Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 92

Thread: DeRoche-case-tossed-out-of-court

  1. #1
    Regular Member Onnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Maybee, Michigan
    Posts
    679

    DeRoche-case-tossed-out-of-court

    http://www.hometownlife.com/article/...d-out-of-court

    A charge of possessing a firearm while intoxicated against former state Speaker of the House Craig DeRoche was tossed out of court today, with 52-1 District Judge Brian MacKenzie stating that the constitutional right to own a gun isn’t negated just because someone is drinking in their own home.



    --Moderator Edited--
    RESPECT COPYRIGHT HOLDERS: We often share news stories with one another. Please remember that these stories are copyrighted material and only post a fair-use excerpt along with a link where the rest of the story may be read.
    When Guns are OUTLAWED, Ill be an OUTLAW
    American Tactical Imports C45 45 AP
    S&W sigma 40 Cal
    Bersa 380 Thunder Plus
    Hi point C9 9mm
    Chiappa 1911-22 Semi-Auto .22 LR

    Im not a lawyer, but I did play a Klingon once at Universal Studios

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I hope the guy ends up sickeningly rich. How about a million dollars a month, maybe that will help the next guy get a speedy trial. This shouldn't have taken so long to resolve.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Cops had no legal authority to enter his home unless his mother-in-law is a joint tenant, tenant in common on the deed. I'm surprised the defense didn't move for dismissal immediately on those grounds.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    This story makes my smile on a day I am sick. +1 for 2A and 4A.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    150
    His MOTHER-IN-LAW let them in??? I'd refuse to ever let her set foot in the house again, and never speak to her again. And divorce the wife if she objected.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321
    great, now why wouldn't that same decision apply to CWI (carrying while intoxicated) outside the home? banning self defense to those who chose to drink is no more constitutional whether in or out of the home.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    +1 SLM

    Hope you feel better Q.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Onnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Maybee, Michigan
    Posts
    679

    according to the Oakland Press.......

    taken from the Oakland press

    Prosecutors, however, plan to appeal 52-1 District Court Judge Brian MacKenzie’s decision........

    Oakland County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Paul Walton said the prosecutor’s office plans to appeal.


    This is not a Second Amendment issue,” Walton said. “This is an issue of a man being intoxicated, arming himself with a gun and locking himself away with a small child.
    When Guns are OUTLAWED, Ill be an OUTLAW
    American Tactical Imports C45 45 AP
    S&W sigma 40 Cal
    Bersa 380 Thunder Plus
    Hi point C9 9mm
    Chiappa 1911-22 Semi-Auto .22 LR

    Im not a lawyer, but I did play a Klingon once at Universal Studios

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    A prosecutor, (or any other government official) who hides behind children, are worse than criminals who would do the same.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by 3fgburner View Post
    His MOTHER-IN-LAW let them in??? I'd refuse to ever let her set foot in the house again, and never speak to her again. And divorce the wife if she objected.
    The incident happened June 2010. I bet the 2010 holiday season was an interesting one.

    Or in the words of Rodney Carrington, "That was a ****** Christmas, lemmee tell ya."

    I find it hard to believe the state is going to appeal this decision. Under different facts, maybe, but the facts are that when police entered the home, DeRoche was upstairs, and the gun was downstairs and unloaded; that hardly fits the claim that he was armed and "locked himself away with a minor child".

    How many steps does the state expect one to undergo when owning firearms and drinking alcohol in the same home?

    I'm not carrying on-body at the moment (lounge pants aren't really conducive to that), but I'm just steps away from multiple firearms. Unlike DeRoche, mine are loaded. I have others locked away in safes, and a handful that are unloaded and out of safes (just because they won't fit). In my house, we don't teach "treat every gun as if it's loaded", we teach "every gun is loaded", because anything we might grab for defense truly is loaded.

    Guess what else? I had a glass of wine with supper, and a few beers afterward while I'm perusing the InnerWebZ and my wife and daughter watch American Idol on the DVR. I would definitely test above 0.08 BAC. Would I drive? Hell no! I don't drive at all after drinking, but there are two trucks in the driveway and keys hanging next to the kitchen door.

    The guns on a shelf just steps away are no more a threat to anyone just because I've been drinking, than having vehicles in my driveway are a risk of drunk driving.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    290
    If I were the judge, I would have immediately thrown the case out on the grounds that there is a mother in law involved. "Wait, wait, did I hear 'mother in law'? Ok, I've heard enough. You are free to go".

    But seriously, the mother in law, unless she lived there, had no right to invite the police in. In addition to that, he didn't even have the gun on him! And furthermore, it wasn't even loaded! That's like arresting someone in their house for drunk driving because their car is parked in their garage.

    The only way I would possibly let this case go on is if it was demonstrated that he was brandishing the gun- threatening someone in some way.

  12. #12
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Does the prosecution also intend to prosecute a charge of attempted rape on him also, he is, after all, MALE so he HAS THE EQUIPMENT!---- Jeez, Unloaded weapon DOWNSTAIRS, him upstairs--- and they charge him with possession while intoxicated. They must be taking lessons from the BATFE!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Belleville , michigan, ,
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by smellslikemichigan View Post
    great, now why wouldn't that same decision apply to CWI (carrying while intoxicated) outside the home? banning self defense to those who chose to drink is no more constitutional whether in or out of the home.

    errr all about the 2A but I hope to god they never let people who are drinking carry a gun.....

  14. #14
    Michigan Moderator Shadow Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Posts
    1,018
    Ok, I must have missed somehting; forgive a newbie; but WHY were the police at the door for the mother in law to invite in?

  15. #15
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Bear View Post
    Ok, I must have missed somehting; forgive a newbie; but WHY were the police at the door for the mother in law to invite in?
    Call placed to dispatch about a drunk and disorderly MWAG (Man with a gun).
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  16. #16
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by smellslikemichigan View Post
    great, now why wouldn't that same decision apply to CWI (carrying while intoxicated) outside the home? banning self defense to those who chose to drink is no more constitutional whether in or out of the home.

    Can't tell if this off topic, still good video, IMHO.
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321
    Quote Originally Posted by choover View Post
    errr all about the 2A but I hope to god they never let people who are drinking carry a gun.....
    why? is there any logical reason to deny someone the right to self defense? in states other than michigan, the thought of denying someone's 2A for such a petty reason is ridiculous. indiana for instance. they allow carry while intoxicated, and to my knowledge, indiana is not a bloodbath of impaired shootings.

    and let me correct you, you are not "all about the 2A". can't be while making that sort of statement.
    Last edited by smellslikemichigan; 01-31-2011 at 08:45 AM.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  18. #18
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by choover View Post
    errr all about the 2A but I hope to god they never let people who are drinking carry a gun.....
    Bouncing off your post Choover......

    Is the concept that folks who have indulged in alcohol should not be "allowed" to carry a gun what would be considered a "reasonable restriction to the 2nd Amendment"?

    It is my belief (opinion if you will) that once the concept that a restriction is reasonable and seems to make logical sense invades (yes, invades) a person's perception of what a right is the slide down the slippery slope has begun where all that is necessary to restrict a right is to show how reasonable and logical that restriction seems to be. But if a person looks carefully at what a right really is then it is obvious that no restriction is reasonable... no amount of false logic or agenda promoting clever argument can justify restricting what is, by it's very nature, inviolate and unrestrictable.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    ..
    Last edited by scot623; 01-31-2011 at 10:08 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by choover View Post
    errr all about the 2A but I hope to god they never let people who are drinking carry a gun.....
    Yeah! Because once a person has a few beers, they deserve to be shot and killed without the benefit of defending themselves!

    Everyone knows self-defense is only for sober folks! Don't the drunks know they're just supposed to roll over and die when assaulted or robbed?

    They should make driving a car after drinking illegal, as well!

    Once again, even within our own ranks, we encounter a person that actually believes human behavior can be altered by writing a sentence beginning with "Section A, subsection IIV, sub-paragraph B, ordinance 234.76-1", or the equivalent, into some dusty lawbook on some forgotten shelf in some city hall.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    My $.02

    I think people sometimes tend to make statements based on their own self evaluation, such as... I don't think people should carry while drinking because if I was drinking and had a gun I would probably/might (insert your own self evaluation here) go around shooting indiscriminately...
    They think that they would lack self control, so they would rather restrict others first than to allow them the benefit of being innocent until proven guilty.springerdave.
    Last edited by springerdave; 01-31-2011 at 11:24 AM. Reason: spelling

  22. #22
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by springerdave View Post
    I think people sometimes tend to make statements based on their own self evaluation, such as... I don't think people should carry while drinking because if I was drinking and had a gun I would probably/might (insert your own self evaluation here) go around shooting indiscriminately...
    They think that they would lack self control, so they would rather restrict others first than to allow them the benefit of being innocent until proven guilty.springerdave.
    Based on what I've seen throughout my life I have formed the opinion that what you just said is the basis for every argument for the restriction... actually it is control.... of rights and freedom ever presented.

    Those who do not have control of themselves, who fear they are unable to control themselves, in a desperate attempt to feel "safe", try to force control onto everyone else because, in their arrogance, they think everyone else is equally as unable to control themselves as they are.

    Enacting a law restricting the carrying of guns in a certain physical place, a building, event, or under certain circumstances, to control those who have a right to carry guns is a pathetic, self delusional, and ineffective, attempt to be safe. Such laws only offer the self deluded a "feeling" of safety.... not the reality of any safety.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Exactly. Unfortunately, we now have a .gov that does exactly the opposite of what it should. What good would the AWB do to prevent another shooting? Making my daughters semiautomatic Ruger 10-22 illegal, (assault rifle), because some jerkoff shot innocent people in Arizona is completely assinine, but that is what the .gov wants to do.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Belleville , michigan, ,
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by springerdave View Post
    I think people sometimes tend to make statements based on their own self evaluation, such as... I don't think people should carry while drinking because if I was drinking and had a gun I would probably/might (insert your own self evaluation here) go around shooting indiscriminately...
    They think that they would lack self control, so they would rather restrict others first than to allow them the benefit of being innocent until proven guilty.springerdave.

    Well thats a nice try to dis credit someone because they feel differently than you do, but it is also a feeble attempt by someone who lacks anything intelligent to add it would appear.

    I feel that having a gun while intoxicated is a horrible idea because of how I have seen others act, key word there is others. I personally have never been intoxicated and the amount of alcohol I have consumed in my life ( I'm 30 ) would all fit in one beer can. Am I against drinking? Nope, not at all, I just never had liked the taste of it at all.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Belleville , michigan, ,
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    Yeah! Because once a person has a few beers, they deserve to be shot and killed without the benefit of defending themselves!

    Everyone knows self-defense is only for sober folks! Don't the drunks know they're just supposed to roll over and die when assaulted or robbed?

    They should make driving a car after drinking illegal, as well!

    Once again, even within our own ranks, we encounter a person that actually believes human behavior can be altered by writing a sentence beginning with "Section A, subsection IIV, sub-paragraph B, ordinance 234.76-1", or the equivalent, into some dusty lawbook on some forgotten shelf in some city hall.

    Actually we are not just talking about a few beers which can mean different things for different people, we are talking about people in public intoxicated and with guns.

    And who said anyone deserved to get shot and killed, a giant leap much?

    in·tox·i·cate (n-tks-kt)
    v. in·tox·i·cat·ed, in·tox·i·cat·ing, in·tox·i·cates
    v.tr.
    1. To stupefy or excite by the action of a chemical substance such as alcohol.
    2. To stimulate or excite: "a man whom life intoxicates, who has no need of wine" (Anaïs Nin).
    3. To poison.
    v.intr.
    To cause stupefaction, stimulation, or excitement by or as if by use of a chemical substance

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •