Question for legal eagles

[jamil]

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...

I guess everyone thinks his side is not guilty, or not THAT guilty.

Did the guy deserve to get the book thrown at him? I don't know. I don't know how impaired he actually was. That's not for me to judge.

Maybe the defense lawyer sucked. Maybe the judge had a hard-on for DUI. Some of the extent of the consequences are possibly misfortune. All of the fact that there were any consequences are 100% a result of his own actions. And it sounds like he's aware of the lesson life has handed him. Hopefully he's learned that lesson. I don't feel like it's anyone's business to judge without having more knowledge of him and his circumstances.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I guess everyone thinks his side is not guilty, or not THAT guilty.

Did the guy deserve to get the book thrown at him? I don't know. I don't know how impaired he actually was. That's not for me to judge.

Maybe the defense lawyer sucked. Maybe the judge had a hard-on for DUI. Some of the extent of the consequences are possibly misfortune. All of the fact that there were any consequences are 100% a result of his own actions. And it sounds like he's aware of the lesson life has handed him. Hopefully he's learned that lesson. I don't feel like it's anyone's business to judge without having more knowledge of him and his circumstances.

You make some very good points. But I also know there's a lot of people out there who believe that the harshest penalties our law imposes for drunk driving are not harsh enough, so for that person, it makes sense that they would believe that no matter how hard the judge was on him, it was deserved. As for myself, I tend to sympathize with that point of view, but I'm not really sure what the right thing is, so I do see your point as well.

 

[jamil]

You make some very good points. But I also know there's a lot of people out there who believe that the harshest penalties our law imposes for drunk driving are not harsh enough, so for that person, it makes sense that they would believe that no matter how hard the judge was on him, it was deserved. As for myself, I tend to sympathize with that point of view, but I'm not really sure what the right thing is, so I do see your point as well.

That's really the whole point in this. I think it's a very conservative trait indeed, but I'm a bit more towards libertarian on the matter. Not so much to say we should abolish all drunk driving laws. Like I said, there's a point where someone can be so drunk that they can't be trusted behind the wheel.

In terms of judgmental... The really staunch conservatives seem to like extreme penalties for most social harms they perceive. Like war on drugs, penalties for drunk drivers, even speeders. Laws against ****ing any way but missionary. Etcetera.

That ****ing one was a joke, in case I have to explain it.

 

[BE Mike]

Time for tough love. Tell him that he is very fortunate to not have gotten into an accident while drunk and hurt himself or someone else or even just damaged property. Tell him that losing his firearm is just part of this: Life Lesson #1 in adulting!

 

[jamil]

Time for tough love. Tell him that he is very fortunate to not have gotten into an accident while drunk and hurt himself or someone else or even just damaged property. Tell him that losing his firearm is just part of this: Life Lesson #1 in adulting!

Agreed. Except we shouldn't encourage the use of Millennial speak. That is to use words that are nouns and make them verbs. I mean. Is that such a big ask?

 

[BE Mike]

Agreed. Except we shouldn't encourage the use of Millennial speak. That is to use words that are nouns and make them verbs. I mean. Is that such a big ask?

But I thought that adulting was a gerund! Hold on to your helmet! Adulting is found in the Oxford dictionary!

 

[Hawkeye]

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.

You must be new here. It is the INGO Way...

 

[churchmouse]

I guess everyone thinks his side is not guilty, or not THAT guilty.

Did the guy deserve to get the book thrown at him? I don't know. I don't know how impaired he actually was. That's not for me to judge.

Maybe the defense lawyer sucked. Maybe the judge had a hard-on for DUI. Some of the extent of the consequences are possibly misfortune. All of the fact that there were any consequences are 100% a result of his own actions. And it sounds like he's aware of the lesson life has handed him. Hopefully he's learned that lesson. I don't feel like it's anyone's business to judge without having more knowledge of him and his circumstances.

That’s my thought. PP lawyers get you PP results. The lawyer should have addressed the gun in the case.
Did the young man get council or let the state supply him with someone that graduated 50th in a class of 51.

In my time on this rock I have had a full spectrum of experiences due to drugs/alcohol and my tolerance for those who ignore the limits we put in place have no place in my heart for any sympathy. None. It’s a choice. You make the wrong one and ride the lightning.

That said I think this one has ran its course.

 

[KLB]

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.

Does it? Is someone with a .08 BAC more of a danger than someone tired, looking at their phone, eating, reading, shaving, etc?

The BAC isn't even consistent. Someone that drinks regularly could be fine at that level, while someone else might not be.

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?

The criteria is how are they functioning. When I hear of bad drunk driving accidents, it is people in the .15+ range. Often it is over .20.

The argument for the lower levels seemed to revolve around slower response time. It is not any slower than any of the things I listed above.

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.

Since alcohol affects everyone differently, you get what we have, some level where some people are affected adversely. This seems much more politicians feeling they need to show they are doing something.

 

[BankShot]

That's really the whole point in this. I think it's a very conservative trait indeed, but I'm a bit more towards libertarian on the matter. Not so much to say we should abolish all drunk driving laws. Like I said, there's a point where someone can be so drunk that they can't be trusted behind the wheel.

In terms of judgmental... The really staunch conservatives seem to like extreme penalties for most social harms they perceive. Like war on drugs, penalties for drunk drivers, even speeders. Laws against ****ing any way but missionary. Etcetera.

That ****ing one was a joke, in case I have to explain it.

This is a good discussion. I don't claim to have the answers to these questions, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The drunk driver that killed my friend had at least two previous DUIs on his record. Apparently, the punishment for those two cases was not severe enough to keep him from doing it again. He continued to drink and drive until he ended one life and ruined many others including his own. Both men involved were in their twenties and I don't think the drunk driver was a bad person, but his little dumb mistake had very big consequences.

We don't get many details from the OP, so it's hard to judge the harshness of the judge. I this is not his first violation then I think the punishment is definitely not too harsh. In any case if these penalties keep him from ever DUI again with much worse consequences, it could be the best thing to ever happen to him.

 

[KLB]

This is a good discussion. I don't claim to have the answers to these questions, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The drunk driver that killed my friend had at least two previous DUIs on his record. Apparently, the punishment for those two cases was not severe enough to keep him from doing it again. He continued to drink and drive until he ended one life and ruined many others including his own. Both men involved were in their twenties and I don't think the drunk driver was a bad person, but his little dumb mistake had very big consequences.

We don't get many details from the OP, so it's hard to judge the harshness of the judge. I this is not his first violation then I think the punishment is definitely not too harsh. In any case if these penalties keep him from ever DUI again with much worse consequences, it could be the best thing to ever happen to him.

Sounds like an addict. Nothing was going to stop him. Sad.

 

[Airtevron1]

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!

Thank you, thinking the same thing. This "community" is not much more than a group of passive-aggressive virtue signalers jumping in where they dont belong. But what the heck, how else can you amass thousands of posts...

The questions was for Legal Eagles ie. lawyers. So what happens, self righteous trolls pipping in with moronic insults.

Anyone here could find themselves in the same situation, out for dinner, a couple cold ones and bam. With the rabid fervor for maintaining "rights" here, one would expect the same when it comes to the state keeping a firearm without cause.

So to those that have nothing better to do than popping off without an intelligent response, do whatever makes you feel important on a forum. Sad little lives.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Anyone here could find themselves in the same situation, out for dinner, a couple cold ones and bam.

Wow. I was starting to think maybe people were being a bit to harsh on you, then you have the audacity to make a statement like that, and in the same post complain about a lack of "intelligent" responses. Just wow.

 

[Airtevron1]

Wow. I was starting to think maybe people were being a bit to harsh on you, then you have the audacity to make a statement like that, and in the same post complain about a lack of "intelligent" responses. Just wow.

 

[Airtevron1]

 

[Ingomike]

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.

Just as we have been haggling over the political wuwho flu response not based on science and facts, the .08 BAC has absolutely no basis in science, it was a political job for the insurance industry. When it was before the state legislature I called my senator and rep, I asked for the breakdown of the number of deaths caused by drivers above .08 and below .1, as logically that was what the discussion should have been all about. They both actually looked for the data and called me back to say they couldn’t find it anywhere. It never was about deaths caused by those below the old limit…

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Thank you, thinking the same thing. This "community" is not much more than a group of passive-aggressive virtue signalers jumping in where they dont belong. But what the heck, how else can you amass thousands of posts...

The questions was for Legal Eagles ie. lawyers. So what happens, self righteous trolls pipping in with moronic insults.

Anyone here could find themselves in the same situation, out for dinner, a couple cold ones and bam. With the rabid fervor for maintaining "rights" here, one would expect the same when it comes to the state keeping a firearm without cause.

So to those that have nothing better to do than popping off without an intelligent response, do whatever makes you feel important on a forum. Sad little lives.

Seems to me that there has been a lot of advice offered (get an attorney, don't bother with an attorney and write the gun off, etc.). Like so many other threads when someone asks a question like this, when the answers that come don't agree with the answers that the poster wants to hear, then butthurt ensues.

 

[bwframe]

...This "community" is not much more than a group of passive-aggressive virtue signalers jumping in where they dont belong. But what the heck, how else can you amass thousands of posts...

The questions was for Legal Eagles ie. lawyers. So what happens, self righteous trolls pipping in with moronic insults...

...So to those that have nothing better to do than popping off without an intelligent response, do whatever makes you feel important on a forum. Sad little lives.

 

[Airtevron1]

Seems to me that there has been a lot of advice offered (get an attorney, don't bother with an attorney and write the gun off, etc.). Like so many other threads when someone asks a question like this, when the answers that come don't agree with the answers that the poster wants to hear, then butthurt ensues.

Missed the point by a country mile. Already stated he had attorney, which considering a 1st offense got hit a lot harder than lets say Pelosi's husband will.

Question was for what is the legal process for obtaining the gun back, of which zero qualified answers thus far.

 

[Rookie]

Thank you, thinking the same thing. This "community" is not much more than a group of passive-aggressive virtue signalers jumping in where they dont belong. But what the heck, how else can you amass thousands of posts...

The questions was for Legal Eagles ie. lawyers. So what happens, self righteous trolls pipping in with moronic insults.

Anyone here could find themselves in the same situation, out for dinner, a couple cold ones and bam. With the rabid fervor for maintaining "rights" here, one would expect the same when it comes to the state keeping a firearm without cause.

So to those that have nothing better to do than popping off without an intelligent response, do whatever makes you feel important on a forum. Sad little lives.

TL;DR