Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk

[Mark Grumpy]

even if some peole act like children and make astounding leaps in logic

Hi Dad.



Hey - Dano errr, I mean Q is back. Where you been Buddy??



grump

 

[Dale Carlson]

Damn, Rich, did you live in EAST Germany? Or did you just spend an inordinate amount of time in the gasthaus' - enough to see the polizei arresting drunks in them? I for one never saw it a single time. I did see the polizei arresting drunks at their car doors (which is a solution I advocate here).



Y'know, since the beginning, our country's laws have been about protecting and securing the rights, freedoms, and liberties of its inhabitants. Parts of the law have the goal of restricting ormodifying the behavior of those people who jeopardize the safety and/or security of others and thereby infringe on the rights, freedoms, and liberties of those others. However, those laws that protect one's safety and security can also infringe upon others' liberties.



The law in this country has always been a balancing act between your right to be protected and my right to be unfettered (or the way around if you prefer). But the lawmakers in this country have always leaned towards fewer or more liberal laws.



So, if the law has modifed my behavior to the extent that I am going to call a cab, get a ride, rent a room, sober up, or generally and specifically go out of my way to NOT jeopardize YOUR safety and security, and thereby not infringe on your rights, freedoms, and liberties, why are the stormtroopers coming in the door to arrest me? Hasn't that law accomplished it's purpose when it comes down to my behavior? I (the hypothetical me, could be another guy) am doing the right and responsible thing, and could still get arrested for having a few beers. Not a single one of you guys who are advocates for the TABC's actions has addressed that.



Yeah, yeah, I know. Yada, yada, yada. It's the law. It's a public place. Got that. Saw it on your t-shirt. Basically, what you're telling me is that it's because they can and so they should (go into bars and arrest drunks).

That decision has already been made.

Maybe it has, and maybe it hasn't. That's what I love about this country, Rich. It ain't over til it's over - and then maybe it's not over then.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

Did you know in Ohio, if you refuse to subit a sample, your licence is suspended on the spot and still get charged with a DUI. Try beating that rap. You wont. You are convicted.

As it should be in each and every state. That's the most fair, logical way to do it as driving is a priviledge not a right. Seems to me that only those that think police are jackboot thugs that are trying to arrest the innocent would think that isn't a good thing.



TJR

 

[Mark Grumpy]

As it should be in each and every state.

Agreed!! I am not sure about suspended and actually charged, but here in TX you can be arrested for refusing. Maybe Dad knows the particulars on the charges



grump

 

[Bill V]

Again, as an analogy, it would be like asking the patrolmen that gives you a ticket to "Wash My Car", because that's how "I THINK YOU SHOULD Protect and Serve ME!"

No, that's not it at all. That, once again, is complaining to the officer--which we agree is pointless.



What I/we are saying is that if we as citizens felt that (to use your example) car washes are a more important service for the citizens to get from our tax dollars than paying officers to give tickets to people who are intoxicated in bars, it is perfectly acceptable for us to write to our elected officials expressing this opinion, and asking them to factor this into the next state/federal/municipal/etc. budget by adjusting the budget for TABC lower and the budget for TBCW (Texas Bureau of Car Washes) higher. And it is perfectly acceptable for us to vote for people who promise to do so.



If enough people vote that way, then it will happen--and it will have enough impact on the hiring within the state that yes, that guy giving tickets to people in the saloon last night may be washing the cars in the saloon's parking lot the next day.

 

[Richard L]

kefguy,

Most Germany gasthouses are very family oriented and it would be very unusual for polezei to enter one just to look for drunks. I don't recall ever seeing a uniformed police even going into a gasthouse to eat???



Bars in Germany are much different. They are adults only, and typically do not serve food, only alcohol. They are open long after the gasthouses have closed. These bars are often open all night. I was in Heidleberg, Germany, and since it was a University town, many of these clubs were "Student Clubs", and some required membership and some didn't. Heidleberg is also HQ for the US Army in Europe and has a very large military population.



I did not intend to make you think that I saw arrest every time I went into a bar. For a period of time I worked evenings and got off work at midnight, and my friends and coworkers would occasionally go out for a beer after work. Since only bars or student clubs were open, that's where you had to go for a beer.



I have seen the poletzei arrest people who were drunk in these bars on at least 3 occasions. It was not uncommon for the poletzei to check the ID's of everyone in the bar (not for underaged drinking) but just know who you are and if something didn't fit. (as I stated before, there were a lot of terrorist in Germany at that time). None of the people arrested were US Military personel. In fact one was a very billegerant Scottsman who was wearing a kilt and calling all the Germans Nazis. :wacko:



Most of your last post, I agree with, at least to some degree. But I will say that this country is composed of 50 individual states with the power to make and inforce laws as they see fit as long as it does not interfer with a persons Constitutional rights. How Califrnia writes and inteprets their laws is not in any way binding on how Texas writes and interprets it's laws.



Heck we can't even get states to agree on a common set of traffic laws. So you go to a different state and make a right turn on red and you get a ticket, but at home, right turns on red are permitted, etc. That is just the way are country was pulled together. Most of the states wanted the autonomy to govern themselves with regard to local issues.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

Laff! Another absurd example of retarded thinking. "If I buy a gun, arrest me before I shoot someone..." has nothing to do with, "If I'm drinking at a bar, in public, and my car is stting in the parking lot, and I'm getting out to drive home and then get arrested BEFORE I put the keys in my car for a minor offense..." Well, here's some positives you MAY want to review:

Do you know for a fact that guy/gal getting hammered in the bar has a car in the parking lot? If so, how?



Do you know for a fact that he/she does not have a designated driver and does plan to drive home him/herself?



Do you know for a fact that he/she was planning on driving home?



Are you talking the police should act on presumed guilt?





Tom



p.s. No name calling. Respect me and others. So far this thread has been interesting and peaceful. Please refrain from name calling, derogatory marks, and stupid comments. If not, I and others, will contact Rich about your behavior and have you removed. Thanks a bunch!

 

[Bill V]

Public intoxication only requires visual drunkedness, or just the smell of alcohol on someone.

I certainly hope that's not the criteria. In most bars, everyone smells of alcohol--even those who haven't been drinking. (Yes, I realize that few-if-any cops would enforce such a criterion on someone who, for example, clearly hasn't been drinking, but had the misfortune of having a drunk spill her beer on them and now reeks of it. But it shouldn't even be on the books.)

 

[Thomas Rogers]

BillV, in your last quote of me and its tone, I think you must have missed where I said:

My taxes pay for crap I don't want all the time. I tend to not villify those delivering those services though, as I said, I think it's a pointless exercise. Like you said, BillV, there are other channels for those regresses....no need to "flip the bozo switch" on all cops because you think the job a few of them are doing is misguided.

I am agreeing with you, but will stop the analogies, because I think people are getting confused when they are meant as absurd examples of certain people's POV.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen asks:

Do you know for a fact that guy/gal getting hammered in the bar has a car in the parking lot? If so, how?



Do you know for a fact that he/she does not have a designated driver and does plan to drive home him/herself?



Do you know for a fact that he/she was planning on driving home?



Are you talking the police should act on presumed guilt?

All of those questions are MOOT.



MOOT meaning NOT APPLICABLE or OF NO CONSEQUENCE; because IF drunk in a bar THEN a law has been broken AND the drunk can be cited with that crime, PERIOD.



The fact that TABC officers are also preventing someone from POTENTIALLY driving drunk, is just ICING on the cake. The CAKE is the drunk in public!



Why, oh why is that so hard to understand?



TJR

 

[Bill V]

TJR--



Fair enough.



Or, as I think it was you that said, "Kewl".



--Bill

 

[Tom Schindler]

If the whole reason of police entering bars is to prevent drunk drivers on the road by arresting them under a Public Intox law, then my point is not a moot point.



If the reason is becaue they are breaking the law, then fine.

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.”

It is wrong. It might be legal, but it is still wrong. This move does nothing more then cause a larger dividing line between the police and the general public. It will do more harm then good. It is doing nothing more then building a police state and causing resentment between the government and the people it is suposed to serve.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, so you get bent out of shape by the word "goal" in the quote above, huh? Furthermore, it seems to me that you don't seem to want to acknowledge the FIRST and the LAST sentences of what you quoted to the same level as those in the middle, for if you did, you would have to agree with me.



So, Caymen, it is WRONG to uphold and enforce laws! You just said it is! Is that all laws or just the ones you disagree with?



Maybe that explains your unnatural distain and distrust for law enforcement, which seems to start with your fundamental belief that you alone get to decide which laws are good and which ones are bad.



I will try once again...



Here is the way I think a reasonable person should view what is being done. The TABC is enforcing one law on the books so that they can reduce causal/related crimes. To me, it would be akin to spot-checking gun permits at a firing range and arresting offenders in hopes to curb gun violence associated with illegal guns. I would be ALL FOR such actions on a gun range. I can see how some gun entusiasts would look at the range as a "bastian" and a "safe haven" for their activities, and I can understand that, but I also think those that aren't doing anything illegal have nothing to worry about. The same way those not planning to drink to get drunk at a bar have nothing to worry about.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

If the TABC was charging people with publix intox because there have been too many bar fights, I would not have a problem with it. To assume that everyone will drive a car is absurd. Public into laws should be used in conjunction with someone at a state/county fair, park, or other places that are "in public" to eliminate those problems.



I wonder if, when the law was written, if the intention was to target liquor establishments, or people out on the street making a fool of themselves.



Is the law really being upheld, or is the law being molested and used for the wrong reason.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Caymen,

You keep making a leap to the wring conclusion. You keep inferring that the police are arresting people in Texas based soley on the assumption that they will get behind the wheel of a car. That is not what is going on at all.



The people are being arrested for public intoxication in a pulbic place, ie...a bar.

These people are not being charged with drunk driving nor is it ever assumed that they have evidence that they will drive.



People who have sober designated drivers or escorts are given a citation and allowed to be escorted home. The fact that their friend is is sober does not mean that makes the drunk immune from injuring themselves, so they are still volnerable. Those who do not have an escort or a sober designated driver are arrested and taken to jail to sober up. The drunken person may become involved in an incident and therefore cannot be left unattended.



Also, I have reread some of the recent postings and do not see where anyone called you a name, but perhaps I missed something.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

As I said, Caymen, you just don't like the PI law. Then lobby to have it changed in your state, and move to Texas to have it changed there too.



It's a law on the books and if enforced in bars it WILL (logically and statistically) reduce incidents of drunk driving; and I for one would rather deter that crime BEFORE it happens then try to catch people in the act or worse, mop-up the highways after the fact.



Regardless of the benefit that enforcing the PI law in bars will logically have in reducing drunk driving, the fact remains it is a law on the books, and it is clearly written and DOES NOT require that someone also break some other law (like "disturbing the peace", or "aggravated assault") in order to also be charged with PI; though that seems to be the way you think it SHOULD work and/or was intended to work.



The guy, bothering nobody, in the corner of the bar that has well over the limit....I say LOCK HIM UP!



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Laff! Another absurd example of retarded thinking. "If I buy a gun, arrest me before I shoot someone..." has nothing to do with, "If I'm drinking at a bar, in public, and my car is stting in the parking lot, and I'm getting out to drive home and then get arrested BEFORE I put the keys in my car for a minor offense..." Well, here's some positives you MAY want to review:



A) The drunk bastage fixin' to get in his car and drive home, risking everyone's lives, is a lot better off being arrested for for a minor offense rather than spending time in jail and money he probably doesn't have..



B) Police are SAVING LIVES by keeping the drunks off the road. Thank you!



C) You don't even know half the story, but as typical you go off half-cocked, ignorantly ranting about something you don't even know about. All you see is "authority" and automatically you're against it, in your anti-establishment, anti-social way.. Here you are cheering on the drunks. Typical.

Richard L, reread this post I quoted.

As I said, Caymen, you just don't like the PI law.

TJR, nope. That is not it. Get beligerent and start fights in a bar, go for it, give them a Public Intox. Drunk off your ass having a good time, let them have thier fun. Be sloppy drunk around a bunch of kids, arrest him. Tearing stuff up in a drunken rage, got for give him the silver bracelets behind the back. I don't care. Kids are not allowed in bars and night clubs, and it they are, then it is usually not after a certain time. Get in your car to drive, Public Intox and a DUI.



A bunch of guys, or gals, having fun...let them have all the fun they want. Maybe they are celebrating a new job, bachelor(ette) party, wedding, long weekend, 4th of july, etc. let them have thier fun and be done with it. Isn't that what freedoms are all about?



I just feel like the law isn't really being enforced, but abused.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

I just feel like the law isn't really being enforced, but abused.

And that is where you are clearly wrong.



Your desire is that the public intoxication law require that someone be a disturbance, break some other law while drunk, or be an actual threat to someone else before being arrested.



That's not the way the law is written.



So, enforcing the law, as it is written, is NOT an abuse.



Just because you don't agree with the law, doesn't make it abuse.



Your interpretation of this law and it's enforcement as abuse, here in this thread, makes it more clear to me why you have a very negative opinion of law enforcement. You should consider that Caymen. Seriously. You have come down heavy on law enforcement several times in this site. No one is above the law, no one gets to redefine the laws for themselves.



TJR

 

[Dale Carlson]

TJR, I've never had a problem with cops, and I agree with Caymen.



I'd bet good money that if you polled state legislators, judges, attorneys, and cops, you'd probably get an overwhelming majority that said PI laws are written and passed with the INTENT to protect the peace. My guess is that they'd say it utilizes resources that could better be used elsewhere (in other words, don't crowd my courtroom and jails with a bunch of drunks).



The only agency that seems to have a stake in this seems to be the TABC - otherwise, why haven't the regular law enforcement types been "enforcing" this law the way that YOU say they should. And, hmmm, why aren't we hearing about any more busts? And hmmmm, why isn't the TABC down in Galveston and South Padre Island right now busting ALL of the spring breakers? If the TABC's interpretation of the law is right, then where are they now?



I don't have a problem with the law, or it's legality. Don't have a problem with its enforcement to arrest those who are disturbing the peace or a real (not pre-supposed) danger. In the normal course of events, this will get challenged in the courts. If the judge upholds the TABC's interpretation of the law, it's going to be a sad, sad day, indeed.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

And hmmmm, why isn't the TABC down in Galveston and South Padre Island right now busting ALL of the spring breakers? If the TABC's interpretation of the law is right, then where are they now?

Well, if the cops harrassed and arrested all those Spring Break partiers, don't you think they would just start partying someplace else? That would have an economic impact. Ft Walton Beach did something like that a while ago, and now hardly anyone goes there to party. They go to Panama City and other nearby places now.



Many times law enforcement will turn a blind eye to infractions if it will hurt the government economically. Why do you think the government has ignored the illegal immigration issue for so many decades? The answer is, that we cannot compete with countries like China without them. Oue economy would be devastated if they suddenly packed up an went home tomorrow.