WTF Texas?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » March 23, 2006, 3:43 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/23/texas. ... index.html
The development of the nanny state continues.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » March 23, 2006, 4:05 pm

What...The...Fuck?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 23, 2006, 4:06 pm

Wow, I knew they were busting bars for serving people that were well beyond any safe limit....but this is just crazy.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » March 23, 2006, 4:12 pm

Virginia has been doing this too. Im pretty Virginia. Some East Coast state.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 23, 2006, 4:26 pm

Public intoxication is illegal

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 23, 2006, 4:57 pm

but is it public intoxication when inside a private establishment?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 23, 2006, 5:15 pm

This state is fairly fuckered atm.

But that sucks ass...I could so see that happening to me.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 23, 2006, 5:59 pm

Sounds like a fascist state rather than a nanny state to me... or something I would expect to see in a theocracy, oh wait..

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » March 23, 2006, 6:13 pm

Sounds like some club owner miss a payment to the local Police Station.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 23, 2006, 6:30 pm

In New York for example the law reads that it is illegal to be "Drunk and Disorderly" while in Texas it reads "Intoxicated" which by definition means a harm to oneself or others OR a blood alcohol level of .08 or greater... that's 3 beers in 1 hour for an average size guy.

Once again it shows how this country is falling more and more to the right... Not just in the overall fascist attitude but because local governments are having to resort to things like this in order to pay pension plans and keep the lights on.

If we want a free society we have to fund that society, that includes making the wealthy pay their fair share of the taxes or IMHO since society has been so good to them... more taxes which as we all know and is documented is the exact opposite of the current Administration's rationale.

Marb

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » March 23, 2006, 9:51 pm

Say what you will... Texas makes good toast.

You can keep the rest. Including one of my ex's (hums the song)

Fenna · Post by **Fenna** » March 24, 2006, 4:41 pm

There's been some talk up here in the Green Bay area recently over cops arresting folks for operating while intoxicated when they catch them sitting in a car. Like, you're out with your wife and you go out to warm up the car (she's driving home, you've had a few drinks) and wait for her to come out, and the cop arrests you.

That scenario has people very pissed up here. I can't imagine how Wisconsinites would react to THIS kind of shit. Christ.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 24, 2006, 4:55 pm

Get blasted is about the only thing that makes Texas bearable.

might as well arrest persons drunk in their own homes.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » March 24, 2006, 5:59 pm

I don't drink and I think that is going way too far.

I do see that as invasion of a private establishment.

What next? Charging people that shower in gymnasiums with indecent exposure?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 24, 2006, 5:59 pm

Local news had a little more information last night and today...

http://www.news8austin.com/content/top_ ... rID=158047

The link also has the full story included in the video.

2:56 pm

TABC looking for drunks in bars
3/24/2006 8:57 AM
By: News 8 Austin Staff

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission may be watching the next time someone has one too many drinks in a bar.

For the last few weeks the TABC has been increasing the number of undercover agents inside bars looking for people who may be intoxicated.

"Texas has the highest DWI fatality rate in the nation and what we are trying to do is slow that down and save some lives. We are trying to get people to consume alcohol responsibly," Carolyn Beck of the TABC said.

If an agent thinks you are intoxicated they will ask you to step outside where another agent will perform a field sobriety test.

If they determine you are intoxicated, they can issue you a citation or take you to jail.

They are saying that it is not considered a private establishment due to the liquor licenses involved. I wonder how much authority they have to actually remove you from the bar since they state that they move you outside before beginning the actual sobriety "testing." Several bar owners have been complaining that they cannot possibly have any valid measure to determine who is intoxicated.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 24, 2006, 6:15 pm

No VV parties in Texas Bars...we would so get busted....all of us! Well except for those that total the tea!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 24, 2006, 10:51 pm

Aruman wrote:I don't drink and I think that is going way too far.

I do see that as invasion of a private establishment.

So laws shouldn't apply on private property? Can I kill you in your living room?

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » March 24, 2006, 11:36 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Aruman wrote:I don't drink and I think that is going way too far.

I do see that as invasion of a private establishment.
So laws shouldn't apply on private property? Can I kill you in your living room?

Replying with something as silly as your statement:

Sure... feel free to try... but bring your own body bag.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 25, 2006, 4:00 am

Great counter argument mr. tough guy. I bet the ladies go wild when they see your chest hair.

so are you going to even bother backing up your ludicrous statement or has that pea in your skull finally kicked in and you realize that you sound like a fucking ass?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 25, 2006, 5:03 am

kyoukan wrote:
Aruman wrote:I don't drink and I think that is going way too far.

I do see that as invasion of a private establishment.
So laws shouldn't apply on private property? Can I kill you in your living room?

You're both wrong

Aruman: There's a reason why they're called "Pubs", it's short for "Public Bar", hence not private.

Kyoukan: When the law includes the word "public" like "public intoxication", then yes, it doesn't apply on private property.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 25, 2006, 5:10 am

you just contradicted yourself.

besides, being out in public includes patronizing businesses that other people go to as well. I won't argue for the logic of arresting drunk people in bars, but people aren't immune from the civil offenses just because they step onto someone's front yard.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 25, 2006, 5:48 am

http://studentlife.tamu.edu/scrs/sls/FAQpi.htm

The Law

Public Intoxication Statute of Texas

49.02 Public Intoxication

"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:

1.

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
2.

having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

An offence under this section is a Class C Misdemeanor. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class C misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00. However, for a minor, the punishment terms are in the same manner as if he committed the offense of Possession of Alcohol by a Minor.

Emphasis is mine, stubborn refusal to admit to the fact that you can't be guilty of public intoxication if you're not in public is yours.

There is no contradiction; bars are "public". Aruman can be as drunk as he likes in his home however.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 25, 2006, 5:55 am

So is a pub a public place or private property? You're going to have to make up your mind as the only person you seem to be arguing with in this thread is yourself.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 25, 2006, 7:01 am

kyoukan wrote:So is a pub a public place or private property? You're going to have to make up your mind as the only person you seem to be arguing with in this thread is yourself.

me wrote:Aruman: There's a reason why they're called "Pubs", it's short for "Public Bar", hence not private.

me wrote:bars are "public"

Where did I say anything other than a Pub is a public place...? WTH??

imdb.com let me down or there'd be a Bad Santa quote here..

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 25, 2006, 7:16 am

kyoukan wrote:you just contradicted yourself.

besides, being out in public includes patronizing businesses that other people go to as well. I won't argue for the logic of arresting drunk people in bars, but people aren't immune from the civil offenses just because they step onto someone's front yard.

Ahh, I see your dilema, you thought I was arguing that you can't be charged with PI in a bar because it's "private", when in fact I was refuting your argument of:

kyoukan wrote:So laws shouldn't apply on private property? Can I kill you in your living room?

which is fallacious because this particular law doesn't in fact apply on private property.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 25, 2006, 3:49 pm

oh

it most certainly is private property.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » April 13, 2006, 12:18 pm

as a follow up for you curious parties.

The TABC (Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission) has suspended these sting operations pending investigation and evaluation.

It has gotten a HUGE amount of media attention here, and I think they fear some legal troubles.

I didn't link any articles, cause I'm lazy and they're easy to find. But that's basically what it is.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 13, 2006, 12:30 pm

Many of the complaints came back to there being no actual BAC limit for a PI. It just requires that you be a clear danger to yourself or others.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » April 14, 2006, 2:11 pm

Of course texas has the highest amount of dui related deaths, the state is fucking huge. I'm not sure how that would work for California though. Whatever the case, I dont see how these stings could have continued without bar owners raising hell. People would get scared and drink like one beer for the night. Owners would have to drive up the price of alcohol just to stay standing. People, fed up with the prices, will buy their own alcohol. Bars would close. People will take advantage and open their own bars without licences, so cops wouldnt know where to stake out. Tons of tax payer dollars (without the money from alcohol taxes) would be used in investigations to close these places. Only private bars would bother getting liquer licences.

Thats all speculation of course. However, I think it's all worth it if it saves lives.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » April 14, 2006, 3:10 pm

it also has a lot to do with the fact that alcohol is fairly restricted in Texas as to where it can be sold. This leads people to have to drive across a county, or two, to buy beer, or go to a bar.

The farther the drunks have to drive, the more chances for drinking related accidents.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 14, 2006, 3:19 pm

People should have the right to drink in bars until their eyes bleed if it makes them happy, otherwise whats the point in them?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » April 16, 2006, 8:17 pm

Nick wrote:People should have the right to drink in bars until their eyes bleed if it makes them happy, otherwise whats the point in them?

As long as they're not driving, I completely agree with you. But arresting someone who's in a bar not making a nuisance of themselves, just because they're drunk is stupid. Drink all you want, grab a cab, go to bed. Where's the problem here?