Hmm, what is this about no Police state?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would it be possible to go around the "public place" problem by create a membership or charging an entrance fee. Then it can be considered a private bar. You can entitle the patron to a free drink with membership and keep tabs on the customers in case they cause problems.

I agree with the posters who feel that this law is designed to crack down on people getting stupid drunk. While I completely respect one's right to do whatever the hell they want to their body, I have a problem when that person is in a public place and creating problems for other people. I worked in a popular tourist destination in Miami when I was younger. I saw plenty of people getting stupid drunk and getting into fights and doing other stupid things they would not do if they were not drunk. How would you feel about someone getting sh*tfaced and then start groping your woman? Just because someone is drunk does not mean they are not responsible for their actions. I feel this law encourages people to reconsider how much they want to drink when out in public, or forces people to drink heavily only when they are at home... where they will not affect the real general public!
 
Any bartender now wanting an overly drunk patron arrested has simply to ask him to leave. After that, he's trespassing and can be arrested for that.

So there's already law in place to cover the problem and it leaves the decision point where it belongs. In the hands of the owner of the property. The guy who will be liable if the drunk kills somebody.
 
Antipitas
That the comment you quoted was meant to be a sarcastic reference to privacy laws as a set up for the homophobia ridiculing punch line that followed
 
Just a small clarification that really doesn't change the point:

These people were not arrested for "drinking" but for "public intoxication." It had to do with the level of intoxication, not the simple fact of consuming alcohol.

Again, that doesn't make it less stupid, but just wanted to be accurate.
 
California 647(f) PC Public drunkeness

I observed this person to be drunk in public unable to care for self or property. Book um Dano...

In CA a police officer with a few years on the street beat is deemed an expert witness when it comes to intoxication. Intoxicated and drunk are very different.

Pretty simple done it a hunderd or more times.

It really is a safety issue. Believe it or not. If they are that drunk in todays world they are major victims. Simple.

40 years ago it was a $20.00 fine or a free sleep it off, depended on the problem they created.

One time we were called to a home where it was a major problem. Guy drunk and the women wanted him arrested, not much you can do he is in his own house etc..
We walk out and he follows giving BS. He walks to the curb, bango 647f PC. No more problem.

Women is happy, guy goes and sleeps it off. Sometimes though it can become a big mess and the guy gets hurt and so do the police. Domestic disputes are ugly.

HQ
 
According to the lady on the radio today the standard is that they have to be a danger to themselves or others.
I don't know if that is as vague as it sounds but they got 30 dangerous drunks on their first outing.

Most of the bars I ever went to had no more than 30 patrons in the whole bar
 
I saw on the news that some of the people in Texas were drinking in a hotel bar, in the hotel they were paying to rent a room from. All the bar patron had to do was take an elevator a few floors up to their room. They were posing no danger to anyone. There was zero chance that these people would hop into a car and drive drunk. This whole thing is absolutely rediculous and I hope the people of Texas will not stand for it.
 
Thanks, jcoiii, I was wondering if they were using the PI charge. If it is still the same as it was when I was stationed at Ft. Hood during the early 1980s, the public-intoxication charge is pretty much at the officer's discretion...at that time there was no defined BAC for PI. We had many, many soldiers charged with PI, and they had a hard time mounting a defense against it.
 
Far be it from me to say a lawyer has some redeeming value to society :D but here is a situation just screaming to be overlawyered. I ain't a lawyer but I do work from a framework of logic and I have a hard time seeing the logic here. But then again we're talking law, not logic.
 
Waitone, a lawyer wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

As a cop, I find this to be incredibly stupid, and a waste of manpower and resources. However, I also realize that it meets the letter of the law, albeit in its strictest sense.

Look at it this way. You get a ticket for speeding. You are written for doing one mile per hour over the speed limit. Were you speeding? Sure, technically. Was it really worth the cop stopping and writing you for it? Hardly.

In my opnion, this is simply a fad that will pass. Quickly. The state will start catching some heat, and will rethink this assinine process.
 
My problem with all of this lies in the definition of "public".

1. If public drunkenness is illegal (as it is);
2. Then what pray-tell, makes a place "PUBLIC"??

Seems to me that a bar or restaurant or club is most certainly a PRIVATE place, on private property, that can refuse anyone entry whom they would like to refuse, for any reason or no reason at all - no discernable difference from a large private party at a private residence. So how on earth can that be "public" drunkenness? If, OTOH, you were standing on a STREET, SIDEWALK, in a PUBLIC BUILDING (city, county, state, federal), or other real estate that is owned or paid for by a government entity, then it seems that the law against public drunkenness could and would apply. But if not, then where can you reasonably draw the line between a public place and a private place? What critical distinction makes a place "public"? I see no good workable definition that would also allow one to get rip-roaring drunk at a private party or rave, as one is presumably legally fully-entitled to do. And if there is no workable definition, then the law fails as unconstitutional as too vague/ambiguous (unless is so limits the definition of public, in which case the cops should be in there getting drunk with the rest of us, not arresting people).

So I say, bottom line, this is Bravo Sierra, for that reason.
 
Seems to me that a bar or restaurant or club is most certainly a PRIVATE place, on private property, that can refuse anyone entry whom they would like to refuse, for any reason or no reason at all
Click to expand...

Not true. A business, open to the public (not a private membership club) is a public place. To test your premise, let's say we own a restaurant and refuse service, for no reason at all, to...let's say...minorities. Can you say discrimination?

I do agree, however, that there is no way this should be considered public intoxication. What exactly, then, is the point of designated drivers? This is clearly an income scheme.

When tax revenues are lost to the government due to alcohol selling businesses closing shop, what will become illegal next to make up for the lost revenue?
 
I don't mind so much that it is patently for revenue generation.

What bothers me is that the "powers that be" think we're stupid enough to believe it isn't.

Of course, all too often, the PTB are right.

Heck, I'm not even sure I'd be upset if someone actually came right out and said, "We realize it is a blatant violation of your constitutional rights, but, for what we believe to be your safety, we're going to enact this law/regulation anyway."

At least it'd be honest, and I wouldn't be both screwed AND insulted.
 
First and foremost, all Public Intoxication laws are based upon the Puritan past of New England. Commonly, these types of regulation are referred to as "Blue Law" and were enacted in 17th century New England:
"They (Blue Laws) were less concerned about individual rights than they were about community rights," said Peter Drummey, librarian at the Massachusetts Historical Society, "They were trying to build an ideal community here. And like all Utopian visions, they went too far."
Click to expand...
As people moved west, they took with them their own concepts of these religious laws.

As for what is a public place, see this post.
 
It must be an election year in Texas :cool:

They want to eliminate drunk driving..lol.

Public intoxication has been around since man first discovered how to make alcholic products. Drunken driving has been around since man first discovered horses and the wheel. Just that the Horse usually knew the way home.
 
Drinking and driving?

I have always found it an interesting contradiction that it is illegal to drink and drive but one must present a driver license to buy alcohol. I have also often wondered why bars were not routinely monitored for those leaving in their vehicles who are obviously impaired. I find it foolish and intrusive to arrest people in bars for being drunk. Perhaps bars should not have client parking available. All patrons could arrive via cab or public transportation.
I do not believe that "Prohibition" is the answer just like it is not the answer to the drug problem.
 
Not true. A business, open to the public (not a private membership club) is a public place.
Click to expand...

No, you're mistaken. "Open to the public" is a very vague & ambiguous phrase. If I have a large house or field party on my property, and anyone can come or go as they please, subject to my veto of entry, so that it's "open to the public", does that make my property public property? No, I don't think so.

To test your premise, let's say we own a restaurant and refuse service, for no reason at all, to...let's say...minorities. Can you say discrimination?
Click to expand...

Yep, that's discrimination all right. So what's your point? Just like Augusta doesn't allow women, and some clubs don't allow minorities. It's their right, for better or worse. If you're not a common carrier, an employer, or a housing unit owner/leaser, you are free to refuse entry or service to anyone if you choose, for any reason or no reason at all. Yes, it's discrimination. No, it's not illegal discrimination. And so no, "open to the public" doesn't make something a "public place". Even if we do adopt your definition of "public place" as being "any place where it is illegal to refuse entry/service on the base of race, national origin, religion, age, or sex" or something similar, that too is unworkable since employers and landlords are so prohibited, yet that doesn't make all employment locations and all housing units public places, now does it?
 
garand_shooter,
Not true. A business, open to the public (not a private membership club) is a public place. To test your premise, let's say we own a restaurant and refuse service, for no reason at all, to...let's say...minorities. Can you say discrimination?
Click to expand...

All the bars I have been too have not been "open" to the public. They are only open to those 21 years of age and older.

If those under 21 years of age are not allowed in bars then I dont see how it could be considered "open" to the public.

Eitherway I think the whole thing is stupid simply because privately owned property should never be considered public.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top