Home Defense and Drinking

[boy&hisdogs]

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.

Maybe you should just avoid getting shmammered when you're home alone or just home with the family? You probably won't need to shoot anyone if they try to break in on poker/game night and the house is full of grown men, and this might be an ok time to get a little silly, but you shouldn't get wasted alone, for more reasons than just self defense.

But, if you're just talking a beer or two after work, then "not drunk" is exactly that: not drunk.

[CK_32]

All I know is legal, not legal, good shoot or bad shoot. This will not help your case. Just more ammo for the prosecutor.


It's of about right, wrong or what actually happened, but what they can prove and make the jury believe. That's all that matters.

[Lifeon2whls]

If its a clean shoot otherwise, I fail to see how being intoxicated would change those circumstances. If a person breaks into your home, has a weapon and you shoot him, those facts dont change whether you're sober or drunk. Unless there are some extenuating circumstances, that should never even go to trial.

The rub here is the civil trial afterwards where your intoxication will absolutely play a role in the case against you.

[fiddletown]

...If a person breaks into your home, has a weapon and you shoot him, those facts dont change whether you're sober or drunk. ...

Fine, but what if that's not exactly what happened? What if you wind up shooting your daughter's boyfriend -- who was unarmed and who she let into the house (without your knowledge or permission)?

A problem with hypotheticals is that you can make them whatever you want to support whatever result you want.

...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....

Actually, that's not exactly what California law says. What it says, exactly, is (Penal Code 198.5, emphasis added):

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.

So in order to have the benefit of the presumption (1) the person against whom you used force must be unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, your home; and (2) you must know or have reason to believe that. Whenever questions of knowledge or belief can come up, anything that affects judgment or perception could (not necessarily will) be an issue.

[drifts1]

I hate all cal guns questions regarding alcohol. It brings out all the antis (alcohol antis). You get the; I never drink, I drink correctly, I keep my guns and beer 5 miles apart, people judging or proclaiming their self righteousness. I do enjoy the posts with a sense of humor