Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
100! TIME FOR A DRINK!
Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk
- Thread starter Dale Carlson
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Jim Thompson
Active Member
You know, obviously everything is not perfect in the law, and certainly not in law enforcement...but I kinda' look at it like this.....just imagine what it would be like without "them". We don't live in a society that is controlled by thugs in jack boots who carry big sticks and wear badges....despite what Tom might think. If that were true, we could get the drug problems eliminated and we could keep the illegals out and no one would dare hold up their neighborhood convenience store. Of course there are undesirables in every line of work, and there are new laws every year that take away a little of our freedom...but we live in a very sophisticated world, change is inevitable, and with it comes tougher rules and regulations. I dare say that few if any of us would even consider going to any other country in the world, and trying its system out for a while.
Tom,
I was born and raised in Ohio, and I have never heard of such a law that allows you to speed as long as you are going to church. But if there were such a law, I doubt it would have much effect since I doubt that that the few people speeding on their way to church would pose a grave threat to society.
But if they were driving that much over the limit, They would at least be stopped. And I believe if they were going fast enough to be stopped, they were going fast enough to be ticketed. Also, consider that Police typically will not stop anyone unless they are going 5-10 MPH over the limit, unless it's a school zone or a construction zone or special circumstatances.
I agree that harsher punishments should be dealt out to drunk drivers. The problem is that most states don't have the backbone to do that. Most drunks that get caught by the police or are involved in an accident have at least three convictions for DUI before they got cought this time! That does not include the dozens or hundreds of times that they drove drunk and did not get caught.
Most drunks are alcoholics and they are in denial that they have a drinking problem, but they cannot control their drinking. You cannot reason with someone who is in complete denial. Their lives are falling apart and they frequently have alienated their families and friends, and pretty much ruined their lives, but they will continue to deny they have a drinking problem.
Until an alcoholic admitts they have a problem, no amount of fines, jail time, license suspensions, etc, will not deter an alcoholic from getting a drink.
By having the police go into bars and ticket or arrest those people who are drunk in public, they are preventing a escilation of a potentially dangerous situation. Those people who have a sober person to take them home immediately, are only given ticket. If you do not have someone to take them home, they are arrested. I think we all know what those inoxicated people would have done to get home. They would have slid behind the wheel and attempted to drive home. If they were in walking distance, we would have a drunk pedestrian.
Another part of this crack down was to reduce the number of bars that continue to serve alcohol to patrons who are obviously drunk. That is also illegal in Texas as well as many other states. According to the TABC that did not appear to be as big of a problem as they though.
...Rich
I was born and raised in Ohio, and I have never heard of such a law that allows you to speed as long as you are going to church. But if there were such a law, I doubt it would have much effect since I doubt that that the few people speeding on their way to church would pose a grave threat to society.
But if they were driving that much over the limit, They would at least be stopped. And I believe if they were going fast enough to be stopped, they were going fast enough to be ticketed. Also, consider that Police typically will not stop anyone unless they are going 5-10 MPH over the limit, unless it's a school zone or a construction zone or special circumstatances.
I agree that harsher punishments should be dealt out to drunk drivers. The problem is that most states don't have the backbone to do that. Most drunks that get caught by the police or are involved in an accident have at least three convictions for DUI before they got cought this time! That does not include the dozens or hundreds of times that they drove drunk and did not get caught.
Most drunks are alcoholics and they are in denial that they have a drinking problem, but they cannot control their drinking. You cannot reason with someone who is in complete denial. Their lives are falling apart and they frequently have alienated their families and friends, and pretty much ruined their lives, but they will continue to deny they have a drinking problem.
Until an alcoholic admitts they have a problem, no amount of fines, jail time, license suspensions, etc, will not deter an alcoholic from getting a drink.
By having the police go into bars and ticket or arrest those people who are drunk in public, they are preventing a escilation of a potentially dangerous situation. Those people who have a sober person to take them home immediately, are only given ticket. If you do not have someone to take them home, they are arrested. I think we all know what those inoxicated people would have done to get home. They would have slid behind the wheel and attempted to drive home. If they were in walking distance, we would have a drunk pedestrian.
Another part of this crack down was to reduce the number of bars that continue to serve alcohol to patrons who are obviously drunk. That is also illegal in Texas as well as many other states. According to the TABC that did not appear to be as big of a problem as they though.
...Rich
Please tell me where you are coming up with these things? What I am simply saying is I think it is wrong to go to a place, where something that is legal to drink, and arrest people for drinking. It is like having a law agaist drag racing and having the police go to the local drag strip and arrest people for drag racing. It might be a privatly owned place, like a bar is, but it is public...just like a bar.
They are not slowing down drunk driving. That can only happen with better driver training, harsher punishment for those that do it, and tougher enforcement. Ruining a young mans life with a Public Intox conviction on his 21st birthday with a limo ride to and from the bar is not justice in any way, shape, or form.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen says:
Then you LET ME KNOW when that happens, Caymen, because I think it is WRONG too. But, luckily, that isn't what is happening here. Instead, they are arresting people that are DRUNK, not simply those that DRINK! Or, in Ohio do people ONLY drink to get drunk?
Caymen also said:
That's a bad analogy. A better one would be:
"It's just like having a law against illegal drag racing and having the police go to a secluded country road in which highschoolers have drag-raced for years, and start giving out citations for the first time."
In your analogy it is legal to drag race on a designated drag strip, thus it wouldn't make sense to give citations, I agree, but the real world counterpart is Public Intoxication, which IS illegal. In my analogy, it is illegal to drag race on a public street, and just because officials have held a blind-eye to it up until now, doesn't mean they can't/shouldn't start enforcing the law....just like PI in a bar.
TJR
Then you LET ME KNOW when that happens, Caymen, because I think it is WRONG too. But, luckily, that isn't what is happening here. Instead, they are arresting people that are DRUNK, not simply those that DRINK! Or, in Ohio do people ONLY drink to get drunk?
Caymen also said:
That's a bad analogy. A better one would be:
"It's just like having a law against illegal drag racing and having the police go to a secluded country road in which highschoolers have drag-raced for years, and start giving out citations for the first time."
In your analogy it is legal to drag race on a designated drag strip, thus it wouldn't make sense to give citations, I agree, but the real world counterpart is Public Intoxication, which IS illegal. In my analogy, it is illegal to drag race on a public street, and just because officials have held a blind-eye to it up until now, doesn't mean they can't/shouldn't start enforcing the law....just like PI in a bar.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Caymen,
You keep side-stepping the issue, and implying that the police actions are illegal, or that the police are arresting these people because they are simply drinking in a bar, or the police are leaping to the conclusion that these people intend to drive while intoxicated. That would be illegal, but that is not what is happening.
The TABC is not sitting in these bars counting drinks you are served, etc. You could be in the bar drinking all night and as long as you show no obvious signs of being drunk, they won't even notice you. However if you go into the bar and drink two beers and start staggering around like a drunk, you will be stopped and assessed to determine if you are staggering because you are drunk or for some other reason.
These people are given tickets or arrested on a misdomeaner charge of being "Intoxicated in Public". Not because they are in a bar drinking, nor are the police assuming that they intend to drive while intoxicated.
These are simple misdemeanor charges. No worse than getting a speeding ticket, and probably even less so since you don't get any points on your license. So no young men's lives are being ruined. On the contrary, perhaps some will find that this incident was a clear wake up call and either not drink, or at least not drink excessively.
It's clear that you object to people being ticketed or arrested for "Public Intoxication" while inside a bar. What part are you having the most problem understanding, the Public Intoxication law, or that a bar is considered a Pubic place??
...Rich
You keep side-stepping the issue, and implying that the police actions are illegal, or that the police are arresting these people because they are simply drinking in a bar, or the police are leaping to the conclusion that these people intend to drive while intoxicated. That would be illegal, but that is not what is happening.
The TABC is not sitting in these bars counting drinks you are served, etc. You could be in the bar drinking all night and as long as you show no obvious signs of being drunk, they won't even notice you. However if you go into the bar and drink two beers and start staggering around like a drunk, you will be stopped and assessed to determine if you are staggering because you are drunk or for some other reason.
These people are given tickets or arrested on a misdomeaner charge of being "Intoxicated in Public". Not because they are in a bar drinking, nor are the police assuming that they intend to drive while intoxicated.
These are simple misdemeanor charges. No worse than getting a speeding ticket, and probably even less so since you don't get any points on your license. So no young men's lives are being ruined. On the contrary, perhaps some will find that this incident was a clear wake up call and either not drink, or at least not drink excessively.
It's clear that you object to people being ticketed or arrested for "Public Intoxication" while inside a bar. What part are you having the most problem understanding, the Public Intoxication law, or that a bar is considered a Pubic place??
...Rich
Mark Grumpy
Well-Known Member
Dale Carlson
Active Member
Hear, hear. I have a feeling that what will come to pass is exactly what Joe W. pointed out - that:
And Rich, part of what you're writing of is an attempt to regulate morality - that is, decreasing alcoholism by using the law. While that may be an admirable goal, it is really none of yours, mine, or anyone else's (read non-relatives & non-friends) business concerning other people's drinking habits. That is not the business of the law in this country, even though many have tried, and will continue to do so.
For the record, I believe in PROBABLE CAUSE, REASONABLE DOUBT, DUE PROCESS, & PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. So far, I'm not seeing a lot of that in the TABC's application of this law.
You know, it only takes a little more than 2 drinks in an hour (for most people) to be legally intoxicated. Does anybody in a bar DESERVE to be arrested for having two drinks?
Finally:
And Rich, part of what you're writing of is an attempt to regulate morality - that is, decreasing alcoholism by using the law. While that may be an admirable goal, it is really none of yours, mine, or anyone else's (read non-relatives & non-friends) business concerning other people's drinking habits. That is not the business of the law in this country, even though many have tried, and will continue to do so.
For the record, I believe in PROBABLE CAUSE, REASONABLE DOUBT, DUE PROCESS, & PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. So far, I'm not seeing a lot of that in the TABC's application of this law.
You know, it only takes a little more than 2 drinks in an hour (for most people) to be legally intoxicated. Does anybody in a bar DESERVE to be arrested for having two drinks?
Finally:
Jim Thompson
Active Member
Ben must have said that after having just tee martoonies in one hour
!kefguy,
I am not trying to legislate morality. I have clearly said that I drink occassionally and no harm in someone else drinking their beverage of choice. But the law states that people are not permitted to be drunk in public. And that is all these people are being ticketed or arrested for.
The TABC has not convicted these people, but you seem to have, and then you accuse the TABC of doing just that.. The TABC is not a court and they cannot convict anyone of anything. They mearly inforce the laws. People who where obviously Intoxicated where given tickets if they have a sober person who can take them home. If they have nobody with them who can take them home, they are taken to jail to sleep it off and given a ticket for being intoxicated in public.
I agree that if there were any abuse of police power in these citations or arrest, then thos people shoul go free and the police severly repremanded. But as of now, that has not been shown to be the case.
It's kind of funny that nobody is protesting the law that says you cannot be intoxicated in public. Instead, they complain that the police are going undercover in the bars to make these arrest !!! Or trhey claim that the police are accusing these people of drunk driving, when that is not the case at all. The TABC and police crackdown is to help reduce the number of drunk drivers. Until that is shown to be right or wrong I will side with the TABC's efforts.
...Rich
I am not trying to legislate morality. I have clearly said that I drink occassionally and no harm in someone else drinking their beverage of choice. But the law states that people are not permitted to be drunk in public. And that is all these people are being ticketed or arrested for.
The TABC has not convicted these people, but you seem to have, and then you accuse the TABC of doing just that.. The TABC is not a court and they cannot convict anyone of anything. They mearly inforce the laws. People who where obviously Intoxicated where given tickets if they have a sober person who can take them home. If they have nobody with them who can take them home, they are taken to jail to sleep it off and given a ticket for being intoxicated in public.
I agree that if there were any abuse of police power in these citations or arrest, then thos people shoul go free and the police severly repremanded. But as of now, that has not been shown to be the case.
It's kind of funny that nobody is protesting the law that says you cannot be intoxicated in public. Instead, they complain that the police are going undercover in the bars to make these arrest !!! Or trhey claim that the police are accusing these people of drunk driving, when that is not the case at all. The TABC and police crackdown is to help reduce the number of drunk drivers. Until that is shown to be right or wrong I will side with the TABC's efforts.
...Rich
Dale Carlson
Active Member
Rich,
I'm not quite sure what I've said that makes you insist (because you've said it twice now) that I've convicted these people. I do believe that the conclusion of most of their cases is, well, a foregone conclusion. Most of these folks are going to pay the fine because to take it to court would just be too much of a nuisance for them. Hey, newsflash - if you bust people in a hotel bar, who are you going to get in your net? People from out of town. How many of those are going to come back to fight this in court?
However, I hope that someone does take a case to court to test the law as it's written. My feeling is that they'll win - and at some point the law will have to made tighter and more specific, thereby reducing it's effectiveness in other situations. I gotta wonder if the regular cop on the beat isn't just about hating what the TABC did. It's gonna make their job that much tougher when the law is re-written, or at the very least, the judges start setting precedents about what is and what isn't public intoxication.
You're also insisting that these people only have to publicy intoxicated. If I understand this correctly, the state will have to prove that these people (well, those who choose to take it to court) may have been a danger to themselves or others - NOT JUST DRUNK. So far, I'm not seeing the second element.
I actually don't think there's anything wrong with laws on public intoxication. I do think that the TABC's application of it is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.
I'm not quite sure what I've said that makes you insist (because you've said it twice now) that I've convicted these people. I do believe that the conclusion of most of their cases is, well, a foregone conclusion. Most of these folks are going to pay the fine because to take it to court would just be too much of a nuisance for them. Hey, newsflash - if you bust people in a hotel bar, who are you going to get in your net? People from out of town. How many of those are going to come back to fight this in court?
However, I hope that someone does take a case to court to test the law as it's written. My feeling is that they'll win - and at some point the law will have to made tighter and more specific, thereby reducing it's effectiveness in other situations. I gotta wonder if the regular cop on the beat isn't just about hating what the TABC did. It's gonna make their job that much tougher when the law is re-written, or at the very least, the judges start setting precedents about what is and what isn't public intoxication.
You're also insisting that these people only have to publicy intoxicated. If I understand this correctly, the state will have to prove that these people (well, those who choose to take it to court) may have been a danger to themselves or others - NOT JUST DRUNK. So far, I'm not seeing the second element.
I actually don't think there's anything wrong with laws on public intoxication. I do think that the TABC's application of it is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.
kefguy,
To my knowledge, only one Hotel bar was under survalance. Over 30 bars were hit in Dallas alone, and this was a state wide project by the TABC. So the Hotel Bar and tourist were not a target. Again, you are taking one incident at a hotel bar, and blow it up as if all the bars were hotel bars just to trap the tourist, when that is NOT what happened.
All the politicians and legal wizards are saying that the citations and the arrests are legal, but it's about 50/50 for folks who think it is a good thing, and those who feel that the police crossed the line when they went into bars to arrest people, although they all admit that a bar is a public place and the arrest were legal. They are investigating some arrest to determine if there was any abuse of police power.
I think what will eventually happen is that most of the people will be found guilty, but only pay a very small fine, or the fines will be suspended simply because they were the first people caught in the operation. But it serves as a shot across the bow of those who may think they are free to get drunk in public. Because of the amount of manhours required to do these stake-outs in bars, They probably will only do single random bars in the future.
As to the police having to prove that the intoxicated person is a danger to himself and others. I think there is plenty of presidence to prove that point. The number of domestic violence incidents where alcohol is involved, the number of assaults and fights when two or more people get drunk, the number of traffic accidents that involve alcohol, and just the number of alcohol related incidents in general clearly indicate that an intoxicated person's judgement is so impared and even helpless to defend themselves, that they are at much greater risk of becoming involved in some incident that leads to injury to them or to someone else.
That does not exclude the "Harmless" drunk who falls asleep in the bar and is woke up when the bar closes and he calmly staggers home and goes to bed. He presents a fery easy target for a mugger to strike on his way home. In some areas of some towns, those odds are about 50/50.
To my knowledge, only one Hotel bar was under survalance. Over 30 bars were hit in Dallas alone, and this was a state wide project by the TABC. So the Hotel Bar and tourist were not a target. Again, you are taking one incident at a hotel bar, and blow it up as if all the bars were hotel bars just to trap the tourist, when that is NOT what happened.
All the politicians and legal wizards are saying that the citations and the arrests are legal, but it's about 50/50 for folks who think it is a good thing, and those who feel that the police crossed the line when they went into bars to arrest people, although they all admit that a bar is a public place and the arrest were legal. They are investigating some arrest to determine if there was any abuse of police power.
I think what will eventually happen is that most of the people will be found guilty, but only pay a very small fine, or the fines will be suspended simply because they were the first people caught in the operation. But it serves as a shot across the bow of those who may think they are free to get drunk in public. Because of the amount of manhours required to do these stake-outs in bars, They probably will only do single random bars in the future.
As to the police having to prove that the intoxicated person is a danger to himself and others. I think there is plenty of presidence to prove that point. The number of domestic violence incidents where alcohol is involved, the number of assaults and fights when two or more people get drunk, the number of traffic accidents that involve alcohol, and just the number of alcohol related incidents in general clearly indicate that an intoxicated person's judgement is so impared and even helpless to defend themselves, that they are at much greater risk of becoming involved in some incident that leads to injury to them or to someone else.
That does not exclude the "Harmless" drunk who falls asleep in the bar and is woke up when the bar closes and he calmly staggers home and goes to bed. He presents a fery easy target for a mugger to strike on his way home. In some areas of some towns, those odds are about 50/50.
Dale Carlson
Active Member
OK, Rich, here's what I'm getting from you - that domestic violence, assaults, fights, traffic accidents, and mugging incidents have some unnamed number/percentage of intoxicated people involved. Therefore, it's then OK to round up all of the drunks to protect them and/or their victims from danger.
In some circles, that would be called profiling. Arab Muslims bombed the USS Cole, the US embassies in Africa, and crashed airplanes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. [sarcasm]Therefore, all Arab Muslims need to rounded up and thrown in jail. [/sarcasm]
Hmmm, how about this one: Blacks are convicted of much of the violent crimes, homicide, and theft crimes in this country. [sarcasm] Let's stop all of the blacks on the road and make sure they're staying out of trouble, and to see how many we catch those who are up to no good while we're at it. [/sarcasm] (My African-American call this last one getting stopped for Driving While Black).
You haven't proven anything. There is a fallacy in your argument. That many incidents are caused by drunks, does NOT mean the reverse is true - that all drunks will cause an incident, so we need to round'em up. You're making assumptions of what people are going to do. A equals B does not equal C.
In some circles, that would be called profiling. Arab Muslims bombed the USS Cole, the US embassies in Africa, and crashed airplanes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. [sarcasm]Therefore, all Arab Muslims need to rounded up and thrown in jail. [/sarcasm]
Hmmm, how about this one: Blacks are convicted of much of the violent crimes, homicide, and theft crimes in this country. [sarcasm] Let's stop all of the blacks on the road and make sure they're staying out of trouble, and to see how many we catch those who are up to no good while we're at it. [/sarcasm] (My African-American call this last one getting stopped for Driving While Black).
You haven't proven anything. There is a fallacy in your argument. That many incidents are caused by drunks, does NOT mean the reverse is true - that all drunks will cause an incident, so we need to round'em up. You're making assumptions of what people are going to do. A equals B does not equal C.
is that what I am saying?
or is it?
Where did I say is is illegal. What I also did say is that many "laws" are not enforced when they actually could be, but there are bigger fish to fry. Forget about drugs, prostitution, murders, etc. There isn't much money to be made.
Take for example, police busting speeders on the highway. They will line up 10 to 15 cars to catch speeders. Meanwhile, there are drug dealers running around my neighborhood selling drugs. You call the police and they do not have any officers available to see what is going on. You have a fight in the neighborhood. I am not talking about two guys drunk throwing punchs, but actual gang fights. It is not common to hear gun shots. Where are the police?
Catching those bad guys. The poor saps going to and from work. A speeding ticket will get the city anywhere from $150.00 to $250.00 per citation written. What does a gong fight bring? Not a dime.
Worring about some guy getting loaded at the local tavern because he had a day. Those are the real criminals.
Tom
is that what I am saying?
or is it?
Where did I say is is illegal. What I also did say is that many "laws" are not enforced when they actually could be, but there are bigger fish to fry. Forget about drugs, prostitution, murders, etc. There isn't much money to be made.
Take for example, police busting speeders on the highway. They will line up 10 to 15 cars to catch speeders. Meanwhile, there are drug dealers running around my neighborhood selling drugs. You call the police and they do not have any officers available to see what is going on. You have a fight in the neighborhood. I am not talking about two guys drunk throwing punchs, but actual gang fights. It is not common to hear gun shots. Where are the police?
Catching those bad guys. The poor saps going to and from work. A speeding ticket will get the city anywhere from $150.00 to $250.00 per citation written. What does a gang fight bring? Not a dime.
Worring about some guy getting loaded at the local tavern because he had a day. Those are the real criminals.
Tom
Last edited by a moderator:
Gerald Pierce
Well-Known Member
I skipped a bunch of this thread but...
Rich said:
I would venture to say that it wont fly because wouldn't they have to prove you were drunk? When you get a drivers license, most states make you sign that you consent to alcohol tests.... if you are not driving, can they make you take a blood alcohol test? If not, then you may not be drunk.... maybe you are just very tired, or very happy, or very angry, or.....
They are probably hoping most wont fight this and just pay the fine.... it generates money for the city/state/etc.
I think a better option would be to observe the folks OUTSIDE the bar, getting into a vehicle and then check them.
I am against DUI as much as the next guy, but I think this is a stupid way to do business. You would think that if no one complains about the drunk in a bar, they should be left alone... until the leave and try to operate a motor vehicle.
I used to live in base housing (govt property). If I got drunk in my own house, could they come and arrest me? It's not private property.....
Rich said:
I would venture to say that it wont fly because wouldn't they have to prove you were drunk? When you get a drivers license, most states make you sign that you consent to alcohol tests.... if you are not driving, can they make you take a blood alcohol test? If not, then you may not be drunk.... maybe you are just very tired, or very happy, or very angry, or.....
They are probably hoping most wont fight this and just pay the fine.... it generates money for the city/state/etc.
I think a better option would be to observe the folks OUTSIDE the bar, getting into a vehicle and then check them.
I am against DUI as much as the next guy, but I think this is a stupid way to do business. You would think that if no one complains about the drunk in a bar, they should be left alone... until the leave and try to operate a motor vehicle.
I used to live in base housing (govt property). If I got drunk in my own house, could they come and arrest me? It's not private property.....
kefguy,
Again and again you keep side stepping the issue. There is nothing racial about these arrest, and it's not profiling if you are looking for drunks and you see someone staggering around in front of you !!!
You are also twisting my word when you say that I am suggesting that all or most assaults, accidents, etc are the actions of drunks. I am only suggesting that the historical facts will show that alcohol often played a roll in a large number of these kinds of incidents. That just means that people who are intoxicated are much more likely to become involved in some kind of accident or incident.. The simple fact that they are staggering indicates their sense of balance has been impaired and could lead to a fall.
It's really not that different than the states that require all vehicle passengers to wear a seat belt. You can be ticketed for not wearing the seat belt and convicted in court if you care to take it that far. The chances of you being involved in a traffic accident because you are not wearing a seat belt are not increased, but if you should happen to become involved in an accident, your chances of being injured are greatly increased.
If you are drinking in a bar but are not intoxicated, there is no more risk that you will be involved in some sort of injury producing incident than there is for anyother sober person in that bar. Yes incidents and accidents happen to sober people. But if you are drunk, the odds of you being involved in some kind of incident that injures you or someone else are greatly increased.
While I don't know the exact statistics of the number of drunks involved in accidents or incidents, I'm sure it's pretty high. The state of Texas has lead the nation in drunk drivers and serious accidents involving alcohol. Most employers have very strict prohabitions against drink or being intoxicated at work. I worked for a hospital that required that every employee injured at work, for what ever reason, must be given a blood Alcohol test. That same hospital stated that if you bolood alcohol level showed any trace of alcohol, you would be terminated. So that hospitals as well as most other employers feel that alcohol has a major impact on the number of accident in the workplace.
I feel that there is sufficient presidence of the impact of alcohol that it would not be difficult to prove that a staggering drunk is a danger to themselfs and/or to others. You may not agree, and that's fine.
The simple fact is that it is not your decision or mine to make. The courts will have to do that
Just don't add your interpretation of the law as fact, and don't try to imply things like profiling or racial overtones to the situation. Your opinions and beliefs about this are welcomed, but please don't attempt to distort facts that are not in evidence. It makes you far less believable.
...Rich
Again and again you keep side stepping the issue. There is nothing racial about these arrest, and it's not profiling if you are looking for drunks and you see someone staggering around in front of you !!!
You are also twisting my word when you say that I am suggesting that all or most assaults, accidents, etc are the actions of drunks. I am only suggesting that the historical facts will show that alcohol often played a roll in a large number of these kinds of incidents. That just means that people who are intoxicated are much more likely to become involved in some kind of accident or incident.. The simple fact that they are staggering indicates their sense of balance has been impaired and could lead to a fall.
It's really not that different than the states that require all vehicle passengers to wear a seat belt. You can be ticketed for not wearing the seat belt and convicted in court if you care to take it that far. The chances of you being involved in a traffic accident because you are not wearing a seat belt are not increased, but if you should happen to become involved in an accident, your chances of being injured are greatly increased.
If you are drinking in a bar but are not intoxicated, there is no more risk that you will be involved in some sort of injury producing incident than there is for anyother sober person in that bar. Yes incidents and accidents happen to sober people. But if you are drunk, the odds of you being involved in some kind of incident that injures you or someone else are greatly increased.
While I don't know the exact statistics of the number of drunks involved in accidents or incidents, I'm sure it's pretty high. The state of Texas has lead the nation in drunk drivers and serious accidents involving alcohol. Most employers have very strict prohabitions against drink or being intoxicated at work. I worked for a hospital that required that every employee injured at work, for what ever reason, must be given a blood Alcohol test. That same hospital stated that if you bolood alcohol level showed any trace of alcohol, you would be terminated. So that hospitals as well as most other employers feel that alcohol has a major impact on the number of accident in the workplace.
I feel that there is sufficient presidence of the impact of alcohol that it would not be difficult to prove that a staggering drunk is a danger to themselfs and/or to others. You may not agree, and that's fine.
The simple fact is that it is not your decision or mine to make. The courts will have to do that
Just don't add your interpretation of the law as fact, and don't try to imply things like profiling or racial overtones to the situation. Your opinions and beliefs about this are welcomed, but please don't attempt to distort facts that are not in evidence. It makes you far less believable.
...Rich
TomT
Well-Known Member
Wow. Wish I had gotten in at the begining of this debate but alas I was out of town. Having been born and raised here in the great state of Texas and also having a law enforcement background, I can tell you the intent of the TABC is good but knowing some of the assholes that work for TABC, it's going to get screwed up. This is only going to make the lawyers richer.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Kefguy, it isn't "profiling" if you arrest people for breaking the PI law.
It's profiling if you assume all Irish are drunks and you give a sobriety test to all Irish you see in public.
See the difference?
It's profiling if you assume all Irish are drunks and you give a sobriety test to all Irish you see in public.
See the difference?
Dale Carlson
Active Member
Rich/TJR,
I know the difference. This isn't about racial profiling. The worst cases of profiling take a single observable trait and make actionable decisions based on that trait just because it's so easy to do. Putting Mid-Eastern people on a no-fly list because they have Arabic-sounding names is ethnic profiling. Stopping African-Americans because they're Driving While Black is racial profiling. IMO, ticketing/arresting people because they look intoxicated is also profiling.
The whole problem with the TABC's actions do NOT have to do with the Public Intoxication law. It has to do with the TABC's application of it, and the assumptions they're making in the process. Is a guy sleeping in a bar drunk, or is he just tired? Is a guy stumbling down the street drunk, or does he have a medical condition? Is a guy who's loud in a bar drunk, or is he just an extrovert having a good time?
And you guys keep forgetting to mention, or choosing to ignore, the second element of the law. I don't buy that an intoxicated person is inherently dangerous to himself or others. Could they be more at risk? Yeah, maybe. And I say "maybe" because it depends on their actions when they are finished drinking. For every intoxicated-related dangerous act that you refer to, I can name another mitigating action that will prevent that dangerous act.
Finally, this whole thing seems to fly against the education that the government and the alcohol industry have been putting out for years. Rich mentioned drinking less as the only method for drinking responsibly. According to all of the literature, there's also having a DD, sobering up, walking, taking a cab, and staying overnight as responsible actions - basically anything to keep you out of a car. It seems the TABC is ignoring all of those actions we've been trained to believe are responsible and saying it just doesn't matter. You're drunk, that's it, end of story, arrest that man, Oh wait, you got a ride? OK, give that man a ticket. Hell, according to you guys, you can't even walk over to a friend's house for a SuperBowl party, because the second you hit the (public) sidewalk to go back to your house, you've broken the public intoxication law and you're a menace to society. They're saying I can't go to hotel for a wedding or a Christmas party and have a good time because I'll be breaking the law, even if I'm doing the responsible thing and staying overnight in that very same hotel (which I have done on those very two occasions). About the only thing you might be able to do is to stay at home and drink by yourself. Oh waitaminnit, that's a sure sign of alcoholism, isn't it?
I know the difference. This isn't about racial profiling. The worst cases of profiling take a single observable trait and make actionable decisions based on that trait just because it's so easy to do. Putting Mid-Eastern people on a no-fly list because they have Arabic-sounding names is ethnic profiling. Stopping African-Americans because they're Driving While Black is racial profiling. IMO, ticketing/arresting people because they look intoxicated is also profiling.
The whole problem with the TABC's actions do NOT have to do with the Public Intoxication law. It has to do with the TABC's application of it, and the assumptions they're making in the process. Is a guy sleeping in a bar drunk, or is he just tired? Is a guy stumbling down the street drunk, or does he have a medical condition? Is a guy who's loud in a bar drunk, or is he just an extrovert having a good time?
And you guys keep forgetting to mention, or choosing to ignore, the second element of the law. I don't buy that an intoxicated person is inherently dangerous to himself or others. Could they be more at risk? Yeah, maybe. And I say "maybe" because it depends on their actions when they are finished drinking. For every intoxicated-related dangerous act that you refer to, I can name another mitigating action that will prevent that dangerous act.
Finally, this whole thing seems to fly against the education that the government and the alcohol industry have been putting out for years. Rich mentioned drinking less as the only method for drinking responsibly. According to all of the literature, there's also having a DD, sobering up, walking, taking a cab, and staying overnight as responsible actions - basically anything to keep you out of a car. It seems the TABC is ignoring all of those actions we've been trained to believe are responsible and saying it just doesn't matter. You're drunk, that's it, end of story, arrest that man, Oh wait, you got a ride? OK, give that man a ticket. Hell, according to you guys, you can't even walk over to a friend's house for a SuperBowl party, because the second you hit the (public) sidewalk to go back to your house, you've broken the public intoxication law and you're a menace to society. They're saying I can't go to hotel for a wedding or a Christmas party and have a good time because I'll be breaking the law, even if I'm doing the responsible thing and staying overnight in that very same hotel (which I have done on those very two occasions). About the only thing you might be able to do is to stay at home and drink by yourself. Oh waitaminnit, that's a sure sign of alcoholism, isn't it?
