Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk
 

Sheeeeeeeeeesh!

Are they testing or making subjective judgements? :confused:

Since when are bars public property?

Subjective judgments. They are specifically not doing breathalyzers or field sobriety tests, they're pretty much going based on whether your behavior is considered disruptive or not. It's almost more "disturbing the peace" than "public intoxication," though the latter is still what you're charged with I believe.

There's been a huge uproar, and I expect the nonsense will cease shortly due to the PR nightmare it's turned into.

What's next? Busting people in whorehouses for having sex?

Since when are bars public property?

I agree , I don't see haw this could be constitunal .

I wounder if the rangers came to your house , and you were sitting quietly in side buzzed ( leagealy on say beer ) , they knocked on your door , ( by mistake , wrong address ) , could they bust you for opening the door ?? or would you have to step out side ???

Yep, bars are private property. That's why they have bouncers to kick the rowdy patrons out. The bar owner frowns on such behavior in HIS establishment. Now, if the cops stood outside the bar and arrested drunks coming out, that might be different. Still, I see drunks here coming out of bars all the time and waiting good naturely for a cab to take them home. I really don't see why the cops would do such a thing. Isn't there enough ACTUAL crime in Texas to keep law enforcement busy?

Its one thing if a rowdy drunk starts accosting people on a public sidewalk; a whole other thing if someone quietly drinks 6 martini's in a bar and then takes a cab home. Stupid thing to waste the time of law enforcement officers on and unconstitutional, as well.

Sadly, his very real news item almost belongs on The Onion.

I thought bartenders were supposed to sort of have a feel for a patron and if said patron was snockered, to quietly get him/her a cab or similar? No?

@B: True, yes, but at the same time they are serving alcohol - and applying an arbitrary law enforcable point where the effects of the product being sold are considered not acceptable is a little hard to make sense of. Either alcohol is illegal or it is not.

The bartender that stops serving you is making a private business decision.

Right on the head Flint... but take it one step further - the bartender is also covering their own ass... in most states now the bartender and bar owner can be held legally responsible for allowing an overly impared patron to leave their establishment, should accident or death befall that person due to drunk driving or other alcohol related accident ... I spent some time bartending in Seattle and we were sent to classes held by the Alcohol Control Board to learn how to determine a patrons height/weight and the amount of alcohol it would take to impair that person... (an inaccurate and futile game, how does one know how many drinks or other substances said patron had before entering your establishment?)

Point is once the powers that be make it so not only the bar patrons are accountable for their individual actions ie. over-imbibing and choosing to drive, but that the bartender and bar owner are responsible for that individuals bad decision... well, the demise of the friendly neighborhood bar is on the horizon....
Seems to me the authorities in Texas are looking to hurry the process.

whaa...? I'd love t'know what yoooo said but em tooo drunksye

In the UK it's illegal to serve someone who appears drunk but any attempt at enforcement would result in another poll tax riot.

Due to public outcry, the TABC is suspending this program, pending an internal investigation. What a joke. What happens when you make something that people are going to do anyway illegal? They do it anyway, but you lose tax revenues. They do it anyway, but completely unregulated. They do it anyway, but an underground industry is formed, and violence follows as organized crime bosses muscle in for a piece of the action.

Am I to understand that we will still have bars, they will still serve alcohol, but it will be illegal to get drunk? So you have to go to a speak-easy?

Maybe we should invest in a speak-easy now and beat the rush...if this is a sign of the times, there's gonna be lots of business for us!

Possibly TX will consider passing legislation imposing a 2 drink limit in all public places... :headshake
ahhh but again - bars are privately owned...

I play in bands, in bars, for drunk people.

I get drunk, depending on the size of the band's bar tab.

Texas is supposed to have more common sense than this.

Society is going downhill when somebody thinks this is a good idea.

then YOU My Friend are going to jail.:right:

Then, my good sir, I'll see you at the Supreme fucking Court.

DON'T TREAD ON ME

It may come to that...
and isn't THAT a fucked up idea - heading to the Supreme Court to have a drink!!
Now what I would like to know is who thought this up in the first place????

I like when you call me SIR!! lol

this was in the paper today:


here is the link to the story:
Houston Chronicle

I can understand the 'reason' for wanting to do something like this - aka - getting drunk drivers off the road before they have a chance to kill someone. However, I think it is a violation of our constitutional rights to go about it this way.

I think the funding could better be spent in doing random breathalyzer tests at bars (not arresting people, but letting them know they are indeed, too drunk to drive) and getting them a cab to take em home.

But then again, I rarely drink, and when I do, I never drive. So the logic perhaps is lost on me.

You wish we still had private property in this country.

[thread hijack]

Does SB 881 help us out at all? I just checked in and saw that the Saha's got to keep their farm, but I don't know that sb881 would have prevented the whole very expensive mess. Anyone?
Under Blight, one of the definitions reads
That could be loosly interpreted.... could be my house. I wonder what definition was used to condemn the Saha farm, prior to the changes enacted by this bill?

Let's see?
Well, that's pretty clear...... let's look at the exception in (b).
OK, they can if you don't care. Not prevail? If you object to the condemnation and they say tough shit, they can use it for commercial use? WTF!
OK, they can for a quasi-public service like busses and if the business isn't a major part of the project. Hmmmmm.
Oh, tricky. Legally, any violation of the building code is reason the revoke your occupancy permit, which makes it "unfit for human habitation". It usually doesn't go that far...but it could.
I can understand they don't want the courts to knock this bill apart because of conflict with a previous law.
So they can take another property for WalMart and yours for a driveway.
The bottom line seems to be; they can't take your property for private business unless they want to. What a sham....what a shame.:mad:

On the upside, more people are pushing back. There is a big fight developing just North of us (NYS) where a gas pipeline is coming through. It isn't a big deal if your property is large enough to accomodate it, since natural gas pipelines are usually pretty safe. Unfortunately, the present route goes through one families' mature timber stand and anothers' small river bounded property which will become unsuitable for building. There has to be a better way to do this stuff. If they started by asking property owners if they'd consider hosting the line and base their route on willingness to participate, they'd possibly do better. They would rather use lawyers and government to push folks around though.

If they started by asking property owners if they'd consider hosting the line and base their route on willingness to participate, they'd possibly do better.

Griff , Think about that for sec , asking the land owners IF they want a gas main run thru their front yard , who the HELL is going to allow that ??

Actually, my development was built around an underground gas pipeline. In some cases, it passes into peoples yards.

It really comes down to compensation. If it meant a payment of $100 per month for the average house to act as host, there might be some people who would go for it. As an added bonus, you would have automatic caretakers since it would be in the residents interest to report signs of a leak.

Yep. money

When I bought my place, in 1978, I was reading the deed (after the sale of course:redface: ) and it said there was a petroleum pipeline right-of-way.
Yipes! So I got the name of the pipeline company and called them in the Midwest, maybe Ohio.
I gave them my name and address and told them my problem. Within 3 minutes the had someone on the phone explaining the line didn't cross my land, but down the road a little ways.
The line had been put in before the property was subdivided and would show on all deeds descended from that property.
They really blew me away when they started describing all the properties involved. I mean every feature, slopes, notable rocks, even big trees. They knew it up, down and sideways.
Now, this pipeline runs for hundreds of miles but they had all the details for my little area in minutes. I was impressed.

Hey Texas... got a word for ya'. Speakeasy.
Cops... do your damn job, not just some ploy to make jack for the county, this is a sick travesty. Protect and serve my ass.

HA! What exactly do you mean by that?:lol:

You know, Griff.....I'm wondering if your safe to be teaching malleable young minds. :eek:

texas scares me, for many reasons. i grew up here, but it's become a nazi state. not to sound extreme, but all things considered (executions galore, bible-belt-baptist christ-extemeists, guns everywhere, etc.), i'm thinking about moving. i don't even want to try to change it from within. i'd rather live the rest of my life in a place where i can feel free to express myself and to go to bar if i want, and to drive down a highway without worrying about some road-rage a-hole shooting at someone, or heaven forbid have a gay or muslim or black friend bashed.

can you tell i'm burned out on the place?

Sure twentycentshift, that's how you feel tonight. But after a good nights sleep and a hearty breakfast just step outside...... it'll look worse. ;)

Most police departments have that as their "mission statement"... the bullshit of entrapping people buying dime bags and johns with "stings", busting people for being drunk in public on private property.... not exactly protecting and serving. It is nothing but stealing from the public, embezzlement actually, organized crime.
I think that most are great cops doing what they are told, a shame really... it is wrong that the officers get these bright ideas to bolster the pensions of the the brass.

I use to see this sort of brutality at festivals. We'd peform, go out and mix with the crowd, then see the gestapo filter in to strike up conversations with the participants.... if they wavered or responded "confusidly"... the poor peoples were arrested for being "drunk and disorderly"...
..like the cops were some sorta 19th century school masters.

AND the poor drunks didn't do any negative or disruptive thing, other than being planted on earth at the moment in a safe enviornment, and "STANDING" away from doing harm... they were just drunk.

The next Republican Law = the "BUI", ... Breathing (Alive, Minding Your Own Damn Bizness) Under the Influence.

The Breathalyzer works on the principle that one of the ways your body rids itself of alcohol is transferring it from the blood to the air in your lungs which you then exhale.

The next person then inhales that air or is surrounded by air containing flammable fumes.

It's about time to crack down on second hand alcohol. ;)

The first thing you learn about operating a Breathalyzer is don't stand directly in front of the person who is doing the blowing.

Sure, turn your head and cough becomes turn your head and blow. :blush:

thats not what the doc said after he put on his latex gloves and canola oil.

In many states if you tell them you "just had a drink" they will have to give you a half an hour before giving you a test.