Are you kidding me???

[Maroon87]

Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk



SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said on Wednesday.


The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission's Carolyn Beck.

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Beck said.

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

"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 behind 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."

She said the sting operations would continue throughout the state.

[SWMustang]

One day you'll have to hide in your attic to drink a beer.

[turbostud]

Watch out Gobbla, they are coming for you.

[Adidas410s]

I was at a bar in Addison this past Saturday and they just drug this guy out of the bar that was VERY drunk but was by no means being disorderly and causing any problems...

[Gobbla2001]

I have never been really drunk in a bar... but if I had a DD I'd be pissed... actually I'd be like "Whatever, they servin' beer for dinner tonight?"...

I say I've never been really drunk in a bar, by that I mean I've never been "floored" in a bar... I save that for the places I'm stayin' at...

[STANG RED]

I'm not a drinker anymore, just because I have better things to do with my money than waste it like that anymore. But this is rediculous. We are still a free country arent we? I have always supported the police and all other law inforcement agencies, but this is going way over the line. Folks, this is the sort of things that start happening when we just freely give over our rights, because we are afraid something bad might happen sometime. Bad things happen, its a part of life, but we cant just give in to every little fear and allow the government to slowly take our rights away, one by one.

[sahen]

Originally posted by Maroon87

"There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they're intoxicated, other than get behind 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."

the first 2 ok i have heard of, but that 3rd one? is the person speaking from personal experience? i mean come on, where exactly does that come from??? i dont think anyone has ever asked me "what stupid activities do people do when drinking?" and one of the answers that pops into my head being "diving off of balconies into swimming pools and missing"....and i didnt realize being drunk in a bar is "drunk in public" i was under the impression that a bar is a privately owned establishment, therefore "drunk in private"....

[GetRDoneStangs]

It's not that I don't agree with all of your post Stang, but you really nailed it will the last part..


we cant just give in to every little fear and allow the government to slowly take our rights away, one by one.

nuf said...

[Maroon87]

I was reading this article and thinking about Ron White...


"I was drunk in a bar....I was THROWN into public!":D

[Rabbit'93]

May not be a popular response, but here goes...
I believe there are private bars where you have to be members and there are public bars. My guess is that they're going into the public ones.

I never read in the article that they arrested people for enjoying an adult beverage. I believe it said public intoxication. I drink and have been drunk so I'm no Johnny be good, but let me tell you there is nothing more annoying than being next to a drunk person in a bar. I'm not sure about where everyone lives, but around Dallas most everyone has to drive to a bar, and if you're drinkin and you don't have a DD chances are you're driving. BAD Combo(but we all know that).

Do I agree with this policy, not necessarily. If the person is causing no harm to himself, others, and is not disturbing the other patrons, i don't think they should drag them out.

[olddawggreen]

It looks like certain people in government believe that we need more and more protection from ourselves.

Maybe the police would be more effective if they started staking out balconies within diving distance of swimming pools, or if they stood in the middle of the streets to catch every drunk that trys to walk to the other side (by standing in the middle of the street they can catch them coming from both directions). At least they could slink around the parking lots and catch the real drunks as they get behind the wheel and start their cars (now this one is a really good idea).

Honestly, it has been my experience that some government employees who are in a position of authority, tend to try to increase the range of that authority as far as they can. They believe that they are in a much better position to know what Joe Public needs and what is good and bad for him.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[formermbcouns]

Yep, just another example of an ever-increasing oppressive government. If people don't see it, they better wake up...imo, of course, lol.

[sinton66]

In the state of Texas, you can get a P.I. even if you haven't been drinking. There is no "disorderly conduct" in the state statutes, so law enforcement use the P.I. for that. Therein is where I have a problem with government, if you're going to pass a law, it should be enforced for EXACTLY what it says.

[SintonFan]

It's called incrementalism. Those in power tend to want to stay in power and expand it like it was stated here earlier. That's a whole other topic for another day but this is unconstitutional. Period.
How can someone be guilty for something they haven't done or for the justification of this sting? I mean since the stated reason was and I quote, "The goal was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car." Hello! They haven't done anything yet! Many of these folks will have a cab drive them home and get their butts handed to them by their WIVES!
Seriously, you are supposed to be innocent before you are guilty. Great googly moogly.
I hope that all of these people will contest this and take it to the highest court possible.

[44INAROW]

Originally posted by Maroon87
I was reading this article and thinking about Ron White...


"I was drunk in a bar....I was THROWN into public!":D

They call me "Tater Salad"

[sahen]

Originally posted by Rabbit'93
May not be a popular response, but here goes...
I believe there are private bars where you have to be members and there are public bars. My guess is that they're going into the public ones.

im pretty sure as far as the gov't is concerned public means any state owned and operated areas where profit made (if any) go to the state and private would be any privately owned establishment, which would be any bar i guess cause i cant think of a state owned one...

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by sahen
im pretty sure as far as the gov't is concerned public means any state owned and operated areas where profit made (if any) go to the state and private would be any privately owned establishment, which would be any bar i guess cause i cant think of a state owned one...
.
I wonder about this too. Isn't any place that sells alcohol considered private? What law has changed that made a place of business public?:thinking:

[sinton66]

Originally posted by sahen
im pretty sure as far as the gov't is concerned public means any state owned and operated areas where profit made (if any) go to the state and private would be any privately owned establishment, which would be any bar i guess cause i cant think of a state owned one...

Actually, there are areas in this state where alcohol can only be sold in Private Membership clubs. These are usually found in what are called "Dry areas". So, I think this is what he was referring to.

[big daddy russ]

Does anyone remember the outrage when they first passed seatbelt laws?

I don't, but then again I'm only 26. Researched it once for a story, found out that it was the beginning of all this. That was the first law that dictated what people could or couldn't do to THEMSELVES (even though it didn't have an effect on others). Apparently, there was a huge debate over it.

I think it was olddawggreen that hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread. Looks like certain people in the govt believe we need more and more protection from ourselves.

I think most people who have been around me know that I'm at least a little bit of a risk-taker, so where I stand on this issue isn't much of a question. But my question to all the non-risk takers is this: if they keep taking away everything that's 'potentially dangerous,' when will they outlaw football? Baseball?

What if someone sprains their finger in a rousing game of chess?

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by sinton66
Actually, there are areas in this state where alcohol can only be sold in Private Membership clubs. These are usually found in what are called "Dry areas". So, I think this is what he was referring to.
.
Portland as an example, right?

[olddawggreen]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Does anyone remember the outrage when they first passed seatbelt laws?

I don't, but then again I'm only 26. Researched it once for a story, found out that it was the beginning of all this. That was the first law that dictated what people could or couldn't do to THEMSELVES (even though it didn't have an effect on others). Apparently, there was a huge debate over it.

I think it was olddawggreen that hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread. Looks like certain people in the govt believe we need more and more protection from ourselves.

I think most people who have been around me know that I'm at least a little bit of a risk-taker, so where I stand on this issue isn't much of a question. But my question to all the non-risk takers is this: if they keep taking away everything that's 'potentially dangerous,' when will they outlaw football? Baseball?


What if someone sprains their finger in a rousing game of chess? :)



Actually, I started wearing a seatbelt long before it became law, this one just made sense to me. I remember those metal dashes in cars when I was little, and there were no seat belts back then. Some how I made it through all of it though.

[SintonFan]

Kinda makes you want to return to the "old wild West". It really wasn't as wild as we've all heard, I've heard.

[olddawggreen]

Kinda makes me glad I grew up in the 70's and went to college in the early 80's. :)

[falcons79]

Originally posted by sahen
the first 2 ok i have heard of, but that 3rd one? is the person speaking from personal experience? i mean come on, where exactly does that come from??? i dont think anyone has ever asked me "what stupid activities do people do when drinking?" and one of the answers that pops into my head being "diving off of balconies into swimming pools and missing"....and i didnt realize being drunk in a bar is "drunk in public" i was under the impression that a bar is a privately owned establishment, therefore "drunk in private"....

[falcons79]

Originally posted by sahen
the first 2 ok i have heard of, but that 3rd one? is the person speaking from personal experience? i mean come on, where exactly does that come from??? i dont think anyone has ever asked me "what stupid activities do people do when drinking?" and one of the answers that pops into my head being "diving off of balconies into swimming pools and missing"....and i didnt realize being drunk in a bar is "drunk in public" i was under the impression that a bar is a privately owned establishment, therefore "drunk in private"....

Sadly this happened to a kid in huffman, jumped off the roof of a house into a pool and hit the side and now is paralized from the waste down. Would have gone to college on a full ride, now I think he is wondering if drinking and have some so called fun was worth it.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by SintonFan

How can someone be guilty for something they haven't done

The Minority Report, dufus...

and you just thought it was a movie, BWAHAHAHA!!!

This is sick, really sick... what in the hell is a bar for? Besides women with tight jeans and puppies??

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001


This is sick, really sick... what in the hell is a bar for? Besides women with tight jeans and puppies??

And whatever the women want (see I'm not being sexist)...

[DaHop72]

Originally posted by sahen
the first 2 ok i have heard of, but that 3rd one? is the person speaking from personal experience? i mean come on, where exactly does that come from??? i dont think anyone has ever asked me "what stupid activities do people do when drinking?" and one of the answers that pops into my head being "diving off of balconies into swimming pools and missing"....and i didnt realize being drunk in a bar is "drunk in public" i was under the impression that a bar is a privately owned establishment, therefore "drunk in private".... sahen, it's sad to say but I can tell you from experience where this very thing happened. Three college boys out on the town come back to the motel, staying on the second floor and on a bet one of them dove off the second story railing. Luckily it was on the deep end and he also didn't miss the pool. Trust me, it happens. To say alcohol dulls the thought process is an understatement.

[AP Panther Fan]

I do not agree with these types of sting operations and as someone above stated, leave that to the police when they walk out on the sidewalk and start to get in behind the wheel of a car.

Seems as if this story could have a couple of strange twists. Typically, the TABC sets up a sting by sending someone underage in to try to purchase alcohol. If it happens, the server and the owner of the establishment suffer the consequences. So with this latest method, I wonder if they are also punishing (fines/loss of license) the servers/owners when they take down the customer?

[Gobbla2001]

Now I'm thinking again (not good).... this just pisses me the hell off...

I'm gunna go in a bar and ACT drunk, have the bar-maid serve me N/A beer all night... let 'em arrest me then I can say "But wait a minute, I'm not even drunk"... then stick out my tongue and say "Nanna-nanna-boo-boo" and other childish things...

[SPF25]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
They call me "Tater Salad"

ron white is halarious.:clap: :clap: :clap:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
The Minority Report, dufus...

and you just thought it was a movie, BWAHAHAHA!!!

This is sick, really sick... what in the hell is a bar for? Besides women with tight jeans and puppies??
.
:thumbsup:
So where's the bald-headed chick who can't walk? Austin maybe?:thinking:

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by AP Panther Fan
I do not agree with these types of sting operations and as someone above stated, leave that to the police when they walk out on the sidewalk and start to get in behind the wheel of a car.
I'm not sure that I agree with the TABC in this, but from what I have heard, they did announce that they would be entering bars and arresting patrons for obvious intoxication before they ever started the "stings". The latest count is around 3,000 arrests.

Originally posted by AP Panther Fan
Seems as if this story could have a couple of strange twists. Typically, the TABC sets up a sting by sending someone underage in to try to purchase alcohol. If it happens, the server and the owner of the establishment suffer the consequences. So with this latest method, I wonder if they are also punishing (fines/loss of license) the servers/owners when they take down the customer?
That is what should be happening. It has been a LOT of years since I have waitressed in a bar, but I try to keep up and it doesn't seem that it has changed too much over the years. TABC issues licenses for the establishments to serve alcohol. BUT, the establishments are not supposed to serve alcohol to anyone who is obviously intoxicated, or risk pretty hefty fines and/or loss of license.

Now granted, an intoxicated person has much less control over all senses, including judgement, but it seems to me that the owners of the establishments who are not following the law should be forking over some bucks. I'm not talking about the folks who go into a bar to have 2-3 drinks (or the equivalent for their size, etc), but the person who is tripping over the patterns in the carpet.

[olddawggreen]

Originally posted by DaHop72
sahen, it's sad to say but I can tell you from experience where this very thing happened. Three college boys out on the town come back to the motel, staying on the second floor and on a bet one of them dove off the second story railing. Luckily it was on the deep end and he also didn't miss the pool. Trust me, it happens. To say alcohol dulls the thought process is an understatement.

Ok, so should we go after the place that sold the guys the booze or go after the contractor that built the pool so close to the balconie? I too have seen kids jump off the 2nd floor into the pool at a motel, and guess what? These guys weren't drinking booze, they were just being stupid.

Maybe the closeness of the pool to the upstairs walkway or balconie should be addressed if this is such a big concern, add some barriers or something. I'm willing to bet that very few people that drink in bars actually end up jumping off the 2nd floor into a pool, or walk into the middle of the street and get run over. Thats pretty weak. :mad: :mad:

I'm not a big partier any more, but on the rare occasions that I have gone to a club or concert or what ever in recent years, where I was going to be drinking, I have made arrangements to take a cab. Cabs are pretty cheep considering the possible alternitive, especially if your splitting the fare. I would definatley be upset if some officer arrested me in a bar or concert, to stop me from driving or walking into the middle of the street and getting run over or jumping off the 2nd floor into the pool. :mad: :mad: Basicly, don't try to protect me from something that I have no intention of doing.

[RMAC]

DOWN WITH THE FEDS!!!

[Cardinalbb]

Originally posted by STANG RED
I'm not a drinker anymore, just because I have better things to do with my money than waste it like that anymore. But this is rediculous. We are still a free country arent we? I have always supported the police and all other law inforcement agencies, but this is going way over the line. Folks, this is the sort of things that start happening when we just freely give over our rights, because we are afraid something bad might happen sometime. Bad things happen, its a part of life, but we cant just give in to every little fear and allow the government to slowly take our rights away, one by one.

I wonder if you would feel this way if you lost a loved one to a drunk driver? I personally agree with it. It is a law. They are only enforcing it. What a drunk does in their own home is one thing, but what a drunk does in a public place is another. A drunk has to get home, and most of the time their driving puts others in danger. I've turned in drivers weaving on the roads using my cell phone.....does that make me a nosy body? I don't think so. I look at it this way, not only are the cops helping to save innocent sober people, their saving the sloppy drunks too! You talk about rights.....what about the rights of others to be able to drive without fear of a stupid drunk smashing into their car killing a family member. We're not losing our rights! Good gosh man....we're enforcing them!

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by Cardinalbb
I've turned in drivers weaving on the roads using my cell phone.....does that make me a nosy body?

No, but it makes you another unsafe driver on the road that is a menace to all other drivers just like that drunk. Why shouldnt you be arrested also? People are killed in this country everyday by drivers that are distracted by cell phones, radios, maps etc...
Hell lets just go and make all those things illegal while were at it. In fact, lots of people are killed in cars without there being anything done illegaly, maybe we should just make driving cars illegal period. Guns kill people, so lets make all of them illegal also. Doctors make mistakes and kill people sometimes, and we certainly cant take a chance on that happening anymore either, so why dont we just make that practice illegal while were at it also. People are killed by falling off of ladders everyday, therefore ladders are a real bad thing, we have to illegalize the use of all ladders for sure. Planes crash and kill people from time to time. In fact, the whole 911 thing could have never happened if it werent for air planes. No doubt, we have to illegalize all plane flying from now on. Need I go on? I think you get my point.

[Phil C]

I don't drink and can't even if I wanted to due to my diebetic medicine. But if a person wants to get drunk in a bar that is his business. As long as he is peaceful and takes a cab home or has a designated driver or someone sober to pick him up and take him home that is ok by me. It is when he is a danger to others that is my concern.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by Phil C
I don't drink and can't even if I wanted to due to my diebetic medicine. But if a person wants to get drunk in a bar that is his business. As long as he is peaceful and takes a cab home or has a designated driver or someone sober to pick him up and take him home that is ok by me. It is when he is a danger to others that is my concern.

Exactly Phil! Drunk drivers should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But what they are doing here is arresting people in bars, that are in bars, doing exactly what bars are designed for. This is madness!
When are they going to start coming into our homes to see if we are drinking too much there. We could drink too much in our homes, and still go out and drive. When will they decide they can just come into your homes and arrest us because we MIGHT go hurt someone if they dont?

Be careful folks! Big Brother is watching!

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Cardinalbb
I wonder if you would feel this way if you lost a loved one to a drunk driver? I personally agree with it. It is a law. They are only enforcing it. What a drunk does in their own home is one thing, but what a drunk does in a public place is another. A drunk has to get home, and most of the time their driving puts others in danger. I've turned in drivers weaving on the roads using my cell phone.....does that make me a nosy body? I don't think so. I look at it this way, not only are the cops helping to save innocent sober people, their saving the sloppy drunks too! You talk about rights.....what about the rights of others to be able to drive without fear of a stupid drunk smashing into their car killing a family member. We're not losing our rights! Good gosh man....we're enforcing them!
.
Cardinalbb, I think most of us have had the pain of losing a loved one or at least were impacted in some way by drunk driving. It truly is a tragedy and must never be taken lightly.
What some of us disagree with is the legality of this. I can not see any way that this is constitutional. How can a person be convicted of something they have yet to do? How can the fear of a possible consequence lead to arrest? It makes no sense whatsoever and threatens all our freedoms.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by STANG RED
Guns kill people, so lets make all of them illegal also.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people!

[olddawggreen]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Guns don't kill people, people kill people!

Right, so should the police arrest everyone that owns a gun or take away everyone's guns before they all go out and kill someone? (you know that there are people in this country that have that exact agenda)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by olddawggreen
Right, so should the police arrest everyone that owns a gun or take away everyone's guns before they all go out and kill someone? (you know that there are people in this country that have that exact agenda)
.
I think what's allowing these things to happen is the general apathy around today. :o

[Cardinalbb]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Cardinalbb, I think most of us have had the pain of losing a loved one or at least were impacted in some way by drunk driving. It truly is a tragedy and must never be taken lightly.
What some of us disagree with is the legality of this. I can not see any way that this is constitutional. How can a person be convicted of something they have yet to do? How can the fear of a possible consequence lead to arrest? It makes no sense whatsoever and threatens all our freedoms.

What I'm not getting is the fact that you say it is unconstitutional. How can arresting a sloppy drunk in a public place be unconstitutional? From what I read, they were doing just that. AND by doing that, it MIGHT prevent an auto catastrophie. I don't claim to know all the law, but from what I do know, disorderly conduct is against the law. Arent' they enforcing it? I seriously doubt if they arrest a responsible drinker, it's the ones who haven't any control I'm sure they are targeting. (If you can't tell....I have no tolerance for drunks)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Cardinalbb
What I'm not getting is the fact that you say it is unconstitutional. How can arresting a sloppy drunk in a public place be unconstitutional? From what I read, they were doing just that. AND by doing that, it MIGHT prevent an auto catastrophie. I don't claim to know all the law, but from what I do know, disorderly conduct is against the law. Arent' they enforcing it? I seriously doubt if they arrest a responsible drinker, it's the ones who haven't any control I'm sure they are targeting. (If you can't tell....I have no tolerance for drunks)
.
None of us should have any tolerance for drunks. I have called in a weaving driver or two. Heck, I've called in a weaving 18 wheeler.
My whole point is that if we allow our rights to erode then we will cease to be a free nation. Just because some things are deemed unpopular or socially uncomfortable we should not rush to allow new powers for the sake of what "might happen".

[sahen]

Originally posted by Cardinalbb
What I'm not getting is the fact that you say it is unconstitutional. How can arresting a sloppy drunk in a public place be unconstitutional? From what I read, they were doing just that. AND by doing that, it MIGHT prevent an auto catastrophie. I don't claim to know all the law, but from what I do know, disorderly conduct is against the law. Arent' they enforcing it? I seriously doubt if they arrest a responsible drinker, it's the ones who haven't any control I'm sure they are targeting. (If you can't tell....I have no tolerance for drunks)
im still not convinced that being drunk in a bar is being drunk in a public place....im sure someone on this site has had some experience w/ law or they are a lawyer so maybe they have better insight, but like i said before public places r normally state owned i'd think and a bar is definitely privately owned....if that is the case then arresting someone in a bar for a crime they have yet to commit is unconsitutional because they rnt drunk in public, rnt driving a car drunk, rnt trying to dodge traffic drunk, etc....now if the cops want to wait outside a bar for a drunk to come out well then i guess that woudl tech. be "drunk in public" but it'd also be what i'd call "chickensh**" but whatever i guess...eventually im guessing they will just have bob the officer whose job is to give people a breathalizer test when they leave the bar so that he can protect them from doing something stupid....

[sahen]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
None of us should have any tolerance for drunks.
um...do u mean drunk driving? because im all for that, but i dont have a problem with someone who gets drunk from time to time as long as they are responsible about it and are not driving...

[olddawggreen]

From the news reports that I saw on the Today Show this morning, and from what I have heard, it appears that the TACB officers were going to these bars to act, not react to to the bar patrons. Which means that they are there to arrest people, not to wait for a complaint about them.
They showed one lady that was arrested in the hotel bar where she was staying. She had no plan to drive anywhere, just to walk to her room when she was through partying. Thats about as safe as you can get (unless theres a swimming pool located under her hotel window). Was their attention drawn to her because she was laughing too loud, or talking too loud (man, get more than two women together at any time, booze or no booze, and thats gonna happen), or maybe they didn't like the way she was dancing, or maybe they didn't like the way she was dressed, who knows? The fact is, she was in a bar, in her hotel, not driving, not gonna drive, drinking, laughing, having a good time. If someone doesn't like to see and hear other people doing that, STAY AWAY FROM BARS!

I have no tollerance for people that drink too much and get behind the wheel, they are definatly a danger to themselves and to others, and should be procecuted to the fullest, but it is just wrong to do what the TABC officers are doing in the bars now, and I hope something is done about it soon.

For those of you that think that this is allright, because you don't drink, just know that there are enough laws on the books to arrest every one of us for something, any day, any time, if the police decide to enforce them. This is not just about people that drink, this is about everyone's rights, and the ability for you to have someone take those rights away from you. And that makes me mad.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by sahen
im still not convinced that being drunk in a bar is being drunk in a public place....
.
I have wondered the same thing. How can you be arrested for Public Intoxication on PRIVATE property? Isn't a bar on private property? Does the presence of others at that property make it public? Maybe that right was taken away some time ago. I think we need clarification on this.:thinking:

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by Cardinalbb
What I'm not getting is the fact that you say it is unconstitutional. How can arresting a sloppy drunk in a public place be unconstitutional? From what I read, they were doing just that. AND by doing that, it MIGHT prevent an auto catastrophie. I don't claim to know all the law, but from what I do know, disorderly conduct is against the law. Arent' they enforcing it? I seriously doubt if they arrest a responsible drinker, it's the ones who haven't any control I'm sure they are targeting. (If you can't tell....I have no tolerance for drunks)

Cardinalbb, I have little tolerance for drunks as well, in fact I dont have much tolerance for stupid people in general, and drunks are certainly stupid people in my book. But in my mind, that is not what this is all about. While I dont agree with or condone what these drunk idiots are doing, I have an even bigger problem with ever increasing policies that infringe more and more into free Americans everyday lives. Where is it all going to end? Are we all just going to set around and wait till they come into our homes and churches and tell us what and how to act? This is just another wakeup call, that too many citizens are willing to ignore, because they are scared and think they are being protected. The more and more control of our daily lives we give up to our officials, the more and more they will continue to infringe even deeper than they have any right to.

[AP Panther Fan]

Originally posted by sahen
im still not convinced that being drunk in a bar is being drunk in a public place....im sure someone on this site has had some experience w/ law or they are a lawyer so maybe they have better insight, but like i said before public places r normally state owned i'd think and a bar is definitely privately owned....if that is the case then arresting someone in a bar for a crime they have yet to commit is unconsitutional because they rnt drunk in public, rnt driving a car drunk, rnt trying to dodge traffic drunk, etc....now if the cops want to wait outside a bar for a drunk to come out well then i guess that woudl tech. be "drunk in public" but it'd also be what i'd call "chickensh**" but whatever i guess...eventually im guessing they will just have bob the officer whose job is to give people a breathalizer test when they leave the bar so that he can protect them from doing something stupid....


Kinda along these same lines....if you are in a vehicle (not driving) that gets pulled over for whatever reason and you do NOT get out of the car...I don't believe you can be arrested for public intoxication. I might be wrong and someone can correct me, but once again, you are not on public property until the second you step out of the car.

[Maroon87]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I have wondered the same thing. How can you be arrested for Public Intoxication on PRIVATE property? Isn't a bar on private property? Does the presence of others at that property make it public? Maybe that right was taken away some time ago. I think we need clarification on this.:thinking:


Since when does TABC arrest people for PI or DD anyway? Don't they just "regualte and govern" the sale of alcohol? Shouldn't the police be doing that? And call me nuts, but unless the state owns the bar you're in, you're on private property. If it's not how would places be able to have those "we retain the right to refuse service" signs posted?:thinking:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by sahen
um...do u mean drunk driving? because im all for that, but i dont have a problem with someone who gets drunk from time to time as long as they are responsible about it and are not driving...
.
No, I believe the word DRUNK to be someone who is hopelessly and with no intention to ever contribute to society. A lost cause.
But my meaning of tolerance of drunks is this:
If you know of anyone like this you should do everything in your power to help them clean themselves. Intervention, AA, talking to their doctor whatever.
Drunks, from what I understand the word to mean is not your typical, average person who occasionally imbides for relaxation or recreation.

[rholl]

the problem with PI arrest is that they are subjective by nature. There is no set statute as to what a PI consists of like DWI being BAC of .08. A PI is "danger to oneself or others". No way to fight the charge. If you get arrested for DWI and BAC is .03..there is no DWI. But if you get arrested for PI all they say is subject was a danger to others. It might be the easiest "convienence: charge there is.

[sahen]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
No, I believe the word DRUNK to be someone who is hopelessly and with no intention to ever contribute to society. A lost cause.
But my meaning of tolerance of drunks is this:
If you know of anyone like this you should do everything in your power to help them clean themselves. Intervention, AA, talking to their doctor whatever.
Drunks, from what I understand the word to mean is not your typical, average person who occasionally imbides for relaxation or recreation.
yah, i read what u said at first wrong now that i reread it...i was thinking being drunk not a drunk which r 2 different things....i see what ur saying....

[olddawggreen]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I have wondered the same thing. How can you be arrested for Public Intoxication on PRIVATE property? Isn't a bar on private property? Does the presence of others at that property make it public? Maybe that right was taken away some time ago. I think we need clarification on this.:thinking:

I'm sure that the burecrats have added all of the language they need to the license applications that must be filled out in order for the bars to get their liqure licenses, to do what ever they want to do.

[sahen]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I have wondered the same thing. How can you be arrested for Public Intoxication on PRIVATE property? Isn't a bar on private property? Does the presence of others at that property make it public? Maybe that right was taken away some time ago. I think we need clarification on this.:thinking:
not that wikipedia is the law but they r normally pretty good here is what they say about public places......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_place

now from what i read on there i'd put a bar into a private place, but this is a general defiinition, so there could be some different laws for texas or the whole USA vs. other countries....

[olddawggreen]

Originally posted by Maroon87
Since when does TABC arrest people for PI or DD anyway? Don't they just "regualte and govern" the sale of alcohol? :thinking:

This, I definatly know something about. TACB officers, or LCB, as we used to call them, have been making arrest since I was in high school in the late 60' and early 70's.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Cardinalbb
I wonder if you would feel this way if you lost a loved one to a drunk driver? I personally agree with it. It is a law. They are only enforcing it. What a drunk does in their own home is one thing, but what a drunk does in a public place is another. A drunk has to get home, and most of the time their driving puts others in danger. I've turned in drivers weaving on the roads using my cell phone.....does that make me a nosy body? I don't think so. I look at it this way, not only are the cops helping to save innocent sober people, their saving the sloppy drunks too! You talk about rights.....what about the rights of others to be able to drive without fear of a stupid drunk smashing into their car killing a family member. We're not losing our rights! Good gosh man....we're enforcing them!

I lost my sister to a drunk driver... sad situation... no doubt... but why can't they ask the guy if he's driving or what... and make sure he doesn't get behind the wheel of his car (as others have suggested on this board)...

We should outlaw cars, highways, trains etc... I know these are things we need to keep America going, but the people who drink a lot of beer keep America going as well...

A bar is a place to drink, and when drinking you get drunk if you like beer as I do... I'm not gunna get behind the wheel if I am blasted.. I got behind the wheel a few weekends ago because I felt fine and was in my car with a friend... I pulled out of the parking lot and on to the road and not 5 seconds later I pulled over and asked the friend who wasn't drunk if they could drive (which was a lot of help, dumbass truck that had wrecked into a sidewall earlier that night didn't have his flashers on, friend didn't see it and wacked my passenger side mirror off)...

Basically we need to arrest folks for doing the wrong thing, being drunk in a bar has never been the wrong thing...

[olddawggreen]

Originally posted by rholl
the problem with PI arrest is that they are subjective by nature. There is no set statute as to what a PI consists of like DWI being BAC of .08. A PI is "danger to oneself or others". No way to fight the charge. If you get arrested for DWI and BAC is .03..there is no DWI. But if you get arrested for PI all they say is subject was a danger to others. It might be the easiest "convienence: charge there is.

Something else I just learned about is the severity of the penelty for someone under age getting a minor in possession (MIP), I understand the fine is now $500.00, plus being placed on probation and being required to attend AAA meetings and perform community service for a period of time. Things are not so simple these days.

[Cardinalbb]

Originally posted by STANG RED
Cardinalbb, I have little tolerance for drunks as well, in fact I dont have much tolerance for stupid people in general, and drunks are certainly stupid people in my book. But in my mind, that is not what this is all about. While I dont agree with or condone what these drunk idiots are doing, I have an even bigger problem with ever increasing policies that infringe more and more into free Americans everyday lives. Where is it all going to end? Are we all just going to set around and wait till they come into our homes and churches and tell us what and how to act? This is just another wakeup call, that too many citizens are willing to ignore, because they are scared and think they are being protected. The more and more control of our daily lives we give up to our officials, the more and more they will continue to infringe even deeper than they have any right to.

I can respect your opinion. But let me give you all something to chew on.

1. The income tax is unconstitutional. It was originated to help with the war, and called a Victory tax. It was to be done away with once the war was over. BUT we still pay it.

2. What bothers me more is the decay of the moral fabric of this country. Morals have taken a back seat.....PERIOD!

3. Tell me a group of people that are ridiculed, talked about, scutinized without any fear of social unacceptance. (Christians)

Now I must leave work, and start my weekend!
Until next time brothers...........Sorry, had a flashback! HEE, HEE

[AP Panther Fan]

Originally posted by Cardinalbb Now I must leave work, and start my weekend!
Until next time brothers...........Sorry, had a flashback! HEE, HEE


LOL....talk about something that isn't fair! :mad:


Have a good one!;)

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by sahen
not that wikipedia is the law but they r normally pretty good here is what they say about public places......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_place

now from what i read on there i'd put a bar into a private place, but this is a general defiinition, so there could be some different laws for texas or the whole USA vs. other countries....

Yah, I wish it were that way... it's kind of like how smoking in eateries etc... is getting banned... I believe the owner of the place (it is kind of like his home, you know) should be allowed to do what he wants within' the law... but that's not so... I know they've outlawed smoking in some bars as well, so I'm pretty sure it's not private... it's just sick...

If you own a place, you should be able to do whatever you want and allow your customers to do whatever they want as long as it is within' the law... it's just like owning a house to me... but it doesn't seem that way now days...

Next time I invite people over for BBQ I'll make sure I tell 'em not to get drunk... may come in and start arresting friends...

[SWMustang]

Originally posted by olddawggreen
They showed one lady that was arrested in the hotel bar where she was staying. She had no plan to drive anywhere, just to walk to her room when she was through partying. Thats about as safe as you can get (unless theres a swimming pool located under her hotel window).

Classic - I enjoyed that one!:)

[DaHop72]

Originally posted by olddawggreen
Thats about as safe as you can get (unless theres a swimming pool located under her hotel window). :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[big daddy russ]

Interesting fact: Texans by nature are more suspicious of government than anyone else in the US. It serves a purpose, too. Texas has kept our federal government in check more than any other state. A perfect example is the case of Travis County, LULAC, and everyone else v. Rick Perry that's in the Supreme Court right now. That's some pretty shady stuff right there.

Personally, this has outraged me more than most. If they were standing outside of the bar and arresting people there, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. But after reading the rules and studying up a little, they bring tiny cameras into bars, and after you finish your third drink, whether you're 135 lbs. or 280, they'll take you in. A PI is issued "at the officer's discretion," which, as I personally know, is many times completely unfounded.

You see, I got arrested for a PI three years ago when officers in Taft, TX pulled me out of a truck that I was sleeping in. It was three in the morning, we were on our way back from San Antonio (saw the Spurs win their second championship a couple hours earlier), and had three drinks- the last of which had been consumed at least four hours prior to my arrest. We started drinking at about 7 or 8, finished our last drink at around 10:30 pm.

I passed the first sobriety test, they gave me a second (barely awake) and took me to jail. There's no way I failed it, because I never got a "buzz" and was perfectly fine when we left SA. So was my best friend, who had the same amount of alcohol and was also taken to jail. Furthermore, I requested a breathalyzer on the way to jail, but the officer refused. He said the same thing I said earlier, that it's "at the officer's discretion." I offered him that if I blew anything more than a .03 (legal intoxication level for a DWI is .08) he could keep me. He still refused.

Simple fact of the matter: alcohol on your breath is enough "discretion" for most officers--- at least the bad ones. And there's not a whole lot most people can do to fight it... it's a $200-$300 misdemeanor ticket vs. well over $1K in lawyer's fees.

Kinda makes you think about the way they're running things, doesn't it?

[SWMustang]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
Yah, I wish it were that way... it's kind of like how smoking in eateries etc... is getting banned... I believe the owner of the place (it is kind of like his home, you know) should be allowed to do what he wants within' the law... but that's not so... I know they've outlawed smoking in some bars as well, so I'm pretty sure it's not private... it's just sick

They don't call it "The People's Republic of Austin" for nothing. same deal on the riverwalk in San Antonio