“Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk,” TABC Capt. David Alexander said.
Since when? 
Color me confused. Your link says nothin about alcohol arrests, or arrests being made because the arrestees were a danger to themselves, or that the events in the link happen “all the time.”
Do people get convicted all the time of being a danger to themselves based simply on an officer’s say so? That was my point. Sorry if it was not clear.
Seems to me that in order to interpret it that way, you have to ignore half of the text of the law. If the legislature meant to outlaw the consumption of any amount of ethanol, why would they have written “to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another”? The fact that they did write it shows that they were aware of a level of consumption that doesn’t endanger the person or another.
The point was that people get convicted “based simply on an officer’s say so” all the time, regardless of whether its about “being a danger to themselves” or any other reason. Admittdely was a famous example of people getting convicted purely on the word of a police officer, rather than proof that its a common occurrence. A more every day example is speeding tickets, it perfectly normal for police to give a speeding ticket “based simply on an officer’s say so” without any radar detector or other corrobarating evidence (friend of mine even challenged this in court, to no avail).
Well maybe not CONVICTED per se, merely for being a danger to themselves, because that in and of itself is not a crime. But they do go in to custody.
Ca. Penal Code Sec. 5150
- When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger
to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace
officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of
an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members
of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other
professional person designated by the county may, upon probable
cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place
him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the
State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour
treatment and evaluation.
I’d assume most dangerous driving convictions would fall under this category…
Still confused. From post #11–
This is what I am talking about. A guy sitting at a hotel bar is arrested for being a danger to himself or others. Are you suggestiing that at a trial the officer need provide no more evidence then his impression? No corroborating testimony? No description of dangerous behavior? As I said–
(Bolding added)
What exactly is a “dangerous driving conviction?”
I see nothing in the OP’s cite, or in the article I read on CNN(?), to indicate that the businesses were cited for serving intoxicated patrons. That should go hand-in-hand with arresting people who are drunk in a bar, shouldn’t it? Sounds to me like they found what they think is a good way to get money from tourists.
Something like this:
Ca. Penal Code Sec. 23103
23103. (a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in
willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is
guilty of reckless driving.
or this:
23103.5. (a) When the prosecution agrees to a plea of guilty or
nolo contendere to a charge of a violation of Section 23103 in
satisfaction of, or as a substitute for, an original charge of a
violation of Section 23152, the prosecution shall state for the
record a factual basis for the satisfaction or substitution,
including whether or not there had been consumption of any alcoholic
beverage or ingestion or administration of any drug, or both, by the
defendant in connection with the offense. The statement shall set
forth the facts that show whether or not there was a consumption of
any alcoholic beverage or the ingestion or administration of any drug
by the defendant in connection with the offense.
I see your point. The text of the law does seem to evidence a legislative assumption that a “non-endangering” level of consumption exists. That said, it would seem that Texas has quite a bit of leeway in deciding where the break off point is for a particular individual. It doesn’t strike me as unreasonable for Texas to determine that some (many? most?) people who drink in bars are consuming enough ethanol to endanger themselves.
Do you believe that the purpose of the (in general) state is to protect us from our own decisions?
And is it sufficient for the officer to merely state that the defendant was driving dangerously, or must he provide some further justification?
Gee. What a great idea. I wonder why they’ve never done that before. 
Bob
I think I see what you are getting at. No the officer cannot just state in court that the defendant was driving recklessly. He must articulate facts that would allow a jury to conclude that the driving was reckless. But still the officer is free to and often does embellish the facts he offers to the jury. So in a sense the conviction is based on the officers statements that the defendant was in fact driving recklessly.
Yes, thats what we’ve been trying to tell you… You would think that to convict someone “beyond reasonable doubt” (whether its a traffic violation, or a seriours offense) would require corroborating evidence but in reality a jury will convict based on the say-so of police officer.
Can you provide a cite for an instance where the only testimony was the officer saying “he was driving dangerously”? Can you provide a cite that it happens “all the time”? That is what you claimed, and I have yet to see the first piece of evidence.
I am going to repost what I said, not to be a smartass, but to re-emphasize that I was referring to a very specific situation. :
You stated that being a danger to oneself was not against the law in Texas. Apparently it is. You then said that a person would not be* convicted*, but could be* confined*, citing *Californ**ia *law. You will pardon me if I consider this to be non-responsive.
I don’t think that these arrests will hold up in court in Texas. Any half-assed defense attorney will ask the officer to describe the behavior that showed the defendant to be dangerous. Simply being intoxicated is not enough.
Man Contrapuntal your name is apt. I did not post what you claimed. I never said what is against the law in Texas. I am done beating my head against this particular wall.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Can you provide a cite for an instance where the only testimony was the officer saying “he was driving dangerously”? Can you provide a cite that it happens “all the time”? That is what you claimed, and I have yet to see the first piece of evidence.
OK first two transcripts from google…