Here's To You! Cheers!
This is a discussion on at Home drinking? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Here's To You! Cheers!...
Hey Y'all: The Shadow and SC Law says it all. If you are in danger of imminent bodily injury or death IN YOUR HOUSE it makes no sense that before you do anything you must check your blood alcohol. Other than that scenario, if you carry outside your home, you better be careful about drinking. regardless of the limits on alcohol. Just losing a little of your judgement because of a buzz may be enough to put you in jail if you present your CCW in some kind of altercation.
SC Law says it all. If you are in danger of imminent bodily injury or death IN YOUR HOUSE it makes no sense that before you do anything you must check your blood alcohol.
For sure, first check your blood alcohol level with a home breathalyser test before you shoot an intruder that forcefully breaks into your house and threatens bodily harm to you our your immediate family.
Prior to shooting an assailant, it is advisable that you practice this drill after a few cocktails often because you will only have at best 3-5 seconds to give yourself the breath test, draw your weapon and shoot.
If you understand, things are just as they are... If you do not understand, things are just as they are....
- Zen Saying
I believe the law concerning the blood alcohol level only applies to the CPL. Since in Michigan you do not need a CPL to carry, (Even Concealed) in your home I think the .02 Blood Alcohol would not be enforced. If the DA wanted to prove that you were under the influence he would have to prove a higher level, and still he would have to convince a jury that that had an effect on the outcome. I figure if the guy breaks into my house, his lawyer needs to prove why I can't defend myself.
The Missouri Attorney General has someone before the Missouri Supreme Court for being intoxicated and in possession of a weapon in his own home. The case has been argued and the decision is pending. This is possession, not use of the weapon.
I make a conscious decision to lock up my firearm in the safe before I drink any alcohol. Not even a sip of any adult beverage hits my lips if I'm carrying, and that's as much as legally possible.
The mere idea that you're even asking shows that people on a jury can support the concept that being intoxicated while being anywhere near a firearm can be dangerous ... even in one's own home. ('Cause, what could happen to others, if yadda yadda yadda.)
The statutes supporting one's own behavior in one's own home are pretty strong. Still, alcohol to the point of intoxication is something else entirely. Safer all around to not get into a wringer while intoxicated, in your home or not. Why? You never know what a jury will do. Safer to avoid the situation. Am simply saying that if it turns out a situation required judgment and you show a decided awful lack of it while armed, it's going to be ugly to explain. That's all. It doesn't really matter much, in that sense, whether it's in your own home or not.
Perhaps you've got a strong leg to stand on if two criminals bust down your door. You'll have a much weaker one if you're attempting to eject two guests who decided to take advantage of you in your intoxicated state. Explaining it then would have the wrinkle of being intoxicated and wouldn't be so cut-and-dried as a home invasion. That's all I'm sayin'.
That all being said, having to explain isn't the worst part. Whatever is going to occur due to the bad judgment might well end up being the worst of all of it. We all see what drunks are capable of. All things considered, if armed it might well be better to simply not go there.
Use your head. It's there for a reason.
Of course, all of this is fairly easy for me to say, since I don't drink but ~10oz of any alcoholic beverage in an entire year.
Were you drinking before your home was invaded and you were forced to defend yourself, or after?
"If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan
It's not about being disallowed from defending oneself. These discussions of intoxication never are. Here we are, again, having to dispel that misconception and incorrect "read" of the scenario, I think. Nobody is suggesting one doesn't have the right to defend against crime. To my knowledge no such discussion we've had has ever resulted in anyone suggesting one doesn't have the right. It's not about not having the right to defend against crime.I personally don't drink,but the law doesn't say if your in your home after drinking you can't defend yourself
It's about the idea of failed judgment and going "too far" (whatever that may be).
In a home invasion, it's pretty bloody clear who's in the "right" and who's the criminal.
Not all situations are so clear-cut. There's the rub, with judgment. The muddier the situation gets, the tougher it can be to lay claim to having executed good judgment. Particularly when someone's laying in a pool of blood, toes-up.
The problem really is about intoxication and what it is known to do to judgment. Therefore, it's pretty much proof that you had less-than-perfect judgment. Point is, in a situation where your judgment and actions can be called into question, as in any he-said / she-said type deal, it simply gets harder to lay claim to the judgmental high ground if you're intoxicated. That's all.