Yankees Team Gynecologist: Calling out the entire US for something that happened once in Texas is like calling out every EU nation for some shiat that happened in Slovakia. Maybe not arresting drunks, but some other stuff like rampant police corruption.

Well, the thing is. States are not countries, and are on the whole more homogenous than EU countries as far as I know, so there's a better argument for judging states as a single entity than EU countries. Anyway, my point is that this should not be possible at all in any state, and the fact that it happens in just a single one is baffling. Right?

And I can damn well generalize about the (sortof alledged) freedom of Americans if Americans can!

crypt0z0ic: Try it drunk on LSD. The hallways... with the carpet.. it all looks the same... and you can walk forever, but never get where you were going.

Raoul Duke & Dr. Gonzo know exactly what you mean.



With a bit of luck, his life was ruined forever. Always thinking that just behind some narrow door in all of his favorite bars, men in red woolen shirts are getting incredible kicks from things he'll never know.

Sounds like local cops going way overboard. I saw this on reno 911 once, so I have a little bit of experiance with this subject.

ypsifly
I've met some really cool people from Texas, but your politicians, especially those in Law Enforcement, should be shot or hung.



Eh?

Gibberiberia: Well, the thing is. States are not countries, and are on the whole more homogenous than EU countries as far as I know, so there's a better argument for judging states as a single entity than EU countries. Anyway, my point is that this should not be possible at all in any state, and the fact that it happens in just a single one is baffling. Right?

---

You'd think that should be the case. The reality of the USA, however, is that with its big-ass population, varied landscape, and wide range of lifestyles, you can't expect the same kind of homogeneity that you can from other nations. Even Canada and Australia can't compare, if only because of their relatively tiny populations. Brazil, maybe. The EU of course is far more varied as an entity, but the US is similar. There's a ton of stuff that happens in EU countries that baffles me, even in the western ones like France, but that shouldn't reflect on other member nations, or even France as a whole. Same goes for localized stuff in the US.

ypsifly
I've met some really cool people from Texas, but your politicians, especially those in Law Enforcement, should be shot or hung.



This what you were going for?

/Hope it works this time

Goddammit, I'm HTML retarded evidently.

Yankees Team Gynecologist: There's a ton of stuff that happens in EU countries that baffles me, even in the western ones like France, but that shouldn't reflect on other member nations, or even France as a whole. Same goes for localized stuff in the US.

But but but! Don't you have nation-wide rules that effectively (should) prevent this sort of stuff from happening? I guess I just didn't expect this level of madness from any of the states. I fully get that things will vary from state to state, but that the range go this far is what's amazing to me.

People don't have the right to go to bars and get drunk anymore? WTF? I personally am a control freak; I've never been drunk, and I don't plan on ever getting drunk, because I like my inhibitions right where they are. But that's MY choice to make, damn it! I wouldn't dream of trying to infringe on an adult's right to get smashed off their ass. So long as they're not hurting anyone, it's not the government's business!

so being drunk in texas is a crime?
sounds like false imprisonment to me, but i don't know anything about texas law.

Kentucky has drive through liquor too.

Gibberiberia: But but but! Don't you have nation-wide rules that effectively (should) prevent this sort of stuff from happening?

Like what? The right to get drunk isn't listed in the Bill of Rights as far as I recall...

Just because it's on private property doesn't mean that it's against federal regulations to do anything. It just means that the local police decided to attempt to enforce a law in a very stupid manner.

This is all a really ludicrous action on the part of the police, but keep in mind that none of these people were "at home." I also don't think "public drunkenness" necessarily means "on public property": I'd imagine you could also get arrested on misdemeanor charges while in, for example, a shopping mall or other store. The fact that they were arresting people actually at a bar is ludicrous, but I can't see how any basic rights were violated.

Is there an end to this madness?! America is on a downward spiral, all the signs are smacking us in the face. Is there any hope?!

/locks door, turns of lights, quietly opens beer while hiding in the closet

ypsifly
I've met some really cool people from Texas, but your politicians, especially those in Law Enforcement, should be shot or hung.

They've already got Sheriff Bart, so that's one at least.

/And they was right!

If this happened to me, I would talk to the owner of the hotel this happened at, and explain that if it's a private establishment, I should be protected from this sort of thing. If they don't protect their customers from this, people will stop using the bar.

I'm really, really hoping there's a followup to this with someone suing the officers and several prominent members of society verbally flaying them. Ah, to dream.

Gibberiberia: But but but! Don't you have nation-wide rules that effectively (should) prevent this sort of stuff from happening? I guess I just didn't expect this level of madness from any of the states. I fully get that things will vary from state to state, but that the range go this far is what's amazing to me.

Damn smug Europeans. (kidding)
You didn't expect this level of madness? You are talking about the U.S. right? Maybe you've heard of our President.... The whole damn country is insane! But, I think we're starting to come around lately.

deklund: Like what? The right to get drunk isn't listed in the Bill of Rights as far as I recall...

Right, now I'm not big on the actual details of your laws, so I was just sort of assuming that you couldn't get thrown in jail for being a farktard - that you had to commit some sort of non-bogus crime. And I foolishly assumed that there were more limits to what could reasonably be defined as crimes than what seems to be the case.

"Texas law states that inebriated individuals could be subjected to arrest anywhere for public intoxication"

Even when they are in a PRIVATE - not public - establishment like a bar?

Gibberiberia: But but but! Don't you have nation-wide rules that effectively (should) prevent this sort of stuff from happening? I guess I just didn't expect this level of madness from any of the states. I fully get that things will vary from state to state, but that the range go this far is what's amazing to me.

---

I'm no legal expert, but states are generally on their own when it comes to making internal laws. Only if a law violates the US Constitution (as opposed to the state constitution) can someone actually challenge it before the federal court system. But even these unconstitutional laws and procedures can be enacted and enforced before being struck down by the courts. So, it can easily happen, just not for long.

audionerd

The Unicard thing isn't state-wide law in Texas. The thing is there are a lot of farked up local liquor laws in Texas. There are many counties that are considered to be "damp," where you are allowed to drink, but only sort of. A lot of the local laws allow private clubs to serve drinks, so restaurants in these counties came up with Unicard as a way to classify themselves as a private club. Basically, the restaurant pays a small fee to Unicard, and the customer fills out a free membership application so that they are allowed to order drinks at Unicard establishments. At least I think that is how it works.

/Never understood why I could buy beer at HEB, but had to show a Unicard (on top of my driver's license) in order to have a drink at Chilli's.
//Fark Williamson County

Joe091: You didn't expect this level of madness? You are talking about the U.S. right? Maybe you've heard of our President.... The whole damn country is insane! But, I think we're starting to come around lately.

Actually, no. I didn't. I really thought that states could not make crazy-ass laws like this - arresting people for getting drunk, but otherwise doing nothing harmful. But then, I guess I was being dense and had forgotten that eg. the gays are still being widely discriminated against, which seems widely against the image of "Land of the Free, defender of Democracy", that is still pushed at us. I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.

Don't do the crime if ya can't do the time.

I'm glad that somebody else noticed that the article quoted Steve Harvey ... why!?

/Yee-haw!

Its only a matter of time before they setup breathalyser checkpoints at the door of every bar.

Go to any of the three major upscale districts in the fine city of Dallas and you will encounter scenes that make Roman orgies look like a Steamboat Willie cartoon. We're talking power-tie junior execs and oil-money/ranch money/real estate money millionaires literally vomiting up champagne and Grey Goose onto the mezzanine of Hotel Zsa-Zsa, the 5-star theme resort in the heart of uptown where the yuppie elite trade phone numbers and sex, as topless heiresses rock and sway on the balconies overhead.

Once. Just once, I would like to see this sort of shiat go down in the uptown/Highland Park/University Park district.

OK, how am I the first person to mention this: Ron White
(pardon following HTML impairments... link should work, if not:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000TAZHY/002-9881342-1297640?v=glance&n=517 4

should pop...

(kill me if this is a farking usual post... be kind;new here)

yes, the drive thru beer joints in Ohio are teh whip.... when we were less than 21 yro you could go to these and they would ask you to pop the trunk,... legalites beautiful given the state of 4th ammendment and your trunk...

Yankees Team Gynecologist: So, it can easily happen, just not for long.

Yeah, I mostly understand this. What I don't get is, how on earth something so obvious happens at all - everyone should be able to see they'll get pwned once it hits the courts and stop it at the time someone says "Hey, how about we arrest all the drunks for being drunk?". That is of course, if I was right in that this was unconstitutional or against some other rule, which I just assumed, since it seemed so mad.

Gibberiberia: Right, now I'm not big on the actual details of your laws, so I was just sort of assuming that you couldn't get thrown in jail for being a farktard - that you had to commit some sort of non-bogus crime.

Are you saying that European countries don't enforce any kind of local "disorderly conduct" laws? I can't say I'm that familiar with laws over there either.

Gibberiberia: Right, now I'm not big on the actual details of your laws, so I was just sort of assuming that you couldn't get thrown in jail for being a farktard - that you had to commit some sort of non-bogus crime.

Nope--in theory, you can be thrown in jail for just about any damn thing. Later in your hearing or trial, if it's determined that you were wrongly imprisoned, you get off, the cops who arrested you get disciplined, and you can file a lawsuit if you want. That's why it doesn't happen that often.

And I foolishly assumed that there were more limits to what could reasonably be defined as crimes than what seems to be the case.

Again, nope. Most states are pretty sensible, and there's a lot of stuff they all happen to have in common, but it's up to each one to define what counts as a "crime." Obvious stuff like murder and theft are prohibited nationwide by the wording of the US Constitution (something along the lines of "life, liberty, property"), but things like public misconduct are defined by the states.

What happened to Texas? Just a few years ago there it was LEGAL to have an open container in a vehicle with you as long as you weren't over the limit. Now every cop in the state thinks he's Elliot Ness off raiding speakeasies.

deklund: Are you saying that European countries don't enforce any kind of local "disorderly conduct" laws? I can't say I'm that familiar with laws over there either.

Disorderly conduct would be one thing; if the drunk people were acting obnoxious then I doubt people would care if they were arrested. The point was they were arrested in spite of the fact their conduct was acceptable, purely for being intoxicated.

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Obvious stuff like murder and theft are prohibited nationwide by the wording of the US Constitution (something along the lines of "life, liberty, property"), but things like public misconduct are defined by the states.

Actually there weren't federal laws against murder until after the Civil Rights movement. A few whites who murdered civil rights workers were not getting punished by the states, and at the time the federal government could only imprison them for a few years on the grounds of interfering with civil rights or something.

The Man would probably get shot down there if this is what it's like.

Question how do we solve the problems of groups of drunken men who are 40+ years old hitting on a 12 year old girl as she is walking to the ice machine in the hotel?

Have seen that example sevral times(works in hotel)and believe me it can get veeerrrry akward for the poor girl.

/not a fundie.
//drunks hanging out in lobby are #1 source of problems in hotels.
///Please offer suggestions on how one should deal with above scenario.

Sum Dum Gai: Disorderly conduct would be one thing; if the drunk people were acting obnoxious then I doubt people would care if they were arrested. The point was they were arrested in spite of the fact their conduct was acceptable, purely for being intoxicated.

I'm not trying to defend the actions of the police in this story. I was responding specifically to this comment by Gibberiberia:

Right, now I'm not big on the actual details of your laws, so I was just sort of assuming that you couldn't get thrown in jail for being a farktard - that you had to commit some sort of non-bogus crime.

Disorderly conduct == being a farktard. I was curious how that works in Denmark (and other European countries).

deklund: Are you saying that European countries don't enforce any kind of local "disorderly conduct" laws? I can't say I'm that familiar with laws over there either.

I can only really speak of Denmark, so I'll do that. As far as I know, you can get arrested for being drunk if a) you're in danger, like sleeping naked on a bench in the winter b) you're a threat to other people, property or yourself by being violent.

That's it, I believe. Both of those will likely see you released as soon as your brain is working again (ie. next morning), unless you committed some actual crimes in addition to being a drunkard.

Those seems like reasonable rules to me. Then there are annoying stupid rules like "you can't have open alcohol containers in this area", with signs telling it in the area (main street) and smallish fines for breaking. Which is bullshiat if you ask me, but there you go - idiot rules are everywhere.

Gibberiberia: Actually, no. I didn't. I really thought that states could not make crazy-ass laws like this - arresting people for getting drunk, but otherwise doing nothing harmful. But then, I guess I was being dense and had forgotten that eg. the gays are still being widely discriminated against, which seems widely against the image of "Land of the Free, defender of Democracy", that is still pushed at us. I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.

They can make whatever laws they want, until someone sues them for being unconstitutional. The only people that discriminate against gays where I live are old people, and a few of the rednecks. Most younger people don't care what the hell anybody else does. They can run off and get married all day long as far as I care.

Oh yeah, if you're being a farktard, there are "disorderly conduct" (if I understand that term right) rules as well, but that has nothing to do with being drunk. This seemed to target being drunk - not associated behavior, which is what's setting off my asshattery-meter.

Capt. David Alexander needs
1. Tar
2. Feathers
3. Fence rail
4. Angry mob.

Gibberiberia: Yeah, I mostly understand this. What I don't get is, how on earth something so obvious happens at all - everyone should be able to see they'll get pwned once it hits the courts and stop it at the time someone says "Hey, how about we arrest all the drunks for being drunk?". That is of course, if I was right in that this was unconstitutional or against some other rule, which I just assumed, since it seemed so mad.

---

True, but this is just reflective of the states' autonomy. One of the people arrested could challenge the TABC's actions, which could be found to have violated state or federal law. But the US Constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has the right to be drunk in a bar, punch someone in a boxing match, or every other little thing like that. It may be decided by the courts that there is vaguer wording in the constitution (state or US) that gives people that right, but again, that has to be determined by due process.

It may sound silly that something like this could happen, but this is one of the more absurd examples. You can't just assume everyone in a nation this large will all think the same way, so you can't spell out every little thing in the national Constitution. There are many laws unique to each state where the disparity makes sense because each state has its own set of circumstances. Unfortunately, you also get ridiculous things like this every now and then, but overall I think state autonomy is a more effective way of managing such a large and varied population.

Wren: Have seen that example sevral times(works in hotel)and believe me it can get veeerrrry akward for the poor girl.

Move the bar somewhere where 12-year olds don't happen to drop by? Probably not as easy as it sounds though.

Joe091: The only people that discriminate against gays where I live are old people, and a few of the rednecks. Most younger people don't care what the hell anybody else does. They can run off and get married all day long as far as I care.

Well, some states still discriminate against homosexuals and/or did until recently. Which is my only point: That that happens is far more crazy than this, in my eyes, so I shouldn't be surprised by this at all.

Sum Dum Gai: Actually there weren't federal laws against murder until after the Civil Rights movement. A few whites who murdered civil rights workers were not getting punished by the states, and at the time the federal government could only imprison them for a few years on the grounds of interfering with civil rights or something.

---

True, but wasn't that more a reflection of the racism of the time, and the bigoted judge and all-white jury just going easy? Only so much justice can be enforced if pretty much everyone involved in the decision-making is biased, no matter what the Constitution says.

Thank god in Minnesota public drunkeness is explicitly not a crime

I guess I learned something today. Thanks everyone. You wacky Americans!

Gibberiberia: This seemed to target being drunk - not associated behavior, which is what's setting off my asshattery-meter.

"Public drunkenness" is usually enforced in such a way that it's really the same thing as disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace. You don't generally see police walking around giving random people on the street breathalyzer tests, or arresting people because their speech is slurred. Which makes one ask why laws against public drunkenness are really necessary at all, which is a particularly good question, considering how it can apparently be misused (e.g. in the linked article).

Like "blue laws" enforced in some states (look in Wikipedia if you aren't familiar with the concept), they exist almost more because of tradition rather than anything else.

deklund: Which makes one ask why laws against public drunkenness are really necessary at all, which is a particularly good question, considering how it can apparently be misused (e.g. in the linked article).

Which is exactly what made me hiccup. I just honestly didn't believe things like this was even possible.

Yeah, there should be no need for such laws, since the actual actions are already illegal. The mind boggles.

"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."

Please tell me this article was from The Onion

"Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk," TABC Capt. David Alexander said.


WTF? That statement would earn him an immediate demotion if he lived in Scotland. What a dumbass.

Well gibberiberia that would mean either no hotels with bars or special hotels that dont allow minors.

Oh chronicle13 funny thing about your post is the place I work is in minnesota and less than 2 hours ago a cop was in here. He actually made a disgruntled comment about his job being a professional babysitter only dealing with drunks fighting couples or drunken fighting couples.