Distrubing Police State Incident in Virginia

[pax]

Tamara,

I know, I know. That's why I hesitated to post as I did.

However ... I keep thinking about this one. If the law actually forbids public drunkenness, and defines 'public' to include the bars, and defines 'drunken' as .08 -- seems to me that the law is bad and ought to be changed.

Certainly there's enough public outcry now to give some impetus toward changing it. At least, I hope so.

But to say to our police, the same organizations that we expect to obey every last jot and tittle of the law at roadblocks in Arizona, to please completely ignore the law as it is written in Virginia, is perhaps not so good.

I don't want everything illegal unless some bureaucrat (or good ol' boy sheriff) decides to let it slide today ... do you?

Better to trash the law, if it's a bad one, I would think. "A government of laws and not of men" and all that, you know.

Zundfolge, I was also thinking of Ayn Rand's quote. If we make everything illegal, and then enforce it randomly, we'll get there. I think we should repeal the laws which people are going to ignore, rather than letting them clutter up the books so that everyone is a lawbreaker and the bureaucrats can ding you for anything, at any time.

pax

If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law. – Winston Churchill

 

[mrat]

Ja, zey vere only follovink orders!

I agree with you there. We do keep electing the same politicians over and over no matter what they do, so in a since they are following orders.

In all seriousness this is a pretty stupid way to enforce the law on whatever problem they are having back there. I mean really, is it that difficult to wait outside the bar for a guy to come and get him after he stumbles into his car?

 

[DadOfThree]

This seems no different to me than having the ATF dress up in SWAT clothes and patrol firing ranges in order to "enforce the law". Can you imagine having 2 ATF guys question you on what you have with you, how did you transport these weapons, does the address on your CCW match the addres on your license? If one never ever did anything wrong, many would be too intimidated to go back and risk another round of questioning. Most of us would go ballistic at his type of intimidation but some would be willing to overlook it if they were just going after drinkers.
Who could relax with a good meal and a glass of wine with 10 SWAT guys pacing up and down the tables looking for their next "violator"?

 

[Mike Irwin]

Pax,

Yes, the law prohibits public drunkeness.

However, as I noted, and as is noted in the media spinning from police, the STANDARD for what defines public drunkeness is arbitrary, and is up to the discretion of the officer.

I will give police credit in that they're trying to use the DUI statutes to set the standards for public drunkeness.

However, as I also noted, that MAY, on its face, be illegal.

 

[444]

The best part of all this is the state has no problem collecting taxes from bars. Liquor taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, business license, property taxes, but this isnt' enough. Let's also fine the customers.


At any one time on this board or TFL there are at least 3-4 stories like this going on at a time. In every one there are those that defend the honor of the police. After reading several hundred similar incidents I have a hard time buying the excuses. And the same excuses are used every time.
Oh they are just doing their job, if the law is bad let's change it.......................... (insert puke symbol). As I said above; when the nazis used those excuses, no body bought them. However that was a different time and people appearently had more sense. Today, it would work like a charm; why did you march those 10,000 people into a shower and then drop the Zyclon-B ? Oh I was just doing my job, I don't make the rules, if you didn't like me doing that you should have gotten it changed. Oh, you were just doing your job, why didn't you say so ? Please excuse me for questioning anything.

 

[Tamara]

444,

Isn't this where someone's supposed to say "You weren't there at Dachau and neither was I, so let's hold off on judging, okay?"...

 

[444]

The people who were there, wern't there long. At least in their normal state of matter.

 

[Sean Smith]

This is one of the few scenarios I can think of where I really would be as incredibly rude and obstructive as possible to the police in question.

 

[Ledbetter]

Drunkeness vs. impairment

In most states, a "DUI" is what they call the crime of "Driving while impaired due to the use of alcohol."

a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.08% has been set as the standard for a "presumption" of impairment at that level.

Drunk in public statutes, on the other hand, are generally based on a completely different standard: Too drunk to care for self or so drunk as to constitute a danger to others.

It is incorrect to say that a BAC of 0.08% is proof of "drunkeness."

 

[pax]

444,

Would you suggest, then, leaving the crappy law in place? To what end?

(Yes, that was a fallacy-of-exclusion, for those who care about such things ... but bear with me a moment.)

Mike Irwin,

However, as I noted, and as is noted in the media spinning from police, the STANDARD for what defines public drunkeness is arbitrary, and is up to the discretion of the officer.

Thanks, got it.

So what you're saying is that we already have a situation where the law is arbitrary, and arbitrarily enforced.

All,

I'm NOT saying that the cops on the scene shouldn't be held accountable for their mess ups. I'm saying that it's NOT enough for them to stop doing it...

Does anyone here think that if the cops simply stop enforcing this horribly stupid law, that the law will simply go away rather than going dormant, to be resurrected another time?

It's more of a tactics question than an attempt to excuse the officers from enforcing a stupid law. I'm trying to say that there really should be a public outcry against this sort of thing. And the public outcry should be aimed against the entire situation, not just against the cops on the scene.

How is there going to be any public outcry to get rid of the stupidity, without letting people experience the full force of the stupid law they passed?

pax

 

[DeltaElite]

We need prohibition back, oh wait, nevermind that didn't work. hmmmmmmmm

I guess all crime in Farifax has been halted, since they have time to waste on liquor enforcement. If liqour enforcement is such an issue, then let their version of the Liquor Control Board do it.
It just serves to give cops another black eye and accomplished nothing.

Now we have in the past used liqour law violations to shut down problem bars where there are numerous fights, shootings, narcotics dealing, etc.
This may or may not be the case in the bars they visited, but harrassing the patrons inside is ridicilous. The bars themselves always have more than enough violations to get them suspended, without harrassing the patrons.

I bet they didn't target any gay bars, for fear of a bias lawsuit, so they went after heterosexual drunks, sounds like bias in and of itself.

 

[hammer4nc]

Pax asked:

Does anyone here think that if the cops simply stop enforcing this horribly stupid law, that the law will simply go away rather than going dormant, to be resurrected another time?

As a matter of fact, yes. Discretion, judgement and common sense, should and must be applied...not just in law enforcement, but in all areas of public administration. I would much prefer reasoned discussion, with the beat cop, police supervisor, and elected reps, to a situation where the accepted proessional standard is "I have no choice, just doing my job"...all up and down the line. For example, strict enforcement of speeding 1mph over the limit, on a clear, dry day (w/no traffic) would be viewed as assinine, in light of the overriding safety mission, yet the letter of the law makes no such distinction. Same situation here.

The concept that we must first perfect all laws on the books, before holding the enforcers accountable for being UNreasonable, is one worth revisiting, for a number of reasons.

I saw an interview with the police supervisor responsible for this crackdown on the news today. Sadly, I thought he was your typical power-tripper. Revelling just a little too much with all the attention, grinning while explaining how he was just following the law... He did make some obscure reference to previous "riots" connected with the bars in question. Reading between the lines, one gets the impression that the crackdown was retaliation for perceived lack of respect? "You WILL RESPECT my authoritii"...in the words of Eric Cartman!

One of the big reasons for eschewing the "anal retentive" approach to law enforcement, as opposed to expecting common sense, it that it tends to attract the wrong type of personality to enforcement jobs. Hence the frequent stories about absurd applications of force (and ACCEPTED lack of common sense), that become the fodder for for so many THR threads like this one.

 

[DeltaElite]

If a law is not enforced long enough, sometimes even the legislature takes notice and purges them from the books.
We recently had laws against adultery, pre-marital sex, oral sex and a few others eliminated, since most citizens, including Le and court officials were currently or had violated the laws previously.
So as societal views change, indeed laws can be changed, but it takes time and patience.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"You weren't there at Dachau and neither was I, so let's hold off on judging, okay..."

I have been to Dachau. A little after the fact, but I think I'd be safe in passing judgment...