Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bar Sweep Sparks Controversy (Drunk People Arrested in Bars!!)
NBC5i.com ^ | March 23, 2006

Posted on 03/22/2006 10:40:15 AM PST by Daytyn71

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sent a message to bar patrons last week.

TABC agents and Irving police swept through 36 Irving bars and arrested about 30 people on charges of public intoxication. Agency representatives say the move came as a proactive measure to curtail drunken driving.

North Texans interviewed by NBC 5, however, worried that the sweep went too far.

At one location, for example, agents and police arrested patrons of a hotel bar. Some of the suspects said they were registered at the hotel and had no intention of driving. Arresting authorities said the patrons were a danger to themselves and others.

"Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk," TABC Capt. David Alexander said. "It's to have a good time but not to get drunk."

Dallas comedian Steve Harvey agreed with the Texas residents who said the arrests infringed on individual rights.

"If a guy's got a designated driver, go ahead and let him get toasted," Harvey told NBC 5.

Texas law states that inebriated individuals could be subjected to arrest anywhere for public intoxication. Harvey and other North Texans called the measure extreme.

"That seems to be an extreme case," one man said. "You are self-contained, in the hotel, you're not going in the streets, it seems a little ridiculous."

TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights. Harvey and others interviewed by NBC 5 said they believe drunken driving to be unacceptable, although Harvey wanted to confirm that the United States remains a free country.

"Freedom of drinking should always be allowed, and it is only American to let a guy get drunk where he wants to get drunk," Harvey said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: bars; beer; brownshirts; dallas; donutwatch; drunkdriving; fourthamendment; houston; leoabuse; liqour; policestate; revenueenhancement; sanantonio; spelling; texas; theman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-239 last
To: EBH

"Confused...how is being inside a bar public, unless it is owned by the government."

The smoking bans have conveniently changed the definition of private property into public property. You can thank many FReepers for celebrating that change for this next logical step.


221 posted on 03/23/2006 5:30:37 AM PST by CSM (Lick a finger, politicize the wind, and place the finger into the wind. - EGPWS, 1/26/2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Bigs from Michigan

"The discussion is about the legality of public drunkenness."

OK, what is your definition of drunk?


222 posted on 03/23/2006 5:39:56 AM PST by CSM (Lick a finger, politicize the wind, and place the finger into the wind. - EGPWS, 1/26/2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Sax; scory

Our son snuck out of the house one time (NOTE - one time) and met some friends. AN older guy bought them some cheapo wine and he got very plastered. Next day we had to go early to the ranch to plant pecan trees - holes 3 foot wide by 3 1/2 foot deep - by hand. He and his buddy who was spending the night dug them - by hand. LOLLL On the 30 minute drive home, he got sicker and sicker. Puked his guts out that afternoon. Never again had to deal with this. LOLLLL


223 posted on 03/23/2006 6:24:44 AM PST by gopheraj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: D.P.Roberts
TABC Capt. David Alexander

I see a camera in this mans pitiful life.


224 posted on 03/23/2006 6:32:35 AM PST by unixfox (AMERICA - 20 Million ILLEGALS Can't Be Wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Inside a bar is considered a public place. If members of the public are allowed to go into an area, government representatives have the right to go into the area. For example, when I do fire code inspections, I have the legal right to enter, observe and cite any code violations in areas normally open to the public. I cannot enter the storage or office areas without the permission of the owner, though, without a warrant. On a practical basis, owners will not refuse permission. If they did, I would get a warrant. Judges will issue warrants for the purpose of fire inspection.

Additionally, selling liquor is not a "right" but a licensed activity, subject to regulation by the state. In order to get a permit to sell liquor, you must agree to abide by certain provisions. The entry of the TACB officers into the bar is not a constitutional issue (boy I'm going to get flamed for that). The issue is the absurdist way in which the law is being enforced.

225 posted on 03/23/2006 6:37:34 AM PST by Richard Kimball (I like to make everyone's day a little more surreal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Bigs from Michigan
If you wish to sit on your front porch a drink yourself into a stupor, feel free.

Until CPS takes your children away for "negligence" due to a neighbor filing a complaint that you are a "drunkard".

226 posted on 03/23/2006 7:43:06 AM PST by weegee ("Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: gopheraj
Yep, no mercy for a kid's hangover - welcome to young adulthood! You don't get to lay around like you're ill, you gotta get up and hit the ground running. That'll keep ya honest! I gotta say though, over doing it on wine produces a mean hangover!
227 posted on 03/23/2006 8:05:37 AM PST by Sax (Ahmagonnadoajihad - His name says it all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball

"If members of the public are allowed to go into an area, government representatives have the right to go into the area."

Do you think that is right? I don't.


228 posted on 03/23/2006 9:20:25 AM PST by CSM (Lick a finger, politicize the wind, and place the finger into the wind. - EGPWS, 1/26/2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Daytyn71
Related thread:

Public intoxication stings catch 2,200 in Texas bars

2,200 arrests X $500 fine = $1,100,000 in potential fines.

229 posted on 03/23/2006 9:39:32 AM PST by weegee ("Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights.

We don't really need to know anything more about this, do we?

The underlying issue here is private property rights. This will end up being yet another defining case in the effort to extinguish the concept altogether.

230 posted on 03/23/2006 9:42:50 AM PST by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Daytyn71
Well they might been THINKING of driving..
The thought police are testing the concept..
Don't get crazy YET.. ITS JUST A TEST....

The real thing won't happen till John Mclaim or Hillary Clinton get elected as Prez..

231 posted on 03/23/2006 9:44:27 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sax

LOLL Yep. He was never drunk again. He drank but if you watched closely, you could see him sipping and then getting another after he had placed his mostly full beer some place else. He looked like he was drinking along with the rest of the guys but actually wasn't. BTW, I NEVER saw him drink ANY wine after that. LOLL


232 posted on 03/23/2006 9:44:54 AM PST by gopheraj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: CSM

Yeah, I think it's right. I kind of like the idea that a health inspector visits a restaurant and that theaters have fire inspections. I don't like what TACB is doing, as listed on this thread, but this is something that should be addressed politically. It's not a constitutional issue.


233 posted on 03/23/2006 1:23:21 PM PST by Richard Kimball (I like to make everyone's day a little more surreal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Daytyn71
They (TABC) should all be reassigned to the Border Patrol and arrest those who are coming into this country illegally and are actually breaking the law!
234 posted on 03/23/2006 1:26:40 PM PST by bkwells (Liberals=Hypocrites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi
We have far too many cops in this country when they have the time and inclination to judge.

I always get a chuckle out of evening news interviews with cops who lapse into police-ese even when discussing the most trivial of subjects. "They got out of the car" becomes "Driver and passenger occupying the rightmost front seat egressed the vehicle." Similar to a nice clear concise word like "suspect" becoming "person of interest." Cops do a dangerous, demanding job but GET OVER THE OFFICIAL BLUSTER!

235 posted on 03/23/2006 1:38:52 PM PST by relictele
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: relictele
The citizens of this town, if they are upset enough, could get the local government to pass a law that completely prohibits LEO's from drinking at any time.

Then we'd see how quick they;d be to pre-emtively confront the citizens.

236 posted on 03/23/2006 2:17:18 PM PST by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball

Much like AAA's rating system for hotels, I'd bet that private commpanies would do a better job inspecting and certifying private property than the government does today.


237 posted on 03/24/2006 1:36:00 PM PST by CSM (Lick a finger, politicize the wind, and place the finger into the wind. - EGPWS, 1/26/2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: MRMEAN
Being intoxicated to the point of presenting a danger to yourself or others is grounds for arrest.

That is the Law in Texas, and that is what the State must prove.

Request a jury trial and have everyone with you testify in your behalf (if you really weren't dangerous). Its not an easy thing to prove.

238 posted on 03/24/2006 1:54:59 PM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
I suspect, that, like with DUI, it's "guilty until proven innocent," and that once the cop "articulates" that someone is intoxicated, by claiming that the arrestee had "Loud or slurred speech, exaggerated movements and unsteady balance..." that in the Texas courts that will be equivalent to "presenting a danger..." -- but I agree, that's what people should do, take the JBTs to court and make them prove it.
239 posted on 03/24/2006 9:52:17 PM PST by MRMEAN (Corruptisima republica plurimae leges. -- Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-239 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson