Man Arrested For Drunken OC In Kenosha.

imported post

Statistically there is no difference. Either people can handle responsibility or they can't.

No different then drunk driving.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

Now if the policeapproached him by the firearm alone, he may have a chance of getting this charge tossed.
But I am fairly sure the police report will say it was his behavior that drew their attention, and the fiream was noticed after the fact.

Click to expand...

The police have had ample time to think up some behavior which made them suspicious about his demeanor or his drinking.

imported post

If I have a beer, I will wait at least two hours before OCing in public. This is because I don't want it on my breath and I want to have a completely free BAC.

Once I can think of I had a beer and went to the store on my way home. I did not OC in the store because of the beer I just drank.

Drinking before or while carrying is just another way for DA to attack your actions should you ever have to use your gun in defense of your life.

imported post

I wouldn't lose sleep over this guy.

If true, he's just somebody, thoughtless,that discovered his right to carry without digging further to find out the full picture.

There really is no reason why we should separate ourselves into "OCers" and "the rest of the world". Everybody has the right to self-defense. That is necessarily going to include some dummies.

Remember. He doesn't make the rest of us look bad. People do the equating themselves in their own mind. People with an alarmist orcritical bent, or an axe to grind.

If anything, he makes the rest of us look good.We regularlysoapbox aboutresponsibility, guns and alcohol not mixing, and so forth.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

I wouldn't lose sleep over this guy.

If true, he's just somebody, thoughtless,that discovered his right to carry without digging further to find out the full picture.

There really is no reason why we should separate ourselves into "OCers" and "the rest of the world". Everybody has the right to self-defense. That is necessarily going to include some dummies.

Remember. He doesn't make the rest of us look bad. People do the equating themselves in their own mind. People with an alarmist orcritical bent, or an axe to grind.

If anything, he makes the rest of us look good.We regularlysoapbox aboutresponsibility, guns and alcohol not mixing, and so forth.

Click to expand...

At least he was not pictured on the front page of any major newspaper whie wearing an OCDO T-Shirt!! That would not be the publicity we need.

But if he was wearing an OCDO shirt, he probably would have had a better grasp of right and wrong activities while armed.

imported post

Why can't someone legally defend themselves after a couple beers? It's not like this guy went out and got hammered.

You can be legally hammered and falling over in IN. I haven't heard of many problems. FL you can't drink in a bar and carry intoxicated. No issues as well.

The question is what is the law in WI? Can you not legally carry while intoxicated? What level is to high?

imported post

Passive101 wrote:

Why can't someone legally defend themselves after a couple beers? It's not like this guy went out and got hammered.

You can be legally hammered and falling over in IN. I haven't heard of many problems. FL you can't drink in a bar and carry intoxicated. No issues as well.

The question is what is the law in WI? Can you not legally carry while intoxicated? What level is to high?

Click to expand...

Actually it IS like this guy went out and got hammered. The Department of Transportation has a blood alcohol calculator and I entered my own data and found that if I had 10 beers in one hour I would have a blood alcohol level of .163 which is still lower than this guy's .19

I know how I feel after 5 beers and that would still put me just under the .08 that is considered "under the influence." This guy was well over twice the legal limit. If you want to get this drunk, do it in your own house, or do it somewhere else if you're not driving. But don't carry or handle a gun with that much alcohol in your system.

imported post

Passive101 wrote:

Why can't someone legally defend themselves after a couple beers? It's not like this guy went out and got hammered.

You can be legally hammered and falling over in IN. I haven't heard of many problems. FL you can't drink in a bar and carry intoxicated. No issues as well.

Click to expand...

I agree that a person should not waive their self defense rights to drink a beer. But like Shotgun said, that BAC is in excess of 10 beers for the average male.

Any person who carries while drunk is still responsible for their actions, so if they mishandle the gun and shoot somebody, they are as guilty as a sober person who does the same.

With any self-defense situation, it is in your favor to stack every odd that you can in your corner. Being legally drunk is not something which will reflect positively on you should you find yourself defending your life with a gun. However, not being legally drunk with having a 0.06 BAC is probably not advised, either. It could at least bring into question the clarity of your mind in a quick think situation. How well do you know your local DA and how they treat self-defense cases with a gun?? Do they nitpick and try to find anything to bring charges against someone after defending themselves?

So this is a touchy subject. One shouldn't need to waive their rights to drink beers. If they are drunk and have to use a gun in self-defense, however, they'd better be damned sure they did the right thing and be able to prove it, even with one strike (drunk) against them.

imported post

Ya know that kind of makes me think. You ever imagine a time your getting F'd up in your house, or just relaxin and drinkin. Having to defend yourself lol. Alcohol impairs your judgement thats for sure, some people may hear a noise and ignore when they would usually check it out or maybe they go check it out when usually they would ignore it. It can work both ways. Next time your at your house and making an occasion of it, give that a thought. What if... But of course always drink in moderation guys!



Ben

imported post

I often read articles about something that happend and think how in the world. Often there is a phrase toward then end that says "alcohol was involved".

I have been around long enough that alcohol does impair some people's judgement and people do things whil drunk that they would never do while sober. I have seen this happen first had way too often. You can blame the person or the alcohol, I don't care and I have had too many people look me staight in the eye and tell me that they could handle it fine and weeren't drunk when I knew that they had no idea how messed up they were.

I have also been on a jury when the defendent described how sober he was and fully under control, then his lawyer tried to make it sound like he was fully under control yet a string of eyewitnesses said different. Whether or not the man in the OP was drunk, had his rights violated or anything else I don't know but I do know that guns and alcohol or cars and alcoholdon't mix. (You can stir them up all you want to and the guns or cars will never get fully disolved in the alcohol. You need acid for that.)

If you get drunk keep your butt at home or give someone else your gun and your car keys. I twill save you lots of trouble.

imported post

It is also worth mentioning that when you are drunk you make yourself a more tempting target to criminals. Here in Madison there are countless examples of people getting robbed or beaten around bar time-- frequently they cannot even provide a good description of their attacker(s) because they were too drunk.

So I ask-- why make yourself a target, while at the same time impairing your ability to respond effectively? It makes no sense.

Nobody is giving up their rights when they're drunk, but they sure are giving up their responsibilities.

imported post

Hopefully most people will use common sense and logic while carrying.

imported post

I think it bears stating that I believe being drunk in public is a crime.

So I'm not sure why that is never prosecuted, but???

I guess considering you could go to Water Street on any weekend night and arrest a good half of the patrons walking around downtown.

Considering you could go to Summerfest and likely 1/2 the patrons there are over .08.

But those laws don't get enforced.

imported post

I'll never understand why people want to make more things illegal. Making things illegal doesn't stop crime, but does limit the freedom of the law obeying people.

imported post

Passive101 wrote:

I'll never understand why people want to make more things illegal. Making things illegal doesn't stop crime, but does limit the freedom of the law obeying people.

Click to expand...

I agree. We need to have consequences for crimes and enforce those. Not try to 'prevent' every possible crime by encroachment and regulation of every aspect of our lives.

Those who can handle responsibility don't need the regulations. Those irresponsible enough NOT to be able to handle the responsibility will just ignore regulations. So lets punish CRIMES, you know... where there is a victim, not just make all kinds of malum prohibitum and enforce that to the nth degree which doesn't change anything.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

I think it bears stating that I believe being drunk in public is a crime.

So I'm not sure why that is never prosecuted, but???

I guess considering you could go to Water Street on any weekend night and arrest a good half of the patrons walking around downtown.

Considering you could go to Summerfest and likely 1/2 the patrons there are over .08.

But those laws don't get enforced.

Click to expand...

I think they don't prosecute because they would rather have you walk then drive.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

Passive101 wrote:

I'll never understand why people want to make more things illegal. Making things illegal doesn't stop crime, but does limit the freedom of the law obeying people.

Click to expand...

I agree. We need to have consequences for crimes and enforce those. Not try to 'prevent' every possible crime by encroachment and regulation of every aspect of our lives.

Those who can handle responsibility don't need the regulations. Those irresponsible enough NOT to be able to handle the responsibility will just ignore regulations. So lets punish CRIMES, you know... where there is a victim, not just make all kinds of malum prohibitum and enforce that to the nth degree which doesn't change anything.

Click to expand...

I understand and agree to a point but I don't think that we should wait until a drunk driver kills someone to do something.

imported post

I have been around long enough that alcohol does impair some people's judgement and people do things whil drunk that they would never do while sober.

Click to expand...

SOME people will do things drunk that they would never do while sober.

Thats the key.

Before I had surgery on my throat, I use to have sleep apnea. Would routinely catch myself dozing off driving back from Chicago. Many times I would end up hitting the rumble strip before waking up, sometimes even worse. I am confident I've driven when I was past .08 before and been driving just fine. I'm confident that when I would fall asleep driving I was 1000x's more dangerous than I was the times in my life when I drove when i was past .08 (which use to be legal)

Thats my point. The only way we've been able to (in this country) be 'tougher' and 'tougher' on drunk driving was to start to infringe on the LEAST aggregious of offenses. The people that ACTUALLY aren't as much of a danger as the people who didn't get enough sleep last night. (I mean lets face it, we are ALL a danger on the road just being out there) But we've turned the mundane into a horrible crime.

NOW look at the people who CRASH drunk. Its ALWAYS the same scenario. ALREADY multiple dui's, blows some rediculous number .2 or higher. They are well aware of the penalties, it is NO deterent to the REAL drunk drivers. SO I ask again. WHO are the laws targeting? The REAL problem? Nope.(andI guess for the sake of brevity, I'll save my idea of how to REALLY prevent crime in this countryby punishing actual crimes, not malum prohibitum, for a different thread)

Thats whats so pathetic about how our legislators try to make law. Laws that try to prevent crimes rely on voluntary compliance. Those who voluntarily comply are NOT the ones who would be committing crimes anyway. Wether thats having a few drinks and driving, or carrying a gun. Those who commit crimes have NO regard for these pre-emptive laws. The best we can do is prosecute CRIME, NOT all the CIRCUMSTANCES that 'might' lead up to a crime. Because the reality is, there are many other factors.

One drink of alcohol affects your reactions and motor skills. Two drinks affects it more.

Being tired affects your reactions and motor skills. Being really tired affects them more.

Fortunately for politicians they have a standard to measure "drunk" called Blood Alcohol Content measured via breathalyzers.

Fortuantely for us citizens, they don't have a "sleep-o-meter" which measures how tired you are because i GUARANTEE if they could, the government would be arresting us for "tired driving". How would you like to get up in the morning after a horrible night sleep and realize you can't "chance" driving to work because you are so tired???

Personal accountability is all we have that prevents crime. And government can't legislate that. IN FACT, the behaviors of government only DISCOURAGE personal accountability and make the problem worse because it takes the focus off of crimes and instead leads people to focus on the circumstances and measures that police use to arrest people.

imported post

Oh, and for the sake of arguement. Should we:

-ban guns from seniors who have markedly slower reactions/poorer eyesight/hearing? I'll wager after 4 beers I have better reactions, agility and judgement than most 70 year olds?

-not carryfirearms when we didn't get 8 hours of sleep the night before?

-not have firearms by our bedside? Face it, when you wake from a deep sleep, you don't have the reactions or judgement you do when you are wide awake?

Should we only carry when we are at 100%? What if my reactions when I'm at 80% of my optimal are better than yours when you are 100%?

What I think is important is that EVERYONE decide for themself what is best for them and weigh the consequences of their actions with the benefits of their actions. Being mindful you pay the price when you infringe on someone elses rights, make the choice that is best for you.

For some of you, that might mean that your values are such that you'd rather put the firearm in the safe after you have 2 beers. For others, they might just decide the best thing for them is to keep it on their hip when they go for a walk at night after having a half a bottle of wine with the wife. To each their own. Just remember you pay for the consequences of your behavior.

imported post

About the sleeping while driving. I wish there was some test for that. On I-95 in SC mear mile marker 150 there have been a large number of accidents. A few years ago withing one week there were two different accidents involving drivers falling to sleep while driving a van with their families. In both cases it involved families from NY going to a fumeral in FL. A total of 15 people were killed. Both times about 1:00 am and they had driven from NY. It is about a 12 hour drive from NY to this location and people just do not stop when they are sleepy. Within about a 10 mile stretch I would be willing to bet that there have been more than 50 deaths due to falling asleep. Yes it is much more dangerous than drinking and driving but would you want to try and be the prosecuter forsomeone for driving while sleepy? How in the world are you going to convince a jury that they were sleepy until they have an accident.

I have been on the jury for DUI cases and a test of .08 is not automatic. However there was much discussion in the jury room about whether or not they were imparied. It was not an easy decision. Some we found guilty and some not-guilty. The ones we found guity were a hazzard on the streets no matter what the BAC level. The others we felt sorry for. :?