Alcohol and Situational Awareness- Incompatible?

There is a DEA agent from Roanoke who wound up in prison for shooting somebody in a parking lot outside a bar (the guy was attacking the agent). The prosecutor basically contended that the agent's very consumption of alcohol was a cause of the incident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Rogers

There is a DEA agent from Roanoke who wound up in prison for shooting somebody in a parking lot outside a bar (the guy was attacking the agent). The prosecutor basically contended that the agent's very consumption of alcohol was a cause of the incident.

---

A very interesting case. Having read what I found here: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinio...tx/2217033.txt, It seems to hinge on the definition of self defense, i.e.; the degree to which Mr. Workman participated in the altercation. While it seems that everyone involved was drunk (not just had one or two, but drunk, which I would never advise and which goes to my earlier comment suggesting you don't drink if you won't behave like an adult if you do) the details of the trial don't suggest that this was a factor in the outcome. Rather it seems it was Mr. Workman engaging in the altercation to begin with that made this not a clean self defense situation. JMHO.

Ken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QKShooter

Would I ever sit on a bench at that picnic with my belly hanging out of my Woman Killer Shirt and begin chugging down beer after beer, start burping out loud, get rowdy & obnoxious, slur out some dirty jokes and then finally stumble home and fall into bed?

---

Dad? Is that you?

"What about people who have zero self awareness, or are totally clueless when stone cold sober?"

I hear what you're saying, but I think everyone starts wherever they are and (hopefully) tries to improve to whatever they are capable of. A stupid person or an intelligent person will VERY likely both be worse off in making life saving decisions after consuming alcohol. Even one drink will probably cause some delay in cognition, even though most people wouldn't perceive much change from just one.

One of my main points in starting this topic was looking at how hypocritical people can be. (yeah, me too at times) But its interesting how many big name gun instructors will get highly detailed in the "science" of how to prepare yourself and your weapon, how much each caliber penetrates, how to prepare you mind, etc, etc, etc. Then they through it all away by getting plastered after the range day is over. So how are we supposed to believe all they say about "your mind is your greatest weapon" "NEVER let your guard down" "Always keep your situational awareness"

Its all just BS and I can't trust what they are saying when they don't live what they preach. You're either ready all the time, giving 100% or you are out drinking. You can't be both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

Sober people kill more folks than drunk people each year. Do you think the mother of a child killed by a sober person cares that they were sober when the did it?

I am not advocating going around drunk, simply pointing out the flaws in your argument.

---

The number of sober people versus drunk people that kill others really isn't relevant if you think about it. What we really should be asking is would there be LESS killings if everyone was sober, and I think we know that the answer is yes. We know that there will always be sober people that kill with guns, cars, etc. But, some people ONLY lost control of their car because they were drunk, and some bad decisions were made with guns BECAUSE of alcohol and other drugs. So, what I am saying is that sober people and drunks each make up a certain % of a "pie graph" of the number of people that kill others, and the larger "slice" of the 2 doesn't matter much, but eliminating the number of "drunk" killings would reduce the total number of killings, which is what matters.

So, your point really didn't point out any flaws in my argument. And the mother of a person that WASN'T killed by a drunk driver because the oncoming driver decided NOT to drink that night would certainly care. Although she would never know that a tragedy had been avoided, because it never happened in the first place!

We should all be striving to be the best we can be, right? So, a stupid person may not have the choice, whether to be stupid or smart (except perhaps after getting further education and life experience, but even that doesn't help some!) My point is that drinking is a separate issue. Its a CHOICE.

If a person is trying to be the best that they can be, they need to HONESTLY ask themself: Would I think MORE CLEARLY sober or drunk?

I think that the answer is obvious, and anyone that denies the obvious answer is only trying to justify their own drinking problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dark

It is really not about getting stupid (people hardly need alcohol for that). I hate to bring science into it, but there is plenty of evidence that even small amounts of alcohol sill impair judgment, reaction time, processing speed, and fine (if not gross) motor control. Alcohol is a depressant, even at doses that are not sufficient to induce intoxication. Small amounts influence the ability to focus attention and concentrate. It not only affects situational awareness, but also self-awareness, so one may become less aware of decrements in their own ability or performance. Inebriation is not required for these effects to emerge. And none of that is compatible with proper use of a firearm. Many different factors go into whether a given dose in a given situation will have certain effects - it is not a constant. So, yes, one size does not fit all, but one strategy likely will...in general it is simply wisest not to drink when armed.

---

Very well put. Its a little frustrating how others said that some people are stupid when sober. Yeah, I agree! But I have to ask, what is their point??? So, because stupid people exist in this world, that means that I should get drunk to try to sink down to their level somehow? haha

That reminds me of how many times I hear people trying to justify something by their own experiences rather than actual research. Like when someone says "My kids never had to sit in a car-seat and they turned out ok" or "I drive drunk all the time, and I've never killed anyone" "My grandpa smoked 30 packs a day for 100 years, didn't bother him"

I guess they ignore the statistics that are gathered from studying millions of people, rather than just studying one person at a time.

I haven't reviewed this case in years.

Prosecutor's words from the time of the first trial:

Quote:

---

"A cursory review of the evidence suggests the big three were involved - alcohol, guns and testosterone," Caldwell said.

---

He was actually free on bond pending appeal, and did a stint in Afghhanistan during that time period. He was acquitted during the second trial based upon the fact that a witness who told police that the deceased had a gun, but the prosecution failed to tell the defense that.

I also found the below leading up to that second trial interesting:

Quote:

---

Kowalczuk asked Weckstein to bar prosecutors from using several items of evidence, calling them irrelevant to the manslaughter charge: the fact that Workman did not give Bailey first aid after the shooting or volunteer for blood or gunpowder residue tests, and the fact that Workman's drinking to excess and the type of pistol he carried violated DEA administrative policy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by romansten9

We should all be striving to be the best we can be, right? So, a stupid person may not have the choice, whether to be stupid or smart (except perhaps after getting further education and life experience, but even that doesn't help some!) My point is that drinking is a separate issue. Its a CHOICE.

If a person is trying to be the best that they can be, they need to HONESTLY ask themself: Would I think MORE CLEARLY sober or drunk?

I think that the answer is obvious, and anyone that denies the obvious answer is only trying to justify their own drinking problem.

---

Dude,

I think we all get your point. Based on reading your posts, you believe all the world's people fall into two classes: the sober and the drunk.

You say that a guy at the range talks about SA, then goes and gets "plastered". Above you are basically saying if you even touch alcohol , you have a"drinking problem." I saw no one on here claiming that alcohol isn't a central nervous system depressant, or that it doesn't affect your SA, motor skills, etc. I saw no one posting that they drive drunk and haven't killed anyone yet.

I am sure you are very proud of yourself for not drinking, but it's getting more than a little tiring watching you beat your strawman argument into dust.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cvdgPlEKW9.../Straw_Man.jpg

This post is just a related FYI & should not be taken as a promotion of alcohol consumption.

Folks should be made aware of the fact that nearly every culture and every "people" on every continent ever since human beings populated Planet Earth have figured out a way to ferment "something" in order to create an alcoholic beverage for their consumption.

It is a part of human evolution on Planet Earth that predates the pyramids and even Stone Henge.

It's also interesting that entire groupings of birds and animals will intentionally wait until various fruits and berries that have fallen from trees naturally ferment before they will eat them.

Giraffe, elephant, monkey, & many, many other wildlife specie will intentionally eat the fermented fruit of the Marula tree in order to get smashed. :biggrin2:

Eons ago they discovered the pleasurable effects of alcohol on the body.

I do not drink much any more, and after a few beers at home I could still (and will) easily defend the castle.:comeandgetsome:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by retsupt99

I do not drink much any more, and after a few beers at home I could still (and will) easily defend the castle.:comeandgetsome:

---

And, IMHO, you should have the right to do both.

You should also have the right to go out and enjoy an adult beverage with your family and friends and still have the right to protect and defend them, and yourself, if it comes to that.

We can all debate the effect of having a beer all day long, but, in the event most of us will just do the best that we can and all the palaver in the world won't matter at all.

Ken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cold Shot

Carrying needs to be taken seriously and alcohol should generally be avoided if one is serious defense, but nothing needs to be absolute.

As an aside, has anyone noticed that they get better at certain things (e.g. darts, pool) once they hit their sweet spot - usually 2-5 drinks? It is obviously due to the fact that these activities are almost always done while drinking, so maybe CCW's should hit the range after happy hour.

---

I agree that "alcohol should generally be avoided" for self defense. Its difficult to understand when you hear some say that you need to carry 24/7 because "you never know when you will need it" and then hear the same person say "I can take a break from self defense and get drunk tonight" I wonder which they really believe?

Well, even if a person stayed home and locked all the doors, who is to say that a person won't still break in and attack them? Or if that person is called to help a friend with an emergency, how well will they be able to help when drunk? So, there seems to never be a "safe" time in which to be impaired.

And the "improved" darts/pool comment is interesting. I'm sure its possible that some people may "relax" after a drink or 2 and at least think they are doing better. But keep in mind, darts and pool are not "fast paced" activities like drawing and firing a gun, which requires every bit of mental and physical speed....

Interesting points. (although the part of the "human evolution" myth is not a view I share, but lets not change the topic, because that is a very long debate!)

But I hope you will agree (for the people that believe in such things as "survival of the fittest") that survival favors the sober individual, this is just common sense, as we all seem to agree here. So, even though people enjoy drinking, its really not relevant to how well a person can survive in an emergency. (I guess they will just die with a smile on their face!!)

The only link I see to drinking and survival is a possible link between ONE glass of wine and better heart health, but then we aren't talking about someone that is impaired and trying to fire a gun, so that is a separate issue. Thanks for the comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CowboyKen

And, IMHO, you should have the right to do both.

You should also have the right to go out and enjoy an adult beverage with your family and friends and still have the right to protect and defend them, and yourself, if it comes to that.

We can all debate the effect of having a beer all day long, but, in the event most of us will just do the best that we can and all the palaver in the world won't matter at all.

Ken

---

You said that people should have the right to drink and carry a gun. Well, I'm sure of one thing, we should have the right to be inside of a bar and carry a gun. Because many people in bars are drinking things other than alcohol, and its only fair that the designated driver (at least) should be able to be armed. But thats not the topic here, because when I started this discussion I pointed out:

"This discussion is NOT about whether or not a person should be allowed to carry a weapon inside of an establishment that sells alcohol. "

Now, back to the actual topic:

If a person wants to have the best chance at the best situational awareness, should that person remain sober or have several drinks? I think we all know the answer.