So much for Texas civil liberties...arrests IN BARS for being drunk?

[TheEgg]

Don't tell those Texicans they can get a drink in New Jersey. Next thing ya' know we'll be having a bunch of them swimming across the Delaware River in the middle of the night for a taste of Jack D.

At which point, all the averages in N.J. will take a huge swing upward (IQ, number of good looking wimmin, etc.), everyone will be allowed to carry guns, chili will become the state dish, and we will proceed to screw up YOUR alcohol laws too!

 

[ArmedBear]

It's a law.
The law was created by legislators the citizens elected.
The Police have taken an oath to enforce the law. I don't want PD deciding what or what not to enforce.

Damn right.

And when the German government said, "Round up all the Jews!", members of the German State Police were just living up to their oath. They wanted their salary and pension, and who are we to judge them for that?

When the Gestapo officer who was about to haul my Dad's family in because his grandfather a Jew by ancestry. was killed on the Russian front, I'm sure they mourned his death, and toasted to the memory of a damned good cop, devoted to his duty to the Fatherland, or would have if they'd had any drinks, or anything else, at the time.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

And when the German government said, "Round up all the Jews!", members of the German State Police were just living up to their oath. They wanted their salary and pension, and who are we to judge them for that?

When the Gestapo officer who was about to haul my Dad's family in because his grandfather a Jew by ancestry. was killed on the Russian front, I'm sure they mourned his death, and toasted to the memory of a damned good cop, devoted to his duty to the Fatherland, or would have if they'd had any drinks, or anything else, at the time.

The German government had ceased to be anything resembling a democracy by 1933. So your post doesn't have much relevance unless you are suggesting that we have ceased being anything like a democracy.

I thought Mudpuppy made an excellent point. Police enforce these laws because citizens have asked for these laws. If we do not want them as citizens, then the burden is on us to remove these laws. It should not be up to the police to arbitrarily decide which laws they will enforce and which they will not enforce.

 

[gunsmith]

something fishy

the law has been on the books for a long time...
they only started enforceing it recently

Some one"made" the police do this, the NYPD once after a new rule they considered unfair did everything by the book and it really went FUBAR
quickly, there are rules and there is reality and thank God for that.
When I was 17 a cop caught me with 20 joints of marijuana, instead of ruining my life and busting me, he made me get rid of it by dropping it down the sewer.
My brother is a cop and he uses his discretion every day, for instance nurses and EMT's never get a ticket (from him). he gives tons of people a break and still manages to be number one in his dept for giving tickets...

The letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law

if you think what's going on down there is ok, you need to put down the spirits, you've had to much.

 

[ArmedBear]

The German government had ceased to be anything resembling a democracy by 1933. So your post doesn't have much relevance unless you are suggesting that we have ceased being anything like a democracy.

We were never intended to be a democracy, and we are not a democracy.

We are a Constitutional Republic. Our government is set up to protect liberty, not as a means by which the shifting emotions of a mob can legally take that liberty away.

From the US Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

etc.

Democracy -- decisions made by a brief majority -- is precisely what led to the Nazi government, and what led to the Holocaust.

It is far more important to ask whether the United States government has abandoned the Bill of Rights, whether the government is representative or whether the courts are following the Constitution, than whether we are a "democracy," which the Framers specifically strove to prevent -- in order to SECURE freedom, not eliminate it.

There is much to indicate that the Gestapo DID have the support of the German mob. Yours is a false dichotomy.

 

[orangeninja]

Just so you know...A TABC agent went on record on the Channel 5 News in DFW saying "If it comes between civil rights and saving lives, I'll save lives".




-------------------------NICE

 

[TexasRifleman]

"If it comes between civil rights and saving lives, I'll save lives".

Yeah, thats the excuse they use for all of these things. "For the children" or some such.

I am all for doing things for the children. In particular I want my son to grow up with a good understanding and experience of living with personal freedoms.

I am more worried about him losing his freedoms than losing his life to a drunk driver.

 

[Molon Labe]

The German government had ceased to be anything resembling a democracy by 1933. So your post doesn't have much relevance unless you are suggesting that we have ceased being anything like a democracy.

My representative usually votes against my wishes. Hence I have no representation. None. Zip. Zero. Nice system, huh?

Yea, yea, I know what you’re saying... work to change the system, vote him out, run for office, blaa, blaa, blaa.

But what if that doesn't work? (Because it hasn't worked for me.) What's plan B?

 

[TamThompson]

Know what Prior Restraint is?

JCS, I respectfully suggest that you google "prior restraint." This is a legal doctrine widely accepted by US judges, and it says that you cannot censor a reporter or writer for what they MIGHT publish. Now think about how that applies to people who drink in bars and who MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be going to drive.

What exactly do you think bars that serve alcohol are for? Are they places where people adhere to a very thin yellow line that separates the not-drunk from the drunk? Newsflash: as Ron White so cleverly points out, people GET DRUNK IN BARS.

The responsible ones are with friends who drive them home, or they take a cab or ride a bus. As for the irresponsible ones, well...I have no problem with Johnny Law watching the parking lot and as soon as they fire up that car and pull out onto a public road and start weaving, pull 'em over and make 'em walk and sing the alphabet.

But man, if I'm drinking in a bar and my husband's there to drive me home, you need to mind your own business and leave me the h*** alone. It's my right, as long as I'm not hurting anyone else.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

We are a Constitutional Republic. Our government is set up to protect liberty, not as a means by which the shifting emotions of a mob can legally take that liberty away.

Way to nitpick an irrelevant point in the debate; but let me make it glaringly obvious what I was trying to say since you appear to think that the precise form of government we have is relevant to what I was saying.

THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCY HERE BETWEEN NAZI GERMANY AND THE TABC. Saying such a ridiculous thing belittles the horrible things the Nazis did and adds nothing to the argument against what TABC did.

Democracy -- decisions made by a brief majority -- is precisely what led to the Nazi government, and what led to the Holocaust.

Actually, there was never even a brief majority that supported the Nazis. They took control of the Weimar Republic with 33% of the vote and never garnered more than 37.2% of the vote at their height. Because the Weimar Republic relied on a parliamentary system of government with a very low threshhold for parties to take part, the vote was so splintered among various parties that the Nazis could control parliament without a majority.

However, if you mean the Enabling Act that allowed the cabinet to make law without the approval of the Reichstag and required 2/3s of the vote, even it wasn't particularly Democratic since Hitler had already used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to block the votes of his likely opposition by declaring their parties illegal.

I don't see anything like that here. The bluenoses in Texas passed this law long ago and the citizens of Texas have acquiesced to it because it was rarely enforced against them. Now that the bluenoses have used the democratic political process to generate pressure to enforce the law, people are screaming at the police and making obscene comparisons to the Gestapo (and believe me, saying that packing your relatives into cattle cars and sending them to death camps is in any way comparable to enforcing public intoxication laws is pretty obscene).

If people are upset about this, they need to find the leash of their local politician and give it a good firm yank.

Yea, yea, I know what you’re saying... work to change the system, vote him out, run for office, blaa, blaa, blaa.

But what if that doesn't work? (Because it hasn't worked for me.) What's plan B?

Well, you have to ask yourself why it isn't working? Is it not working because the system doesn't accurately reflect the will of the people or is it not working because the system does accurately reflect the will of the people? If it is the first, then you better figure out whose will the system does reflect and concentrate there. If it is the second, you have a lot of people to convince that what they currently believe is wrong.

 

[BigFatKen]

0.18% ??

It is very hard to not fall down at this level. When I was younger, WI had 0.15% for a limit for driving a car. You are quite impaired at this level.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Well, okay, but if the person smokes, is overweight, doesn't habitually use a seatbelt when driving, AND is intoxicated doesn't that change the picture? Remember that society has increased costs generated by such irresponsible people and that we all have to share the burden of those costs. So why shouldn't they be harrassed and persecuted until they get with the program?

I believe that I've used the reasoning in current fashion among the many people who want to control everyone else's behavior. But if I have said it incorrectly please feel free to correct me. Just keep in mind that if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Baron Holbach4]

THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCY HERE BETWEEN NAZI GERMANY AND THE TABC. Saying such a ridiculous thing belittles the horrible things the Nazis did and adds nothing to the argument against what TABC did.

The Nazis persecuted and harassed the Jews because of the latter's race; the TABC's crackdown on bar patrons is an attempt at controlling behavior. Yes, there are better analogies but the principle still applies: the use of power to harass, intimidate, and persecute people who have not hurt anyone. The Nazis justified their actions on trumped up charges the Jews never committed; the TABC justifies their actions to preempt drunk driving not yet proven. Of course, in both instances apologists for the Nazis cited German law and apologists for the TABC cited the liquor code.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Sure Baron, show that around the local synagogue. I am sure they'll agree with you.

 

[Molon Labe]

On Page 2 I said,

Let's say I'm in a bar. And I'm drunk.

Please tell me, in very specific terms, how I am infringing upon anyone else's rights.

I patiently await your answer.

I haven't yet heard a response.

Anyone? Anyone?

 

[robertbank]

Haven't seen you drunk but I have seen others. Usually Obnoxious, intrusive, argumentive and loud. Some even get unruly. If you don't then you are right.

Take Care

 

[DRZinn]

Please tell me, in very specific terms, how I am infringing upon anyone else's rights.

Chirp...Chirp....

 

[Molon Labe]

Haven't seen you drunk but I have seen others. Usually Obnoxious, intrusive, argumentive and loud. Some even get unruly.

Please tell me, in very specific terms, how they are infringing upon your rights.

 

[Art Eatman]

Doc, I think that horse is done gone and died...

Art