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

[redbearde]

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.

I'm a 7 3/4. Shall I pm you my address?

also, how much?

I'll be wearing it with my black wool dark jedi cloak (it's lined with foil, too).

I had a friend in college who received a citation for driving 57 in a 55. When he went to court, the jydge said, "what are you doing here?" He shrugged and said, "I don't know."

I think it would be interesting to see a judge getting his court's time wasted by someone being brought in for drinking alcohol at a bar. Kinda like...being arrested for attempting to destroy private property by throwing heavy objects at the bowling alley. And don't say it doesn't happen; those pin setters break down all the time...

 

[Justin]

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?).

If you don't like the possible risks of associating with drunken people in a bar, perhaps you should try the following:

Stay out of bars in the first place.​

 

[ArmedBear]

One of the best things about bars is that they are enclosed.

If you want to be in a bar, you know where to go. If you want to stay out, you know where to stay out of.

And if you don't know that people drink in bars, you are FAR too stupid to care where you are.

 

[MechAg94]

+1 Armedbear. Justin, we are not teatotalers. Bars are there for at least one specific purpose. If you want to outlaw bars or drinking in general, go ahead and try. You sound like a gun banning spokesman.

Personally, I think PI laws are there solely so towns can get undesireable people off the streets. It is one more law passed to allow police to hassle you no matter what you are doing.

 

[DRZinn]

Please explain to me what in the world arresting people for PUBLIC DRUNKENESS has to do with civil liberties.

Something about Mr Smith's drunkenness not hurting Mr Jones in any way.

If some drunk is staggering down the street or lying in the doorway of your store you all would be the first ones to call the police to come and get him.

You assume far too much.

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.

Ranges are "public places" so being proactive and stopping some potential murderers as well as other public nuisances is definately not a bad thing.

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.

Just arrest them when they leave home, since they MIGHT drive to the bar, become intoxicated, and then drive while intoxicated.

 

[scout26]

WOW,

As the son of a former Tavern owner, I'm very surprised to hear that Bars and Tavern's are "Public" Places. I can't wait to get home and tell Dad that all those loan payments he made to bank he can get back because "his" Bar wasn't Private Property. Just might get me back into the will (and now there'll be some money there !!!!)




:banghead:

 

[Art Eatman]

scout26, you know darned well that public access isn't the same as public ownership...

Art

 

[WT]

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.

 

[scout26]

scout26, you know darned well that public access isn't the same as public ownership...

I know, I know. But Riddle Me This (Mr.) Eatman:

How can it be "Public Intoxication", if you're on (well, in really) "Private Property" ????


(and so much for my plan to get back in the will...... )

 

[ArmedBear]

You're on private property, with the permission of the owner.
You are drinking alcohol, with the permission of the owner.
The owner or his/her employees can "cut you off" at any time, so it can only be assumed that the AMOUNT of alcohol you consume is permitted by the owner of the property.
Bar owners employ "security", and those who threaten others or are otherwise a nuisance are physically removed from the property.

Bars are not generally places with unrestricted public access, either, due to aforementioned "security" personnel.

"Drunk in public" is REALLY pushing the meaning of the law, in a bar.

 

[hank327]

Public Intoxication In Texas

It is my understanding that in Texas, public intoxication is a judgement call for the LEO. All the LEO has to do is say you are drunk in public and arrest you. No tests of any kind are required to prove your level of intoxication before you are arrested. All the LEO has to do is point at you and say, "You are intoxicated and you are under arrest."

I maybe wrong, but that is what a friend who is a bartender told me as we discussed this story.

 

[Kodiaz]

JCS lots of things talked about hear don't directly involve guns but since some of us have some guns set aside for the day we try to go back to limited govt. threads about the continuing increase in the police state's powers are supposed to be here.


If you don't want to drink, then don't but some of us like having a few and then, a few more now if you want to live in a place where everything is illegal except praying well try Vatican city as for me I will look ov read these posts and the news to figure out when I'm supposed to pull a Lexington on the King's (or Queen's) men.


Now some of us don't like when the government goes off and starts getting involved too far in the people's lives but if you don't want people to drink anywhere then when it finally shakes out we'll probably be on different sides


My grandfather didn't leave Cuba for me to live on my knees in the states.

 

[mp510]

Very interesting.

Also, very brilliant move of them, to use a legal loophole to collar these people, who due to their ignorance broke the law. It would be nice if they had some private property rights, but the bar is a public establishment. Had this been a private home or a private social club, I would definetely be upset.

 

[Justin]

Justin, we are not teatotalers. Bars are there for at least one specific purpose. If you want to outlaw bars or drinking in general, go ahead and try. You sound like a gun banning spokesman.

Exsqueeze me?

Perhaps you should re-read my post, wherein I was quoting jcs, who evidently thinks that the cops should have cart blanche to harass bar patrons on account of his belief that people who are in bars are all drunken violent psychopaths.

You'll note that my response to him was that if he didn't like associating with people in bars, perhaps he ought to stay out of bars.

How that makes me a spokesman for the gungrabbers, or nanny statists in general is really quite beyond me.

 

[Kodiaz]

Justin I think you were hit by friendly thread fire you gungrabbing statist

 

[Cellar Dweller]

Private, public, public access, public view, etc.

Postulate: all bars become "private clubs" so patrons won't get arrested for public intox. Parking lots are fenced in so those who have designated drivers won't get busted either. They can get around smoking bans now, and after fast-food is banned they can serve fried and fatty food too.

How long until some ninny sues and WINS because of "equal access" or "discrimination" or "business could be conducted in these private clubs and I'm excluded because I don't want to be around smoking/alcohol/fatty foods?" Don't need tinfoil for this, just Google for "strip clubs, JP Morgan" to find a pending suit about women suing because "business could be conducted in an offensive area" to them.

What about disability access? If the State effectively bans drinking through rigid enforcement (potential $15k fine, I'd restrict public access!) but private establishments are not obligated to provide equal access, isn't that discrimination against the disabled? Yet more government meddling needed to fix a problem that didn't exist in the first place?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is my understanding that in Texas, public intoxication is a judgement call for the LEO.

Public Intoxication as defined by Texas:

§ 49.02. PUBLIC INTOXICATION. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to
the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.

Intoxicated means:
A) not having the normal use of mental or
physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a
controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of
two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the
body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

As you can see, Texas LEOs have considerable discretion in intoxication arrests. The offense is a Class C misdemeanor (along the lines of traffic tickets or burning leaves without a permit) and should not affect your CHL unless it led DPS to conclude you might have a chemical dependency.

Incidentally, I hear the suburb was Irving, which coincidentally happens to be the headquarters of MADD, not that they had anything to do with it I'm sure...

First it was "Don't drive drunk." Then "Don't drink (at all) and drive." Now we seem to be getting to just plain "Don't drink."

 

[Standing Wolf]

Well, heck. Maybe the cops ran out of criminals.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I know, I know. But Riddle Me This (Mr.) Eatman:

How can it be "Public Intoxication", if you're on (well, in really) "Private Property" ????

Well Einstein, probably for the same reasons you get arrested for public indecency when you try to go into WalMart whiile you are naked. Hey, it is private property, so there is nothing public about it, right?

As for Texas civil liberties and being arrested in a bar for being drunk, it is legal to drink, but not legal to be drunk. It is sort of like being tickets for speeding on a highway. It is legal for you to drive there, but within parameters.

 

[orangeninja]

Normally I am an apologist for law enforcement efforts, but I don't think I can jump onboard with this one.

 

[DRZinn]

probably for the same reasons you get arrested for public indecency when you try to go into WalMart whiile [sic] you are naked.

Wrong. You'd get arrested outside, in public, or inside because WalMart doesn't want you to be nude in their store. If WalMart's policy allowed nudity, you'd be perfectly in your rights to be nude in WalMart.

 

[gunsmith]

justin!

he said +1 justin etc, he was on your side, saying you're right

+1 Armedbear. Justin, we are not teatotalers

it's that dang +1 thing that threw you off, we didn't use that plus one thing in the good old days (last year)....or maybe you didn't see it because your beer goggles were on

If some drunk is staggering down the street or lying in the doorway of your store you all would be the first ones to call the police to come and get him.

in some cities the police would never respond to a call like that.
San Francisco comes to mind...

So who is the genius who came up with this brilliant scheme anyway?

 

[Baron Holbach4]

§ 49.02. PUBLIC INTOXICATION. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to
the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.

"intoxicated to the degree"

Too subjective. Too vague. How does one measure, "to the degree"? LEO: "Yup, he's intoxicated but is he intoxicated enough to be a potential threat"? You could have 100 different LEOs with 100 different interpretations of the law.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Just read two article on this hubbub.

I recall I attended two conventions in TX, one in Dallas, the other in Houston.

I wonder if their Convention and Tourism bureau is considering what will happen as the word of these raids in hotel bars gets out??

Neither Dallas or Houston are garden spots. If you can't get a load on at the convention what is there to do?

(and before you Texans flame me, STL isn't a garden spot either...But we sure got beer!!!)

 

[MudPuppy]

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.

This one isn't on the PD, its on democracy--this is the Police State allowed by the democratic majority.