Defending under the influence

[Obie1]

Hypothetical situation:
After a long hard week, Harry settles into his favorite chair with a bottle of Booker Noe's. Several hours later and well over the legal limit to drive, he drifts off and is later awakened by a home invasion. After the BG points a gun at him, Harry responds with three hollow points, center mass. When the police arrive, they note that Harry is intoxicated. The BG dies at the hospital. What will the DA do? Living in a bad state, Harry is sued for wrongful death by the BG's family. What will happen to Harry?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[mlr1m]

Do the police know for a fact when the alcohol was consumed? Before or after the shooting?

Michael

[varob]

I think you're allowed to defend yourself in your own home, drunk or sober.

[farronwolf]

Harry should live in a state that doesn't have such ignorant laws or ignorant DA's.

The people of each state choose their legislatures, prosecutors and to live there.

[barstoolguru]

As long as harry doesn't cut off an ear as a trophy he will be just fine

[Inspector71]

Harry should live in a state that doesn't have such ignorant laws or ignorant DA's.

The people of each state choose their legislatures, prosecutors and to live there.

I agree! Harry should move to another state, one that isn't bad

[Yoda]

No public intoxication, no DWI. Kudos to Harry for COM shots in a drunken state.

But I will not add that to my practice regimen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archer51]

Hard to say, but Harry and his cellmate will probably have plenty of time to talk about why he should have chosen a different state to live in.

[TheShadow]

In my state of SC, you can defend yourself anywhere (that's legal to carry) at home or in public while under the influence. It better be an actual case of SD and not some contrived notion from a drunken stupor. Still even legal, booze & firearms, it's a recipe for disaster!

[Rexster]

If the basic facts are clear-cut, the defender's state of intoxication should not be a problem. The problem is that so many intoxicated folks will perform actions that make the facts as clear as mud. This makes their defense to prosecution so much more difficult. Around here, such cases are generally referred to a grand jury without charges, with the grand jury deciding whether to indict.

One thing for sure, drunk folks have a VERY hard time exercising their right to remain silent! They like to embellish their stories quite a bit, too. This can make their defense so much more difficult.

Not meaning to sound preach-y, but I make it a point to never be intoxicated to the extent of impairment, at home or away. One drink per hour is plenty enough for that warm feeling, which is the only effect I want to feel from alcohol. No "buzz" for me, thanks. I want a clear head at all times, with or without the presence of firearms.

My employer, a large PD, has a rule that prohibits me from taking police action with any measurable amount of alcohol in my body. Notably, any time I use deadly force within my home state, my employer considers it to be taking police action, even if I am only defending myself. Yes, of course, this rule was enacted because three of my colleagues, while intoxicated, did something very stupid in the 1990s, that became an international news story. One of them was convicted of some level of manslaughter, after he "defended" himself while measurably intoxicated. The other person was definitely armed; they shot each other.

[RKM]

With a good lawyer, I think the fact that the homeowner is intoxicated could be easy fought against. However, with a crappy lawyer, if the case goes to court, many average people in the jury may not think so. I won't say I've NEVER consumed alcohol while I was carrying at home or in public (legal in PA), but I rarely drink to intoxication. With that said, it's best not to mix alcohol (to the point of intoxication) and firearms if you can avoid it. In this situation, it seemed unavoidable I'm on Harry's side.

[MadMac]

Is this going to be the thread with all the neo-Prohibitionists tsk-tsking about never drinking, and chiding those who do?

I know everyone here never overindulges and everyone on this board is either a teetotaler or someone who sips one drink an hour...... so no need to inform everyone else just how abstemious you are. We already know.

Bottom line: if you are using your ccw for the legal gold standard of self-defense: imminent death, sexual assault, or grave bodily harm (especially in your own home), none of this hypothesizing makes a darn bit of difference. Which state you reside in makes not one whit of difference, either. If you use your firearm to save your life in the face of death, you deal with the fallout happy to be alive.

The only issues I ever see raised about alcohol and guns are the clowns that get boozed up and use a firearm for things other than legitimate self-defense. Perhaps a poster can cite a case where someone had a clear-cut self-defense shooting while intoxicated, and was subsequently convicted and/or sued.

[RevolvingMag]

As long as harry doesn't cut off an ear as a trophy he will be just fine

I'm sure that was next on his list of things to do- he just couldn't find the kitchen to get a knife.

[Harryball]

This Harry lives in a good state...I think a tox report will be the tail that needs telling...

[Sig35seven]

If you shot the BG and he was holding a gun as you say he did, he would be laying dead on the floor with the evidence(gun) still in his hand. There would be no charges put against you if it happened the way you present it. If he had no weapon this would be a different case.