Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Home Defense while intoxicated

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    Just thought of this, seeing as how its St Patties day and I just got home from the bars. So anyway, lets say I go to bed now, and an hour later a BG breaks into my place and enters my brandishing a shotgun. Now if I were to shoot, would I be in any trouble because I was intoxicated? I'm just curious, does being intoxicated forfeit our right to self defense?

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    no it does not invalidate your right to self defense. Just make sure bad guy / guys has a gun or a weapon on him/them before pulling trigger...otherwise, gonna be tough to explain.:?
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    "The defendant admits partying with several un-named acquaintances at the bar and to a general invitation to his home to continue the drunken revelry. This is substantiated by statements from bar management and security personnel. The police found the home unsecured, in disarray and the evidence for the claimed break-in questionable.

    I submit, ladies and gentlemen, that this is a case of negligence while intoxicated and that there is no justification for the death of another upstanding citizen."

    DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY 939.42 Intoxication.
    An intoxicated or a drugged condition of the actor is a defense only if such condition: (1) Is involuntarily produced and renders the actor incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in regard to the alleged criminal act at the time the act is committed; or (2) Negatives the existence of a state of mind essential to the crime, except as provided in s. 939.24 (3).
    Dustiniac wrote:
    Just thought of this, seeing as how its St Patties day and I just got home from the bars. So anyway, lets say I go to bed now, and an hour later a BG breaks into my place and enters my brandishing a shotgun. Now if I were to shoot, would I be in any trouble because I was intoxicated? I'm just curious, does being intoxicated forfeit our right to self defense?
    As has been attempted here by another, the statutory self-defense in §939.48 is a privilege and not a right. As stated, again by another, common law has been superceded by statutory law in Wisconsin. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    This was covered to extent on a previous similarthread. Ihttp://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/38523.html


    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    Dustiniac wrote:
    I'm just curious, does being intoxicated forfeit our right to self defense?
    NO.

    I have personal experience in this matter. If you would like to know more, shoot me a PM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY 939.42
    Intoxication.
    An intoxicated or a drugged condition of the actor is a defense only if such condition:
    (1) Is involuntarily produced and renders the actor incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in regard to the alleged criminal act at the time the act is committed; or
    (2) Negatives the existence of a state of mind essential to the crime, except as provided in s. 939.24 (3).

  7. #7
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    the statutory self-defense in §939.48 is a privilege and not a right.
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

    privilege - a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of people.

    right - an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature.

    When you think about it the legal hairsplitting between "privilege" and "right" makes sense.

    Self-defense is a legal privilege one may use to protect one's right-- In this case the right to life. You also have a right to liberty, which includes going about your business without interference by others. You may use your privilege of self-defense to protect that right also. Remember the use of the privilege must be proportional to the threat. You generally cannot shoot somebody for blocking your way down the street, but you if they refuse to move you may (theoretically) shove them if that's what it takes to stop their unlawful interference. Obviously a certain amount of forethought and prudence is advised before deciding to use this privilege.

    If you literally had a "right" to self-defense it won't make much sense, because a right is something you have due to you from others. Since it is SELF-defense, then you'd have to have the right due to you, from yourself! And that makes little sense.

    If there was a right to just "defense" then the government (and perhaps all other people) would have a legal duty to protect you, personally. Which is not the case. The government provides for a general defense, but not a personal defense of each individual.

    It might be correct to say you have a "right to use the privilege" but that is an odd way to put it.


    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  8. #8
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY 939.42
    Intoxication.
    An intoxicated or a drugged condition of the actor is a defense only if such condition:
    (1) Is involuntarily produced and renders the actor incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in regard to the alleged criminal act at the time the act is committed; or
    (2) Negatives the existence of a state of mind essential to the crime, except as provided in s. 939.24 (3).
    In simple terms: Don't do anything illegal while drunk and expect to be excused due to the drunkenness. But it certainly does not prohibit you from doing something that is legal, to include defending yourself from an attack.

    Legalities aside, you'll be more capable of providing for your own defense and that of others if you remain sober at all times. (Hopefully!)


    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran GlockMeisterG21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    You could always learn "Drunken Boxing"
    The 1911 pistol remains the service pistol of choice in the eyes of those who understand the problem. Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair. Col. Jeff Cooper, GUNS & AMMO, January 2002

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •