Question for legal eagles

[wcd]

So in other words, you don’t have an intelligent response to the question.

Well I am not sure of your intellectual capacity.
since I already suggested you find someone on the Michigan Bar to consult. Not exactly sure what else you think I should provide for you?

Oh ok let me give you legal advice….Oh wait I am not an attorney so I do not give legal consults. Only free advice which was stated up stream seek someone qualified on the Michigan bar. Hate it for him that he may need to pay an attorney to resolve this.

I could try typing it slower for you if,that,would help?

Glad to hear that as you put it they the book at him. Not sure what means? If by throwing the book at him you mean his little feelers got hurt and he had to face real life consequences for his actions?

Sorry you appear to have taken offense at my response, that is a you thing. Reality make poor choices and things could go down hill fast.

Clearly you either did not read my response or you were intellectually incapable of understanding it so you fire off a snarky response.

Maybe he will get his firearm back maybe he won’t I rally do not care. I am thankful that no one was hurt as a direct result of his wanton willful disregard for others around him.

 

[wcd]

After a DUI conviction won't his permit be revoked?

Most likely it will depend on if there is a conviction and how Michigan laws are,construed.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Poor representation, that's funny! Drunk drivers are all the same, they cry and whine that they got shafted. They got caught drunk driving - case closed.
Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

They got caught drunk driving - case closed.

Unless you're the well-heeled spouse of a politician...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It is within his interest to contact his attorney.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

After a DUI conviction won't his permit be revoked?

Unlikely, unless that OWI causes him to be an alcohol abuser under the statute.

 

[jamil]

Good to know. Maybe he will refrain from making poor choices again. Seriously he made a conscious decision operate a plus or minus 4K pound weapon While under the influence of alcohol.

I am sure I may come across as being an *** but I am ok with that. It comes from life experiences that no one should ever have to have. And There Never Should Be A Reason For It.



Freedom and Liberty are essential but so are the responsibilities associated with it.

People, especially young people, especially young men, don't consider the consequences of their actions. That's the essence of the phrase young and foolish. And then life tends to beat the "foolish" out of us and we hopefully learn those lessons. A fool is someone who doesn't learn life-lessons when experienced. It sounds like this young man isn't a fool. He just made a foolish decision and seems to have learned from it. I'm not gonna judge him for having made poor decisions in his youth. He paid for it. He got consequences and a life lesson.

But, as someone else said, maybe it would be a lot cheaper to just buy another gun unless there's a lawyer zealot out there who would help him pro bono. I think he should cut his losses and walk away having learned the lesson.

 

[Hawkeye]

People, especially young people, especially young men, don't consider the consequences of their actions. ....

This is the root of many of our issues today.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Be charged with making the unenviable task of a notification call. Like I said there should never be a reason for the need to do so.

Young and stupid is for people who have never had a chance to know better, and most of us are lucky to survive our stupid moments. Some are not so lucky. From the day they are first aware they’ve been inundated with the messages about driving impaired, yet they choose to do just that.

I’ve never been on the side of notification, but I’ve lived on the side of trying to save the lives of their victims. I’m all about giving people freedom right up to the point they demonstrate they can’t be responsible with it. As said, stupid should hurt. Loss of a gun that can be replaced is cheap compared to a funeral.

 

[Ziggidy]

WOW, a guy comes in asking for advice and he gets sandblasted. I thinks it's uncalled for. Regardless of the reason, regardless of the mistake, regardless of the topic, there is no reason to respond like that.

I had a friend who was in a similar situation years ago but his violation was speeding in another state and did not have his gun properly out of view. He lost the gun and just chalked it up as a loss.

Can ya imagine that....making a mistake of speeding in a 4000 lb vehicle? I don't like drinking at all. Having a blow out while speeding down the road can have very similar consequences as someone drinking and driving.

I think we need to ban all alcohol and recreational drugs while we're talking about people making mistakes.....next, ban cars!

 

[jamil]

Young and stupid is for people who have never had a chance to know better, and most of us are lucky to survive our stupid moments. Some are not so lucky. From the day they are first aware they’ve been inundated with the messages about driving impaired, yet they choose to do just that.

I’ve never been on the side of notification, but I’ve lived on the side of trying to save the lives of their victims. I’m all about giving people freedom right up to the point they demonstrate they can’t be responsible with it. As said, stupid should hurt. Loss of a gun that can be replaced is cheap compared to a funeral.

Studies have shown that testosterone tends to make men overconfident. And the hormones are convince young men that they're invincible. Testosterone production is the highest around 18/19 years old. And it's still high in the early 20's. It's likely responsible for that feeling of invincibility in young men. College age drivers account for ~20% of accidents caused by drunk drivers. And males far outnumber females in causing accidents while drunk.

 

[KLB]

I think we need to ban all alcohol and recreational drugs while we're talking about people making mistakes.....next, ban cars!

Don't forget phones and food

 

[shibumiseeker]

I think we need to ban all alcohol and recreational drugs while we're talking about people making mistakes.....next, ban cars!

I wondered when somebody would go there. Because it was inevitable. There’s always somebody who will take the hyperbole that direction, when it is a false equivalency.

There is an ocean of difference between holding somebody accountable for their actions, and not letting them have access to things because they might do something. Anyone who can’t tell the difference may also want to reflect on their own responsibility.

 

[xwing]

I would think it would be cheaper to just buy a new gun.

Agree. The cost to litigate would likely far exceed the value of the firearm. It's not "right", but it is reality.

 

[jamil]

I wondered when somebody would go there. Because it was inevitable. There’s always somebody who will take the hyperbole that direction, when it is a false equivalency.

There is an ocean of difference between holding somebody accountable for their actions, and not letting them have access to things because they might do something. Anyone who can’t tell the difference may also want to reflect on their own responsibility.

I don't think anyone is saying the young man shouldn't be held accountable for his actions. He was held accountable. The judge "threw the book" at him. And it doesn't sound to me that anyone is opposed to that.

I think it's the judgemental attitude that people are mostly opposed to, even if that does spill over into conflating stuff. He paid for his transgression. No further judgement is necessary, IMHO. It seems to me that this is what you were saying as well.

 

[KLB]

I wondered when somebody would go there. Because it was inevitable. There’s always somebody who will take the hyperbole that direction, when it is a false equivalency.

There is an ocean of difference between holding somebody accountable for their actions, and not letting them have access to things because they might do something. Anyone who can’t tell the difference may also want to reflect on their own responsibility.

Holding them accountable for their actions would mean holding them accountable if they cause harm. The mere fact of having imbibed alcohol and driving has not caused any actual harm. You are still advocating stopping something because they might do something.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Holding them accountable for their actions would mean holding them accountable if they cause harm. The mere fact of having imbibed alcohol and driving has not caused any actual harm. You are still advocating stopping something because they might do something.

Placing someone else in undue danger is causing harm. If I step out into my front yard with a blindfold on and start blasting off shots from my pistol in random directions, then even if by pure luck I don't hit anyone or anyone else's property, I have still caused harm by willfully placing other's lives and property in danger.

Of course many things we do have some potential to cause harm, so there is a fuzzy line between what constitutes acceptable levels of danger (like driving sober) and what constitutes unacceptable levels (like my above example.) But I think it's pretty clear that drunk driving falls into the latter category.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I don't think anyone is saying the young man shouldn't be held accountable for his actions. He was held accountable. The judge "threw the book" at him. And it doesn't sound to me that anyone is opposed to that.

I think it's the judgemental attitude that people are mostly opposed to, even if that does spill over into conflating stuff. He paid for his transgression. No further judgement is necessary, IMHO. It seems to me that this is what you were saying as well.

In my reading, the OP's thread did seem to contain some phrases that implied that what happened to his friend was not entirely his fault (describing it as a "misfortune") and was too much of a punishment for what he did (saying he got the book thrown at him.) The harsh replies condemning his friend's actions seemed to be a response to this, not a result of being "judgemental."

But of course, implications and tone are both very difficult to understand in a written format, so I could be wrong in my interpretation...

 

[Leadeye]

I'm in the let it go group, as soon as lawyers start working, the costs will exceed the cost of a new carry gun. It's just like any business decision.

 

[jamil]

Holding them accountable for their actions would mean holding them accountable if they cause harm. The mere fact of having imbibed alcohol and driving has not caused any actual harm. You are still advocating stopping something because they might do something.

This is where I kinda part company with some libertarians. I don't support preventative laws generally, because it's exactly as you say. It's holding people accountable for harm they haven't actually done yet. In the case of driving drunk, it dramatically increases the chances of an accident. When it's actually a matter of luck that you didn't cause an accident, I kinda lose some opposition to such laws.

Like with my opposition to background checks. None of those categories have proven out that meeting those criteria would require such luck that they wouldn't cause harm. They're just arbitrary. Is almost every felon that untrustworthy with firearms? Comapre that answer with this one? Is almost every driver with a BAC of .08 untrustworthy behind the wheel? If so, is it reasonable to find the right criterira for society to say, hey, you can't be trusted behind the wheel when you're this drunk? Maybe it's not .08 for everyone. Maybe there's some criteria that can make that determination.