Sorry, but you don't get it.DoubleSawbuck said:A justified shooting is a justified shooting whether you've been drinking or not. Either way you must be protecting yourself against death or serious bodily injury. I agree it is not a good idea to mix alcohol and firearms but the second amendment and right to life doesn't (and shouldn't) stop when you pick up a bottle.
http://articles.philly.com/2011-02-16/news/28538617_1_gerald-ung-law-student-unarmed-man
[1] This "a good shoot is a good shoot" business is nonsense. You will not be the one deciding whether or not your use of violence was justified. If there's a dispute, it will be up to your trial jury.
[2] In order to establish that your act of extreme violence against another human was legally justified, you will need to put on evidence that a reasonable person in like circumstances would have concluded that lethal force was necessary to protect against immediate death or grave bodily injury at the hands of another. That will put your perception and judgment into issue. And if you'd been drinking, you can expect the prosecutor to argue that your perception and judgment were compromised.
[3] Note that the Gerald Ung incident was captured on video, and he was still charged with the crimes of aggravated assault and attempted murder and brought to trial. If the jury had not accepted his self defense plea, he could have gone to prison for a long time.
[4] As it was, Ung was forced to undergo a trial and the enormous stress that goes along with that.
[5] The legal bills for a jury trial on a serious criminal charge will generally run between $50,000 and $150,000.
[6] For a better understanding of how a plea of self defense works, see this thread. And this is a good article about the legal realities of defending a self defense case.
Last edited: