Well, he doesn't even need to turn the car on. Turn the key slightly but not enough to turn on the car, and you'll turn on the AC, Heaters, radio, etc. But it won't start the engine.

It doesn't matter. That doesn't change the fact that he could start it if he wanted to. It is still illegal anyways.

Just like anyone who gets plastered at a bar could walk out of the bar and into their cars to drive home.

Go to a inner-city school eh? :p

I used to, actually. Surprisingly though, no one ever had a gun (knife, yes, but no gun). But on the mean streets campus of UTSA, everybody packs heat, I reckon.

Damn, you sure showed me. :(

That is a pleasant surprise though... well for the most part. Not so much on the knives. But most inner city kids are packing heat nowadays.

This isn't that bad of an idea.

I think the point isn't really to try really hard to prevent crime,
but in the end to save lives. So a couple cops go around to
bars and arrest some people under the influence~ if that night
they saved one life by doing it ^_^ Hey then it's all sweet.

Of course, it's just an " IF " ^_^''

See this seems like the kicker to me. If the officers recieved permission from the owner of the bar (which is the only way I can see this to be legal), wouldn't it be illegal to actually serve them to drunkeness? Also, if that is the case, how could they set up undercover agents to do this without them violating the law by ALLOWING them to be served?

Its like breaking the law so you can arrest someone for breaking the law.

In response to having no designated driver, taxis anybody?

EDIT: Ok, so there was a news story on this on NBC this morning. It seems completely illegal to me. One example of an arrest the police made was of this lady drinking at a hotel bar where she was staying at. Apparently they arrested 4 people at this place including the bartender for overserving them.

I hope they take this to court.

This is in Texas. Taxis aren't a huge thing as far as I know. Not at all. And I've been through Houston a few times (sadly) and not seen a one.

Plus, I'm sure they probe like I mentioned in an earlier post. Snag them on the way out, inquiring how they're getting home. 36 bars, arresting 30 people. That's under one person per bar. If you've been to a bar, there is often reckless drinking. Do you really think that out of these 36 bars that only 30 people were shitfaced and they were arrested because of that? Not likely. They were shitfaced and mentioned they wanted to get home on their own via their car.

Ever hear the line "I think you've had enough, buddy"? Bartenders are supposed to be able to gauge if they should serve someone more to drink. If the drinker broke up with a girlfriend or something and wants to drown himself, the bartender will probably let him out of pity. Then might go as far as to call a designated driving service for him (we have them here in B/CS).

In regards to that hotel bar, I'll agree that sounds awkward. Can't expect all these things to go clean and smooth I guess... x__X I can see the sense behind this, but only if they do it *right*.

Arresting the bartender and such would've been called for if she went off and got herself and some other folks killed. Well. Not even arrested, then again. A fine maybe or a brief license suspension.

You know, any asshole who isn't careful could do this. Regardless of being drunk or not.

You're saying it's pretty much illegal to be fucking stupid? If that were the case, sir, the jails would be overflowing - literally - with a huge percentage of the nation's population.

Well,l i dont know about everywehre, but i do know that here in texas it is illegal to be intoxicated in public, or at least show signs of being intoxicated.
I have seen people walking on the street get tickets because their blood alchohol levels where too high and the couldnt walk straight. DWI/DUI just makes it worce.
and about bars, a manager can have you through out, because it is their extablishment, and if they think your conduct is taking away from buissness they will find a way to remeidy that.

At least someone here has sense.

Are you shitting me? That's utter and total BS. You can find a BASIS for doing just about anything, that doesn't make it right. Period.

Well, I mean, seriously. It doesn't take ALCOHOL to make a person stupid, obnoxious and dangerous.

Consider all those fancy retarded caution labels they have to put onto all of these products out there.

On a hair dryer:
Do not use in shower.

Warning on a cartridge for a laser printer:
Do not eat toner.

Baby stroller warning:
Remove child before folding.

I mean, really. Adults who are getting drunk and walking home shouldn't be fucking bothered.

Unfortunately, there are lots of people who will disagree with you. Petty criminals looking for an easy victim, for instance. Or cops who used to sit outside bars and wait for people to walk out drunk before busting them for public intoxication.

Maybe the recent cold weather is what prompted this change.

Petty criminals looking for an easy target probably wouldn't go after a big drunken man.

In fact, if I were a petty criminal, I would sooner attack a young female scantily dressed with a weak bag than go after a drunken man walking out of a bar. She could be walking out of a bar, too. But then, she could be walking out of anywhere. Stupid bitches are easy to rob anywhere. They don't need to be drunk.

=/

As for the cops - I really think they ought to be focusing on the larger issues of the community than people who are causing no trouble or harm to anyone. Just let them walk it off.

Your jails must be vacant there in Texas.

They might be vacant, but that's just because of the popularity of capital punishment.

A drunken man, however big, has advantages all his own. Being drunk, his reflexes will be impaired; that limits his ability to put up a fight. It also affects his memory, making it likely he won't remember whoever robbed him, and if he did, offering a clear opening for any public defender to blow holes in his testimony.

They have great potential to cause trouble, though. They could run across the aforementioned people looking for an easy score. They could also destroy property, go looking for trouble themselves, wander off a sidewalk into the path of an oncoming car, or just fall off a bridge somewhere. That and people generally don't want drunks walking around near them.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for public intoxication laws to exist, and for the police to enforce them.

Jail capacity doesn't really matter; city treasuries are always in need of filling, though.

Drunken men are also usually more volatile and will strike for little reason. They have very little concept of consequence when drunk.

While you're right about them having less ability to control his reflexes, this could be more of a risk than a benefit to a petty criminal.

Thats a risk whenever you walk out of your house.

I mean, I know it's a stretch here, but wouldn't you agree that any mentally retarded person or handicapped person could run the same risk?

Everyone has the "potential" to cause trouble. Especially those pesky petty criminals that get out on bail, commit another crime, get thrown back in jail, et cetera.

Then again, I don't know how the Texans work. I know personally at least 2 people who have been arrested on DUIs and have been released back to the public with little-to-no punishment only to strike and injure someone with their car whilst being intoxicated.

Its my opinion that the cops should be spending their time nailing those bastards to a wall - not the dude who is walking home after a few beers in the local canteen.

This is true ocassionally.

The word is occasionally. Just for future reference. (Don't get offended.)

While its true occasionally, is it worth your statistical risk to chance it as a petty criminal?

This article does not seem to be telling the entire story. After watching that short bit they had on NBC this morning, I was extremely quirked by this, so I've been trying to find some things out.

First off, its hard as fuck to find anything on this operation. In the NBC report they had the police operation name in it, but there is absoulutely ZERO information on this on the MSNBC website. None. It took me forever just to find a site with the name of the operation of this.

Operation Last Call.
Unfortunately, this isn't the only one in the country so I limited it to Texas, and it STILL wasn't the only one in Texas. Apparently Texas had been deporting immigrants back in 1996-1998 for having DWIs (ha but the Supreme Court declared it illegal).

So finally I found a site that seemed to have some information on this. http://www.austin-tx-dwi.com/news/at...n.dwi.and.bars

I'm still trying to find numbers on people arrested, but it seems like 30 is probably way too low.

Yes, they are very justified in doing so. I have already given plenty of reasons why.

And no, it is illegal to be stupid. However, it is illegal to be negligent to the well being of others and the laws concerning the effect of your negligence. Leaving a bar intoxicated always gives a greater risk of something bad happening, even if you are not driving.

It's like leaving a baby inside of a car while you go into the gas station to pay for your gas. Sure, your only going to be inside of the store for a minute but something could happen to your baby while you were inside. Last time I checked, this is considered negligence on the drivers part.

When a drunk person leaves a bar, he could destroy property, drive and hit someone, get hit himself or a multitude of other things based on his decision to leave the bar intoxicated. Sure, the man may really have a ride home, he may only live a block away, but something could happen after he leaves the bar.

Like I said, it may be stupid, but by getting drunk inside a bar and leaving, you are negligent to the fact that you are breaking public intoxication laws and needlessly endangering other people. We don't need anymore intentionally impaired people wandering around with the ability to harm people.

I find your rhetoric to be insufferably blind to the actual world. A baby cannot alert others to a problem, a baby will not have been taught to lock doors and roll up windows. While I've seen some people get pretty stupid drunk, I've never see one to the point where he had the mentality of a baby. If a person was that out of it then the cuffs would go on an unconcious man, which isn't needed because there's no need to arrest a sleeping man.

As such, your comparison holds no water, sorry. Unless you actually intend for them to arrest those knocked out due to alcohol consumption, which I find laughable.

Alright, so the second someone goes outside they are drunk in public. They got drunk in a bar, private place. If they go outside in an effort to either get into a car--not driven by them--or to walk home they should be left to do so in peace. As the police on this task have no better thing to do then they could follow them until there is a need to arrest them.

And, of course, if they try to get into a car to drive it they get arrested. Duh. No reason to arrest an innocent person simply for habing one too man on the basis they could hurt someone.

Double Post:
Also, couldn't this be seen as precedence for further laws hindering gun ownership and the like? I suppose I could be reading too far into it, but I don't like where this whole, "You may do something wrong, we're arresting you," may lead to.

Hey... are you questioning the government? Somebody call the police!!!