States legalizing pot vs a SD shoot scenario

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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
Heavy Metal 1 said:
...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.
Click to expand...
Completely irrelevant.

The law on this is what it is. Your opinion as to whether the law is good or bad or off base doesn't matter. The OP wasn't asking about how people think things should be. The OP was asking about possible complication under existing law of the state law legal use of marijuana under certain circumstance.

If you think the laws should be different from what they are, our systems offers you a number of ways to try to change the law. But opinions about whether these laws are right or wrong are off topic for this thread.
 
Smoke some weed, drive a car a few days later, & get into a car accident a couple of days later involving fatalities...get sentenced to SEVEN freaking years in prison...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...-woman-accident-state-s-attorney-jody-gleason

Seriously folks, JUST SAY NO. . . Even if it is legal in your State, you shoot someone in SD and it comes out that you'd smoked weed a couple of days ago, some gung-ho federal prosecutor wanting to make a name for themselves will try to nail you to the wall. If I were a federal prosecutor, I definitely would be doing this in those States that have legalized weed. It's ain't about right & wrong. It's about politics and the dollars in my paycheck.
 
from Onward's post and tag line:


It's ain't about right & wrong. It's about politics and the dollars in my paycheck.
__________________
"With great power, there must also come great responsibility." - Stan Lee

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


Somewhat of an incongruency don't you think?
 
Heavy Metal 1
from Onward's post and tag line:
It's ain't about right & wrong. It's about politics and the dollars in my paycheck.
__________________
"With great power, there must also come great responsibility." - Stan Lee
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Somewhat of an incongruency don't you think?
Click to expand...

Yup, you're right. Life is a bunch of dichotomies.

At least, I admit to it rather than some of these other jokers that sing the self-righteous tune. If something I do is part of my legal job description and it so happens to propel my career, so be it. Would I do something illegal to move my career forward? No. Would having my career move forward drive me to prosecute harder while staying within the confines of the law? Of course! It happens every freaking day. Anyone who doesn't believe that is a foolish idealist.

So, going back to the topic - don't freakin smoke weed if you're gonna carry or think you may shoot somebody in self-defense. Pretty dang easy, eh?
 
I'll put this out there for consideration. If I were on a jury and evidence was presented that the person who shot someone in self-defense (outside of his home) had marijuana in his system, it is not something that I could dismiss or ignore. Having known a number of people who's judgment has been altered by habitual marijuana use, I have a strong prejudice associated with the use of this drug. Marijuana is not the same as alcohol and it not at all harmless compared to alcohol either. From my point of view, people who are regular marijuana users have a very skewed perception of reality. I've argued this point with many marijuana users - and whether you think I'm right or wrong doesn't really matter if someone like me happens to make it on a self-defense case jury.
 
There are at least two specific elemental compounds of THC that can be tested in the blood. The traditional urine tests detect the total including that which is stored "long term" in fat cells. THC/Creatine ratios are able to detect more recent use. The specific tests that are to be used in WA for DUI[M] will test specifically for the THC compound that relates to "current" use and isolate it from the "fat stored" compound.

MJ
 
So, Skans, what if all the factors indicate the self defense shoot was justified? Would you vote for manslaughter just because the shooter had legally used cannabis at some time in the past? Would you vote the same way if the shooter was an alcoholic? In the case of Colorado and Washington both substances would be equal, legally speaking.
 
So, Skans, what if all the factors indicate the self defense shoot was justified?

If all factors indicated the shooting was justified, I'd probably vote to acquit - but the fact that the defendant had drugs in his system at the time of the shooting would be a relevant factor for me to have to consider.

Would you vote for manslaughter just because the shooter had legally used cannabis at some time in the past?

At some distant time in the past? No, it wouldn't be a factor for me. But, if blood testing showed recent use, it would definitely be a factor for me. My experience with heavy pot smokers is that they have a very skewed perception of reality.

Would you vote the same way if the shooter was an alcoholic?

Recent use of alcohol would also lead me to believe that the shooter's judgment was impaired.
 
For those out there who would vote to skewer the cannabis user even if his shot was totally justified how would you feel if the shot was to save the life of someone you love or if it was to save you? Yes, yes, I know you would not be on the jury, but would it alter how you feel about the case? Do you think he should still be imprisoned?

food for thought
 
Heavy Metal 1 said:
For those out there who would vote to skewer the cannabis user even if his shot was totally justified...
Click to expand...
You completely miss and misunderstand the point, and it's the same point with alcohol or any other substance that can impair one's perception or judgment.

The possibility of impaired perception and judgment will call into question whether the defendant's use of lethal force was justified. The possibility of impaired preception and judgment will call into question whether the defendant reasonably understood the situation and reasonably concluded that lethal force was necessary.

If a jury decides that the defendant was under the influence of a perception and judgment impairing substance, the jury might well conclude that the defendant misjudged the situation and used lethal force when it was not necessary. In that case the shot would not have been justified.
 
No, you miss the point I'm trying to make. What if the shot WAS justified? The guy didn't misjudge the situation, didn't act impulsivly or imprudently in any way. Beyond the shadow of a doubt the shoot was good. We're only throwing in the weed as an "extra" hypothetical. Would that change your feeling? Again what if it was YOU that was saved by the shoot, would you still want the guy hung out to dry ONLY because of his indulgence in an herb?

In other words you were all set to vote that this was a proper use of lethal force then somehow you found out the guy was a user of cannabis. Be honest now.
 
Heavy Metal 1 said:
...What if the shot WAS justified? ...Beyond the shadow of a doubt the shoot was good...
Click to expand...
If his use of lethal force was beyond a doubt justified, he wouldn't be on trial. He would be on trial only if there was a question as to whether he was justified, and that question would need to be answered by a jury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top