, about what would morally be the best law for such a case.

[David Floyd]

I don't understand the moral dilemma. A man protects his home and family the only way he reasonably can, against someone who is going to rob and maybe even kill him.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

[Dis]

Anybody know the laws about using mace?

I recently got some pepper spray. I bought that for my vehicle. Because I don't carry my gun in my vehicle. It's too dangerous. I may use faulty judgement and might not get a clean shoot. And I could end up going to prison.

but I've heard about criminals suing people for using mace on them. And I hear that mace/pepper spray is illegal. Don't aske me why. You would think it would be much more acceptable than shooting someone.

In any case, if this guy had mace, he could have used that on the burglar instead of shooting him.

I would make a seperate thread, but I can't make any more threads today.

[David Floyd]

Don't know the story on mace, but morally speaking, I don't see any problem at all with it. Practically, though, I'd rather just blow the guy away - much safer for you to do that.

[DRoseDARs]

In Nevada it is illegal to carry mace (not certain about pepper spray, which is different I've learned...no, not from experiance ). A lady friend of mine was sexually assulted in her youth. It was a violent attack that left her needing facial reconstructive surgery (you'd never know it by the looks of it unless she told you). She has a special permit from the police (or court?) that allows her to legally own and carry mace with her in public.

[Ned]

They ought to prosecute him and he ought to take this case to the US Supreme Court to see whether the NY Law banning gun ownership is unconstitutional. I'd rather have a real case like this before the court rather than some trumped-up test case that has no real life consequences.

[Sikander]

Your friend would be better off with a gun than the mace. The problem with pain based weaponry and techniques is that the most dangerous types of criminal often are not fazed at all by a little pain. You have to attack their ability to function directly, as your threat of pain is no threat at all to the lunatic who is already feeling no pain.

Interestingly the police manage to kill several people a year around here by misusing pepper spray routinely. They seem to have a real hard time with anything less than lethal force, like using strangleholds. I have seen many people strangled to unconsciousness in my life, and none of them ended up needing medical attention, but train the police to use the technique (as was done in California) and they'll pile up an impressive body count within the year.

[Dis]

kind of funny how carrying a gun in my vehicle would be legal, but mace is not.

I wonder what the difference between mace and pepper spray. Well I bought the pepper spray at a local store here, so I'd imagine it is legal.

and yes it is largely inneffective against some criminals that are high on somethine, or just planed crazed. I hope to not run into one of those.

[MRT144]

so arabs SHOULD be allowed to shoot israelis in defence of their land.