Arkansas Paul
Member
^ Yeah that's what I was saying in my earlier post. If you're not visibly staggering around drunk, I don't see why they would even test you.
Alcohol and Home Defense
- Thread starter lpsharp88
- Start date
- Status
mljdeckard
Member
It would seem to be a routine thing to be on the checklist for any shooting, check for signs of alcohol or drug use, verify further if suspicious.
Texan Scott
Member
If your decision could be defended as being the same decision any sober and reasonable person would have made in your position, it would be fairly easy to defend. Intoxication to the point of being unable to recall the incident might be a real problem. Of course IMO drinking to that degree of retro/anterograde amnesia with immediate access to firearms is irresponsible. [Flamesuit on]
In some states, especially castle doctrine scenario, a "no bill" writ from a grand jury (ie a decision of justifiability) renders what a civil suit trial lawyer might haggle over a moot issue.
Be responsible - Stay safe.
In some states, especially castle doctrine scenario, a "no bill" writ from a grand jury (ie a decision of justifiability) renders what a civil suit trial lawyer might haggle over a moot issue.
Be responsible - Stay safe.
mljdeckard
Member
^^I concur entirely.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
IIRC, one of the factors in the Mark Abshire case was that both attacker and defender had been drinking. Abshire lost his house, his job, and spent around $200k defending himself as I recall. Alcohol wasn't the only factor; but it certainly made the case tougher for him.
The answer to this is VERY simple:
DO NOT SUBMIT TO ANY TESTS OR GIVE ANY ANSWERS
before talking to a lawyer.
And of course, you can talk to him/her "tomorrow".
You were not driving, they CAN NOT compel you for alcohol test.
Officer's statement like "I think I could smell alcohol" is only one of the data inputs; humans are not calibrated machines to detect chemicals with certainty, also, witnesses statements could be dismissed for variety of reasons.
DO NOT SUBMIT TO ANY TESTS OR GIVE ANY ANSWERS
before talking to a lawyer.
And of course, you can talk to him/her "tomorrow".
You were not driving, they CAN NOT compel you for alcohol test.
Officer's statement like "I think I could smell alcohol" is only one of the data inputs; humans are not calibrated machines to detect chemicals with certainty, also, witnesses statements could be dismissed for variety of reasons.
guyfromohio
Member
Don't take a breathilizer.
Arkansas Paul
Member
That's funny that I didn't think of that.
In a traffic stop situation, at least in Arkansas, you are giving implied consent when you sign your papers for your drivers license to submit to a BAC test if you're driving and are pulled over for suspected DWI.
In your home, I guess that wouldn't be the case.
It's still gonna be a sticky situation that I would rather steer clear of.
In a traffic stop situation, at least in Arkansas, you are giving implied consent when you sign your papers for your drivers license to submit to a BAC test if you're driving and are pulled over for suspected DWI.
In your home, I guess that wouldn't be the case.
It's still gonna be a sticky situation that I would rather steer clear of.
Birdhunter1
Member
Just a quick question, does .08 or .1 or whatever the number only refer to operating a vehicle (boat, auto, tractor) on a public thoroughfare? I mean if you are mowing your yard at .02 can they site you for DUI even if you are not in a public space?
If that is the case is there a law in your state that says you cannot possess a firearm if you are intoxicated? And if so do they set a BAC number to it?
I know in Illinois you can't hunt and drink, but I don't think there is a law that says you cannot target shoot on your own property while drinking. I know you are responsible for where your bullets land, but I don't know of any aggravating or mitigating factors of alcohol being involved.
That being said yes a prosecutor will use the fact if you had been drinking or not to his/her advantage, but I do believe the .08 BAC refers to driving/operating and I have not heard it applied to other situations (mowing, target shooting, bedroom activities with your spouse)...
And for what it's worth once I have a drink the mower, tractor, guns, truck etc is parked and done for the day. I suppose I may be in violation of grilling and drinking once in a while.
This all merely meant to ask does .08 BAC (or .10 or whatever) apply to anything other than operating a means of transportation in public spaces.
If that is the case is there a law in your state that says you cannot possess a firearm if you are intoxicated? And if so do they set a BAC number to it?
I know in Illinois you can't hunt and drink, but I don't think there is a law that says you cannot target shoot on your own property while drinking. I know you are responsible for where your bullets land, but I don't know of any aggravating or mitigating factors of alcohol being involved.
That being said yes a prosecutor will use the fact if you had been drinking or not to his/her advantage, but I do believe the .08 BAC refers to driving/operating and I have not heard it applied to other situations (mowing, target shooting, bedroom activities with your spouse)...
And for what it's worth once I have a drink the mower, tractor, guns, truck etc is parked and done for the day. I suppose I may be in violation of grilling and drinking once in a while.
This all merely meant to ask does .08 BAC (or .10 or whatever) apply to anything other than operating a means of transportation in public spaces.
beatledog7
Member
Regardless of what the law calls it, to me it's stopping force. Killing is incidental in some cases because the stopping shot works best in body parts that are also vital to life.
As I said before, so be it.
As I said before, so be it.
Tomcat47
Member
Food for thought... I chose years ago when I had children, to not allow Alcohol in my house... It stood that way for over 20 years and they have grown up moved away, and gave me grandchildren.
I always based my decision on "what if they needed me during the night and I had been drinking"?
Well the same applies now and they too have chosen to not let there children see alcohol in the house. And now my reasons for not having it in the house with the simple "what if" questions still apply....What if my children,grandchildren, parents need me through the night?
And this thread throws the "what if" ? with an all new subject matter.....
Just Sayin..... NOT throwing rocks or condemning no one!
Please do not think that!
I always based my decision on "what if they needed me during the night and I had been drinking"?
Well the same applies now and they too have chosen to not let there children see alcohol in the house. And now my reasons for not having it in the house with the simple "what if" questions still apply....What if my children,grandchildren, parents need me through the night?
And this thread throws the "what if" ? with an all new subject matter.....
Just Sayin..... NOT throwing rocks or condemning no one!
Please do not think that!
Yes. Some States have specific BAC limits for carrying a gun. Various laws also set specific limits for other sorts of activities, mostly transportation related (e. g., driving trucks on a commercial license, flying a plane, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if some States had different specific limits for other activities.Birdhunter1 said:
In any case, if a party's judgment or perception is material to some point in contention in the course of litigation, any factor, e. g., alcohol use, drug (illegal or legal) use, fatigue, etc., that could affect judgment or perception could become an issue. Even without a law setting a specific limit for an activity, expert testimony could be introduced with respect to the impairment expected under the circumstances.
OP
OP
lpsharp88
Member
Man, I love all of the responses. Thanks a lot!
Arkansas Paul
Member
Nah, you're fine.
It's a choice you have to make for yourself.
There is usually beer in the fridge and burbon in the cabinet at my house. However, at home, I never have more than a couple. I too, have no desire for my daughter to see daddy staggering around acting a fool, or god forbid me need to protect her and me be incapable.
The key to life is moderation, unless you're talking about guns and ammo, then endulgence is necessary.
I am not a drinker anymore, but a home invasion is a home invasion, if someone is breaking in with the intent to do you harm, it should not make a bit of difference, "legally" if you were sober or drunk. It's still a crime to break into a drunk persons house, screw the media, it's legal and that should be enough.
Unless they want to play "do over". You should get extra credit for being able to take down a few bad guys while being half in the bag. You sober up fast in thst type of situation.And you don't lose your rights because you had a few drinks, as long as it's your home.
Unless they want to play "do over". You should get extra credit for being able to take down a few bad guys while being half in the bag. You sober up fast in thst type of situation.And you don't lose your rights because you had a few drinks, as long as it's your home.
Onward Allusion
Member
^^^^THIS!
So many of you lost the OP's criteria...HOME defense. Someone breaks into your home intending on doing you harm, you got the right to stop 'em, regardless of whether you had one OR four drinks.
So many of you lost the OP's criteria...HOME defense. Someone breaks into your home intending on doing you harm, you got the right to stop 'em, regardless of whether you had one OR four drinks.
HankB
Member
The question of alcohol impairment has often come up on other forums dealing with CHL holders; for example TX law prohibits carrying a concealed weapon while intoxicated, but the CHL law doesn't explicitly define intoxication. Some assert that the drunk driving limit of 0.08% blood alcohol applies, even though people have been cited for intoxicated driving with lower levels. The thing is, there's currently no established case law to resolve what constitutes intoxication for a CHL holder who isn't driving.
BUT . . . as has been pointed out, while driving a car on a public road carries with it the "implied consent" to sobriety testing, there's nothing on the books for defensive gun use. IANAL, but there doesn't seem to be any way for LEOs to compel a sobriety test after a defensive gun use for anyone except a motorist - certainly not for a homeowner.
BUT . . . as has been pointed out, while driving a car on a public road carries with it the "implied consent" to sobriety testing, there's nothing on the books for defensive gun use. IANAL, but there doesn't seem to be any way for LEOs to compel a sobriety test after a defensive gun use for anyone except a motorist - certainly not for a homeowner.
beatledog7
Member
If this is the standard we decide to apply, a slick, well-spoken prosecutor could come up with a hundred reasons why any given person should not be able to possess a gun, period. Imagine the arguments: The defendant Mr. Green once spanked a puppy for soiling the rug; he may have anger management issues. The defendant Mrs. Brown went through a difficult divorce and may harbor resentment toward her ex and her ex's lawyer or even men and attorneys in general. The defendant Miss Blue was mugged by a person of a particular ethnic group and could carry latent hatred for members of that group...
Talk about your slippery slope!
Except --
- The impairment of judgment and perception by such things as alcohol, certain drugs, fatigue, etc., are well known and can be the subject of expert testimony;
- Juries have a sense of proportion, and lawyer tactics building something out of proportion will not be well received; and
- Things like impairment from alcohol, drug use, fatigue, etc., or a history of disproportionate or violent displays of anger, or documented and intense racial animus, and the like have been used effectively by lawyers at times.
This. Don't give them any evidence against you. Simple statement that you were in fear for you life and need to talk to a lawyer. Period. No long explanations, don't tell a short version of the story, don't answer questions, don't repeat yourself. Seek medical attention first. Band aid, ambulance or just need to lie down.
You have the right to remain silent. Your ability to to use it requires keeping your lips together.
788Ham
Member
Thank God I haven't had a single drink in 29 years.
Sport45
Member
No you don't.
It's like giving a drunk coffee. You just get a wide-awake drunk. Been there, done that. And I don't even like coffee...
That's one thing I'm glad to have outgrown.
Last edited:
This is another reason why having a strong castle doctrine is important.
If someone clearly broke into your house, then I would not expect significant issue.
However, if it was someone you invited in and an arguement broke out; then one is not covered by the presumption of imminent harm. Domestic arguements often start with abuse of alchohol. One can easily be pegged for this event, and that can steer everything.
Articulation of self defense depends very much on the physical evidence AND your abilities/testimony.
If someone clearly broke into your house, then I would not expect significant issue.
However, if it was someone you invited in and an arguement broke out; then one is not covered by the presumption of imminent harm. Domestic arguements often start with abuse of alchohol. One can easily be pegged for this event, and that can steer everything.
Articulation of self defense depends very much on the physical evidence AND your abilities/testimony.
breakingcontact
Member
If that's the case, we all had better be church deacons and only shoot hyper-violent meth induced 300 lb bikers with a single shot wood and blue shotgun.
I don't hardly drink at all and never at home (if I drink at a restaurant will be one drink only and I don't go to bars) so I don't have to worry about that aspect.
- Status
