Home Defense and Drinking

[pterrell]

Alright, so we all like to kick back, relax and have a few now and again. I was wondering if anyone knew of any laws or cases involving someone who was a victim of a break in or robbery in their own home while drinking and they either held the perp at gunpoint or shot them.

Obviously, guns and alcohol should never mix, but I feel like we all sober up pretty damn quick when our life is in danger.

[POLICESTATE]

I'm not going to fail to defend myself and my family because I've had a couple of beers. Mind you I never have more than 2 in a single day and not one right after another.

But I think that it would become a factor if the cops became aware of it. I wouldn't bother volunteering that information however.

[pterrell]

But I think that it would become a factor if the cops became aware of it. I wouldn't bother volunteering that information however.

I think that might be the key is if you've had only a few vs having enough that they really can tell. It really hasn't been something I've thought a whole lot into until tonight while I was having some Fireball. Made me re-think what was an acceptable amount to drink just-in-case.

[echoThreeOneSix]

I could see this happening. Let's take it a little further, say you're pretty drunk and someone picks then to break into your house?

[POLICESTATE]

I think that might be the key is if you've had only a few vs having enough that they really can tell. It really hasn't been something I've thought a whole lot into until tonight while I was having some Fireball. Made me re-think what was an acceptable amount to drink just-in-case.

Fortunately I lost my taste for getting heavily buzzed or drunk some years ago. I just like to have a beer or two in the evening, usually at least a couple of hours apart so I'm good to go

[Untamed1972]

All the same rules are going to apply. It's ALWAYS a totality of circumstances thing folks.

CA law gives you assumed "sufficiency of fear of death or bodily injury" when someone breaks into your home and you defend yourself. So your job is to NOT say anything that would indicate that you weren't actually in fear for you life.

So long as the evidence supports your claims you should be good to go. The only time drinking could become a factor is it seemed somehow that the evidence doesn't support your claims and perhaps your diminished mental capacity contributed to you believing you were in danger when you were not. (like shooting someone thru the door cuz you thought they were breaking in when it was just the UPS guy trying to get a signature for a package or something like that.)

But again....we're talking about someone breaking into your home, so the circumstances are fairly cut and dried and the law presumes a sufficiency of fear under those circumstances.

The bigger question would be....if you're pretty hammered.....how effective of a defense are you likely going to be able to execute?

[cdtx2001]

I could see this happening. Let's take it a little further, say you're pretty drunk and someone picks then to break into your house?

Tell the intruder "sorry, I can't defend myself because I've been drinking. Please break in to another house or come back when I've sobered up."

[fiddletown]

...So long as the evidence supports your claims you should be good to go. The only time drinking could become a factor is it seemed somehow that the evidence doesn't support your claims and perhaps your diminished mental capacity contributed to you believing you were in danger when you were not. (like shooting someone thru the door cuz you thought they were breaking in when it was just the UPS guy trying to get a signature for a package or something like that.)...

Correct.

Even someone who has been drinking has the right to defend himself, but his use of force must still satisfy the legal standards for justification. However, the impaired perception and judgement associated with being under the influence can become factors in assessment by a prosecutor, grand jury and/or trial jury of whether he reasonably concluded that lethal force was necessary. Being under the influence might or might not hurt your claim of justification, but it definitely will not help it.

If the situation is so clear that the accused impairment could not have caused someone to misread the situation, than the impairment won't matter. But these sorts of things can become an issue when things aren't all that clear.

So things like whether a person tends to be a belligerent drunk, or whether a person due to intoxication was unduly sensitive or paranoid, etc., could cause a jury to question whether a reasonable person who was sober would have concluded that lethal force was necessary. We've all probably had experiences dealing with intoxicated people who really didn't understand what was going on or who angered easily or who misunderstood things. Such a person with a gun in his hand might just pull the trigger when it's not necessary or appropriate.

[bigbearbear]

I shoot better when drunk!

[BigPimping]

I do not drink.......ever.

[Sunday]

There are valid reasons for shooting someone. A justified shoot is just that. Being sloppy drunk should be an embarrassment as it shows lack of self control.

[riddler408]

This brings up a controversial topic here on calguns.

Who here has practiced shooting with a buzz on just for this situation??

[ldsnet]

Judgement and accuracy. While drinking are you able to make an accurate judgement that your life is in danger and that the fear you feel is "reasonable" given the circumstances (will the Jury look at the situation the same way?).

Did you hit ONLY what you were aiming at? If you miss your intended target the results of those misses could call into question your judgment and possible negligence in discharge of said weapon. This is true even stone sober - but with alcohol on board, this could get nasty in a courtroom.

[SkyHawk]

If you are drunk you are more vulnerable. It's not like you got drunk then invited someone to break in. You don't get to choose when a bad guy breaks in, he does. If he breaks in when you are laid up in bed from surgery and under the influence of pain meds, or you have taken prescription medication to help you sleep, or you are weak and elderly, or you are drunk, in any case you are at a disadvantage and your judgement may be impaired, but it is perfectly legal for you to be in that state in your own home.

There is no law that says you must stay sober in your own home in case someone breaks into your house. If anything you should be given more benefit of law if you happen to be drunk. The bottom line is CA law says you are given the presumption of fear of life when someone illegally and forcefully enters your occupied home. It doesn't matter what else is going on with you, the judgement of being in fear of life has already been made for you by CA law. And that is a good thing - because anyone willing to break into your occupied house has already shown they are predisposed to do anything.

You should not have to weigh and measure and hold court at that moment to figure out what to do, or sober up, or somehow be cured of whatever ails you, and that is what castle doctrine exempts you from. Bad guy breaks in, he's already made the decision for you. If a bad guy happens to break in on you drunk and you blow his nuts off with your impaired aim and vision instead of killing him, too bad for him.

[shooting4life]

I don't see the big deal. I shoot and drink whenever shooting in the national forest.

Drinking and being drunk as two very different things