[100% IDIOTIC] Uh, Watch Out in Bars...

I saw cops busting people walking out of a Bennigan's last Friday (St. Patrick's Day) in Cedar Hill (south of Dallas).

Problem was, I saw one guy slip through, half stumbling, get in his car and drive off.

The bigger problem is that people still choose to drive after getting even a "buzz," much less blitzed.

Cops shouldn't have to be "parental." It's IDIOTS that drink and drive that mess up simple dining, or movie night for so many.

Just be responsible people. Get drunk on your own property, on your time, when you won't be needing to travel anywhere and endanger others.

Freedom is about responsibility, as much as (or more than) just doing whatever the flippity-doo-dah you wanna do.

 

I agree with you, I guess all I am saying is I don't want myself nor someone else I know and care about to go through a similar experience, it's incredibly unfair to the sober party.

I will agree that sending cops into bars to arrest/harass people is taking it a bit too far. However, I am not against the principle itself, which is keeping drunkens off the streets, which is a very legitimate hazard to public safety, IMO.

The other issue I have here is that people are assuming that someone drunk out of his/her mind is going to be capable of making a rational decision such as not driving while intoxicated. I am sorry, but that's an oxymoron, a drunk person is not exactly in the right state of mind to make the rational or responsible decision to not drive and have himself/herself escorted home by a sober friend/family member or taking a cab home, usually the decision is made for them by someone else; I do realize there are exceptions, but I wouldn't exactly trust a drunk person's capacity to make the right decision in that situation.

BTW, just to clarify, I am not talking about those who have a couple of beers, I am talking about those drunk beyond the legal limit.

BTW, sorry to hear about your friend, must've been a nightmare.

 

People do it all the time. People drive to bars, planning ahead to take cabs home etc. You can make the decision even before you have your first drink.

 

Well, that isn't the fault of the police. He needs to take that up with his employer.

 

I say they arrest all the drunk, mute, phonics teachers that hang out with their kid's internet buddies at the Bennigans in Waco.

They're the real problem.

 

.08 is considered intoxicated and can be attained (depending on size), by average of 5 drinks in 1 hour. 6 drinks in 2 hours (paced at 3 drinks per hour). 7 drinks in 3 hours (paced at 2 1/3 drink per hour).

Supposedly, the average person can metabolize 1 drink (.02) per hour.

If they want people to start being more responsible, they need to know that intoxicated does not mean drunk. Intoxicated means consuming enough alcohol to impair ones physical and/or mental abilities. You can be at .08 and pass a field sobriety test. It is then up to the questioning officer whether you should be taken to the station for a breath test or perform another sobriety test at the station, in front of a video camera. Jail sucks. You have to check in to the bailbond agency every week.

I know this, because I was arrested for DWI. No other people were involved. I was simply pulled over for speeding, which is not difficult in Houston.

Here is what you can expect, if you take a chance.

Expect to hire an attorney and pay him around 3,000 bucks. At least that's what it cost me. It took 1 year for my case to go to trial. In the meantime, you have to keep going to the courthouse to get checked in and reset the court date. I must have made 12 trips from NW Houston to downtown. If you refuse the breath test, your license will automatically be suspended for 6 months. If you need an occupational license, your attorney will need to submit a form for it (cost me 500 bucks) and then the Judge decides what your driving hours are, based on your job and what not. Oh, and you need to get a SR-22 insurance and that costs extra. Did I mention that you need to pay a 125 dollar license reenstatement fee to get your license back.

On the rare occasion that you are not guilty, you might still pay over 4,500 dollars.

If you are guilty, you lose your license for 1 year (1st offenders) and will need to continue making your SR-22 insurance payments. Oh and then there's the visits to that probation officer with possible drug/alcohol screening. Wait... You also might have to perform community service.

Bottom line: It's not worth it. It's not worth the possibility of putting someone else in harms way. The legal process is a major hastle and your total cost after it is done might make you consider not drinking.

btw: My verdict was "Not Guilty".

If you are suspected of being intoxicated and you fail the field sobriety test, under no circumstances should you take the breath test and field test in front of the camera at the station. It is your right.

Better yet, limit yourself to 2 drinks and you won't have anything to worry about, unless you are sensitive to alcohol and then maybe you shouldn't drink in public.

I hope this helps.

 

Public Intoxication, also known as 'drunk and disorderly conduct', is a summary offense in many countries.

Typical offenders are those who are obviously intoxicated and making a public nuisance of him or herself. Intoxication in and of itself is not illegal - a person must also fulfill one of the following criteria in order to be arrested:

Being a "public nuisance;" that is, he or she is acting in such an obnoxious manner as to cause a public disturbance (such as instigating a fight or "mouthing off" to police);
Being a danger to others, such as fighting or attempting to drive while drunk; or
Being so intoxicated that he or she is a danger to himself, i.e. he or she is vomiting due to alcohol poisoning.
Typically, the police would put the intoxicated person in jail (often referred to as the drunk tank) until he sobers up and then issue a fine. Punishment may be more severe if other illegal acts, such as assault or drunk driving, also occur.

This offense is sometimes known as "drunk in public" or "drunk and disorderly."

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

 

I understand that, and it would be the responsible adult thing to do. I have no problem at all with people who plan ahead and then go ahead and get drunk until they kill all their remaining brain cells, as long as they're responsible and take steps beforehand to make sure they don't endanger themselves or those around them.

 

Cool but this is what the chief of TABC said:

 

Uhhhhh, actually you have a much larger problem if you choose to get drunk at home. Isn't the point of going out about the comraderie of friends and the possibility of meeting women? Can't do that by yourself at home, can you?

I've said it before, if they took these fines and actually USED them to keep people off the road, via free cab fares, or buses travelling until 4:00 A.M., I might agree with some of you people who agree with this idiocy. They don't. They use the fine money to pay for budget shortfalls, and increases in their already moronic spending habits.

 

Then the Chief is a moron. I've gone out with literally hundreds of people in my life. Less than 1% ever stop after a couple of drinks.

 

Thousands of people speed every day too, but it's still illegal. Some get ticketed (me!), but most don't. If he violated the PI laws, then I don't see the issue. Perhaps the laws should be changed, but as it stands, he did do something illegal and he got caught for it.

 

Please clarify PI laws in their entirety. Then explain how you define them in a similar way to speeding.

There is a reason these things never go to trial. It is completely vague in its definition.

Just say what you mean Major: You don't like drinking and don't like others who do. At least I'd respect your honesty, rather than this nonsense.

 

Getting intoxicated is not illegal. Please read the definition of PI again.

 

I don't care if people drink - I don't do it, and I don't particularly enjoy drunk people, but that's not the point. I speed all the time. I get ticketed all the time, and I pay the tickets (or take DefDriving, etc). Simple - if I break the law, I take responsibility.

Same thing here. It seems people want to be able to violate the law and not take responsibility for it. If you have a problem with the law, argue to change it. Don't whine that they are actually prosecuting you for it now.

 

And find me somewhere that says these people were arrested simply for being intoxicated. They raided 35 bars and arrested 30 people. You don't think there were more than 30 people drunk at those bars? It's pretty clear that they were doing something more than being drunk.

 

That's nothing more than an assumption.

This makes it sound differently:

Read the quote from Capt. David Alexander again too. Ill make it easy for you: