DeRoche-case-tossed-out-of-court

http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20110126/NEWS13/110126017/DeRoche-case-tossed-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.

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.

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.

This story makes my smile on a day I am sick. +1 for 2A and 4A.

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.

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.

+1 SLM

Hope you feel better Q.

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.

A prosecutor, (or any other government official) who hides behind children, are worse than criminals who would do the same.

3fgburner said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 shitty 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.

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.

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!

smellslikemichigan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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?

Shadow Bear said:

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?

Click to expand...

Call placed to dispatch about a drunk and disorderly MWAG (Man with a gun).

smellslikemichigan said:

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.

Click to expand...

[video=youtube;DkS5H3Of4-E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS5H3Of4-E[/video]
Can't tell if this off topic, still good video, IMHO.

choover said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

choover said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

..

choover said:

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

Click to expand...

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.