They were arrested for PI. I am making an assumption that they then committed PI. (If that's not the case, they can always challenge it in court. There would have to be documentation of exactly what was done that violated the PI laws for it to hold up.) I am also arguing that there's nothing wrong with arresting people for PI, as long as its on the books. I am not arguing that its OK to arrest people for doing nothing illegal. You're the one assuming these people are being arrested for simply being drunk.
On the first part - keep in mind you're taking a few quotes from a newspaper article. I seriously doubt that is the entirety of the story. On the second, yeah, it's a little weird. But that happens all the time. We have tons of laws on our books, and at various points, different ones are emphasized and different methods are used to prosecute. I don't think its a particularly valid defense - otherwise, you could argue that any law that's on the books that isn't aggressively prosecuted at any given time, it should never be enforced. I have no problem with changing the law or the definition of PI, but as long as its there, I see no problem with going after people. Perhaps it was a bit unfair for these guys since they had no warning, but going forward, everyone knows the system and knows the risks. Do you have a problem with it down the line, or just for these guys since they weren't warned? It's kinda like laws against jaywalking. They suck, but they exist and people can get ticketed.
No, they weren't. That would not stand up in a court of law. They were arrested for violating PI statutes.
Except he didn't say that. He said a quote that involved something along the lines of "a bar is for drinking, but not getting drunk". Do you know the context of that quote, or are you taking that line out of the news article?
That's a good point. I'm assuming since this was a publicized (after the fact) sting, that they're not arresting the people acting like idiots and being public nuisances. The reason I am is a) the chief's quote and b) I've been to bars where there have been drunk people acting like jackasses and I've seen them arrested. That's not news. There's a reason why there's outrage about this. I don't think anyone has a problem with taking care of the jackasses who are causing problems for others. It all depends on exactly what's going down. If they see someone order six drinks in a certain time span and then arrest him because of that...hell yeah I have a huge problem with that. If you're worried about what he might do, follow him out of the bar and if he gets behind the wheel or is stumbling home, arrest him. If he hops in a cab or has someone pick him up, then be happy the guy's not about to drive intoxicated. You bastid. Of course, I knew it was illegal and everyone else does as well. I'd be surprised if anyone knew simply getting drunk in a bar was against the law, as the TABC chief implies.
I agree - but they can't legally do this. PI laws don't make being drunk illegal. So if they were just arresting people for having 6 drinks, it wouldn't hold up in a court and chance are, the ACLU or some other such group is going to file a massive civil rights lawsuit against them. That's why I would bet this wasn't the case. There has to be something more to what they were doing. Like you said, this kind of stuff happens all the time and people get arrested for it. I think this was news because the police went out looking for it and conducted a widespread operation, rather than just reacting to randonly seeing it or calls about it.
the thing is, when you're in court, it's your word against the cop. so i think the "wouldn't hold up in court" stuff is irrelevant.
Major: Let's bring your example back into play. It is illegal to speed, right? Now let's say that the police set up a "sting" on one road. With me so far? Now we all know that you'll get pulled over and issued a ticket for going 10 or more miles over the limit, right? But this time the cops were pulling over anyone who was going even 1 mile over the speed limit, and they were taking them to jail. You realize going even 1 mile over the speed limit is against the law, right??? You know that any violation of the law is an arrestable offense, right??? Now tell me Mr. Speeder, would YOU be outraged if this happened? Now get off your soapbox.
At last call, in any bar in America worth its salt, more than half of the patrons are legally drunk. I understand that's illegal according to the letter of the law, but if they're going to start prosecuting people for being legally drunk in bars well... We're going to need to build a hell of a lot of new prisons. But I think we're ignoring the bigger issue here. In case nobody's noticed, RM95/Major has apparently suffered a schizophrenic break and is arguing with himself. Am I the only one that's concerned by this?
Except they have to say why they are charging you. Are you saying they will make up something violent or whatever that 30 different people were doing? There were witnesses all over the each of these bars - literally hundreds of people in total. It's not like this happens in isolation.
I would be angry if they took me to jail, because that's not how the law deals with speeders. There are certain reasons you take people to jail and when you don't. If what I was doing didn't fit the policy of why you take someone to jail, I would be upset and consider it unfair. That wasn't the case in the real-life scenario here. I've gotten tickets for going 5 over (25 in a 20) and 2 over (something like 32 in a 30 or 27 in a 25). I was doing both of those things. It sucks that I got caught, and I obviously wasn't happy about it, but I wasn't angry at law enforcement for enforcing the law, nor did I think it was wrong for them to ticket me. I was speeding - I paid the ticket (or actually took DefDriv). It's very simple: if I don't want tickets, I can choose not to speed. If I choose to speed, I deal with the potential consequences.
They cannot and are not (unless you think TABC doesn't know the law) arresting people for being legally drunk.
I don't get the distinction between legally drunk (or intoxicated) in bars (or public) and "public intoxication." I'm not arguing that TABC is arresting people illegally. I agree that the people arrested were breaking the law. But, as in your example of not expecting to go to jail for speeding, this is a radical change in how that law is prosecuted. And I'll say again we're going to need hundreds or thousands of new prisons if the police are going to try to arrest everyone that breaks PI laws. By closing time, I'd say more than half of the people nearly every bar in America are publicly intoxicated. And that's not to mention people like that poor guy that got arrested for stumbling on his way from the hotel restaurant to his hotel room. We had a law on the books until very recently that made it illegal to give or receive a blowjob, even in your marital bed. Should you have expected to get arrested after you were blown by your wife? I mean that was the law, so as in your speeding example, you should have expected to deal with the consequences of breaking it. Anyway, it's not going to last. Check this article. I especially like the bit where John Whitmire argues the arrests are justified because of something a drunk person might decide to do later. So now we're not just arresting people for drinking until they're drunk in bars, we're pre-emptively arresting people with no plans to drive drunk because there's a chance they might change their minds. God bless America. Maybe if we started arresting people for raising their voices to one another we could reduce assault and murder cases. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...est/stories/032506dntexdrunkfolo.627e69d.html Lawmakers to review bar busts Public floods TABC with e-mails; legislators to review program 08:53 AM CST on Saturday, March 25, 2006 By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News AUSTIN – Public intoxication busts of bar patrons by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission elicited a blast of indignant – even vicious – e-mails and calls from citizens Friday – to the agency, to journalists, and to elected officials who pledged to look into the arrests. "I'm getting all those same e-mails, the Nazi, Taliban, Gestapo e-mails," said commission spokeswoman Carolyn Beck. "I don't really understand the hateful outrage. I don't understand, 'Die in a fire.' " That e-mail traffic came after news reports about a stepped-up liquor-law enforcement program that has included arrests this month of patrons sitting drinking at establishments in Irving. Among those arrested was an Arkansas man who drank several beers at a hotel restaurant before he retired for the night to his room in the same hotel. Ms. Beck said the arrests are part of a larger effort to rein in people who could be a danger to themselves or others – especially by driving drunk. In the six months ending in February, the agency issued 2,281 criminal citations, nearly double the amount for the same period the previous year. Legislators who oversee the commission said they generally agreed with the agency's increased emphasis on public safety, including the attempt to nab potential drunken drivers early. That's why lawmakers gave the commission more than 100 new employees. The commission was up for a periodic legislative review last year, meaning it would be eliminated if it wasn't explicitly approved by the Legislature. A complex bill to overhaul the agency and alcohol rules eventually failed, and the commission's life was extended for two years, with the understanding that its fate would be reconsidered in 2007. But, the lawmakers said, accounts of the arrests suggest the enforcement program should be reviewed before next year, both to check for abuses and to measure its effectiveness. Even if the busts are legal, the question is whether they are the best use of the commission's resources, several said. "Somebody hanging around the hotel, a little stumbling on the way to their room? I don't think that was what we were focusing on," said Rep. Peggy Hamric, R-Houston, who authored the proposed rewrite of the statute authorizing the agency. Rep. Kino Flores, chairman of the House Licensing and Administrative Procedures, said he plans to call a meeting next month to examine the alcohol commission's work. "We're looking at it and we're going to be looking at it: Are we going too far, or do we need to go further?" the Mission Democrat said. Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, was instrumental in getting the increased staffing, as a member of both the powerful Senate Finance Committee and the Criminal Justice Committee, which oversees the alcohol commission. Although he agreed hearings are merited, he defended the principle of in-bar citations. "Even though a public drunk is not planning on driving, that could change in an instant," he said. "There is certainly potential danger." Mr. Whitmire said lawmakers should examine whether the agency, which is funded by fees it collects, is motivated to stricter enforcement by fiscal concerns. Sen. Chris Harris, a Republican whose district includes Irving, called the arrests in his area "very questionable." "At first, I was generally totally in agreement with them," he said. "But there are too many stories that demonstrate an abuse of power." He also questioned the agency's judgment in sending him and other lawmakers lengthy list of media "talking points" Friday, in an e-mail from the commission administrator, Alan Steen. The senator's displeasure at that perceived breach of protocol was made clear in his reply to Mr. Steen, a one-sentence e-mail that read: "WHO IN THE DAMN HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?" Texas Restaurant Association officials have declined to comment on the enforcement actions. But the executive director of a national restaurant trade group Friday termed the sweeps "neo-prohibitionism," which he blamed on the Irving-based group Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD issued a statement supporting the alcohol commission's efforts. Mr. Harris said he questions the underlying public intoxication statute, especially provisions that give officers discretion to declare a person drunk without any breathalyzer or objective tests. Commission officials noted that being drunk in public is against the law and that any place licensed to serve booze is, by law, a public place – including restaurants in dry areas that sell so-called private memberships to let patrons drink. "We can't ignore somebody who's obviously breaking the law," Ms. Beck said. ================================= Contact: Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission officials say that comments or complaints about the public intoxication law should be sent to senators and representatives. You can find your lawmakers and how to contact them by entering your address at www.capitol.state.tx.us/fyi/fyi.htm. Complaints about the agency's enforcement of the law can be directed either to lawmakers or to the commission, at complaints@tabc.state.tx.us.
