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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drunk in public has always been enforced strictly on the objective signs displayed by the suspect and observed by the officer. (odor of alcohol, red watery eyes, slurred speech, staggering gate, etc.)
Click to expand...
No, this is based on SUBJECTIVE evaluations by LEOs. "He's drunk because I say he looks like he is!"

* odor of alcohol - Ubiquitous in a bar.

* red watery eyes - ever hear of allergies?

* slurred speech - there's a measurement for this?

* staggering gait - not present if a person is sitting quietly on a barstool.
 
Folks, you need to separate the acts of "Drunk in Public" and "Drunk Driving". One has nothing to do with the other in this case, the police in this case are arresting for drunk in public and nothing more.

Will it stop some drunk drivers? Of course it will because people that are under the influence do no exhibit good judgement (DUH).

But the focus here was on PUBLIC INTOXICATION.


Which of course STILL HAS NO CORRELATION TO GUNS OR CCW!
 
I eagerly await all drinking establishments to start a "private membership." All you have to do to join the private club is order a drink. Bam, now you're a member, and no drinks are being served to "the public," only to members of a private club.

jcs,
the police in this case are arresting for drunk in public and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Which of course STILL HAS NO CORRELATION TO GUNS OR CCW!
Click to expand...

Arresting someone for being "drunk in public," all by itself, may have nothing to do with Concealed carry laws.

By their own admission, they aren't just arresting people for being drunk in public because it is a law. They are arresting people people for being drunk in public because of the fear of what the drunk person might do while they are drunk.

"We feel that the only way we're going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this," she said.

"There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they're intoxicated, other than get be
hind the wheel of a car," Beck said. "People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss."
Click to expand...

This is the same argument used by the Brady group all the time. "If we allow law abiding citizens to carry guns, they might shoot each other over minor fender benders." In the Brady group's collective head, all that matters is the worst case scenario of what might happen if a gun is involved. In this case of arresting people for being drunk in a bar, all that seems to matter is the worst case scenario of what might happen if someone drinks too much. If you can't see a correlation I can't make you see one, but it is clear to me that there is one.

The least they could do is pretend they are just enforcing a law. They actually come out and admit that they are enforcing one law to possibly prevent you from breaking another.
 
So it's almost like arresting people for crimes they may commit in the future.
Click to expand...
It's called a might crime.

A might crime is when you're arrested because you might commit a crime.

There are two kinds of might crimes:

1. There is overwhelming evidence that the action puts innocent people at consider risk of injury or death, or violates an innocent person's inalienable rights.

2. There is very little or no evidence that the action puts innocent people at consider risk of injury or death, or violates an innocent person's inalienable rights.


Driving while intoxicated or pointing a gun at a crowd of innocent people would fall under #1. It is usually justified to arrest someone for committing this type of might crime.

Possessing a machinegun without NFA paperwork would fall under #2. Being intoxicated in a bar also falls under #2. It is not justified to arrest someone for committing this type of might crime.
 
Oh my god, you guys were right all along, and I was WAY off base!

I just changed the tin foil in my new hat and everything is much clearer now.

I can now see very clearly that arresting people for being drunk in public (what a stupid thing to make illegal anyway) could lead to the immediate demise of our civilization. I mean what could possibly be wrong with getting riproaring drunk in bar. Its not like anybody is going to get hurt or anything. Hey they are just having fun! I mean just because you are drunk doesn't mean you won't always act with due regard for others, (right?).

And by god, having fun drinking and owning guns is what this country is all about. Personal responsiblity and accountability be damned.

Oh well gotta go, I am going to make FOIL hats for all my friends and see if I can't get them to "See the light" also.
 
Now you're gettin' it jcs271! Welcome to the fold. Now read and heed:

"An' de Lawd said ya gots ta rise UPahhhhh, and partake of the fruits o' the earth!"

From The Book of Biker,
Knit 1
Purl2

The Very Reverand Biker:)



*burp*
 
Folks, you need to separate the acts of "Drunk in Public" and "Drunk Driving". One has nothing to do with the other in this case, the police in this case are arresting for drunk in public and nothing more.

Will it stop some drunk drivers? Of course it will because people that are under the influence do no exhibit good judgement (DUH).

But the focus here was on PUBLIC INTOXICATION.


Which of course STILL HAS NO CORRELATION TO GUNS OR CCW!
Click to expand...

So, where is the deterrence when law-abiding citizens are minding their own business while consuming liquor in a public bar? Are we suppose to baby sit bar patrons, rap them on the knuckles when they exceed the liquor limit? Are the authorities now going to crash all the bars, yank people off the bar stools, and administer sobriety tests? Is this what it is coming to? Why not ban bars? Why not ban liquor? The slippery slope is attaching a stigma to all bar patrons, such that the repercussion is to close down legitimate, tax-paying businesses. Then, after everyone feels good about the new prohibition on public consumption of liquor, speakeasies pop up, drinking goes underground, black markets surface, and Eliot Ness gets a new lease on life.
 
Don't tell Chicago!

I anticipate having to discriminate bar patrons from undercover cops if I venture into a drinking establishment and also, to soon have to prove my sobriety before being allowed to depart my home. But then again as the thought police will have anticipated my desire to indulge in a legal activity, they will just arrest me here, providing we all survive the shootout.
 
Quote:
"Bars are "public places" so being proactive and stopping some potential drunk drivers as well as other public nuisances is definately not a bad thing"
-------------------
POTENTIAL?????
Is'nt everyone who drives to and enters a bar a "POTENTIAL" drunken driver?
-------------------
Anyone know what it means when someone has POTENTIAL?
It means they have'nt done anything yet.
-------------------
As far as the tin foil hat goes, try the heavy duty foil next time. It seems to have a greater POTENTIAL for deflection ratios.:D
 
You know - I used to think that nothing would suprise me anymore. :uhoh: *** are these people thinking?!? "I'm from the government and I'm here to save you from yourself! Now - you will respect my authoritay!"

I mean, c'mon... first it sounds like some people never learned the lessons of Prohibition - we've got the War on Some Drugs afterall - and now they're going after people sitting in a bar.

:fire:
 
Bunch of officious jerks.

We will have to smartly slap their hands to make them stop this silliness.

Then, in 4 or 5 years, another officious jerk will try the same thing.

So it goes.

Please contact your local political critter and advise them of your displeasure with such jerkiness. Thank you.
 
How long before someone decides to get proactive and arrest someone in their home drinking, because they MIGHT get in their car later and drive. If the Texas cops want to be proactive in stopping illeagal activities, they ought to drive to the border and keep the illegals on their side of the border. Not as much money to be made in that facet of law enforcement though.
*****BTW:
How many LEO's have been arrested in these bars for being intoxicated?
Do they get a "break" from their fellow LEO's?
Do they get a prior warning/tip from the watch commander as to which bars to avoid being in on a given day?
Just wondering.
:D :what: :eek: :evil:
 
Two things...

Intoxication should not be a crime. Doing something illegal while intoxicated should be a crime.

Hit someone (assault and battery), keep people awake (disturbing the peace), destroy something (vandalism), and you commit a crime. If you can be drunk without bothering anyone, that's your damned business.

Second point... This sounds like a nice little revenue generator for the city. Go to bars and arrest people for drinking. Fine them, say $250. It's guaranteed cash in the town coffers. It's called corruption.
 
So why don't they just arrest people walking INTO the bar as they might have a few drinks and be intoxicated in public, then they might get into their car and drive. And to think that all those times my friends and I took a cab to the bar/club we thought we were doing the right thing. Not good enough apparently.

We all know that any and all government actions are necessary and validated if the purpose is to stop drunk drivers. The ends justify the means in that case. Power to the Govt! :rolleyes:


For Texas CHL: I think its 2 or more substance related violation within the 4 or 5 year term of the CHL license may constitute dependence and can be used to deny or revoke your license. I may have a couple details wrong there, but I think PI's count as a substance related violation.

And before you start bashing Texas alone, those links posted earlier were in a few others states as well. One I read happened in Virginia.
 
Don't like the Law? :uhoh:

Petition your elected officials to change it/them.

"But Baba Louie, if it saves just one drunken child's life..." ;)

One of my high school classmates died in an auto accident in a Dry county in Arkansas as a result of buying liquor in a Wet county and having the po-po light him up on his return home. He chose (poorly) to evade them. High speed chase, accident, death. His fault totally. No alcohol present in his blood (autopsy revealed). Just another case of a death by "stupidity".
:banghead:
 
Tired

You know I'm getting real tired of all these blissninnies prohibiting people from doing action "A" because it might lead to action "B" whilst they call us a fools for using "slippery slope" in an argument about law and guns.

Sooner or later bad laws and bad law enforcement are going to have bad consequences liberals wish to deny.

I'm thinking they should be banning light poles, trees and ropes...
 
>I can now see very clearly that arresting people for being drunk in public (what a stupid thing to make illegal anyway) could lead to the immediate demise of our civilization. I mean what could possibly be wrong with getting riproaring drunk in bar. Its not like anybody is going to get hurt or anything. Hey they are just having fun! I mean just because you are drunk doesn't mean you won't always act with due regard for others, (right?).<

I've acted as a designated driver enough times to know that most DON'T act with disregard for others. I've seen a LOT of people so runk they can barely lay on the floor without falling off, that were completely civil to everyone around them, and asked to be driven home. Although it causes a problem for the drunk in question (they're always fun the next morning), they didn't cause any problems for anyone else...

PI is nothing more than a revenue generator, an extra charge to throw on (kinda like California made it illegal to kill someone while carjacking them), and a way to "liven up" a dull night for some police. True story:

Guy was walking through a residential area of Appleton one monday morning (roughly 3am), staggering a bit. A cop driving by saw him, and stopped. Within 15 minutes, there were seven cruisers pulled up, all with their lights going (3:15 AM, on a monday). They were there for about an hour (with lights goin'), running this guy through the stupid human tricks and suchlike, and discussing what they were gonna do with him: they finally decided to arrest him. I talked to other poeple in the neighborhood later that day: most of the people living in the area had been woken up by the police lights. The drunk? He had been walking home from the bar. His crime? He staggered a bit...
 
I can now see very clearly that arresting people for being drunk in public (what a stupid thing to make illegal anyway) could lead to the immediate demise of our civilization. I mean what could possibly be wrong with getting riproaring drunk in bar.
Click to expand...
jcs271:

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.
 
The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.
Click to expand...

How about making it illegal for priests to have contact with children?

People walk out into traffic and get run over
Click to expand...

Problem solved.

people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss.
Click to expand...

Problem solved.
 
So why don't they just arrest people walking INTO the bar as they might have a few drinks and be intoxicated in public, then they might get into their car and drive.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. Not efficient enough.

It would be best to arrest all people right now because all people could potentially be headed to a bar now or in the future.

Case closed...next!

Sawdust (just when I think that I've heard it all...and in TEXAS!)
 
um, coylh

People walk out into traffic and get run over
Click to expand...
Problem solved.
Click to expand...

If I hit a drunk guy with my pick up truck, he's dead!
You know what that means!!!

He can't pay to fix my fender and or windsheild.:neener:

Anyway, it is a complete waste of time it is also proof that there are better states then TX!

hey law enforcement! right now there are thousands of drunk people in Nevada's bars:neener: :neener: :neener: :neener:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

V
  • Locked
Man Sues Over Right to Get Drunk
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
joab
J
M
  • Locked
Some see Fresno's DUI crackdown as a model
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
151
Views
6K
ArmedBear
A
P
  • Locked
Justices: Police can arrest DUI suspects in homes with no warrant
Replies
24
Views
2K
Orthonym
O
roo_ster
  • Locked
Sheer MADD-ness: When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
6K
Byron Quick
B
W
  • Locked
Distrubing Police State Incident in Virginia
2 3
Replies
63
Views
4K
Mike Irwin
M
Back
Top