Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Utah: Drunk Driving Bill Has Unintended Negative Consequences on Gun Rights
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 2973182" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>Only in the case of a highly questionable shoot. If the decedent walks into the bar, shoves a gun in Our Hero's face demanding a wallet, and catches more than he bargained for, a couple of glasses wouldn't matter--there's not really any subtlety to argue.</p><p></p><p>If Our Hero shoots a more subtle aggressor, say one who simply makes a furtive movement, then you have to go to his judgment in determining whether that movement created a fear that a reasonable man would recognize.</p><p></p><p>Where it is more likely to matter is a miss on the assailant resulting in a hit on a noncombatant; a negligence case would certainly look at Our Hero's duty of care with regards to judicious marksmanship, and intoxication could easily affect that, especially under the pressure of the (threat-imposed) clock. "A glass of wine," though, is going to matter far less than "took first place in a tequila slammer contest."</p><p></p><p>The example we already have from permissive states just doesn't show this to be a serious problem, though.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 2973182, member: 13624"] Only in the case of a highly questionable shoot. If the decedent walks into the bar, shoves a gun in Our Hero's face demanding a wallet, and catches more than he bargained for, a couple of glasses wouldn't matter--there's not really any subtlety to argue. If Our Hero shoots a more subtle aggressor, say one who simply makes a furtive movement, then you have to go to his judgment in determining whether that movement created a fear that a reasonable man would recognize. Where it is more likely to matter is a miss on the assailant resulting in a hit on a noncombatant; a negligence case would certainly look at Our Hero's duty of care with regards to judicious marksmanship, and intoxication could easily affect that, especially under the pressure of the (threat-imposed) clock. "A glass of wine," though, is going to matter far less than "took first place in a tequila slammer contest." The example we already have from permissive states just doesn't show this to be a serious problem, though. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Utah: Drunk Driving Bill Has Unintended Negative Consequences on Gun Rights
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom