Arrests made in bars: for being drunk in bars

[scout]

The first sting was in a Dallas suburb, where undercover agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people. They said the goal was to detain drunks before they did something like get in a car drunk.
I guess Texas doesn't have any more urgent needs in regards to crime. If the concern was drunk driving, there's better means to curtail that dangerous practice. The agents just presumed that these "drunks" would be driving. It would be interesting to see what person or group of people were behind this move.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11965237/

[wistahpatsfan]

Originally Posted by scout

The first sting was in a Dallas suburb, where undercover agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people. They said the goal was to detain drunks before they did something like get in a car drunk.
I guess Texas doesn't have any more urgent needs in regards to crime. If the concern was drunk driving, there's better means to curtail that dangerous practice. The agents just presumed that these "drunks" would be driving. It would be interesting to see what person or group of people were behind this move.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11965237/

Sounds like the government is expanding their pre-emptive action tendencies. This is creepy and very disturbing, like the Pre-Crime authority in "Minority Report". This police department is pushing the envelop to see how far the People will let them get away with, as usual. I wonder how the cops felt while they were doing their duty. Embarassed, I hope.

[All_Around_Brown]

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

Sounds like the government is expanding their pre-emptive action tendencies. This is creepy and very disturbing, like the Pre-Crime authority in "Minority Report". This police department is pushing the envelop to see how far the People will let them get away with, as usual. I wonder how the cops felt while they were doing their duty. Embarassed, I hope.

Read between the lines in Bushs illegal NSA spy program and "Minority Report" is exactly what you come up with. Its unchecked data mining of everyone to uncover a few potential "evil doers", more than it is "listening in on Al Qaeda".

[scout]

Its just not right. My drinking in bar days is over, and I had a few good ones. So, I'm not fighting this argument as a drinker, but as a concerned citizen fighting Big Brother. Gee, any room for a little prejudice on this issue. You go to a bar to let loose a little. After a couple of drinks you are legally drunk and thus, could be hauled away. Doesn't matter if your practice is drink three or four drinks and then cool it for a few hours and have some coffee before you take off, or even have your designated driver take you home. No, the cops are there to take you to jail. This is the society that the religious right want to see. I'm just wondering if this is a liberal issue. Is anyone out there that wants to defend this practice, after all this is from the conservatives.

[Pujo]

Originally Posted by scout

Its just not right. My drinking in bar days is over, and I had a few good ones. So, I'm not fighting this argument as a drinker, but as a concerned citizen fighting Big Brother. Gee, any room for a little prejudice on this issue. You go to a bar to let loose a little. After a couple of drinks you are legally drunk and thus, could be hauled away. Doesn't matter if your practice is drink three or four drinks and then cool it for a few hours and have some coffee before you take off, or even have your designated driver take you home. No, the cops are there to take you to jail. This is the society that the religious right want to see. I'm just wondering if this is a liberal issue. Is anyone out there that wants to defend this practice, after all this is from the conservatives.

I think the police is going to get sued on this and lose.

I'd love to hear what Pats-Blue thinks on this, since the police can never be wrong with him.

[Chevy]

This can't last. I'm going to run this by some lawyer friends and see what they say, but my gut reaction is that there is no way this could stand up in court. Public Drinkeness charges are generally used when the individual is presenting a threat to themselves or others . Sitting at a bar stool with a BAC of .10 isn't exactly causing a danger to anyone.

[wistahpatsfan]

Originally Posted by Chevy

This can't last. I'm going to run this by some lawyer friends and see what they say, but my gut reaction is that there is no way this could stand up in court. Public Drinkeness charges are generally used when the individual is presenting a threat to themselves or others . Sitting at a bar stool with a BAC of .10 isn't exactly causing a danger to anyone.

Yet another reason to grant Texas the independence they so deserve (Sorry Seymour). SEE YA!

[pats-blue]

Originally Posted by Pujo

I think the police is going to get sued on this and lose.

I'd love to hear what Pats-Blue thinks on this, since the police can never be wrong with him.

Hey buddy, how did you know that we do no wrong? Sorry I haven't been around and haven't answered scouts post on another thread yet... we had an officer shot here so I have had more important things to do.

I don't agree with this at all FYI. I would like to point out two things though. #1 they are not ticketing or arresting people just over the limit they are ticketing/arresting those who are grossly intoxicated. #2 the "police" don't do this on your own even though I know Pujo you think we are all evil doers and "sewage" but this is from thier City Council, Mayor or whatever, it is someones pet project. I wouldn't have a problem with this if they were just citing the BAR for over serving someone (which they are though the article just concentrates on the patron angle), but the "slobbering drunk" patron? That part just seems silly to me.


As I said it has been busy with all that is going on in the valley here, I will try and get to my answer to your post scout, but right now I have to get some sleep which has been in short supply...


By the way here in the valley we don't even have a public intoxication statute...open container, but no public intoxication, I thought that was interesting being from the East coast that they don't have that here.

[Pujo]

Originally Posted by pats-blue

Hey buddy, how did you know that we do no wrong? Sorry I haven't been around and haven't answered scouts post on another thread yet... we had an officer shot here so I have had more important things to do.

I don't agree with this at all FYI. I would like to point out two things though. #1 they are not ticketing or arresting people just over the limit they are ticketing/arresting those who are grossly intoxicated. #2 the "police" don't do this on your own even though I know Pujo you think we are all evil doers and "sewage" but this is from thier City Council, Mayor or whatever, it is someones pet project. I wouldn't have a problem with this if they were just citing the BAR for over serving someone (which they are though the article just concentrates on the patron angle), but the "slobbering drunk" patron? That part just seems silly to me.


As I said it has been busy with all that is going on in the valley here, I will try and get to my answer to your post scout, but right now I have to get some sleep which has been in short supply...


By the way here in the valley we don't even have a public intoxication statute...open container, but no public intoxication, I thought that was interesting being from the East coast that they don't have that here.

Well I stand corrected, my apologies.

[wistahpatsfan]

Originally Posted by pats-blue

...I don't agree with this at all FYI.... this is from thier City Council, Mayor or whatever, it is someones pet project. I wouldn't have a problem with this if they were just citing the BAR for over serving someone (which they are though the article just concentrates on the patron angle), but the "slobbering drunk" patron? That part just seems silly to me.

Some fascist skank from the Texas ABCC was just on Tucker Carlson last night