TexasCHLforum.com

flintknapper wrote:

speedsix wrote:"...based on the facts, it's a perfectly good shoot under the Castle Doctrine..." is the key...you're not carrying under your CHL at home...so the prohibition against being intoxicated doesn't apply...so as to the LETTER of the law, you're legal...

...

^^^^^^^^^agreed.

If we are to say it was a "good shoot" then it is a foregone conclusion that the minimum requirements of the law were met.

Therefore...you should be "good" from a strictly criminal standpoint. The presence of alcohol (or other substance that could cause impairment) might be a consideration in a civil suit however.

...a "good" shoot is a lazy way to say the shooting met the requirements in the penal code...if you acted within the law, the shooting would be justified...therefore, under the Castle doctrine...there would be no recourse in a civil suit after...the worst that could happen is that your Mother might read that you were drinking...

...you're not going to get a more "definitive" answer than that written in the law...

JeepGuy79 wrote:You had the drinks after the shoot to calm your nerves before the police arrived. No law against that.

BTW- I know that defense has some teeth as I have a friend that totaled a car drunk, left the scene, went back hour later... said he had drinks after the horrifying wreck. Walked. Not saying I support DWI offenders or anything.

Tampering with evidence is a crime... Your BAC could easily be considered evidence.

I am NOT arguing that shooting an actual intruder, even if legally intoxicated, would necessarily be an issue. But if a prosecutor wanted to make trouble for you, and you claimed you had Alcoholic Beverages post shooting, I would think a tampering charge might be employed.

...I wouldn't want the report to read "...his BAC was XXX and he was still drinking when we got there..." that's for sure!!!

sjfcontrol wrote:

JeepGuy79 wrote:You had the drinks after the shoot to calm your nerves before the police arrived. No law against that.

BTW- I know that defense has some teeth as I have a friend that totaled a car drunk, left the scene, went back hour later... said he had drinks after the horrifying wreck. Walked. Not saying I support DWI offenders or anything.

Tampering with evidence is a crime... Your BAC could easily be considered evidence.

I am NOT arguing that shooting an actual intruder, even if legally intoxicated, would necessarily be an issue. But if a prosecutor wanted to make trouble for you, and you claimed you had Alcoholic Beverages post shooting, I would think a tampering charge might be employed.

A BAC lab report is evidence. Until a blood, urine or breath sample is taken from a person, it is not evidence.

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

JeepGuy79 wrote:You had the drinks after the shoot to calm your nerves before the police arrived. No law against that.

BTW- I know that defense has some teeth as I have a friend that totaled a car drunk, left the scene, went back hour later... said he had drinks after the horrifying wreck. Walked. Not saying I support DWI offenders or anything.

Tampering with evidence is a crime... Your BAC could easily be considered evidence.

I am NOT arguing that shooting an actual intruder, even if legally intoxicated, would necessarily be an issue. But if a prosecutor wanted to make trouble for you, and you claimed you had Alcoholic Beverages post shooting, I would think a tampering charge might be employed.

A BAC lab report is evidence. Until a blood, urine or breath sample is taken from a person, it is not evidence.

Do you have any backup for that? Not a challenge -- but seems odd. Consider...
Would a firearm lying on the ground at the scene of a shooting be considered evidence before being tagged and bagged? How would that be different from your BAC?

...well, they don't write much about "not a crime", but consider this: you're 100% DNA...but only what they take with a swab or a hair clipping, etc. becomes evidence...if you mess with that...it's tampering...before they take it...it's just you...
...if such a trick was discovered, some kind of obstruction charge might be appropriate...I don't know that area of law...
...the blood sample would probably be drawn sooner than the stomach would release the freshly-drunk alcohol into the bloodstream...

sjfcontrol wrote:

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

JeepGuy79 wrote:You had the drinks after the shoot to calm your nerves before the police arrived. No law against that.

BTW- I know that defense has some teeth as I have a friend that totaled a car drunk, left the scene, went back hour later... said he had drinks after the horrifying wreck. Walked. Not saying I support DWI offenders or anything.

Tampering with evidence is a crime... Your BAC could easily be considered evidence.

I am NOT arguing that shooting an actual intruder, even if legally intoxicated, would necessarily be an issue. But if a prosecutor wanted to make trouble for you, and you claimed you had Alcoholic Beverages post shooting, I would think a tampering charge might be employed.

A BAC lab report is evidence. Until a blood, urine or breath sample is taken from a person, it is not evidence.

Do you have any backup for that? Not a challenge -- but seems odd. Consider...
Would a firearm lying on the ground at the scene of a shooting be considered evidence before being tagged and bagged? How would that be different from your BAC?

Maybe it would depend on intent.

If you drank alcohol to calm yourself rather than to cover up the fact that you had been drinking. But drinking at home isn't a crime.

Of course the DA could make trouble if the evidence was admissible. He would argue that your actions were the actions of a guilty person. But IMO, tampering would be a stretch.

As far as the firearm on the ground, if you moved it away from the BG to make sure he didn't grab it and shoot you, that wouldn't be tampering. If you put the gun in his hand, it would be tampering.

speedsix wrote:...I wouldn't want the report to read "...his BAC was XXX and he was still drinking when we got there..." that's for sure!!!

Also, as the old saying goes, "there is no second chance to make a first impression".

Basically, the police officer who is first there on the scene will be the one whom the court will be looking to, to say, "what do you think?". The court, the prosecutor, and the investigating detectives will follow him. The tone of this whole investigation is going to be set in the seconds and minutes after the shooting has taken place. The four or five minutes after the shooting may determine where you get to live for the next 20 years.

Even if I had a few, I'd want the first impression to be, "he seemed reasonably in control", not "the scumbag was still drinking away when we got there".

sjfcontrol wrote:

JeepGuy79 wrote:You had the drinks after the shoot to calm your nerves before the police arrived. No law against that.

BTW- I know that defense has some teeth as I have a friend that totaled a car drunk, left the scene, went back hour later... said he had drinks after the horrifying wreck. Walked. Not saying I support DWI offenders or anything.

Tampering with evidence is a crime... Your BAC could easily be considered evidence.

I am NOT arguing that shooting an actual intruder, even if legally intoxicated, would necessarily be an issue. But if a prosecutor wanted to make trouble for you, and you claimed you had Alcoholic Beverages post shooting, I would think a tampering charge might be employed.

Your gun is definitely evidence. That doesn't mean you can't reload in case there's more intruders.

Alf wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

JeepGuy79 wrote:You had the drinks after the shoot to calm your nerves before the police arrived. No law against that.

BTW- I know that defense has some teeth as I have a friend that totaled a car drunk, left the scene, went back hour later... said he had drinks after the horrifying wreck. Walked. Not saying I support DWI offenders or anything.

Tampering with evidence is a crime... Your BAC could easily be considered evidence.

I am NOT arguing that shooting an actual intruder, even if legally intoxicated, would necessarily be an issue. But if a prosecutor wanted to make trouble for you, and you claimed you had Alcoholic Beverages post shooting, I would think a tampering charge might be employed.

Your gun is definitely evidence. That doesn't mean you can't reload in case there's more intruders.

My point was more along the lines of... If it's tampering to, say, place a gun in the dead man's hands (to make it appear he was armed), why is it not tampering to purposefully consume alcoholic beverages after a shoot to conceal previous consumption? Maybe it would be obstruction instead of tampering, but the concept is the same.

I'm not married to the idea -- it was just a thought when the subject of post-shoot consumption came up.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Alf wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

JeepGuy79 wrote:You had the drinks after the shoot to calm your nerves before the police arrived. No law against that.

BTW- I know that defense has some teeth as I have a friend that totaled a car drunk, left the scene, went back hour later... said he had drinks after the horrifying wreck. Walked. Not saying I support DWI offenders or anything.

Tampering with evidence is a crime... Your BAC could easily be considered evidence.

I am NOT arguing that shooting an actual intruder, even if legally intoxicated, would necessarily be an issue. But if a prosecutor wanted to make trouble for you, and you claimed you had Alcoholic Beverages post shooting, I would think a tampering charge might be employed.

Your gun is definitely evidence. That doesn't mean you can't reload in case there's more intruders.

My point was more along the lines of... If it's tampering to, say, place a gun in the dead man's hands (to make it appear he was armed), why is it not tampering to purposefully consume alcoholic beverages after a shoot to conceal previous consumption? Maybe it would be obstruction instead of tampering, but the concept is the same.

I'm not married to the idea -- it was just a thought when the subject of post-shoot consumption came up.

If you were drinking while eating a ham sandwich, the DA could definitely indict you.

WildBill wrote: If you were drinking while eating a ham sandwich, the DA could definitely indict you.

Just eating the ham sandwich would be enough to put you away for life!! If you were drinking, too -- Thats 'Big Sparky'!!

My points were two:

1: One should call their lawyer ASAP and thoroughly communicate events with said lawyer.

2: I expect that post-event consumption is not unknown in the course of human events - not a desirable course of action.

DocV wrote:My points were two:

2: I expect that post-event consumption is not unknown in the course of human events - not a desirable course of action.

Not desirable, but maybe understandable.

Years ago, I was involved in a traffic accident. Fortunately no one was injured and we could both drive away.

After exchanging DL and insurance information with the guy who ran into me, my passenger, a young woman who normally did not drink, asked if we could stop on the way home so she could have a beer to calm down. I really don't remember, but I didn't need one, but I think I had one to keep her company.

"Your Honor, I asked him to come back later and kick the door in when I wasn't drinking, but he refused."