TexasCHLforum.com

I've had something on my mind for some time now that I would really like clarified by a lawyer or a LEO, or just someone who is familiar with the relevant law.

Every once in a while, after I get off work and make it to my humble abode, I will have a beer or two (or three ). Especially If I'm barbecuing. And shoot, sometimes I'll even have something stronger than a beer. I don't mean to make myself sound like an alcoholic, I wan't to stress that this is occasional in nature. As the title implies, I'm very curious how the presence of alcohol in my system would affect me legally speaking should there be a need to use deadly force in self defense inside my own home. Let's say that, based on the facts, it's a perfectly good shoot under the Castle doctrine. The only other factor is that I've imbibed some that evening. I think that doing a drug/alcohol screen is routine procedure if I shoot someone, is that right? Regardless, even if the police don't test me, let's say my eyes are a little red and there are 3 empty bottles of beer over on the counter, and it's pretty obvious I've had a couple. I'm wondering if I'll still be OK under TX law. And if I do get tested, would the BAC matter? Would there be any difference in how I get treated under the law whether my BAC is 0.02 or 0.10?

P.S. I would never drink while carrying, but I feel like I shouldn't give up my right to consume whatever beverage I want to consume inside my own home for fear that the law will come after me should I have to defend myself in my home.

You can be sober as a judge when involved in a justified shooting and end up in legal trouble.

"...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...

...

If the shooting is justified, whether the shooter is stone cold sober or not "shouldn't" be a factor and I would hope even a novice attorney could handle that case.

It's isn't the "Alcohol + good shoot = legal trouble" scenario that is most worrisome. It is the "alcohol-caused impaired judgment leading to a bad shoot" that is most worrisome. People make decisions while impaired that the same person would never make while sober. An impaired decision to shoot someone could lead to a very dark place.

If you are under the influence of alcohol or anything that affects your decision making abilities and are involved in a self defense shooting it will muddy the water on the justification. While you may not actually be legally intoxicated, the fact you had been drinking will be viewed as a negative factor in the determination of your judgement in the decision to shoot when it is reviewed by the LEO's, the DA and a Grand Jury.

...true, but if the points of the law were met for justification, and it was really a justified shooting...that should be the extent of the problem...scrutiny...even if the homeowner was a bit past "a coupla drinks"...but it's ALWAYS important to keep a clear head, whether you expect trouble or not, even in your own home...Demon Rum always has Trouble with him...

Hypothetically, if one were forced to defend themselves at home I might not be surprised to find that immediately after calling 911 and their lawyer they promptly sat down and poured themselves a good stiff drink or two. In fact, they might even be sitting at the table having that drink when the emergency responders arrived. Of course, their lawyer might have other suggestions.

Shooting someone under any circumstances anywhere is gonna' draw a lot of attention and bring on a lot of questions from many directions.

OTOH, sometime you just gotta' do what you gotta' do. At that time, the answers will come to you, grasshopper.

Oldgringo wrote:Shooting someone under any circumstances anywhere is gonna' draw a lot of attention and bring on a lot of questions from many directions.

OTOH, sometime you just gotta' do what you gotta' do. At that time, the answers will come to you, grasshopper.

I know, right. Reality has a funny way of encroaching on our peaceful, secure existence. So I'm not getting a definitive answer, at least so far. I already knew it would muddy the waters to have ETOH in your system. If you're going to legally shoot someone, it's always better to do it sober rather than under the influence. Speeedsix, I see you think I would be fine as long as the shoot was otherwise good. I think that I should be fine. After all, I don't know when I'm going to get attacked in my home, and I can't plan all my decisions around the distant possibility of a stupid criminal breaking into my house while I'm there. Don't most burglars make sure that nobody's home before breaking in anyways? So, if someone's breaking in while I'm in the house, I would presume the worst intentions including torture and murder on the criminal's part. I would do what I need to do. I just hope the law would be on my side whether or not I had just had 3 beers.

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.

matriculated wrote:
I just hope the law would be on my side whether or not I had just had 3 beers.

As stated a good shooting is a good shooting a person's use of alcohol may or may not make a problem. If when the police arrive you are staggering around, slurred speech and making some outlandish statements you are in a world of trouble.

If you are worried about what may happen if you've had three beers drink iced tea and then you will have one less thing to worry about.

If anyone can actually dig up a case where a home invader was shot by an intoxicated homeowner and the home owner got in trouble for it, I'll buy you a beer.


But seriously, as interesting as it is to dig into all the what ifs regarding Texas law...sometimes we get a bit silly thinking of ways the law can be bent against us...

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.

74novaman wrote:If anyone can actually dig up a case where a home invader was shot by an intoxicated homeowner and the home owner got in trouble for it, I'll buy you a beer.

I'll take you up on that! Now, where's Temple again?

74novaman wrote:But seriously, as interesting as it is to dig into all the what ifs regarding Texas law...sometimes we get a bit silly thinking of ways the law can be bent against us...

I agree and disagree with you there. I agree that some fears of how the law can be used against us are silly, but I totally disagree with any idea that might be the case with my question. I think that occasionally having a drink after work is a fairly mainstream American practice, so I'm really worried about what might happen in a situation as I've outlined before. It seems like the concensus so far is that it wouldn't be a problem as long as the shoot was good.

Can anyone think of a case where the shoot was good but the shooter was intoxicated???