...and the land of the freeeeeeeeee." - Not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Felicia Katt

I read the law. I even quoted it in my post. A person is only supposed to be subject to arrest if they are a danger to themselves or others, but the police are arresting people in the bars before they place anyone in danger. Its not supposed to be about civility, but safety. A bar's management might be concerned with the atmosphere and has the right to control to whom and how much liquor it serves, but that isn't and shouldn't be the role of the police. Law and order isn't about ordering drinks, and protect and serve isn't about serving them.

Inhouston, I only assume I know your politics as Republican ones, but that party is supposed to be against Big Government, and for personal responsibility, and spending scarce tax dollars and police resources on temperance enforcement is not inline at all with those principles. Lots of things may ultimately be good for us, but we don't want our government deciding them for us, do we?

FK

---

Yes the law states they are committing an offense if they pose a danger to others or themselves … or … or … “having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more”. If you’re .081 and in public, you’re breaking the law in Texas. In all my years, I’ve only seen people get arrested for Public Intoxication (other than these stings) for getting mouthy with the police, or causing a disturbance.

Exceeding the legal limit of .08 is the grounds for the arrests they are doing. Now, for the most part, you can’t really tell if someone has been drinking when they’re hovering around .08. The police for the most part are targeting people who are visibly intoxicated beyond the .08 limit. However, if someone is say .10, and starts yapping to the police about how their rights are being violated, then the police will graciously take them to jail as well. Do I think this is a bad idea? No. Do I think it’s a good idea? Sure, as it’s not hurting anyone and helps to keep the community safer. Do I think it’s a great idea? Not really, because it will have no long-term benefit, and the police cannot commit the resources to keep these stings up.

As far as my politics, I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I agree and disagree with various issues stemming from both parties.

Facist agenda - make a law and the sheep abide.
seanchai

Here's my little overall political rant.............

Well, consdering that Dubya's approval rating is at an all time low and lowest since Nixon, that tells me he's not doing right.

And I do find it funny that if the leader of another country did what we did to Iraq, there would be real big hell. But since it's America, it's all ok :crap It's also ironic that we're trying to help a country escape its fanatical religious regime, despite the fact the religious right are making themselves heard quite a bit over here in the states, be it the FCC's witch hunt on indecentcy, aborition rights, advances in science ( such as stem cell research and so on ), marriage rights & benefits or denial of them' depending on who you sleep with; and so on.

Anyhow, the best kinda polticians we need are ones not with any sort of ties to corporations, the pharmacutical companies, the church, etc. Only then can things get better socially and economically. And keeps the jobs in America IN America......I am just wondering how long it is till my job gets taken away and given to some Indian in New Deli who can't even speak English well.

Also, the 2 party system just does not work the way we want it. There needs to be more, and actually be given a chance to get choosen, not where today if you vote for a thrid party, you are pretty much throwing your vote away. Cause Each party has its problems:

Democrat: You might get more freedoms, but it's a crunch on the wallet.
Republican: You might get more money, but you'll be ruled like a king, and religion is gonna play a role in everything.

Though nowadays, you don't know what one side is going to do, since election time is nothing but name calling, finger pointing, and $#!& throwing.

Remove the electoral college, and simply use the people's vote.

And for god's sake, don't let the pharmacudical industry or other big business tell a politician what to do on the way to the can and the drinking fountain. And don't give big corporations a get out of jail free card.......because for every Enron, Microsoft, Worldcom, Phizer, and Martha Stewart out there that's been caught redhanded, there's thousands more that did not get caught.

And here's something to remember.......when politicians $#!& up, you have everyright to take action and have them kicked out. Nowadays, apart from weather forecasters, politicians seem to be those people who can't get fired it seems. But remember this......WE are their bosses, not vice versa...it's amazing how many people forget this, or gasp in shock upon hearing it. You can have someone kicked out of there if you choose so, but if you actually grow a pair first and get up and do it.

And remember that famous quote, "He who gives up his freedoms for protection deserves neither freedom nor protection." And that pretty much applys to people who say, "Well if you got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." They love that way if thinking in China, Cuba and parts of the Middle East. When you let that happen, Osama will be laughing in his cave, seeing the people he hates doing all his work for him, and not needing to get his hands dirty at all.

Feel free to send me any angry PM's that you wish to make now. *leaps off the soap box*


This rant has been brought to you by the Campaign for Trogdor for President 2012 & 2016 foundation. :rock2 :grouphug :peanutbutter :mrgreen: :moon

DEATH TO THE SMOKERS!!
DEATH TO THE DRINKERS!!!!
DEATH TO THE DRUG USERS!!!!
DEATH TO THE SEX ABUSERS!!
DEATH TO THE RELIGOUS!!!!!
DEATH TO THE ATHEISTS!!!!
DEATH TO YOUR MOTHER,
YOUR FATHER, YOUR FAMILY,
YOUR TOWN, YOUR STATE,
AND YOUR NATION!!!!!!
BURNING METORS OF DEATH
FROM THE SKY TO EVERYONE!!!
KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD
SORT THEM OUT!!!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriendlyFriend

DEATH TO THE SMOKERS!!
DEATH TO THE DRINKERS!!!!
DEATH TO THE DRUG USERS!!!!
DEATH TO THE SEX ABUSERS!!
DEATH TO THE RELIGOUS!!!!!
DEATH TO THE ATHEISTS!!!!
DEATH TO YOUR MOTHER,
YOUR FATHER, YOUR FAMILY,
YOUR TOWN, YOUR STATE,
AND YOUR NATION!!!!!!
BURNING METORS OF DEATH
FROM THE SKY TO EVERYONE!!!
KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD
SORT THEM OUT!!!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!

---

<Mr. Lucas voice> Glass of water for FriendlyFriend.

Arresting people in bars seems like a stupid thing to do, as I watched a TV news story that showed half a dozen police officers engaged in this activity in what appeared to be a local bar. (I wonder how many of these raids occur at the country clubs frequented by lawyers and politicians.) In the meantime, there were probably any number of people driving away drunk from bars in the same neighborhood.

If there is a rise in DUI's in Texas, I'll bet there are many repeat offenders in this group and it might be more useful to prevent them from driving, as they are likely to be irresponsible alcoholics who have no intention of seeking treatment for themselves. How many times do you hear about a tragic accident committed by a repeat offender?

I just don’t see the point in arresting people who are not harming others, while stretching police resources that could be better put to use going after people who are clearly a danger to others. If someone is caught driving under the influence more than one time, their judgment is obviously impaired and they will have shown themselves to be incapable of controlling this hazardous behavior.

If the person is responsible for caring for others, or needs a car to keep a job (with no other forms of transportation available), they should simply be limited to using their car only for these kinds of activities and pay for some kind of electronic monitoring for a year as an option for license suspension. There should not be too many steps from denied driving privileges in all 50 states if this behavior continues.

... some kind of electronic monitoring...

How strange, the word m-o-n-i-t-o-r-i-n-g cannot be posted...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InHouston

Yes the law states they are committing an offense if they pose a danger to others or themselves … or … or … “having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more”. If you’re .081 and in public, you’re breaking the law in Texas. In all my years, I’ve only seen people get arrested for Public Intoxication (other than these stings) for getting mouthy with the police, or causing a disturbance.
Exceeding the legal limit of .08 is the grounds for the arrests they are doing. Now, for the most part, you can’t really tell if someone has been drinking when they’re hovering around .08. The police for the most part are targeting people who are visibly intoxicated beyond the .08 limit. However, if someone is say .10, and starts yapping to the police about how their rights are being violated, then the police will graciously take them to jail as well. Do I think this is a bad idea? No. Do I think it’s a good idea? Sure, as it’s not hurting anyone and helps to keep the community safer. Do I think it’s a great idea? Not really, because it will have no long-term benefit, and the police cannot commit the resources to keep these stings up.
As far as my politics, I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I agree and disagree with various issues stemming from both parties.

---

Inhouston, either you misread or misunderstood the statute
here is what it says: "Public Intoxication" means:
A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.
"Intoxicated" is defined as:
not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.
They have to be a danger to themselves or others while intoxicated. The statute defines intoxication two ways: not having normal use of their facilities due to a substance or substances, or a .08 alcohol concentration. Just being intoxicated is not enough. Whatever your political stripe may be, its hard for me to beleive you really would think that no one is hurt if they are hauled off to jail just for expressing a well lubricated opinion to the police.

FK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

Facist agenda - make a law and the sheep abide.
seanchai

---

Seanchai, there is such a thing as a 'good law'. Thanks to the public intoxication law in Texas, you don't have people passed out at the bar, passed out on park benches, and people puking and pissing in public around every corner. Those conditions (that are prevalent in other countries I'm sure you've frequented) are what the public intoxication laws prevent.

Now in all fairness, I know you're sounding an alarm where civil liberties are concerned, but this matter is not something to be alarmed about. It’s been on the books for a long long time and serves the public well.

Now here's an example of a bad law in Texas.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/texas/txnews40.htm