Alcohol and Home Defense

[Frank Ettin]

And you also have to worry about the news etc. from getting a hold of the fact you had a beer, then digging up a picture of the perpetrator riding a tricycle when he was 10 years old....

If that's the case, we all had better be church deacons ....

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.

 

[psyopspec]

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?

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.

 

[breakingcontact]

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.

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.

 

[History.Doc]

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/505.html
In California, there is a lot that hinges on what a reasonable person would do. If you have been drinking you are still held to that standard.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...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.

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.

 

[breakingcontact]

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?

 

[JoePfeiffer]

That's a really interesting article. Lots of work to be done...

 

[beatledog7]

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.

 

[Frank Ettin]

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

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 they can turn obvious "good shoots" into second degree murders,...

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."

 

[beatledog7]

It then comes down to how one defines and perceives "obvious," does it not.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It then comes down to how one defines and perceives "obvious," does it not.

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.

 

[breakingcontact]

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.

 

[smalls]

Yesterday, 07:32 PM #68

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.

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.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...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.

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.

 

[SHR970]

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.

 

[chrisTx]

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?

 

[breakingcontact]

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.

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.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Anything can happen in a civil suit. Like OJ's first pass through the system, acquitted on two counts of murder. 3 years later lost the civil case because of a preponderance of evidence to hold him liable for damages, of the people he was acquitted of killing...

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.

 

[2@low8]

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

 

[thorazine]

I was curious if the presence of alcohol in your system after a home defense situation had an adverse effect? My question involves two different scenarios:

1. My BAC is between .01 and the legal limit (.08 in most cases).
2. My BAC is over the legal limit (>.08 in most cases)

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