Man arrested on charges of drunkenly pointing gun at person

[SKumar]

Had the drunktard not been incapacitated, he could've kept his mouth shut when questioned and avoided detainment altogether.

 

[Wrench75]

in a normal state though, any half way decent lawyer would probably be able to get this dropped way down. There's no evidence of anything other than that he had a loaded gun on him when the cops stopped him. the victim's story that he pointed it at them, sans video evidence is just that, a story.

I have no idea what other states' carrying while drunk laws are, but that's really the only thing they have him dead to rights on.

Down here you can carry while drinking/drunk all you want. The only stipulation is that you don't use the gun for anything other than defense of self/others or property. So no target shooting or hunting while drunk.

No matter how the assault/SD thing ends up, the carrying while drunk charge is not in dispute. He's gonna lose that one. Even if that charge doesn't carry enough time to trigger federal PP, in MA it probably does, it will still sink him on suitability. I'm betting even green towns will deny him just as a CYA measure.

 

[drgrant]

I see no mention of a sobriety test, wonder if they ran a blood test on him? Is that SOP? Without that...

There is no sobriety standard for CUI in MA other than "appears sober" or "appears not sober" A generic claim of "officer businblah noticed that he appeared intoxicated" is good enough. There is case law on this (recently) but I know it doesn't have a BAC standard in it.


It's total bullshit but that is the law in MA, the CUI law doesn't specify a bac.

ETA: References, Commonwealth vs. Veronneau

https://www.northeastshooters.com/v...t-in-Whitman?p=5477288&viewfull=1#post5477288


-Mike

 

[bigblue]

I know, we've discussed it before. I'm curious how far you could take that though: A law mandating sobriety without any identifiable standard. Seems capricious and arbitrary.