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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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:

Originally Posted by Arainach

CloudNine, have you never heard of Designated Drivers?

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Fresh Frank

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

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?

Most amazing jew boots

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.

Originally Posted by CloudNine

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.

Originally Posted by CloudNine

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Fresh Frank

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.

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.

Quote:

"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.

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.

Quote:

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 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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Locke

How do you not get this through your head?

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.