Live in Texas? Don't get drunk in the bars!
 

Seriously, people can't even get drunk in a bar? What about the people that have designated drivers, do they get arrested too? Could there be a fine for this?

This just doesn't seem like a legit law to me.

That's bullshit. I'm assuming they had the bar owners OK on it, or else wouldn't it be private property and not really public drunkeness? Either way, this is one of the stupidest and worst things I've heard in a while.

What's the point in going to a bar if you aren't going to drink unless you are a DD?

No, it doesn't seem legit.
That is, if a bar is still public, where is the line between public and 'private' drawn? Is one only allowed to be out of public at one's place of residency?

Wouldn't it also be at the fault of the bartender since he's the one getting them drunk (despite being paid for serving them alcohol)?

I don't really see the huge problem with this. It's not like they're arresting people for drinking, they're arresting people for getting drunk enough they'd be arrested if they were out in public doing the antics they could be up to in the bar.

According to you, Reaver, Texas is partaking in Thought Crime. Which is just great.

How is being sloppily drunk a thought crime?

Edit: Question, do police need a warrant to go into a bar to arrest someone? That would seem to hint at an answer for the legality of arresting people for public drunkenness.

They're arresting people before a crime has been committed, and there is no conspiracy in crimes like these. None that could be taken seriously, anyway.

Don't a lot of people in Texas carry around guns?

Yeah.... guns and alcohol are a great combination. What could possible go wrong?! :doh:

See the thing is, getting drunk in a bar is not the same as getting drunk in your house. If you get drunk inside are bar, you are eventually going to have to leave said bar and venture out into public, where it is illegal to be drunk.

If you are legally drunk when you are inside the bad, you will more than likely be drunk when you leave the bar. You are not going to sober up while inside the bar and you are not going to sleep in the bar. You are getting drunk knowing that when you leave the bar you will be commiting a crime.

It's like how it is illegal to sit in a running car while you are drunk or how it is also illegal to have open bottles of alcohol inside your car.

I do think this is taking it a little to the extreme, though.

It was my impression that bars are pretty much the only LEGAL place you can go to in order to get plain-old shitfaced DRUNK, being private property and all.

I mean, if you can't get drunk at a bar, what the fuck is the point, right?

Being an idiot and drinking to the point of intoxication is not technically against the law. Unless an actual crime is committed (unruly behavior, assault of any kind), its really not illegal to be annoying unfortunately.

At this pace, they may as well just outlaw booze all together if you ask me. If they don't want people drunk (and thats the motivation behind arresting drunk people at a bar), maybe they should just recede into history with prohibition in Texas! I am sure the Texans will TOTALLY ABIDE!

I love this country. People will lay down and take anything. Sometimes I wonder if the people in power are playing a huge joke on the nation. "Lets see what kind of insane laws the people will take TODAY!"

But still, they are doing something that will inevitable cause them to break the law. If you get drunk at the bar, you will inevitably leave the bar still drunk, thus breaking the public drunkeness law. Any argument otherwise is pretty stupid.

It might be stupid, but they have a basis for doing it.

I think that the cops need to be fighting real crime instead of nabbing people who have caused no violent crimes and have done nothing wrong except drink too much.

CloudNine, have you never heard of Designated Drivers?

I think he's saying that the moment they even WALK out of the bar, they're "publically intoxicated." No driving required. ^_^

I totally agree. But, there are alot of people driving drunk and when most people are pushing to stop this amount of drunk driving, sometimes things must be done preemptively in order to prevent these actions from taking place. It is like control the area where guns can be fired in order to prevent effects to noncomplicit people.

Double Post:
Yes, but how can you prove that someone is going to be a designated driver? What would prevent someone from lying about having a designated driver or having someone nearby who is not legally drunk pretend to be their designated driver?

And yes, since everyone is using 'the bar is a private residence' defense, why isn't the street outside of the bar a public area? If they are drunk inside in a private residence, it is obvious that they will be drunk in a public place when they walk out the door.

It isn't at all legit. It's retarded.

A bar is a private establishment. Keep an eye on this story. The bar owners ought to really be kicking up a fuss over this.

Yep, we sure do. I carry my six-shooter to school with me everyday. :)

But seriously, this law seems really stupid. Of course, if I was old enough to drink, and I wanted to get drunk, I'd probably do it at home. Even so, just because someone wants to do that at a bar (especially as long as they don't plan on driving), I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. They should at least wait until they do something bad in the bar before they arrest them.

The bar owners might have *agreed* to this, bear in mind. The folks they're arresting are, I'm sure, folks who are without a designated driver that plan to drive home. Sting operatives are probably folks who come off as drinkin' buddies and say "Oh hey how're you getting home?" "Ohh, I'm fine... I'll drive m'self".

Being drunk is one thing. But being drunk without the intent of getting a safe ride home is quite another. If you fall under that category, you immediately endanger yourself and everyone else out on the road.

Watts --
It is illegal to carry a firearm inside of a business that makes over half of its profits off of alcohol. Someone being drunk in a bar with a gun won't make a difference if they're in a state that condones carrying concealed or not. They're breaking the law either way.

Plus, we all know that large consumptions of alcohol does wonders for your coordination and steadiness-of-hand. Them damn Texan alcoholics are serial killaz.

Oh, then that's fine.

The way I saw it, it could be bad for business and can't be forced on them. It wasn't forced on them? That's fine. :)

If a drunk goes out into public and causes trouble or gets into a wreck, they trail it back to the bar he was last at, and they'll get in trouble. It is a bar's responsibility to not let the customers get too-far-gone on drinking. This'll help them keep tabs on troublemakers who blend into the crowds. This is doing bars a favor.

Ok, I have a question for you guys.

Say a guy is drinking and gets really smashed at a bar and decides he wants to leave. He walks out and decides he is way too drunk to drive home, so he decides to lie down in his car wait to sober up. He gets cold while being in the car and decides to turn the car on to warm up, all the while with no intention of actually moving the car anywhere. While waiting, he falls asleep with the car still running. A little while later, a police officer knocks on his door, tests him and books him with a DUI.

Do you think that this is fair? The guy was not actually driving the car and says he had no plans to.

Yes it's totally fair. DUI should be more accurately called "operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated".

Besides, he could have rolled over in his sleep and accidentally put the car in gear.

Ok, what if he was sleeping in the back seat?

What if that car was a van where the shift knob is unreachable from the back seat?

What if the car is off, the man is in the back seat drunk and the keys are in the glove box?

All of these are arrestable offenses punished by a DUI. I have heard no one complaining about these. This is just the next step. Stopping the massive amounts of drinking in situations where people can possibly make unrational decisions seems like a good idea to me.

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!!!

Okay, I heard a little more about this whole thing recently, and I have to say, somebody's screwing up.

Some people have been arrested for being drunk at a hotel bar when they have a room there!

You people confuse me. We've had forms of 'pre-crime' for a long time now. Why is this any different than some of my other examples?

That's your only example, and as I explained earlier, it doesn't work very well. This is wrong, I don't see how someone can argue against that.

Double Post:
Correction, I don't see how someone can seriously argue against that.

But see, along with that example. You completely missed what I was getting at. I was not likening the drunken person to the baby at all. I don't see how you figured that. The drunken person is to the parent as the baby is to the people that the drunken person is having an effect on after he leaves the bar. The logic is not that hard to follow and it works fine.

And also, that was not my only example. Please read through the thread before commenting.

See, I read those--because I did go through the thread--but those aren't so much examples of this law in action as much as you clarifying what can, and does, already happen. Why? Because the answers seem so ridiculously obvious. Do you think a cop would bother a man asleep in the back of a car? If it looked like he had broken into it, maybe. Other than that I doubt he'd even notice. The only mildly likely one is where he's sitting there with his car running, and there's nothing wrong with that because at that point it would seem, extremely so, that the man was going to drive while intoxicated.

"Arrestable offences" and "Being arrested" are two entirely different things. As it is it's illegal to step outside of the bar while drunk, but I've never seen it happen. Have you? Maybe if you live in Texas. This law is making it laughably easy for police to trod on citizens rights, and what's worse is they are.

Double Post:
But please, since I'm a young idealist who let's little things like the Constitution dictate my stances on rights, explain to me what you're getting at. The point is obviously lost on me.

My neighbor was arrested and charged with a DUI while sleeping in the passenger seat of his car while drunk. The car was not started and he was not planning on driving anywhere.

Like I said before, just because it doesn't happen, doesn't mean that it can't happen and because of the laws surrounding it, (you yourself just said it was illegal to leave the bar intoxicated) they are justified in arresting people who do such things.

My point is that things like this has already been happening in this country for years and have been approved in many cases. I will once again go back to my case, which I still believe is completely valid. Just like the mother who leaves her child in the car seat is negligent of the possible dangers that may face her child, the drunk person who leaves the bar is being negligent of his resposibilities to not harm innocnet people. Why is the mother charged with a crime of endangering her child when nothing has happened, but the man who leaves the bar is not? I would venture to say that more people are killed by drunk drivers every year then parents leaving there children in the cars. Why is there nothing to prevent this type of negligence?

Why do you think we have drunk driving and public intoxication laws in the first place? Because people intoxicated are generally unable to control themselves and will act in irrational and negligent ways.

Alright, name five more cases that you know of off-hand. One doesn't cut it when you're using such a shakey point, sorry.


If it can happen but it doens't there's a reason, in this case the reason is drunks walking home or getting into a car (to be driven by someone sober) pose no threat. The laws you allude to are in place for the instances where a drunk does do something stupid after walking out, last I checked we didn't run a zero-tolerance country.


You're wrong. Things like that haven't been happening, not on this scale anyway, they've only had the ability to happen. I can go buy some advil if I get a headache, but instead I'll most likely leave it alone. Why? Because in itself it won't do anything more than annoy me. Just like the majority of drunks. For the minority that do lose all common sense we have the laws that have been in place for years, and if they are not being enforced properly the solution is not to arrest people for the ability to break the law, but to better enforce the laws. As for you comparison, again, it sucks. Get a new one.

If what you want are more solutions to this DD problem, which is what it appears you are asking for, fine. This isn't one of them. Mentioned earlier were people who's states make bartenders keep tabs on people who have had too much, and act accordingly to prevent them from doing anything stupid. Add to this the fact that a chuck, I don't have statistics, of drunk drivers come not from bars, but parties held other places that this bill does not address and you'll see this isn't doing all that much but stepping on the toes of your rights.

Drunk driving and public intoxication laws are in place so that in the event a problem does arise or a problem appears to be inevitable action can be taken. They are not there so that every idiot who's had one too many can pay the state an exorbiant amount of money because he was trying to walk home.

I guess the difference is if you consider a bar a public or private place.

Do you think it's fair for people to be arrested for public drunkenness in large sporting arenas?

Well that depends on what they've done. If they've acted out, then sure. However, the same goes for the current laws concerning public intoxication. As has been stated before, a man who's intoxicated should not be bothered while walking home peacefully. Not unless he does something to merit such action, like throwing a baby.

It really doesn't matter to me whether or not the bar is a public or private place, it only matters to the letter of the law. It breaks the letter, but it's the idea behind it that's worse, and that stays regardless of private/public status.

Do we even know what the letter of the law is? I might have missed the post, but did anyone link to the text of the actual law people are being arrested under?

Personally, I don't mind people that get way too drunk in bars being arrested. When I was at a bar with a few friends the other day there were a few guys that had to prop themselves up against walls and stuff so they wouldn't fall down. The three of them were louder than anyone else in the place and I certainly wouldn't have minded if they weren't there.

Absolutely fair. If you're drunk - you should be nowhere near a vehicle, unless there is somone sober in the operators seat. As for what happened to your neighbour - good on the cop for arresting his drunk ass. Do you expect a cop to BELIEVE a drunk when he says that he's not planning on driving anywere? I sure as hell wouldn't - what would happen if your neighbour, after the cop left, decided to go get some munchies from the corner store, and ran over some child?

How do you not get this through your head?

Fine, why was he in the car in the first place? What happens if for some reason your drunk friend decides to drive somewhere because he thinks that he's sobered up enough?

It doesn't matter - he should'nt be in the vehicle alone PERIOD.


He's still in the car, and intoxicated. Thus DUI is deserved.

Damn Locke for someone with the custom titled "sotned" you sure are a nazi about this.

I don't think people whould be nailed for public intoxication in general unless they're making a huisance of themselves as someone who's just walking home quietly even with a drunken stagger is still not hurting anything. As DUI unless the cars engine is on they should be left alone doubly so if they're jsut sleeping it off inside.

How do you not get it through your head to read the entire thread before responding point by point to a post that you are taking completely out of context?

Because I don't believe that anywhere in this thread did I say alude to anything different than what you said. I'm not even going to bother responding to everything you've said.