Carrying and Alcohol

[heresyourdipstickjimmy]

If you beat up somebody in self-defense or in defense of another after you've consumed alcohol, the issue is still whether your action was reasonably necessary for your defense or the defense of a third person. Even if you're drunk, you have a right to defend yourself.

If you've been drinking, and someone breaks into your home and you shoot him, the level of your intoxication doesn't figure -- it's just a matter of whether a "reasonable person" would have been justified in shooting him.

Now you're at the Market Street Cafe. You and your wife have polished off a cocktail, then a bottle of wine with dinner, and a Bad Guy comes in with a gun to rob the clientele. He shoots a waiter and two customers.

You're not allowed to put a hole in him to defend yourself and your wife? You can attack him with a fork, but not a gun?

First 2 are legit issues. Missouri recently had a court case hit where the defendant had been heavily intoxicated at home, repeatedly called 911, and had threatened to shoot himself several times. Of course the court ruled that the State can regulate the possession of a firearm where alcohol is involved. Thus our Statute has changed from intoxicated to chronically intoxicated.

The third is a total bunk and garbage issue. Common sense says you don't drink and drive...it's the also illegal. That same common sense should tell you that you don't drink if you're carrying or you don't carry if you're going to be drinking or have been drinking. Reaction time is slowed, fine motor skills disappear, gross motor skills are impeded, judgment becomes impaired. Need I say more?

Why the subject of drinking while carrying keeps coming up on this particular forum is quite disheartening and is a clear illustration of very irresponsible people. Antis scan over these forums just as much as LEOs do. You're just giving them ammunition to use against the 2A crowd. Don't believe me? Get caught just once and see how fast your posts can be admitted as evidence in court.

And here's a thread on the board to illustrate just how stupid this issue actually is.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?79894-Man-gets-drunk-shoots-server-with-.45

 

[protias]

It really depends on what state you live in.

 

[tletourneau]

The third is a total bunk and garbage issue. Common sense says you don't drink and drive...it's the also illegal. That same common sense should tell you that you don't drink if you're carrying or you don't carry if you're going to be drinking or have been drinking. Reaction time is slowed, fine motor skills disappear, gross motor skills are impeded, judgment becomes impaired. Need I say more?

Why the subject of drinking while carrying keeps coming up on this particular forum is quite disheartening and is a clear illustration of very irresponsible people. Antis scan over these forums just as much as LEOs do. You're just giving them ammunition to use against the 2A crowd. Don't believe me? Get caught just once and see how fast your posts can be admitted as evidence in court.

As protias mentioned it depends on location. In MN you can drink and drive as long as your BAC doesn't exceed .08 and you can drink and carry as long as your BAC doesn't exceed .04. I'm not commenting on the wisdom of either, I'm just saying that to say it's patently illegal to drink and drive (or drink and carry depending on the state) is a not necessarily correct.

 

[GWbiker]

It really depends on what state you live in.

I've witnessed it being legal to drink while OC in a restaurant in Pennsylvania.

 

[.45acp]

I've witnessed it being legal to drink while OC in a restaurant in Pennsylvania.

That does not make it a good idea.....many things are legal...that does not make it smart.

Steve

 

[kadar]

That does not make it a good idea.....many things are legal...that does not make it smart.

Steve

You mean like:

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

On the act of carrying of a firearm.

 

[Kirbinator]

Pull, get the gun on target, then yell at him. When he turns his head, you shoot if his body (and gun) follow.

That's pretty much how to do it if you have one active shooter who is indiscriminately killing. Otherwise, you have no reason to kill the person. Until he points the gun at you, your life hasn't been threatened and you're not justified in pulling the gun (brandishing). However, if you wait to pull the gun until the threat is immediately on you (for example, pointed directly at you), you will die. Another thing to remember is that YOU HAVE BEEN DRINKING and your reflexes will be MUCH SLOWER than you think they are.

Remember at all times: self-defense is a martial art.

 

[eye95]

Pull, get the gun on target, then yell at him. When he turns his head, you shoot if his body (and gun) follow.

That's pretty much how to do it if you have one active shooter who is indiscriminately killing. Otherwise, you have no reason to kill the person. Until he points the gun at you, your life hasn't been threatened and you're not justified in pulling the gun (brandishing). However, if you wait to pull the gun until the threat is immediately on you (for example, pointed directly at you), you will die. Another thing to remember is that YOU HAVE BEEN DRINKING and your reflexes will be MUCH SLOWER than you think they are.

Remember at all times: self-defense is a martial art.

In some States, you can use lethal force to defend others if you reasonably believe they are in danger. If you have such a mass shooter, I think you have that reasonable belief. Shoot him to stop him with the full knowledge that his death may result.

In Alabama, such is the case:

A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

 

[Ruby]

In some States, you can use lethal force to defend others if you reasonably believe they are in danger. If you have such a mass shooter, I think you have that reasonable belief. Shoot him to stop him with the full knowledge that his death may result.

In Alabama, such is the case:

This is also true in Washington state; we are allowed to defend a third party from an immient threat.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

This is also true in Washington state; we are allowed to defend a third party from an immient threat.

Beat me too it ruby. That also means if the 3rd party isn't even present.

 

[Ruby]

Beat me too it ruby. That also means if the 3rd party isn't even present.

I don't understand your post, SVG. How could you defend someone, a third party, if they are not present and not being threatened? Give me an example, please.

 

[rodbender]

I don't understand your post, SVG. How could you defend someone, a third party, if they are not present and not being threatened? Give me an example, please.

Beat me to it as well. I, too, would like an answer to that one.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers, time.com

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html

These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health.

 

[eye95]

Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don't have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.

From the same article.

 

[Ruby]

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html

Don't believe everything you read. There are a lot of heavy drinkers and alcoholics who would disagree with that, if they were still around to do so. As with anything else, learn to drink responsibly and in moderation.

 

[eye95]

Don't believe everything you read. There are a lot of heavy drinkers and alcoholics who would disagree with that, if they were still around to do so. As with anything else, learn to drink responsibly and in moderation.

Check out the actual numbers in the article. The heavy drinkers don't fare much better than the non-drinkers.

The mortality rates:

Moderate drinkers - 41%
Heavy drinkers - 60%
Non-drinkers - 69%

The conclusion the study should have highlighted is that moderate drinking is the healthiest option. The other two options are not healthy, with abstinence being slightly less healthy than heavy drinking.

I wonder how they came up with their definitions. I wouldn't call three drinks a day "moderate."

 

[Ruby]

Check out the actual numbers in the article. The heavy drinkers don't fare much better than the non-drinkers.

The mortality rates:

Moderate drinkers - 41%
Heavy drinkers - 60%
Non-drinkers - 69%

The conclusion the study should have highlighted is that moderate drinking is the healthiest option. The other two options are not healthy, with abstinence being slightly less healthy than heavy drinking.

I wonder how they came up with their definitions. I wouldn't call three drinks a day "moderate."

I didn't read the article, but another factor would be a person's health and genetic makeup; alcohol is going to have more of an adverse effect on some people than on others.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

a

I don't understand your post, SVG. How could you defend someone, a third party, if they are not present and not being threatened? Give me an example, please.

Gray brought this out in a thread I can't seem to find right now.
But if someone is in your vicinity and is making threats that are credible to say your wife, life partner, kids, who are in another location and you fully believe they are capable of carrying out said threats ( I'm going to go kill your son who lives at ##### address) you are justifiable in stopping the threat.

Also by our RCW's we have broader powers in lethal force than Police Officers although in reality (like the recent Everett shooting, discussed in Washington Forum) the courts and LEA have basically ignored this.

 

[Ruby]

a

Gray brought this out in a thread I can't seem to find right now.
But if someone is in your vicinity and is making threats that are credible to say your wife, life partner, kids, who are in another location and you fully believe they are capable of carrying out said threats ( I'm going to go kill your son who lives at ##### address) you are justifiable in stopping the threat.

Also by our RCW's we have broader powers in lethal force than Police Officers although in reality (like the recent Everett shooting, discussed in Washington Forum) the courts and LEA have basically ignored this.

I've never heard of this. I think it would be a stretch as far as being justifiable. In that particular instance, I would hopefully have a recorder going, get it on tape, and call 911. People say a lot of things that they never do. I believe the RCW says IMMINENT threat, for which the third party would have to be present and threatened. I don't think you can go around shooting people because they say they are going to commit a crime. I would, however, notify the person being threatened immediately and call 911.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I've never heard of this. I think it would be a stretch as far as being justifiable. In that particular instance, I would hopefully have a recorder going, get it on tape, and call 911. People say a lot of things that they never do. I believe the RCW says IMMINENT threat, for which the third party would have to be present and threatened. I don't think you can go around shooting people because they say they are going to commit a crime. I would, however, notify the person being threatened immediately and call 911.

It isn't a stretch if the man is armed with a gun screaming at you how he is going to leave and kill your family right now......

I don't know if I would want to take the chance of calling the police and waiting for them to stop the murder of my loved ones.

Plus this is also a felony (this type of threat) which again is justifiable under our RCW's.