Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Alcohol and Home Defense

Discussion in 'Legal' started by lpsharp88, Mar 6, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,245
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Nonetheless it may well be the case. How you might choose to deal with it is, of course, up to you. But pretending that if you use force in self defense you might not be portrayed negatively in the media (and the guy you shot portrayed positively) isn't going to help.
     
  2. psyopspec

    psyopspec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    4,159
    Location:
    Cape Cod
    On the public v. private property issue, it may vary by state. Where I grew up this was asked during driver's ed. Our instructor, who like myself is not a lawyer, basically answered that on your own private property you could be drunk and operating a vehicle so long as you were no danger to others. So if someone had the hankering to get schnookered and race around their own private dirt track until they turned themselves into a grease spot, that's their prerogative.

    To address the topic at hand, being inebriated during an HD incident certainly can't help. It may hurt, and as others pointed out this could be especially true if the shooter was blacked out. But again speaking in general terms, if the "reasonable man" standard is met in a fair trial then it theoretically shouldn't matter.
     
  3. breakingcontact

    breakingcontact Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,237
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    This should affect our defensive firearm choice? Should it affect out tactics? (Just shooting once, not shooting as much as needed to end the threat) The worst would be if you let your fear of being sued/demonized in court to stop you from defending you and yours at all.

    Has there been an extensive study done on defensive shooting outcomes both in terms of the actual gun fight and the fallout? I've read a lot of qualitative and often anecdotal accounts of shootings and court battles but it would be interesting and very beneficial to see the quantitative analysis.
     
  4. History.Doc

    History.Doc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2012
    Messages:
    131
  5. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,245
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    There probably just isn't a big enough data base and the information is too diffuse and diverse. So what you can have are qualitative case studies.

    There is this academic study on the possible effects of the type of gun on juries.
     
  6. breakingcontact

    breakingcontact Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,237
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Thanks for the link. I am interested in reading more studies regarding the use of firearms in self defense and less internet lore that gets passed around and around.

    Any definitive books, authors, articles?
     
  7. JoePfeiffer

    JoePfeiffer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Messages:
    180
    Location:
    Las Cruces, NM, USA
    That's a really interesting article. Lots of work to be done...
     
  8. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    Food for thought:

    Using the concept of impaired judgement to help prosecute defensive shooters is another government methodology for disarming us.

    If they can turn obvious "good shoots" into second degree murders, they think the rest of us will be so afraid of the consequences of a defensive shoot that we'll lay down our guns.
     
  9. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,245
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    No. Whenever, in connection with any sort of matter in litigation, perception or judgment is material, so is anything that might impair perception or judgment.

    If it's that obviously a "good shoot", a prosecutor won't be able to do that. But if you're so drunk that you mistake someone's completely and obviously innocent actions for a threat and shoot him, it's not a "good shoot."
     
  10. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    It then comes down to how one defines and perceives "obvious," does it not.
     
  11. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,245
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Yes, and here's the key: if it was obvious, you wouldn't be on trial. If you're on trial it means that with everything considered your justification was sufficiently not obvious that the prosecutor concluded that he could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you're guilty.
     
  12. breakingcontact

    breakingcontact Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,237
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    If the difference of a person being hammered out of their mind vs having a beer or two cannot be understood by the jury you're in deep trouble. Suppose if you're hauled in front of a jury at all you've got major issues.
     
  13. smalls

    smalls Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,433
    Location:
    Macomb County, MI
    Yesterday, 07:32 PM #68
    The problem is that alcohol affects different people differently. I know people that get wasted off a couple beers, and others that can down a whole bottle of Jack Daniels and not even look drunk.
     
  14. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,245
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    And the fact that one doesn't "look drunk" doesn't mean he's not impaired. And I'm sure that a prosecutor would have no trouble getting expert testimony to that effect.
     
  15. SHR970

    SHR970 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    338
    And the last two posts oversimplify that fact that without a breathalyzer reading, urinalysis, or blood test they won't know what your BAC is let alone any other mitigating pharmaceuticals or recreational drugs that are in your system. Simply saying the person smelled of alcohol and exhibited XYZ isn't enough. Diabetic Ketoacidosis has been mistaken for being drunk enough in the past that it is well documented.

    The burden of proof will be on the prosecution to show that you were impaired enough for it to matter for the given circumstances to the point that you were criminally negligent.
     
  16. chrisTx

    chrisTx Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    219
    Being the victim of a crime, or a potential crime doesn't usually warrant a blood alcohol test on the victim. As long as you are within the scope of the law, and a 'reasonable person' would have acted in the same or similar manner, then what's to be worried about?
     
  17. breakingcontact

    breakingcontact Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,237
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I don't want to give them any help though, either. Not condemning those of you who do drink.

    I know there are other issues they could use against a person. They could attack the caliber used. The number of shots fired and on and on...

    I respect we all have to make our own decisions. I am a fan of using what or about what police use in terms of pistols or shotgun ammo.
     
  18. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,105
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    I agree with "Anything can happen in a civil suit".

    OJ was aquitted in a CRIMINAL trial, where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". A civil trial has a different standard: "preponderance of evidence".

    In a criminal trial if you can introduce even one reasonable doubt, then you can be aquitted. In a civil trial, if 51% of the evidence is against you, you lose.


    What would happen depends on the type of trial you are in, among other things.
     
  19. 2@low8

    2@low8 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    205
    Why Muddy The Water?

    When I was a LEO working in the uniform division there were two things that alerted me that a person may be under the influence of alcohol:
    1- Certain physical behaviors and 2- The odor of an alcoholic beverage.

    So if you drink I recommend two things:
    1- Don’t drink to the extent that your physical behavior shows it and 2- keep something handy to mask your breath like the specific breath sprays that neutralize the odor or foods with strong masking odor.

    I don’t see that neutralizing or masking the odor as deceptive; it’s just keeping from muddying the water. If you are not physically impaired, which is the essence of being under the influence, then why let the odor convict you? Do as you’re your conscience guides you. Since I NEVER consume more that 3 ounces of alcohol in less than a 2 hour period the above routine works for me. YMMV
     
  20. thorazine

    thorazine Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    791
    My vote is,

    No and no.

    Unless it was a bad shoot to begin with then I am sure that's more ammunition that will be used against you. =D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page