cpt.fass2
Member
+1|6837
OK I took this from an other post so I'm not sure if the links work, but it's getting rediculas in this country. Forget the Patriot act, and all the "protective mesures" we're taking that will produce more revinue for the police state most of us live in. This is just out of control and not the only state doing it request and I'll post the other link and artical on this stuff.




<b><i>Now, what are we going to do about it? Perhaps we stay at home and <a href="http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/FunFacts/Prohibition.html">drink gin from teacups</a>?</i></b>



<a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/032406dntexbardrinkers.10b9f8a.html">Drinking arrests rile bar patrons
Effort goes too far, say 2 who were jailed in intoxication crackdown"</a>


06:42 AM CST on Friday, March 24, 2006
By PETE SLOVER and ERIC AASEN / The Dallas Morning News


All Burton Byers wanted was a burger and a beer – or six – at his Irving hotel.

In return, he traded his seat at the bar for a spot in jail – and unemployment.

Mr. Byers and others are still fuming two weeks after being accused of public intoxication by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, part of stepped-up enforcement efforts statewide in establishments that serve liquor. The campaign, which also involves local police, brought agents to Irving on the weekend of March 10-12.

"I could not believe [it]," Mr. Byers said, recounting that nobody in the bar was fighting or causing problems. "I've been in a lot of states, and you go in a bar to do one thing, and that's to drink alcohol."

Commission officials are defending the actions, noting that being drunk in public is against the law and that any place licensed to serve booze is, by law, a public place – including restaurants in dry areas that sell so-called private memberships to let patrons drink.

Tell Us
Help or hassle? Share your thoughts on the issue. Comment | View Results The agency's focus, a spokeswoman said, is to rein in people whose alcohol use could make them a danger to themselves or others – especially by driving drunk.

In the six months ending in February, the agency issued 2,281 criminal citations, nearly double the amount of the same period the previous year.

Some drinkers, though, say the state is going too far in targeting bar patrons who may have no intention of driving anywhere – Mr. Byers, for instance, said he was merely going to retire to his room in the same hotel. And some fear that having officers quietly monitor drinkers and make judgment calls about whether they pose a threat could lead to Big Brother-type abuses.

Mr. Byers, 41, said he was relaxing at the Circle Spur Saloon at the Clarion Hotel where he was staying, near the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, when officers approached him. Apparently, undercover alcohol commission agents had identified him as drunk, either by his behavior or by the number of beers he said he had consumed – key indicators of intoxication, according to the agency. Mr. Byers said he had no more than six beers.

Mr. Byers, a resident of Rogers, Ark., who is the director of maintenance for an aircraft charter company, was taken outside, handcuffed and sent to the Irving jail, where he posted $360 bond and was released. He had traveled to Dallas to help repair a plane and lost his job afterward, in part because of the arrest, he said.

Happy, or drunk?
A Clarion official declined to comment, but a bartender at another location targeted that night said he and his managers share customers' concerns.

"They feel like its violating their rights. How can you give somebody a public intox? That's what you go to a bar for," said Todd Williams, 27, a supervisor at Boston's Restaurant and Sports Bar on Market Place Boulevard in Irving.

Agents might easily mistake the rowdy atmosphere of a sports bar for drunkenness, Mr. Williams said.

"People are just laughing and having a good time," he said, describing the case of an off-duty restaurant employee who was arrested. "He's just kind of a loud and friendly guy. They might have taken him for being drunk."

Carolyn Beck, the alcohol commission's public information officer, said that officers take steps to confirm drunkenness, such as moving the patrons to a quiet location to observe them.

The legal requirements are different for proving public intoxication than for proving a person is driving under the influence, she said. The standard is not whether a person has a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent; it's whether the person poses a threat to themselves or others.

Officers' observations
So no blood alcohol or breathalyzer tests are required, and convictions – usually class C misdemeanors, with fines but no jail time– often depend on officers' observation of certain symptoms: slurred speech, staggering or loss of balance, bloodshot eyes.

And as with drunken driving, Ms. Beck said, police don't have to wait for a person to harm somebody or themselves to make an arrest.

"Lots of people drive under the influence every day and get home without hurting anybody," she said. "It's the likelihood that you'll hurt somebody if you're driving drunk: that's why they made it illegal."

Mike Lessard, 45, was arrested at Texas Bar & Grill on Las Colinas Boulevard and also spent the night in jail.

He said he was having a pleasant evening, downing a few beers after work, when a plainclothes officer summoned him outside to be arrested.

"I had no idea that some guy could just tap me on the shoulder and say they'd like to see us outside," the Irving resident said. "I was thrown by the whole thing. I didn't know they had any right to do that."

Mr. Lessard said he wasn't sure how much he had been drinking but said he wasn't noticeably impaired and felt in control. He said that if had been drinking too much, he would have found a ride home.

In a memo sent to the city officials this week, Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said that he had fielded "a number of unverified complaints regarding the reasonableness of some arrests made during this operation."

"In general, I believe it serves the best interest of our citizens to ensure that the premises licensed to sell alcohol in Irving are conducting themselves within the parameters of the law," he wrote to Assistant City Manager Gilbert Perales. He called Irving police's participation "consistent with this objective."

Still, Chief Boyd said, he planned to meet with alcoholic beverage commission officials to discuss concerns about the operation.

In 2003, a similar effort in Virginia was halted after an outcry from officials and the public. Ms. Beck, the Texas commission spokeswoman, said that the department is confident that the arrests are legitimate and that lawmakers approve of the program.

"We've had a lot of contact over at the Legislature, and they gave us additional personnel for this effort," she said.

Pete Slover reported from Austin; Eric Aasen reported from Irving.

E-mail [email protected] and [email protected]
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6999|Atlanta, GA USA
Yeah I read about this the other day.  It is totally ridiculous.  They claim that they are doing it to prevent drunk driving, but they arrest a guy in the bar at the hotel he's staying at?  WTF???  What do they think he's gonna do.  Go drive around for a little while before heading up to his room to crash?
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6963|California
Yet another reason for me to move to Holland.
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7065
oh the outrage !
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6963|California
Related to another post Horseman.... lol.
Kaosdad
Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
+201|6907|Broadlands, VA
First let me say that I have seen WAY too many folks killed because of drunk drivers.  Simple rule - you drink - do NOT drive.  It's irresponsible.

HOWEVER - The actions described above are outragous.  It's liek the joke where the game warden issues a woman a ticket for illegal fishing because she has a rod and tackle in the car and "has the means to break the law."  She has him arrested for rape because he has...well, you get the pucture.

This is purly & obviously a means for a loacality to fund its coffers through visitor's cash.
cpt.fass2
Member
+1|6837
Well he's the second post that brings up some good point on it. This is an outrage, it's violating the "freedom" we have in this country.

"Wow,” you’re probably thinking. “Good thing we live in America. Where’d that happen anyway? Iraq? China? F---ing Nazi Germany? Or is that nasty little episode from one of George Orwell’s anti-Utopian yarns?”

I got news for you, pal. That ugly scenario didn’t take place in some foreign tyranny, and it wasn’t dreamt up by some manic-depressive science-fiction novelist. It happened right here. Right now. In America.

In Fairfax, VA to be precise. The police there have decided that getting drunk in a bar is an arrestable offense worth enforcing. You don’t have to be starting trouble, getting in a fight, or climbing behind a wheel — the simple act of drinking in a bar gives them enough probable cause to harass and subject you to tests. And if you actually have the gall to have more than a couple beers while in that bar, you’re going to jail and getting fixed up with a nice criminal record.

“They drew attention to themselves by their actions,” Lt. Tor Bennett, assistant commander of the Reston District station, would later swear in an attempt to justify the raids. But since even stone-sober designated drivers were interrogated and tested, the actions he’s talking about apparently consist of stepping inside a business that sells liquor. Or singing karaoke. One of the dozen patrons arrested during the sweep says his only crime was wearing a Santa suit, having a couple beers and singing “Jingle Bell Rock” into a karaoke machine. The instant he hit the last note a cop took him to outside and moments later he was taking a sleigh ride to the slammer. And you have to ask yourself, If they’re willing to arrest goddamn Santa Claus for belting out a Xmas song with a beer in his hand, what chance do us regular drunks stand?

“We’re not talking about overzealousness here,” Bennett added, then, rather strangely, added that the uniformed policemen raiding the bars were accompanied by members of the police bicycle patrol clad in nylon pants and polo shirts. The only reason he would throw in that odd fact, it seems to me, is to somehow lend the impression that proper fascists eager to trample on basic rights would never dream of wearing bicycle shorts and polo shirts.

By now you’re probably wondering, “Why? Why the hell would they do this? How do they profit by arresting some guy having an after work beer in his local watering hole, minding his own business?”

My theory is the police chief went out and watched the Steven Spielberg film Minority Report and thought, “Hey, if futuristic cop Tom Cruise can use a trio of all-seeing mutant psychics to justify arresting people before they actually commit a crime, why the hell can’t we?”

The only problem is, the Fairfax PD doesn’t have three all-seeing mutant psychics on their payroll. The don’t even have one. So instead they decided to take a broader approach, arresting drinkers who they had a hunch might commit a crime. You know, the same principle as arresting poor people for being poor, because they’re most likely to steal things.

To be fair, the Fairfax PD didn’t just start sending out arrest teams to bars at random, they did a little investigating first. They infiltrated undercover cops and Alcohol Beverage Control agents into thirty or so bars during the holidays, searching for patrons who were having a little too good of a time. During the holidays.

Sure enough, these spies returned to the precinct with strange and terrible stories to tell: yes, these bar denizens were drinking more than a couple beers in a sitting. What’s more, they sometimes slurred their words, walked with strange, nearly inhuman gaits, and sometimes they would even laugh like lunatics at jokes a right-thinking sober citizen wouldn’t waste a grimace on. Alerted to this obviously deviant behavior, the chief decided he had but one responsible course of action: It was high time to crush those goddamn drunkards' groove.

Unsurprisingly, a firestorm of controversy erupted in the conservative press in the aftermath of the raids. What is surprising is that the Fairfax PD refused to apologize for their stormtrooper tactics. The chief considered the raids a great success, and bragged they would do it again, and soon.

“The enforcement of such laws is to clearly send a message to the community that we will not tolerate illegal use of alcohol,” the Fairfax PD’s statement to the press explained.

But what exactly is illegal use of alcohol? During the raids the policemen used a BAC standard of .08 as grounds for arrest. The thing is, .08 is the level at which it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle, not sit on a barstool. Virginia law doesn’t specify what level of blood alcohol constitutes public drunkenness. Virginia Code 18.2-388, which covers “Profane swearing and intoxication in public,” makes no mention of BAC at all. Rather, it states: “If any person profanely curses or swears or is intoxicated in public, whether such intoxication results from alcohol, narcotic drug or other intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, he shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.”

So, theoretically, they can lock you up after one beer. There is no word yet if the Fairfax PD will next crack down on those scofflaws who like to curse in public.

“You could be anybody, anywhere,” says one of the bar patrons swept up in the raids, “and they can take you out and throw you in jail. I didn’t do anything other than to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

And that place and time appears to be in a bar while it’s open for business.

“Good thing we have the ACLU on our side,” you’re probably thinking. “I mean, if they’re willing to defend Nazis and child molesters, surely they will leap to the defense of we oppressed drunks.”

Don’t hold your breath. When told of the raids, local ACLU lawyers quietly expressed “concern.” Enough concern to take legal action?

Uh, no.

The local liquor lobby’s reaction went a little beyond concern. “It does smack of a pending police state if law enforcement is going into establishments to monitor behavior,” said Lynne Breaux, executive director of the Metropolitan Washington Restaurant Association. Pending? Hey, Lynne, it’s already here.

For Fairfax is not an isolated incident. Reacting to the Princeton Review’s labeling Indiana University America’s top party school, campus police recently initiated a bellicose new program of arresting students for walking home drunk, even if they were steps away from the door of their dorms.

When confronted with possibility that the crackdown on walkers is likely to encourage drunk students to drive home from parties, Indiana University PD Lt. Jerry Minger stated, and I’m not making this up: “Alcohol abuse is the problem, not the issue of whether or not you are going to drive.”

It’s funny. Civil libertarians have recently started howling about eroding freedoms in the wake of 9/11 and the passing of the Patriot Act. It is unconstitutional, they say, to pull over someone just because he looks a little like a terrorist, and if such a law is passed, they will scream bloody murder.

Drinkers, on the other hand, will probably shrug it off. Why shouldn’t we, since we’ve been subjected to exactly that sort of treatment for nearly two decades. I’m talking about roadside sobriety checks, of course. Within the confines of that law, the police can stop you, shine a light in your eyes, demand to see your documentation, then, if they suspect you’ve had a few, have the right to conduct a roadside sobriety test.

Which begs the question: why are drunks so easily stripped of their rights? What or who created the environment that would allow unconstitutional sobriety checkpoints, bar raids and the incarceration of staggerers?

You know who. It’s those goddamn Mothers. The multi-million dollar corporation known as MADD has done more to erode civil liberties in this country than all the terrorist attacks in the world. And they’re not done. Not by half.

Faced with declining profits and waning public interest, MADD has launched a new campaign called Getting MADD All Over Again. Since they’ve accomplished all their early objectives, what’s on their agenda this time? Plenty. Here's a taste of some of their new goals:

A federal billion dollar a year fund earmarked for setting up and enforcing sobriety checkpoints across the entire nation. Who’s going to pay for it? You, the taxpayer.

New laws that will allow police to pull over drivers because they’re not wearing seat belts. Why? MADD quite openly states such a law could be used as an excuse to pull over motorists who might have drank but aren’t driving erratically.

Criminal charges for drivers who refuse to take Breathalyzer tests.

Alcohol advertisers are to be restricted from advertising on television unless 90 percent of the audience is over the age of 21. What programs would meet that standard? None.

Actors in beer commercials must be over the age of 30, cannot appeal to youth in any way, or have anything to do with music, sports, or any other subject that might appeal to young people. Essentially, the only commercial that would meet their criteria would be one with an unattractive, dour-faced, middle-aged male brooding in a dark, unfurnished room with a beer in his hand. With his evil mouth shut.


The Canadian branch of MADD is demanding a national law that would make a .05 BAC a criminal offense. Driving with a BAC of .05 is as statistically dangerous as driving three miles per hour over the speed limit. Is MADD pushing for the incarceration of people who drive three miles per hour over the limit? No. Why? Because everyone would be in jail.


Massive new excise taxes on beer. So people will buy less. It’s the same logic as raising the taxes on food, to prevent obesity.

The fact that MADD isn’t demanding higher taxes on hard liquor seems bizarre until you realize the liquor lobby pays off MADD with huge grants every year. The beer industry, to their credit, refuses to get in bed with the Mothers.

Up to now MADD has strutted around like a widowed queen, vacillating wildly between uncontrollable fits of weeping and paranoid barrages of cruel invectives, and no one in the kingdom dared challenge her.[*] But that’s starting to change. She has demanded so many executions, has restricted so many freedoms that even those in her entourage are starting to wonder if she’s gone too far. There are whispers that she has gone mad with power and bloodlust, and the media -- once her most loyal of henchmen -- is beginning to speak against her.

“I think MADD’s mission has shifted from getting and keeping drunk drivers off the road to attacking the product, point of sale, advertising and level of taxation paid on beer,” says David Rehr, president of the National Beer Wholesalers Association in Washington, D.C. “I think this neoprohibitionist agenda will ultimately catch up with MADD and destroy it, whether it’s five years from now, 10 or 15. You can’t sustain policies at odds with the behavior of the average American and continue to get support.”

This article, describing this actual event (NOT FICTION) is from "The Modern Drunkard," February, 2003---www.drunkard.com

Comments on the police tactics and arrests: "In our view, law enforcement is doing its job. We consider Fairfax County police to be everyday heroes," said Chuck Hurley, an official with the National Transportation Council and former national board member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. (MADD policy, government policy. Same people, same policy.)

*Perceived as anti-feminist by some, this alludes to the wicked queen in the fairy tale, Cinderella. On could argue that since MADD is a male dominated and male-run corporation, the allusion should be to a man instead. ---getMADD.
cpt.fass2
Member
+1|6837

Kaosdad008 wrote:

First let me say that I have seen WAY too many folks killed because of drunk drivers.  Simple rule - you drink - do NOT drive.  It's irresponsible.

HOWEVER - The actions described above are outragous.  It's liek the joke where the game warden issues a woman a ticket for illegal fishing because she has a rod and tackle in the car and "has the means to break the law."  She has him arrested for rape because he has...well, you get the pucture.

This is purly & obviously a means for a loacality to fund its coffers through visitor's cash.
But there weren't all visitor's and it's happened in other area's as well. Which means it could be happening in your town as well, so you sitting at a bar having a few drinks with you DD by your side. Next thing you know here's a 350-500 dollar ticket for you being too drunk. 

Now everyone knows that Drunk driving accidents happen and I'm sorry if you've lost someone, I've lost a few. But I cherish freedom and would hate for my children to have less freedoms then we do, my generation already has less freedoms then the ones before.

Next thing we know we won't be able to leave the house because it's a safety issue. Death is a natural thing, it's going to happen to all of us and it sucks when someone dies of an unnatural cause, but I don't want to live life if it's not worth living.
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6999|Atlanta, GA USA
Yeah, I've always thought MADD was a bunch of zealots, and this just reinforces that line of thinking.  Their original aims are honorable (to stop drunk driving), but they have obviously gone too far, and, IMO, they have way too much clout with lawmakers and law enforcement officials.
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6999|Atlanta, GA USA

cpt.fass2 wrote:

Kaosdad008 wrote:

First let me say that I have seen WAY too many folks killed because of drunk drivers.  Simple rule - you drink - do NOT drive.  It's irresponsible.

HOWEVER - The actions described above are outragous.  It's liek the joke where the game warden issues a woman a ticket for illegal fishing because she has a rod and tackle in the car and "has the means to break the law."  She has him arrested for rape because he has...well, you get the pucture.

This is purly & obviously a means for a loacality to fund its coffers through visitor's cash.
But there weren't all visitor's and it's happened in other area's as well. Which means it could be happening in your town as well, so you sitting at a bar having a few drinks with you DD by your side. Next thing you know here's a 350-500 dollar ticket for you being too drunk. 

Now everyone knows that Drunk driving accidents happen and I'm sorry if you've lost someone, I've lost a few. But I cherish freedom and would hate for my children to have less freedoms then we do, my generation already has less freedoms then the ones before.

Next thing we know we won't be able to leave the house because it's a safety issue. Death is a natural thing, it's going to happen to all of us and it sucks when someone dies of an unnatural cause, but I don't want to live life if it's not worth living.
Yeah, the thing going on in Texas is being run by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage commision, and appears to be a statewide thing.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6890|USA

Erkut.hv wrote:

Yet another reason for me to move to Holland.
Im with you there.
cpt.fass2
Member
+1|6837
MADD definalty has way to much power with our government, and I hate to say it but you give a group of people who have lost loved ones too much power they are going to think more emotionally then rationally. 

Example, in most cases if you gave them a gun and said they wouldn't get caught if they killed someone the person who made a mistake would be dead.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6879|USA
damn!!..........nothing in this thread I can argue...........moving on

Last edited by lowing (2006-03-24 20:35:35)

BVC
Member
+325|6923
That is SERIOUSLY messed up!  Sending spies into bars to check for people who've been drinking?!!  Next they'll be saying "show me your papers, comrade!"
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7065

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Erkut.hv wrote:

Yet another reason for me to move to Holland.
Im with you there.
Hey can you bring Kenerio and spark with you ? please.... ?
The Bartenders Son
Member
+42|6921|online
Thats why I drink @ The online BAR! .. let them try and catch me MUUAHHAH AHAHHA

Last edited by The Bartenders Son (2006-03-26 11:25:04)

Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6902|Canberra, AUS

Horseman 77 wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Erkut.hv wrote:

Yet another reason for me to move to Holland.
Im with you there.
Hey can you bring Kenerio and spark with you ? please.... ?
Nay! I like it here.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6879|USA
I agree with everything posted so far.....but.............let me spice this up a little.............suppose the patron was a 2 or 3 time convicted drunk driver..............given the same circumstances as described in the article, how would you feel about it if the police were tracking him and made the same preemptive arrest?

Right now I think I would be ok with that, but I will not firm up until I see if anyone has a good arguement to sway me the other way.
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6999|Atlanta, GA USA
The problem with your argument lowing is that they weren't targeting people with previous drunk driving arrests (which I still feel is wrong, BTW), they are just going up to people who they think are drunk, pulling them aside, and giving them a drunk test.  If they fail, they go to jail.
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6999|Atlanta, GA USA
Here is an update on the situation in Texas:
http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8259254/detail.html
Lawmakers plan to review a state drinking crackdown that uses undercover agents to arrest drunk people in bars.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission program, designed to stem public intoxication and drunken driving, has resulted in more than 2,200 arrests or citations since it began in August.

But the program has been criticized after news reports following the most recent busts, at 30 Dallas-area bars this month.
They've busted 2200 people for this bullshit!
Maybe the lawmakers will see reason and nip this shit in the bud.
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6881

atlvolunteer wrote:

Here is an update on the situation in Texas:
http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8259254/detail.html
Lawmakers plan to review a state drinking crackdown that uses undercover agents to arrest drunk people in bars.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission program, designed to stem public intoxication and drunken driving, has resulted in more than 2,200 arrests or citations since it began in August.

But the program has been criticized after news reports following the most recent busts, at 30 Dallas-area bars this month.
They've busted 2200 people for this bullshit!
Maybe the lawmakers will see reason and nip this shit in the bud.
Or maybe it'll go the other way, now they've got all these improved non-lethal weapons, with police arresting you if you look like you're thinking about drinking alcohol.... 

Now showing at a Speakeasy near you:

The Prohibition Part 2:  Drink Tizer or Eat Taser

(joke probably doesn't work that well for you guys, seeing as I don't think you have Tizer there, it's a UK thing... it's a nasty red soft drink, anyway)
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7005

atlvolunteer wrote:

Maybe the lawmakers will see reason and nip this shit in the bud.
With illegal immigration the way it is I doubt it.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6890|USA
In Texas.....wierd.
*ToRRo*cT|
Spanish Sniper-Wh0re
+199|6971|Malaga, España

Erkut.hv wrote:

Yet another reason for me to move to Holland.
are you sure about that


i'll bet u get sick of how the criminals have the freedom there
they can kill u, no problem they get about 15 years of jail...but if you hit the criminal you're fucked , u get punished by the court...even harder then the criminal itself.
cpt.fass2
Member
+1|6837
Well it's the same here, your not allowed to legal defend yourself. Thanks alt for the update, this is just outragious. What's next getting arrested for having a 6 pack you just picked up in car, because your planning on getting drunk and you obviously have a car so??

Not only is this f-d up but think about what this is going to do to consumers mentally?  Now most people are going to be scared to leave the house, it's a 500 dollar ticket that's 2 weeks pay for alot of people. It's also one of those tickets that's probably easier to plead guilty too then pay for a lawyer. So most people will do just that and admit guilt for less of a headache.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard