El Tejon
Member
Moto, exactly, Teddy could be an expert witness for the plaintiff. 
Man Sues Over Right to Get Drunk
- Thread starter Vernal45
- Start date
- Status
JJohnston015
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2003
- Messages
- 466
That I may have been too blunt doesn't alter the fact that I was right, so I'll restate:
We don't know you're not a criminal, either. Don't tell me you don't understand exactly the point I'm making.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cosmoline
Member
LOL My people left Sweden for a reason.
joab
Member
.
Last edited by a moderator:
cropcirclewalker
member
Mr. Rabbi, it is not a problem for me anymore
to provide the following information;
to provide the following information;
I have it on my desktop. I just click on it and copy it. Please read it and weep.
Sergeant Bob
Member
cropcirclewalker
But, unfortunately, it is not posted on the cafeteria wall.
publius
Member
cropcirclewalker,
The 9th says that we MAY have a right to get drunk which is not specifically mentioned. It doesn't say that we actually DO have that right.
If it's late at night, and your drunken party is keeping me up, I'm calling the cops, and I expect them to shut you up, and I don't care if it is private property. Keep the noise over there, and it won't be my business.
Cops who seize cameras when they are being taped are the lowest life form I can imagine. If you are proud of your job, you should welcome the record. If you are not, you shouldn't be doing that job.
The 9th says that we MAY have a right to get drunk which is not specifically mentioned. It doesn't say that we actually DO have that right.
If it's late at night, and your drunken party is keeping me up, I'm calling the cops, and I expect them to shut you up, and I don't care if it is private property. Keep the noise over there, and it won't be my business.
Cops who seize cameras when they are being taped are the lowest life form I can imagine. If you are proud of your job, you should welcome the record. If you are not, you shouldn't be doing that job.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Publius- But wouldn't that be far more related to a noise ordnance than drinking? After all, if my girlfriend and I are sitting in the living room sharing a bottle of wine and over the legal limit, does that mean the state should have the right to arrest us for being intoxicated?
publius
Member
I understand, Justin, but, getting back to the story at hand, how did the cops come upon the scene? A drunken rage going on, perhaps?
I was responding to ccw's reply to Rabbi. I'm more with the Rabbi here. Once the cops got there, if the state or local govt has rules regarding just how drunk you can be before the cops drunk tank you, is that really a violation of any fundamental human right, and is it unconstitutional?
What if the guy is passing out and puking drunk, and might die by choking on vomit or from alcohol poisoning if left in that state? He's on his property, has created some kind of disturbance to get the cops there in the first place, and is likely to either die or create another disturbance if left. I say they can tank him.
I was responding to ccw's reply to Rabbi. I'm more with the Rabbi here. Once the cops got there, if the state or local govt has rules regarding just how drunk you can be before the cops drunk tank you, is that really a violation of any fundamental human right, and is it unconstitutional?
What if the guy is passing out and puking drunk, and might die by choking on vomit or from alcohol poisoning if left in that state? He's on his property, has created some kind of disturbance to get the cops there in the first place, and is likely to either die or create another disturbance if left. I say they can tank him.
HonorsDaddy
Member
If the state or local government has rules regarding just how many guns you can own before the cops put you in protective custody, is that really a violation of any fundamental human right and is it unconstitutional?
(I still cant believe you asked that question)
So then anything which might disturb anothers sensibilities justifies a person being hauled off to jail in your mind?
Hmm.....
I really didnt want to get into another discussion of rights.
Not everything that is legal is a right. Nor should it be. It just creates more and more competing claims that require adjudication. Is there a right to turn right on red? No, I dont think so. It is legal here but that doesnt make it a right.
People do have a right to privacy (unknown in the Constitution but discovered by the USSC) so if someone is not creating a disturbance and is drinking at home then why bother him? But if he is creating a disturbance then haul him off.
Not everything that is legal is a right. Nor should it be. It just creates more and more competing claims that require adjudication. Is there a right to turn right on red? No, I dont think so. It is legal here but that doesnt make it a right.
People do have a right to privacy (unknown in the Constitution but discovered by the USSC) so if someone is not creating a disturbance and is drinking at home then why bother him? But if he is creating a disturbance then haul him off.
No4Mk1
Member
Am I the only one here that hears a throbbing bass line going in the background as the Beastie Boys squeal at the top of their lungs.....
cropcirclewalker
member
Mr. Rabbi, you have way too many posts
to be a troll. When you said,
Then to make matters worse, you said;
To get back to the string. There is no evidence that he was creating a disturbance. There is evidence that he was in enough control of his faculties to operate a video camera. He was not falling down, puking drunk. He was not a danger to himself. He was not making too much noise.
Apparently the crime for which he was being hauled off for was that he was not so drunk that he could not operate the video camera.
to be a troll. When you said,
That is meaningful appears to be in a good light but then when you said;
it is almost like you are trying to be obtuse on purpose. I previously pasted amendment 9 for your edification. That amendment explicitly states that just because it isn't enumerated doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. (unknown in the constitution?) amendment 9 covers it along with 10.
It's like these 2 amendments never existed.
Then to make matters worse, you said;
It's like saying, "If the sky is blue smile, but if it's grey, carry an umbrella." Or maybe vice versa. I can't figure it out.
To get back to the string. There is no evidence that he was creating a disturbance. There is evidence that he was in enough control of his faculties to operate a video camera. He was not falling down, puking drunk. He was not a danger to himself. He was not making too much noise.
Apparently the crime for which he was being hauled off for was that he was not so drunk that he could not operate the video camera.
DRZinn
Member
- If the cops made up the part about the bottles, then they shouldn't have even been there.
- If the bottles were, in fact, thrown at the officers (which would not exactly cause me to have an aneurism), then they had every right to enter the plcae.
- However, having entered, short of proving that the individual in question was, in fact, an individual who had thrown at least one bottle at them, they had no right whatsoever to arrest him.
- Unless, of course, he started making an ass out of himself, and in the process obstructing their investigation, in which case they would have charged him with it.
Bottom line: The police overstepped their bounds and should be punished.
- If the bottles were, in fact, thrown at the officers (which would not exactly cause me to have an aneurism), then they had every right to enter the plcae.
- However, having entered, short of proving that the individual in question was, in fact, an individual who had thrown at least one bottle at them, they had no right whatsoever to arrest him.
- Unless, of course, he started making an ass out of himself, and in the process obstructing their investigation, in which case they would have charged him with it.
Bottom line: The police overstepped their bounds and should be punished.
RevDisk
Member
Back in college, a couple buddies and I had a place we "party proofed". The local cops were known for busting parties and such.
Our tools of the trade? A device to measure decibels (we always kept the music at least 5-10 db under the limit), a video camera, and radios. We had a door man, who checked ID's and watched for cops. He had a two way radio and a portable scanner, which we used to monitor the police channels. (Heh, gotta put that Army training to use somehow, right?)
If the cops showed up, two clicks on the radio. Quiet everyone down. If they wanted in, three clicks. It gave everyone a chance to empty out the back.
The system worked. At first, the cops would try to simply push past the door guy. The door guy was NOT to get verbal with the police officer, just work the radio. They would get confused because the door wouldn't open even after it was unlocked. (We used a rig with 2x4 and plywood to brace it shut.) The door guy would smile, kindly ask for their warrant or probable cause, and then point to the camera over the porch. No tape to seizure, officer, we webcast it. Oh yea, and we can't turn it off without getting a ladder or turning off the power to the entire house. Sorry, officer.
My point? Cheerfully comply with any demands an officer makes. Good or bad. Just think things out a bit before hand.
They moved on to easier pickings after a few tries.
Ask me sometime the story of the time a bunch of drunken rugby players tried to break into our place while we had half an infantry squad in the living room.
Our tools of the trade? A device to measure decibels (we always kept the music at least 5-10 db under the limit), a video camera, and radios. We had a door man, who checked ID's and watched for cops. He had a two way radio and a portable scanner, which we used to monitor the police channels. (Heh, gotta put that Army training to use somehow, right?)
If the cops showed up, two clicks on the radio. Quiet everyone down. If they wanted in, three clicks. It gave everyone a chance to empty out the back.
The system worked. At first, the cops would try to simply push past the door guy. The door guy was NOT to get verbal with the police officer, just work the radio. They would get confused because the door wouldn't open even after it was unlocked. (We used a rig with 2x4 and plywood to brace it shut.) The door guy would smile, kindly ask for their warrant or probable cause, and then point to the camera over the porch. No tape to seizure, officer, we webcast it. Oh yea, and we can't turn it off without getting a ladder or turning off the power to the entire house. Sorry, officer.
My point? Cheerfully comply with any demands an officer makes. Good or bad. Just think things out a bit before hand.
They moved on to easier pickings after a few tries.
Ask me sometime the story of the time a bunch of drunken rugby players tried to break into our place while we had half an infantry squad in the living room.
hmmm... I wonder what else a person might do that could theoreticly make them 'a danger to themselves or others' and thus get taken into custody?
Quite a lot of things, and most of them I've tried!
Being completely deranged from reaction to allergy medication is a highlight.
As is recieving the only citation for "Public Lewdness" I've ever seen.
And believe it - "Malicious Mischief" covers a whole lot...
-K
Quite a lot of things, and most of them I've tried!
Being completely deranged from reaction to allergy medication is a highlight.
As is recieving the only citation for "Public Lewdness" I've ever seen.
And believe it - "Malicious Mischief" covers a whole lot...
-K
publius
Member
I'd say it is both, but one too many guns won't kill you. One too many drinks will. States have laws against suicide, and laws mandating that emergency rooms help people even if they can't pay. Those suggest that your right to drink as much as you want might come up against a state interest in the well being of the people. In other words, cops shouldn't leave you there to puke and die. (Not that my hypothetical has anything to do with the story in the topic article, just answering whether getting drunk is a fundamental human right or a Constitutional right which cannot be overridden.)
No, not anything. What I was answering was whether we have some fundamental right to get drunk. Drunks being noisy, I brought up a hypothetical in which I was envisioning a neighborhood with a noise ordinance. So being noisy is a disturbance, and cops are called to stop the disturbance. I've got no problem with those kinds of laws.
Of course, in my particular case, my only neighbor close enough to matter is Captain Chaos, who has a fondness for loud fireworks and large firearms, and sometimes indulges late at night. Doesn't bother me a bit. Makes me grin.
DRZinn
Member
Semantics. They didn't even have "reasonable suspicion," or whatever other term you want to use. If they did, they would have charged him, or at least maybe mentioned it to the reporter. He was inside the house, videotaping them.
jnojr
Member
Alleged out-and-out police brutality and abuse of authority. Every drunk who's arrested has some tale about how they were doing nothing wrong and the big, bad police came by just to violate their rights.
- Status