|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 14, 2012, 07:59 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,276
|
States legalizing pot vs a SD shoot scenario
Maybe this should be in Legal and Civil Rights ,but I put it here because this is where topics like handloads vs SD are discussed,with the court as context.
1)I really do not care what you do in your personal life 2)This is NOT a thread to discuss the topic of pot,what "should be",whats fair,etc. 3) The intent of this post:Awareness so people can make good choices .Colorado and Washington State have voted pot legal at the state level.The Fed controlled substance status(illegal) has not changed. We have discussed,in other threads,Med Pot card vs "I am not an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana or any other controlled substance" on the form 4473,and also the State legalization and the form 4473,. These have been well covered in "Law and Civil Rights" Here is the new angle to consider. Suppose a person smoked pot 3 days ago and had to take a random drug test,or applied for a job that required a drug test.They would come up positive and fail. Now suppose a person had a workplace accident or a traffic accident and had to take a drug test,and showed positive.They were not stoned,had not smoked pot that day,but pot evidence lingers,they show positive.Sometimes what actually happened in the incident matters less than testing positive.Your fault or not,you get fired. So,now consider this,you are the old guy in the You-Tube video at the internet cafe when the gunmen came in .You are the guy who pulls his .380 and punches some holes in them. You are not stoned,but two days ago you smoked pot.You are drug tested. A self defense homicide is a homicide.The DA does not have to prove you killed the guy.That is a given.The burden of proof is on the shooter,to prove self defense.A positive drug test will not help you. So,pot legal state or not,be careful how you make your choices. |
December 14, 2012, 09:05 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
I haven't dealt with this subject in regards to shooting, BUT, I have in traffic accidents.
I did a bit of Fatality Traffic Investigation in my LE Career. I do know for a fact that if you're involved as a driver and some one is killed they will get a warrant and do a drug/alcohol test. Weather or not you are responsible for the accident, if you have drugs in your system (not necessarily high but lets say pot in your system from several days ago) you can bet your whatever, that its gonna hurt you, maybe not in a criminal case but it will in a civil case. I don't care (within reason) what another person does, but it can come back to bite you. I personally don't worry about it, I made it 65 years without it, I figure I can make a few more.
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
December 14, 2012, 09:07 AM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
|
I would think that for legal purposes, marijuana would be treated the same as alcohol.
IIRC, with a full lab test, the levels or concentration of THC in your system can be determined and give a rough outline of the last time that or another drug was used. Dip tests are simple pass/fail and they are the norm because they are much cheaper. That would be blood, not urine. Quote:
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott |
|
December 14, 2012, 09:35 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
If you shoot someone, regardless of the situation, you will have to deal with the legal consequences.
If you test positive for alcohol or pot, or meth or whatever, when you shoot someone, you'll be making some young prosecutor happy. Always remember - "self-defense" is a defense to murder, manslaughter, or even assault with a deadly weapon. As such, the burden to prove self-defense falls squarely on you as the defendant. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove a single thing when you plead self-defense - in doing so, you've already made the prosecutor's case in chief. All the Prosecutor has to do is sit back and throw stones at your self defense claim. Pot, alcohol, meth, etc. - think of them as big, heavy, rocks moving at 600 fps right at you. |
December 14, 2012, 09:44 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
Quote:
Texas Penal Code Section 203(d) says, "If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted." And self defense is a defense - as opposed to an affirmative defense which works differently. As far as the positive results of a drug test go (though I don't know why you would be taking one), it's an indication that you MIGHT have been on drugs. I imagine that the amount of whatever they are testing for that is in your system would be an indication of how buzzed you were at the time of the test. Which might not be the time of the incident. So it doesn't seem like really strong evidence. At least in a DUI, the test is done right away. |
|
December 14, 2012, 09:54 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
|
Quote:
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott |
|
December 14, 2012, 11:52 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2009
Location: Ft. Collins, CO.
Posts: 398
|
Since the standards for DUIW haven't really been worked out, it would be really risky to smoke pot if there's even the slightest chance that you might be involved in a defensive shooting.
Bad idea to be an early adopter. Not an issue for me. I've never used it and see no reason to start now. |
December 14, 2012, 12:14 PM | #8 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Marijuana and a self defense shooting raises a number of issues.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
December 14, 2012, 12:20 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
Quote:
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. |
|
December 14, 2012, 12:26 PM | #10 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
December 14, 2012, 01:03 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
One of the reasons I opposed the law in Washington was that the legal limit for impairment was very small.
If the same standard were applied to other situations a person could have not smoked for days and still be legally under the influence. Another factor of the Washington law is that there is no defense. Once a driver is found to be over the limit they are automatically considered guilty. This sure wouldn't be good news for anyone involved in a shooting. |
December 14, 2012, 03:40 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
Frank,
I stand corrected.
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. |
December 14, 2012, 03:55 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
I guess the bottom line is if you want to be carrying a gun, you don't need to be using things that impair your judgment - especially if traces remain well after you are no longer impaired.
I rarely drink. I don't use mj or any other recreational drugs at all. I'm just high on life! |
December 14, 2012, 04:07 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
|
Since when are lawful CCW holders, who are involved in SD shootings, given drug tests? I can understand that if the investigating officer detected an odor of marijuana, or alcohol, or the person seemed impaired giving one. I just didn't know it was SOP.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<) |
December 14, 2012, 04:32 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 1,399
|
You can't really be naive enough to believe that a CCW gives you the power to walk up to someone, blow them away, claim self-defense, and there's not going to be any kind of investigation?
|
December 14, 2012, 05:18 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 19, 2007
Posts: 2,663
|
Is this even a problem? Can any of you cite a case where a blood test was required of someone after a self-defense shooting?
|
December 14, 2012, 06:12 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
There was a self-defense shooting in a bar here in Salt Lake City several years ago in which the shooter, an off-duty detective, had been drinking, as was the person who was shot. I have a vague recollection, perhaps from testimony in a subsequent civil suit, that a blood-alcohol test was administered to the detective. I, however, am not positive that this was the case. The detective was not criminally prosecuted.
|
December 15, 2012, 10:37 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2012
Posts: 247
|
Certain medications can be detected in your system several days after consumption, but the actual medicinally active chemical compound has broken down and no longer is doing anything in the body.
Does the marijuana drug test indicate that the person merely consumed something several days before, i.e. there are metabolites( inactive beakdown products) in the system vs indicating that the drug is still active in the system? There is a world of difference.
__________________
The blood runs free, the rain turns red, give me the wine, you keep the bread. |
December 15, 2012, 11:32 AM | #19 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
But the guy who used the marijuana will still have the federal law problem of being a prohibited person in possession of a gun. That can be good for up to five years in the federal slammer and comes with a lifetime loss of gun rights.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
December 15, 2012, 11:36 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
|
Guns and drugs don't mix well, I am including alcohol in with drugs.
|
December 15, 2012, 12:23 PM | #21 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 2, 2008
Posts: 3,150
|
Anyone who feels that "drugs" and "alcohol" are two different things just doesn't get it. Alcohol IS a drug. And it is MUCH more dangerous than marijuana.
|
December 15, 2012, 12:30 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Location: Great Northwest
Posts: 222
|
These states have created a monster that will soon show itself
|
December 15, 2012, 04:32 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2012
Posts: 247
|
I think this situation, the so called legal pot will be far less of a problem than most people think. Users of cannabis tend to be passive even in the face of violence. Alcohol users tend to be aggressive. Understand that I am speaking in generalities. If the law was properly crafted only the intoxicated improper use of a firearm would be the issue. What a person did yesterday is of no import.
__________________
The blood runs free, the rain turns red, give me the wine, you keep the bread. |
December 15, 2012, 04:43 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2012
Posts: 247
|
"But the guy who used the marijuana will still have the federal law problem of being a prohibited person in possession of a gun. That can be good for up to five years in the federal slammer and comes with a lifetime loss of gun rights."
Only because the federal law is out of step with contemporary society. The last time I filled out a 4473 I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I have seen. In the opinion of the gov't if you are a user of marijuana you are a menace to society, however you could be a raging alcoholic (a TRUE drug addict) and it is still ok to fill out the 4473 and get your gun.
__________________
The blood runs free, the rain turns red, give me the wine, you keep the bread. |
December 15, 2012, 04:58 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
|
I'm not sure alcohol is much more dangerous but its certainly no better. If you are high or drunk and you are carrying a weapon you are breaking the law. In Iowa anyway. If you shoot someone while high or drunk i would expect you would go to prison. If i were on the jury I would hang ya out to dry unless it was painfully obvious that there was no other option. It would be a horribly stupid thing to do in either case.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|