Justice Has Prevailed......Marcus Dixon free

NikiH · Post by **NikiH** » Fri May 07, 2004 10:54 am

Ok I agree to disagree. This was just a friendly debate and I didn't intend to argue with you just for the sake of arguing. I just think that this kid being a high school senior makes all the difference in my opinion. Thanks for being so civil in your argument! ;-)

Justice Hog · Post by **Justice Hog** » Fri May 07, 2004 3:45 pm

Redskins Rule writes:

That law screwed him out of a year and a few months of his life.

That's very similar to saying "guns kill people". That's not true, it's "people with guns kill people."

The "law" did not screw him out of a year and a few months of his life.....he did.

That being said.....my opinion is this.

Should he be a convicted felon? - Yes, absolutely.

Should he be sent to prison under the facts of this case? - No. When considering his background and lack of criminal record, his grades, his family background....a probationary term is probably appropriate here.

I'm not tryin' to stir the pot here...just offering my My 2 cents

Redskins Rule · Post by **Redskins Rule** » Sat May 08, 2004 12:14 am

Its great your offering your two cents I do that too. But do you really think that serving ten years for having sex is apporiate? Or how about one day?

Its clear a sophmore wanted that senior just as much as the senior wanted that sophmore. IT WAS NOT RAPE.

I have to agree with you that the people with guns kill people. But this is not about guns or killing this is about sex. Consensual Sex. They were seeing each other in the hallways everyday. They were eating lunch at the cafeteria everyday. And one lunch hour they decided to do something other than eat lunch. Its not like he was 30 and she 15; thats pretty bad. They went to highschool together and he gets screwed out of more then a year of his life.

Justice Hog · Post by **Justice Hog** » Sat May 08, 2004 3:07 pm

If you read my earlier post in this thread, you would have read:

Is 10 years appropriate? Probably not...

One day? I don't know about that either.

Sometimes...making someone a convicted felon is punishment enough without the need of putting them in prison for a day. In this case, I think labeling this young man a "felon" might just be punishment enough.

And, although a lot of people here are arguing this is a case of consensual sex....a statement that I agree with...this is really a case of statutory rape; therefore, the issue of "consent" is a moot point.

Redskins Rule · Post by **Redskins Rule** » Sat May 08, 2004 11:08 pm

Hey Justice Hog,

I see your point. And your point is a good one. If I'm not mistaken, your point is he broke the law and he should be punished. My whole argument to this thing all along, and you can check out earlier posts of mine in this thread, is this law shouldn't apply to this guy. He was a highschool student she was a highschool student and they did what some highschool students do. Even though he was 18 and was an "adult" he still did not have the privaleges that some adults have. For Example, you can't call yourself in sick for one day, your mother has to do it; or your father.

I was so angry when this verdict got passed over a year ago, because this guy was a good hard working person. That was clear. This guy had a 3.7 GPA and a FULL scholarship. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that. This guy worked his butt off to get those things and because he had sex he couldn't do what he worked hard to do. That is a tragedy!!!!!!!!!!!

I just don't think this law should have applied to him. I hope they change it to where it won't affect highschool students. That has been my argument from the first day and it will remain my argument.

That is my two cents.

Justice Hog · Post by **Justice Hog** » Sun May 09, 2004 8:10 pm

I hear ya Redskins Rule. When I first heard about this story, I was somewhat shocked myself.

You have to be careful, however, when you ask for a particular law not being applied to a particular group of people. All laws should be applied equally and fairly across the board.

The problem with this case, from what I've read, is that this law has not been applied evenly across the board.

Redskins Rule · Post by **Redskins Rule** » Mon May 10, 2004 12:18 am

Hey Justice Hog,
Regarding your last post, I can see your point. And again it is a good one. I know I'm not a lawyer, but I just hope that they will look at this case and make the changes that need to be made. Whatever happens, they are the profesionals and I'm sure justice will be served in the end.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Sat May 24, 2008 3:36 pm

Jake wrote:Sounds like he'll be a great fit in Dallas!

Sorry Gambit, I couldn't resist!

Boy did I call that. http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sport ... _0507.html

Hooligan · Post by **Hooligan** » Sat May 24, 2008 7:27 pm

BnGhog · Post by **BnGhog** » Mon May 26, 2008 9:52 am

Dallas, The "just out of prison league team"

surferskin · Post by **surferskin** » Tue May 27, 2008 8:48 am

Jake wrote:
Jake wrote:Sounds like he'll be a great fit in Dallas!

Sorry Gambit, I couldn't resist!

Boy did I call that. http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sport ... _0507.html

Damn, that's pretty wild. Good call. :shock:

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Tue May 27, 2008 3:05 pm

I think it's even more amazing that you remembered that one. way to dig up an old thread.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Tue May 27, 2008 6:06 pm

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:I think it's even more amazing that you remembered that one. way to dig up an old thread.

I remember Gambit getting all ticked off when I said that so when Dixon signed there, it brought back some funny memories.