Carrying while intoxicated

[BehindBlueI's]

I'll just point out that the statute does not say "a reasonable person" but rather "the person reasonably believes".

So it's specific to the person using the deadly force at that time and place.

That's *sort* of correct. You can't be expected to know facts that weren't available to you. For example, if you intervene in a fake kidnapping. The facts, as you perceived them, are going to be based on what a hypothetical reasonable person in your position would believe to be happening. Your actions will be judged based on what that hypothetical person would believe is reasonable. Two separate prongs. Reasonable perception of events, reasonable response to those events. Even if you are wrong in hindsight, you can still be justified if you were reasonable in both prongs, compared to Mr. Hypothetical.

So, its not really specific to the person, but is specific to the time and place. "They" need to place the hypothetical reasonable person in the same position as you were.

I'm honestly not sure if this helps or makes it more convoluted, but its the best I could summarize it.

 

[churchmouse]

Not illegal but do not use it while intoxicated. Man it will get ugly then.

 

[jbombelli]

That's *sort* of correct. You can't be expected to know facts that weren't available to you. For example, if you intervene in a fake kidnapping. The facts, as you perceived them, are going to be based on what a hypothetical reasonable person in your position would believe to be happening. Your actions will be judged based on what that hypothetical person would believe is reasonable. Two separate prongs. Reasonable perception of events, reasonable response to those events. Even if you are wrong in hindsight, you can still be justified if you were reasonable in both prongs, compared to Mr. Hypothetical.

So, its not really specific to the person, but is specific to the time and place. "They" need to place the hypothetical reasonable person in the same position as you were.

I'm honestly not sure if this helps or makes it more convoluted, but its the best I could summarize it.

Nice explanation of the "reasonable person doctrine" as I understand it.

 

[danmdevries]

I didn't see the argument thrown in regarding application for ltch. On the application, and I believe on the 4473 (it's been a while) there's a question relating to you being a person that enjoys the intoxicating effects of legal and non legal psychoactive substances.

I don't care to sift through legalese, but to me, I would expect to find some case stating that the accused lied on their application as shown by their abuse of an intoxicant.

 

[jbombelli]

I didn't see the argument thrown in regarding application for ltch. On the application, and I believe on the 4473 (it's been a while) there's a question relating to you being a person that enjoys the intoxicating effects of legal and non legal psychoactive substances.

I don't care to sift through legalese, but to me, I would expect to find some case stating that the accused lied on their application as shown by their abuse of an intoxicant.

Not sure about the application for LTCH since it's been a long time since I saw that, but I don't recall that question at all. I remember being asked about criminal convictions, mental health history, whether I previously had a license and if so was it ever suspended or revoked, occupation ... but that's it. I don't recall anything about "substances."

But the BATFE Form 4473 says:

11 e) Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Unlawful user or addicted to. Not "enjoys the intoxicating effects of."

 

[Exodus]

I always get the feeling in these threads that one sip of an alcoholic beverage and your wasted or that everyone is a drunkard.

 

[jkwparrott]

It may not be illegal but it's never a good idea to mix alcohol and guns. I recall many years ago at a get together there was a lot of drinking and some shooting. One of the guys actually shot a beer bottle out of another guy's hand. Poor judgement.

I'm not saying you can't carry and have a drink when you go out to dinner, but don't get drunk enough to start acting stupid with your gun on you. It's been years since I was drunk, but I do know that when I got drunk when drinking whiskey I got MEAN! It would not be wise to carry and be a mean drunk. When my wife and I go out to eat, and I am carrying, I may have a beer, but never more than that. But that's my choice.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Criminal legality and civil legality differ largely.

A justified shooting whether drinking or not, is not criminally illegal, specifically. Civilly, I'd almost bet my gun collection you'd lose the case.

I'm not willing to test the waters personally

Well its a good thing to didn't bet your gun collection because I'd be by later today to pick it up.

In the state of Indiana you are protecting both criminally and civilly in you're involved in a justified self-defense shooting. As a matter of fact, its the line that immediately follows the line already being discussed here about "if the person reasonably believes...". The next line reads: "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well its a good thing to didn't bet your gun collection because I'd be by later today to pick it up.

In the state of Indiana you are protecting both criminally and civilly in you're involved in a justified self-defense shooting. As a matter of fact, its the line that immediately follows the line already being discussed here about "if the person reasonably believes...". The next line reads: "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

I'm inclined to agree with you, but what about the woman who's suing the guy from Kroger who shot the robber and saved her life? I asked when that happened how that jived with the IC code, if the "legal jeopardy of any kind" didn't cover civil suits or what and never got a response from our resident legal beagles.

 

[churchmouse]

It may not be illegal but it's never a good idea to mix alcohol and guns. I recall many years ago at a get together there was a lot of drinking and some shooting. One of the guys actually shot a beer bottle out of another guy's hand. Poor judgement.

I'm not saying you can't carry and have a drink when you go out to dinner, but don't get drunk enough to start acting stupid with your gun on you. It's been years since I was drunk, but I do know that when I got drunk when drinking whiskey I got MEAN! It would not be wise to carry and be a mean drunk. When my wife and I go out to eat, and I am carrying, I may have a beer, but never more than that. But that's my choice.

This is exactly why I stopped drinking anything harder than beer. I rarely have any alcoholic beverage if not at home.

 

[jbombelli]

I'm inclined to agree with you, but what about the woman who's suing the guy from Kroger who shot the robber and saved her life? I asked when that happened how that jived with the IC code, if the "legal jeopardy of any kind" didn't cover civil suits or what and never got a response from our resident legal beagles.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nse/151077-force_continuum-2.html#post1917200

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...deadly_force_in_self_defense-post2497584.html

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nst_lawful_self_defense_in_in.html#post360057

In Black's Law Dictionary, the term Jeopardy is defined as "The danger of conviction and punishment which the defendant in a criminal action incurs when a valid indictment has been found, and a petit jury has been impaneled and sworn to try the case and give a verdict in a court of competent jurisdiction..." and has nothing to do with civil suit.

To the best of my knowledge you can be sued in Indiana after a righteous shoot. They'll just claim the force wasn't "reasonable." Based on the righteousness of the shoot, they might have a hard time finding an attorney to take the case, and may well have a hard time winning, but I don't believe that prevents them from trying. Any attorney worth his salt, though, would probably tell them they're going to spend a lot of money and then lose, but again that doesn't preclude them from trying.

I am not a lawyer, and I slept in my own bed last night. I just try to be educated.

 

[Caleb]

Not illegal, just stupid....play stupid games, win stupid prize!

 

[EXLINE]

Brought up an old thread while searching. What if you had been drinking and you had to protect your "castle"? Think the DA would make an example out of you or no. Had me thinking tonight and thought I'd do a little searching now that we have Sunday alcohol sales.

 

[hpclayto]

Brought up an old thread while searching. What if you had been drinking and you had to protect your "castle"? Think the DA would make an example out of you or no. Had me thinking tonight and thought I'd do a little searching now that we have Sunday alcohol sales.

Make an example out of you for what?

 

[1911ly]

Make an example out of you for what?

Exactly what I was thinking. I am going to protect myself. Sober or not. If you are in a justified shooting situation I don't see alchol being an issue.

Now if you drunk and shoot in poor judgement then all bets are off.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Make an example out of you for what?

This. I dont see how being even high as a kite on bath salts would affect the outcome provided its a good shoot.

Either he deserved it or he didnt. It doesnt matter how clear headed you are. Even if you are "sorry officer, I had to drive, because I'm too drunk to walk" drunk, if somebody kicks in your front door attacking you or your family your state of mind is irrelevant. (provided you otherwise did nothing wrong)

(now that doesnt preclude other charges unrelated to the shooting if you are indeed intoxicated by non-lawful chemicals)

 

[EXLINE]

Exactly what I was thinking. I am going to protect myself. Sober or not. If you are in a justified shooting situation I don't see alchol being an issue.

Now if you drunk and shoot in poor judgement then all bets are off.

Example being that you were having a good time drinking or what have you and someone comes breaks into your house and your stills intoxicated when you defend yourself. Saying maybe the prosecutor would be like "oh he's been drinking and his judgement was impaired or is our law cut and dry? That's what I'm saying. Just curious. Maybe some LEO guys can chime in or an attorney. Just food for thought in today's world...

 

[EXLINE]

Really what made me think about it I read a story about a guy defending himself and they said if you are breaking the law then selfdefense laws don't have exactly apply. I'm sure they were talking like a felon in possession or something but just made me think would bring drunk and defending yourself cause concern? Didn't think so but wouldn't to clarify it.

 

[EXLINE]

Or as I know as it's not advisable carrying firearm while drinking but I have met people in a bar and had a few drinks. Not trashed or anything but what if? What if the unthinkable happen? Should I think twice?

 

[Dead Duck]

I never carry my gun while intoxicated. I always let him sleep it off before holstering again. This is why you should have two guns, so one is always sober.









I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.