Skip to comments.
Public intoxication stings catch 2,200 in Texas bars
chron.com ^
| 3/23/06
| Anne Marie Kilday
Posted on 03/23/2006 8:18:08 AM PST by takenoprisoner
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420, 421-436 last
To: vikingd00d
What was it Drew Carey used to say?
Drive Thru liquor stores: for you drunk driver that's always on the go.
Hurry up! I've got places to go and people to hit.
To: Texas Mom
I say all of you neo-prohibitionists should stay out of bars.
We aren't talking about a few drinks and getting a little buzzed we are talking about staggering, falling down slurring drunks.
So you saw all of the police reports from all of those arrested, and they were all staggering, falling down, slurring drunks?
Nice try.
To: Romulus
As of about three years ago, I haven't noticed any dearth of folks on this board willing to cheerlead pre-emption as policy. What goes around comes around, even it that's news to some.Pre-emting terrorist attacks against civilians is similiar to pre-emting drunks from having a hangover?
Congrats, you've won today's Idiotic Analogy Award.
To: Texas Mom
Mike Gallagher had one of the Dallas criminals on his show.
The man arrive into DFW and his luggage was "lost". He checked into his hotel and washed up. His luggage was later located and he had to go back to the airport to collect it.
By the time he got back to the hotel, the restaurant had closed. He ordered a burger in the bar and drank 5 beers. Mind you he had no car and was staying at the hotel.
He says that news crews were waiting outside to film the men who were being arrested for PI (shades of the Waco raid). He was not offered a breathalyser test (even when he asked to give one).
Mike also had on a spokeswoman for the TABC. She said that the men are asked by plainclothes officers to step outside so that the test can be administered. To me they do this because while they claim that the bar is a public place, they know that getting the mark to go outside means they ARE in public.
Mike said that he does not drink but that he opposes this program and that a similar tactic and been tried and shouted down in Virginia.
424
posted on
03/27/2006 8:44:05 AM PST
by
weegee
("Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15.")
To: bigdcaldavis
Got to "love" how the politicos push for "sin taxes" on beer and cigarettes yet the State makes a lot of money off of their sales (and makes even more money off the prosecution of those arrested for drinking and smoking in bars).
Follow the money.
If these are bad products, outlaw them. If they are going to be legal, permit their use among like minded individuals.
425
posted on
03/27/2006 8:47:53 AM PST
by
weegee
("Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15.")
To: ARealMothersSonForever
The guest who was on Mike Gallagher's radio show said he will not be staying in Irving anymore. When the host informed him that TABC stands by this policy statewide, he said he may think twice about going to Texas.
Convention business will suffer when out of state visitors get prosecuted by overzealous police forces looking for $350-500 fines.
426
posted on
03/27/2006 8:51:06 AM PST
by
weegee
("Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15.")
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
But it is hardly something that should be considered a Constitutional right Amendment IX : US Constitution
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I guess you missed that part of civics.
427
posted on
03/27/2006 8:54:41 AM PST
by
Centurion2000
(Islam's true face: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J169127BC)
To: Junior_G
What pisses me off is that you can now go to just about any other nation in the world and enjoy numerous freedoms that you can't enjoy in America. That's just backwards and wrong. That was one of the reasons I loved going to Russia. Over there, pay your taxes (13%) and don't try to overthrow the government and guess what? They LEAVE you alone. PC is also non existent there as well.
428
posted on
03/27/2006 8:59:36 AM PST
by
Centurion2000
(Islam's true face: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J169127BC)
To: Centurion2000
PC is also non existent there as well. That is because their despots were overthrown.
Those in America most actively protesting against Communism are immigrants who came from (sometimes former) Communist nations. Meanwhile our universities continue to indoctrinate new Communist sympathizers.
429
posted on
03/27/2006 9:07:25 AM PST
by
weegee
("Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15.")
To: Centurion2000
Amendment IX : US Constitution "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I guess you missed that part of civics. Which you interpret to mean your right to be intoxicated in public? So is there anything you can't do in public? If you want to traipse up and down the street in your birthday suit, the IX Amendment gives you the right to do it? If you can will it, it's your right? That's your position?
430
posted on
03/27/2006 10:37:25 AM PST
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Its hard to believe there are so many on this board that believe arresting a guy who drank 5 beers at a hotel bar is in line with limited government.
But maybe you're right. Since this is a state and local issue, we should petition the government over this. I say from now on, we vote out any modern puritans who want to revive the Anti-Saloon League and the Women's Christian Temperence Union, or anyone who favors the Bar Gestapo playing chaperone to grown adults.
To: GunRunner
Without the full story on both sides of this I think it is patently unfair to make the judgment you suggest. It is oh so tempting to define your opponents stance in the extreme. It is much tougher to search for the details and hear both sides before you pass judgment. I don't know the story well enough to say how I would want my local gov't to act. I just think the anarchy folks are ridiculous (see, everyone can do it). To be more precise, those who claim a constitutional right to public intoxication are ridiculous. I don't know if truth seeking will find that this was poor judgment by the gov't or by the individuals arrested. But it is no one's constitutional right to be in a drunken stupor in public.
432
posted on
03/27/2006 12:06:39 PM PST
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
To: Junior_G
Freedom trumps your puritanical sensibilities.What makes you think the Puritans would've been on the ban alcohol side?
Some "fun" Puritan facts:
- The Puritans loaded more beer than water onto the Mayflower before they cast off for the New World.
- While there wasn't any cranberry sauce, mashed potatoes, sweet potatoes, or pumpkin pie to eat at the first Thanksgiving, there was beer, brandy, gin, and wine to drink.
- A brewery was one of Harvard College's first construction projects so that a steady supply of beer could be served in the student dining halls.
- The early colonialists made alcohol beverages from, among other things, carrots, tomatoes, onions, beets, celery, squash, corn silk, dandelions, and goldenrod.
- The first Kentucky whiskey was made in 1789 by a Baptist minister.
- Colonial taverns were often required to be located near the church or meetinghouse.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/FunFacts/PuritansToProhibition.html
433
posted on
03/27/2006 12:11:42 PM PST
by
ksen
("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
To: ksen
Wow. I guess these people are worse than Puritans then.
To: All
The older I get, the less I like police. I wonder how long it will take before one of these undercover guys is uncovered by some angry Texans in a bar. How many other designated drivers will be suspected of being a cop because they are not partaking in an adult beverage.
Are these undercover officers bringing firearms in these bars? Do they not see any potential downside in all this? If they are trying to incite an angry mob, they are well on their way to doing just that. It would not surprise me if one of these officers paid the ultimate price in this potentially volatile situation.
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
The full story IS known, maybe not for every individual case, but it is clearly evident by the statements made by TABC in the posted article:
In August, 2005, the agency announced it was beginning a crackdown on public intoxication, using both undercover and open operations.
And from what we've heard from several of those arrested, the methods they are using are pretty much the equivalent of pedestrian DUI checkpoints; posting plain clothes undercover officers in private establishments to arrest people who appear to be intoxicated.
This represents such a leap to a police state, that nothing that TABC does in the future (including sending undercover agents into private parties, your home, weddings, office parties) will surprise me.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420, 421-436 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson