Brooklyn District Attorney Dismisses All Criminal Charges Against Ronald Dixon!

M. Arthur writes:

I was appalled at the way you are treating this case, if the citizens vote for you for your next term in the county gov't office, they're nuts... as you can see by the poll of people, you are out numbered.

The poor guy was only trying to protect his family for Gods sake, I deplore your attitude towards this.

Marion M. from Chicago writes:

I think it would be unwise to prosecute Mr. Dixon. He is a veteran and was trying to do the correct thing by starting to process the paperwork for his weapon. He is a hard working family man who just moved into the area. You should be thankful that he captured the intruder and did your job. He didn't kill him. He has the right to protect his family and property.

It's shows poor judgment on your part to go after the VICTIM!

You are doing a very poor job keeping your city safe from career criminals!!!! Stop this petty attitude and go after real criminals.

Pearl B. from San Jose, CA writes:

It is the responsibility of any district attorney's office to prosecute criminals; not to prosecute citizens who defend themselves from criminals!

The State of New York allowed Ivon Thompson (14 page rap sheet) to run loose on the streets of NYC and when one citizen, Ron Dixon, was required to protect his home and family from this criminal he is subject to prosecution. This is an outrage.

He should not be prosecuted, but given a medal!!

Deborah E from Dayton, Ohio writes:

Charles Hynes and lawyers like him are part of the reason I stopped practicing law. Unimpeachable integrity, character, morality, perhaps...but no common sense.

And I am willing to bet the "The People", if you were to reveal your true response to this shameful debacle, are on Mr. Diction's side. Oh yes, I know, I know...but the LAW says...You know very well you practice selective prosecution, you just don't have the integrity to admit it.

We have to stop pretending that people like Charles Hynes are so good....maybe he's past his prime....I believe his judgment is impaired and I am ashamed, once more, of our legal system.

We are pretending to the rest of the world that we are better than they are....this makes me wonder.

Good luck with your jury. I kind of wish I could do the closing for the defense on this one!

Michael D. from Iowa writes:

I think what the D.A. is doing is totally outrageous. The United States Constitution gives us the right to bear arms. It does not state that those arms "need" to be licensed. What is this world coming to when a man cannot defend his home and family.

I may not be a well educated person, but I do know that I would have done the same thing.
The man had every right to have that weapon and was going about getting the license for it. It is not his fault he was a victim of a crime.

I understand your arms law, however, a first time offense should not require jail time, especially, when the jail time would be spent with the person that was shot while committing a crime.

Tom T. from California writes:

When government fails to protect its citizens, they have the right to defend themselves. When government punishes citizens for doing so in a reasonable manner, it contributes to the disintegration of society.

A District Attorney has discretion in enforcing any law. You know that you selectively enforce every day of your tenure.

I urge you to use good judgment and to drop these unwarranted charges.

Mark M. from ?? writes:

I believe if you prosecute Mr. Dixon and if he has to serve time I think that you guys will be considered the criminal and not him.

Richard M. from Vancouver, Washington writes:

Just another example of the infringement of Constitutional rights. There should not even be a question of whether Mr. Dixon had a right to defend himself and family.

His gun was purchased legally, and he made the effort to comply with the draconian laws, and because of the unreasonable process imposed on law abiding citizens, he is made to be a criminal. I'm curious as to how many of N.Y. City thugs have taken the time to pay the exorbitant cost, and paper work to register their weapons?

What the State of New York is doing is an outrage and an affront to our Constitution. Especially a veteran who was willing to put his life in harm's way to defend the very right that was taken by The State and City of N.Y.

R. Fall from California writes:

Dixon's prosecution is yet another example of how an authoritarian gov't, by defacto repeal of our Constitutional Rights, oppresses the citizen's right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness AND the right to protect his family and property.

I am a retired police detective and native born American.

I AM SO LUCKY AND HAPPY THAT I WAS ABLE TO ESCAPE NEW YORK STATE, ONE OF, IF NOT THE MOST SOCIALIST AND CORRUPT STATES OF THIS UNION.

Raine D from Dallas, Texas writes:

I have never, in my life, seen such a ridiculous, juvenile web site on such a serious matter!

Yes, I am from Texas which is the recipient of much bad press over our methodologies in handling criminals. Yes, I appreciate the Doors music. Yes, I appreciate the story to Pulp Fiction. But there is a time and a place for everything.

When the Brooklyn District Attorney's office goes to the length to modify their web site in response to 20/20's coverage of Mr. Dixon's pending legal situation, I personally find it highly offensive that it is changed to reflect something more along the lines of a Looney Toones cartoon rather than that of an established, professional public office.

What is the point of Samuel L. Jackson's character from Pulp Fiction being placed at the end of this page?

What is the point of The Doors music being played on a site you are linking to for some moderately attractive female DA in Westchester?

Your office is so far off the road of professionalism it is disgusting. It's no wonder Mr. Dixon is facing these ridiculous trumped up charges by the Brooklyn DA's office.

[Editors Note: If you think this website is "ridiculous and juvenile", well, you should have seen our nassauda.com website! Please note this is the People's website, not the Brooklyn DA's website. Their website is at brooklynda.org.
We thought that the Pulp Fiction picture would be a clear indication that this is not an official government website. And the little ACLU tagline on the front page...]

Someone from Houston, Texas writes:

Texans are with you Mr. Dixon (True Patriot) 2nd. Amendment!!!!!

Katoya from AOL land writes:

I feel that if you cannot protect your own family then who will? This man has done nothing wrong. If he didn't shoot the robber there is no telling what kind of harm he could have inflicted on Dixon's family.
The man was obviously crazy if he felt that it was okay to rob someone with them still in the house. He obviously had problems from the start. Dixon is a hard working African American male who has no prior record and has dedicated years to our country. No it is not okay to have an unlicensed firearm but give me a break what would you have done in this situation? Remember a scared person will always do what they have to do to become safe especially in your own home that is your territory and you should be able to protect yourself and your family from scumbags like the intruder who changed this man's life forever by trying to ruin it along with the people who are supposed to save it.

William admonishes:

God will see you for this!!

Tobey from Texas sez:

'Bongi' from Somewhere sez:

Mr. Hynes your decision is a cheap and appalling miscarriage of justice. Mr. Dixon should be awarded a key to the City for having the discipline and restraint required not to have killed his intruder. Shame on you! and further still, shame on New York City for keeping you around.

Eric from Memphis sez:

Perhaps if he tied the moron up and held him until the registration came through and then shot the silly twit, that would have been better.

Or allowed his child to be kidnapped or worse?

Or stood idly by while the police took 90 minutes to tear themselves away from the donut shop and get over there?

Or died guessing wrong about how armed the intruder was?

A man, with a gun that was at least in the process of being registered, shoots an intruder in his home that intruder is, in fact, a bad man up to no good, and the man protecting his home from the intruder, and intruder that the police and the courts have had their chance to deal with already, that man is arrested and put in jail.

How is this a good thing?

Mark from Calhoun, Georgia sez:

To prosecute a man for protecting his family, a responsibility which is just that, HIS RESPONSIBILITY, is an outrage.

Law enforcement has no obligation or duty to protect individuals, and if having a firearm, registered or not, enabled this individual to safeguard himself and his children from a home invader, then he did what was required as a citizen and a parent.

To prosecute him for this turns any semblance of legitimately applied law on its head.

Home Page