I love the fact that it is 2,200 arrests. A hell of a lot more than the "30" or so they were reporting. Only arresting the extremely inebriated, my ass.
The 2200 number was posted in an article in this thread two weeks ago. This has been going on for seven months (10 per day, on average, statewide) - another reason why it's kind of funny that it became such a big deal due to this one incident (30 in one day).
You guys are looking at this the wrong way. We have been given an amazing opportunity. Imagine this: You go up to girl/Girl comes up to you She says, "Buy me a drink big boy..." You say, "I can't here or we will get arrested, but I have tons of alcohol back at my place. Shall we?" And you know the rest. Whoever came up with this is a genius who should be applauded, not criticized.
Major, it became a big deal to me when I read that a guy got arrested for being drunk as he walked from the hotel bar to his hotel room and when I read that the boss of the program said that bars were for having fun, not getting drunk in defense of the program. If the hotel guy and the other 30 or 2200 people are shown to have done something else to merit the arrests (other than simply being intoxicated in public), I'll revise my position and agree with the arrests. I won't apologize for having gotten it wrong though, as the story has been out there for weeks with no defensible explanation for the arrests. In fact, instead of defending the arrests by saying those people were doing anything more than being drunk in public, the main guy explained the arrests by saying people were not supposed to be drunk in bars. And I would really tend to think that if there was any further reason for the arrests (as you clearly believe there is) we would have heard about it by now, especially given all the bad press.
Except this has been going 7 months, and there were about 2 days of bad press. If there wasn't any legitimate reason for the arrests, you'd have seen an array of civil rights lawsuits by now, and yet we haven't.
What is your response to the TABC official's quote that people are not supposed to get drunk in bars and his use of that quote as a defense for the program? The apparent lack of lawsuits (and we don't really know if those lawsuits have been filed or not) isn't proof that these people weren't arrested simply for being intoxicated in public anymore than a lack of additional info on what those people were doing to get arrested is proof that they were arrested for simply being drunk. If that's all the info we had, it would be easy to just agree that if they were arrested for being drunk we're both against the arrests and if they were arrested for otherwise behaving in an illegal manner the arrests were justified. But that's not all the info we have. We also have that "bars aren't for getting drunk" quote.
I think it's a quote. That's all - I don't know the context, I don't know the question, I don't know if it was a personal view. I also don't know if it was an off the cuff remark, or an official statement. But that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal to arrest someone for just being drunk, regardless of what the TABC official thinks is the proper use of bars. And if it was done 2200 times in the last seven months, I suspect the uproar would have been a hell of a lot more than it was. Like you, I don't know anything more than what's been reported - everything else is my conjecture. But if you were arresting drunk people, I suspect you'd have netted a lot more than 2200 people, and you'd have gotten a few people in there who would be livid and start a huge stink and file a very public lawsuit. In my opinion, it's a far bigger stretch of the imagination to believe, based on a quote, that the TABC has arrested 2200 people for not committing a crime over 7 months and no one has done anything about it.
Major, the personal opinion of the person in charge of the program is wholly relevant as he is the one setting the parameters about what is an arrestable offense. It's officially illegal, as you've pointed out, according to the letter of the law, to arrest someone simply for being drunk in public. Okay, so what constitutes a justifiable arrest then? Going to your car to retrieve a personal item while drunk (which may be construed as preparing to drive)? Having your car keys on your person while drunk? (After all, one legislator while defending the program said it was justified because even if someone had not planned on driving drunk there was a chance they might change their minds and so should be arrested preemptively.) Telling someone in a bar that you'll kick his ass if he doesn't leave you alone while drunk? Getting in an argument? Raising your voice? Hitting on the bartender or the undercover cop? The lack of outrage about this program is meaningless since there is outrage about the program. And weeks after that outrage hit the papers, all we've heard from the program chief is that those people shouldn't have been drunk in bars.
Sorry, it's going to take more than a random quote from someone to decide the police are violating civil rights all over the state, which is essentially what they are being accused of. Oh, about the hotel arrests, here is why they were targetted: <I>The case, reported by several media outlets, involved two Irving hotel patrons who were arrested on public intoxication charges inside the hotel's bar. According to media reports, some bar patrons and others wondered why the two weren't simply allowed to retire to their hotel room. But a check with the TABC arrest reports reveals the actions of both bar patrons, a female trucker and a male aircraft maintenance director, convinced agents to arrest them. Both were so intoxicated, the TABC concluded, they presented a threat to themselves and others. The woman, who was taking her shirt off and shaking her bikini-clad breasts at customers, informed officers she was "too drunk" to pass the TABC's field sobriety test, according to Beck of the TABC. The male patron, "spoke up loudly to encourage the female taking her shirt off, to continue," Christopher Aller, the enforcement agent, wrote about the March 11, 2006, incident. </I> (from the article posted earlier today) Say what you want about what they were doing and whether it should be illegal or what not (and I have no issues with changing the law), but that does fit under the PI statute. So far, as far as I know, we have zero evidence that anyone was arrested that did not violate the PI statute. To accuse the cops of doing something illegal without any evidence of that, but instead based on a quote, is absurb, in my opinion.
Why are you even talking about this? You don't drink, so this has nothing to do with you. If you drank sometimes responsibly, your arguments would have a lot more merit. As it stands, you're coming off as if you have a bone to pick. Quit trying to encroach on other's rights. As for your "PI statute" argument, it is ludicrous. I've stated before that PI's are written so vaguely that they simply cannot be prosecuted successfully in court with any lawyer. I'm sure you know some defense lawyers, so ask them yourself. It is the main reason that if you are arrested for a PI the cop will come in and manipulate the defendants into saying guilty so you can leave. I personally have pleaded "not guilty" to it, and have convinced over a dozen of my friends to do it. EVERY case has been dismissed in court even without a lawyer. You simply don't know what you are talking about regarding this law, and so far, it has been your only defense to these attrocities. As for your "couple of complaints"? Again, WRONG. Do you even live in Texas? There have been hundreds of complaints. So many that TABC is starting to rethink this whole policy. There biggest complainant has been the Convention bureaus. Both city and State. This whole thing will stop soon enough, because it was absolutely unjust. Tell you what, Major. Think of something you like. Now think about someone arresting you for it. Would you like it? (and don't give me your lame-ass retort of "but I only like lawful things", because SO DO WE!)
Major I find it interesting that in this thread you believe it is important to follow the letter of the law as your defense of supporting this TABC sting. Your strongest argument supporting this action is the fact that we are prohibited from being drunk in public. However in the thread on illegal immigrants you consistently support immigrants (and those that hire them) ignoring the existing laws that make their actions unlawful. link Duplicity?
I'm not seeing any contradiction in what Major has posted. I haven't seen that thread, obviously, but in the quotes you posted, he didn't say that illegal immigrants shouldn't be punished. In fact, he says they are subject to whatever punishment due by the law. And I know for a fact that Major, as a non-drinker, has no bone to pick with drinkers. In the five years we hung out in Austin together, going to bars to watch the Rockets or Astros with me drinking quite a bit and him not at all, he never said word one to me about drinking other than to explain to me why he doesn't do it.
