My reply was somewhat a reply to ‘what a judge would do’ and/or a ‘private bar/property’.
But you bring up a good point, so I did a quick search and came up with this
(bolding mine)
Seems a pretty liberal definition of ‘cause harm’ given as an example.
Same shit, different asshole.
As I understand it should be. Public property is just that…owned by the local, state, or federal government. Sidewalks, city streets, parks, etc. IF the police show up wanting to search my place of business no matter what it might be, you walk in the door and look around, fine, walking behind the counter, searching offices or back storage areas, no. These areas are not by any stretch “public”. Public property and “open to the public” are VERY VERY different things. I can ask the police to leave my place of business and they are obligated to do so unless they have pressing business there and or a search warrant. People ejected from bars and such by security are not for being drunk in public , its probably because they were being obnoxious or making a scene. Once they are out of the establishment on the sidewalk they are now drunk in public.
I find it hard to believe that any significant proportion of drinkers are doing so just because they like the taste of alcohol. If they didn’t want to be affected by it, they could order nonalcoholic drinks that taste nearly the same, and presumably the slight difference in taste would be outweighed by the fact that they’d maintain a clear head no matter how much they had to drink.
Well, maybe the problem is your association of the word “drug” with dangerous substances. Ibuprofen, Benadryl, and Viagra are drugs too - in fact, your local grocery store has a whole section chock full of drugs that aren’t harming anyone. Alcohol has obvious effects on the mind and body, and it’s a bit more dangerous than some illegal drugs; under any reasonable definition it is a drug.
Wow! Thats crazy… So actual the arresting officer would even have to claim you were a danger to yourself to get a convinction. An alcolhol concentration of 0.08 would mean anyone hows had 2 beers or more could be arrested! That law pretty much criminalizes the entire bar-visiting population of texas.
Wow! Thats crazy… So actual the arresting officer would not even have to claim you were a danger to yourself to get a convinction. An alcolhol concentration of 0.08 would mean anyone hows had 2 beers or more could be arrested! That law pretty much criminalizes the entire bar-visiting population of texas.
Except these guys were neither driving home or walking home. They were staying the hotel. Absent dangerous behavior they were not dangerous men.
From your cite–
It’s a bullshit arrest, unless the agents can provide much more evidence than is in the article.
They may also be asked to leave, just like any member of the public.
I think you are reading that wrong. The 0.08 part defines intoxication. There is a further condition that is prerequisite to arrest; intoxication such that a danger is imminent.
From CNN :
That isn’t fully true, any area where the general public can visit is considered ‘public space’ (an extension of public property). A police officer can go into any store in America and arrest you, without needing an arrest warrent.
You would have a hard time keeping them from doing so, if you allow the general public in.
Unless you are the holder of a license that allows them to do so, such as pharmacy and/or booze and/or hospitality and/or hotel.
Not as different as you seem to think (in a ‘we can come in and do what we want’ kind of way)
I don’t believe that is true, Cite?
They are drunk in public for a lot more than you believe, why someone gets kicked out of a bar has nothing to do with what the police are allowed to do.
Stupid law, maybe; bad tactic, yes; illegal, nope.
I also like this from the same CNN article :
STING operation! These are drunk people in bars, not undercover al qieda operatives. Somehow I don’t really think an alaborate undercover operation is required to find drunk people in bars…
Sounds to me (and maybe it is just me) that being a danger to oneself, could be darn near anything. Perhaps he/she is going to fall off the stairs on the way to their room, arrest them!
No one said being in a bar exempted anyone from anything. You need to practice reading for content. I was making a specific response to a specific post by EEMan. You read far more into my posts than I put into them, and seem to conveniently forget to respond to ones that are (presumably) problematic for you.
I was drunk in the bar… they threw me into public…
I see, Mr 2001. So when MADD is talking about “alcohol and other drugs” they are referring to Benadryl and Advil?
In case you missed it, there has been a shift to the word ‘medications’ or ‘meds’ for legal drugs and the word ‘drug’ implies street drugs.
Go take an advil and then tell someone on the street that you’re on drugs and see what reaction you get.
I said that referring to alcohol as a drug implies that the ONLY reason one would consume it is for it’s effects. Alcohol, in moderation, is a social lubricant as well as a pleasurable beverage. Other drugs, not so much.
I am not trying to pretend that alcohol doesn’t have an effect on the central nervous system, I simply object to it’s being lumped in with illegal drugs by neo-prohibitionists. They are attempting to control the debate by controlling the language and I will not allow it.
I have no idea how things go in Texas. In some counties in my state (NC) nearly 50% of *drunk driving charges *are dismissed for reasons such as faulty clibration of equipment, officers failing to show in court, etc. These are cases where the defendant blew more than 0.08 on the Breathalyzer, which is prima facie evidence of driving drunk, supposedly. Without trying to antagonize anyone, I will repeat that I cannot imagine anyone being convicted simply because the arresting officer claims that they were a danger to themselves or others. Any decent defense attorney would demand further justification. Remember, this happened in a public place. There were witnesses. It is not just one word against another.
For crime that will cost you $250? I’m guessing most just pay it off, they certainly aren’t going to hire a lawyer, and I doubt it would go to jury. It isn’t like moving violation that will cost you the ability to drive.
I’m also not aware of anyone who uses a Breathalyzer as the sole means to proving intoxication (normally an alchol-meter of some sort in the field, then back to the station for a Breathalyzer and/or blood test; as well as field tests to check for imparment). I also believe most statues have a clause allowing you to be charged with DUI (don’t think they call it DWI anymore, but that might not be true of all areas), even below .08 (or the local limit) given signs of imparement
But where they’re really going to clean up is with the speed trap at their upcoming NASCAR races in Texas.
I think it’s clear from context that they’re referring to alcohol and other psychoactive drugs. Of course, MADD is hardly an authority on rational thought. 
Well, I have no problem with it being lumped in with other psychoactive drugs, but I’m no neo-prohibitionist. The only real difference between alcohol and illegal psychoactive drugs is that alcohol is legal (for some people) and it has a history of being used in our culture. I believe they should be treated the same way under the law, but I’d prefer legalization, not prohibition.