Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Think you can check into a hotel, go down to the bar and get drunk before returning to your room? Think again   ( nbc5i.com) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

48975 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Mar 2006 at 1:29 AM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



401 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2006-03-22 07:40:37 AM  
2006-03-22 06:00:17 AM chocoboat

You are full of shiat and you know it. It's essential liberty he's talking about. Not doing shiat that is taking away someone elses. Like driving your car into someone elses at a red light, our good friend Ben wasn't talking about that.
 
2006-03-22 07:41:06 AM  
I love these stories. The police go after Joe Average, the guy that normally defends them tooth and nail. I fully endorse anything that turns the public against the police.


Keep up the good work!
 
2006-03-22 07:46:11 AM  
Raptor_1.4G: Um, how am I full of shiat? The quote says that you should never give up any freedoms in order to gain security. I pointed out how stupid that is, since all of us do exactly that every day- it's called obeying the laws of society. The whole debate is about just where the line between Liberty and Safety should be drawn... it's just plain stupid to say the line shouldn't be drawn at all.

So if you're going to try to insult me, please make more sense next time.
 
2006-03-22 07:47:33 AM  
score another point for smoking pot at home

/if this stands, how legal does it make alcohol... really?
 
2006-03-22 07:48:18 AM  
Paging TABC, RE:"officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights."

THE POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU.
"...A common misunderstanding is that law enforcement
officers have a duty to protect you, if possible. This
is not true. Courts have held that neither the state nor
the police owe a duty to protect the individual. Some of
the more recent court decisions include:


DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989);

Hernandez v. City of Goshen, U.S.C.A. 7th Cir. Mar. 31, 2003;

Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 709, 45 P.3d 1171
(2002);

Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 510 A.2d 1078 (1986);

Everton v. Willard, 468 So.2d 936 (Fla. 1985);

Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84 (4th Cir. 1983);

Weiner v. Metro Transportation Authority, 55 N.Y.2d 175, 448
N.Y.S.2d 141 (1982);

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).

One federal court even boldly proclaimed that "there is no constitutional right to
be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."


Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982)."

/I'm really sorry about all that.
 
2006-03-22 07:50:10 AM  
My wife used to work for a bar in Texas. I would swing by from time to time to hang out and get free drinks. Every now and then the TABC would come in, Gestapo style, and check the books, the amount of alcohol per bottle, the general condition of the patrons and so on. It was ludacris. There would be one guy looking around, one blocking the door so no one could leave, and a couple standing there looking intimidating. No warning, no even talking to the owner. It seemed more like something out of a movie.

Also, Texas has some crazy laws on alcohol and bars and selling alcohol all together.

/hopes to never go back to Texas
//at least Corpus Christi
///the body of christ compells you...
 
2006-03-22 07:59:10 AM  
img76.imageshack.us

I WAS drunk in a bar... they threw me into public

Here I sit, Ass a'flexin'
Givin' birth to another Texan
 
2006-03-22 08:00:23 AM  
"If a guy's got a designated driver, go ahead and let him get toasted," Harvey told NBC 5.

hearhear
 
2006-03-22 08:02:32 AM  
A couple of years ago I got arrested walking home from a bar in Houston and was charged with public intoxication.

Being not a dumbass, I hired a lawyer. His argument was that there was no evidence I was being a danger to myself or to others (that's the standard you see, since there is no defined level that constitutes intoxicated). Staggering down the street singing drunkenly doesn't qualify.

When the state saw I had a lawyer who had a valid argument they dropped the case.

The other part of this that is really scary is that their stated objective was to "curtail drunken driving." You can't arrest people on the suspicion that they may commit a crime in the future. I would like to see them prove that the people were going to drive later. It would be impossible.

FWIW, I haven't had a drink in over two years. But I still go to bars and parties...
 
2006-03-22 08:03:22 AM  
Gothnet: //makes as much sense as some of the anti smoking rants I've read

Yeah, passive drinking is teh killer!!!11
 
2006-03-22 08:07:05 AM  
You guys should give up on the "fighting for freedom abroad" and take that particular struggle home, really.
 
2006-03-22 08:07:28 AM  
Oh, phuq that. I never knew that was the deal in Texas. I had a great time in Austin, I wasn't driving anywhere, and Taco Cabana is the shizznit. And by "great time", I mean hammered.

This is never going to work, because their intention is to get people to drink less, and this isn't going to make it happen. It's just going to piss people off. It's the same way that speed traps don't stop people speeding - everyone speeds on the assumption that there won't be any traps. That's because there are so few of them, on average, that they're usually right. The chance of a trap has some effect, but it's only small.

Same thing with this - you have random checks on bars, and sure, it might have a small effect, but that's about it. And otherwise all it manages to do it piss people off and make them anti-law-enforcement.

This dude's a dumbass.

/ Hey Mr. Ness! They say they're going to repeal Prohibition!! What are you gonna' do then...!?
// Well, I guess I'll have a drink.
 
2006-03-22 08:10:10 AM  
This is why we have the ACLU. Reap it, right-wingers.
 
2006-03-22 08:15:15 AM  
It's all about making money.
Pay a lawyer $1000 to get you off, or pay a fine to the state.
Either way, you're SOL.
 
2006-03-22 08:17:32 AM  
Nanny State is for babies.
 
2006-03-22 08:18:07 AM  
ratboy: It's all about making money.
Pay a lawyer $1000 to get you off, or pay a fine to the state.


$1000? Most hookers will get you off for a lot less than that.
 
2006-03-22 08:18:38 AM  
As much as I loathe drunks and the "drinking culture", this is pretty asinine. They could have just waited outside in the parking lot and blown people stumbling towards their cars.
 
2006-03-22 08:18:41 AM  
"...and you don't look like a steer, so that kinda narrows it down, now don't it?"

www.cinema.com

/I know the quote doesn't exactly match that screen cap, but it's pretty close...
 
2006-03-22 08:21:07 AM  
The office of Professional Responsibility for TABC is thus: http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/opr.htm

They accept complaints by email and describe how to make em'.
 
2006-03-22 08:21:16 AM  
ratboy: Pay a lawyer $1000 to get you off, or pay a fine to the state.

I'd much rather give the lawyer my money. Fark the state and their BS laws.

/I only paid my lawyer $200
 
2006-03-22 08:22:04 AM  
Every now and then the TABC would come in, Gestapo style, and check the books, the amount of alcohol per bottle, the general condition of the patrons and so on. It was ludacris

Wow! Who'd have thought he'd have the time to work for law enforcement, what with his rap career and all!
 
2006-03-22 08:22:17 AM  
"They could have just waited outside in the parking lot and blown people stumbling towards their cars."

That would be mighty generous.

Wait...what are we talking about here?
 
2006-03-22 08:23:09 AM  
First you can't smoke in the bar, and now you can't drink. Just get a couple of bookshelves in there and then tell them not to talk.
 
2006-03-22 08:23:27 AM  
Wren: 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?

Would locking you in your room curtail the problem to a significant extent?..
 
2006-03-22 08:26:33 AM  
palad: They could have just waited outside in the parking lot and blown people stumbling towards their cars.

Actually having to possibly run a few steps to catch a drunken stumbler is hard work, you know.
 
2006-03-22 08:31:21 AM  
Starting to think we need a new tag called Texas, or Bushland or something. Actually, I guess the other state that's a tag is a Bushland too, so that would probably just confuse everybody.
 
2006-03-22 08:33:28 AM  
The coppers may as well arrest everyone if all they have to be concerned with is what a person may conceivably do.

If you enter a bank you may rob it.

If you're married you just might murder your wife.
 
2006-03-22 08:35:13 AM  
I knew there was a reason I avoid Irving.
 
2006-03-22 08:37:59 AM  
"TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights"

must be a texas thing.

/morans
 
2006-03-22 08:39:43 AM  
not like this is a new law or anything, they're just choosing to enforce it in this case. Yes, it's a stupid and lame law.

But it's the law, and has been for many years.

Don't like it? Fight it.

Fight it in the courts, or by becoming a legislator and shooting it down. Either way works for me. I'll bet you would get elected pretty fast.

Oh, what, there are already legislators, but they're not doing anything?
 
2006-03-22 08:42:01 AM  
palad: They could have just waited outside in the parking lot and blown people stumbling towards their cars.

HA! The cops never do it right...too much tongue.

Anyway, even stumbling towards their car doesn't prove anything, maybe they're just stumbling to the hotel across the street to sleep it off and their car happens to be between here and there. Maybe they're just going to their car to get the sandwich they left there.

Doesn't even prove public intoxication--this isn't the same as drunk in public. Drunk in public is a phrase, not a law, and not a crime either. Public Intoxication is only applicable if the person is being a danger to themselves or to others.
 
2006-03-22 08:43:30 AM  
KnickKnolte: If you're married you just might murder your wife.

You must know my ex.
 
2006-03-22 08:45:16 AM  
CanSomeonePleaseKilltheChristmasShoes: I never gave up the to drive as I please, and red lights would be much more helpfull to over all traffic flow if they were optional or recommendations. If their is no car within miles of you, you should zoom through red lights. (not an option in a police state like US)

I'm sorry, but this is the most dumb-shiat comment I've read in a while.

If there are no cars within miles of you, there IS no traffic flow. You waiting 30-40 seconds at a red light is not impeding anything but your own impatience.

Do you really want to trust drivers to make up their own minds as to when to obey red lights and when not to? Might as well attach a sign to every green light "Warning: Proceed with caution. Cross traffic may not be obeying red light"
 
2006-03-22 08:46:11 AM  
Any anti-smoker drinkers in here?

Good... I hope you enjoy the ride.
 
2006-03-22 08:46:24 AM  
Proactive law enforcement makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
 
2006-03-22 08:47:14 AM  
"The coppers may as well arrest everyone if all they have to be concerned with is what a person may conceivably do."

Just start assigning prison terms at birth.

"It's a boy! Congrats! Give him 25 years, looks like a potential rapist."
 
2006-03-22 08:47:23 AM  
I guess this is another example of the government doing something "for your safety".

Dallas area farkers: Payback time! 1) Make sure you have no warrants or other things the police would be after you for. 2) Go to a police bar 3) Find at least 2 officers that are known drunk. 4) Call the police and DEMAND that the officers be arrested for public intoxication. 5) Tell them FARK.COM sent you!

You will very quickly find out there is a double standard, and that the law doesn't apply to them. Why? Because, it's subjective and the fellow officers aren't going to think the same way you would. Plus, they have power, and could start harrassing you.
 
2006-03-22 08:49:14 AM  
officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights.

officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights.

officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights.

officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights.

officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights.


Maybe if this gets repeated enough, you collectivist/"governments serve a purpose" types will get the picture. I doubt it.
 
2006-03-22 08:49:23 AM  
So you can also get a ticket for speeding before getting in your car because your car will do over the posted speed limit too? Fark Texas.
 
2006-03-22 08:49:35 AM  
The first thing my brother learned at Rutgers law: don't commit a crime in Texas, in fact avoid Texas if at all possible.
 
2006-03-22 08:52:11 AM  
Texas is where the revolution is supposed to start for crying out loud. Somebody get these cops up against a wall.
 
2006-03-22 08:54:55 AM  
Let's arrest drunks in the name of Jesus!

//That's America, to me!
 
2006-03-22 08:57:27 AM  
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.

I don't remember a lot from civics class, but I'm pretty sure the Constitution isn't an enumerated list of the rights of The People. Instead, it's a limiting factor on the government, saying "The government can do X, Y, and Z. The People have the rest of the rights, such as for example A, B, and C."

Unfortunately, the common view nowadays is that if a right isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist, which goes against the plain meaning of the document.
 
2006-03-22 08:57:34 AM  
What's the big fuss? As long as they serve the public they are a PUBLIC business, not a private one.
 
2006-03-22 08:59:45 AM  
and to think, I thought Texas was the greatest state int he nation!
Oh wait, what the hell am I saying, that is absurd.
Texas, hehe
Was Chuck Norris on the scene?

what a state....or nation or whatever they boast (they can keep it)
 
2006-03-22 09:03:43 AM  
"TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights."

There it is - saftey over freedom. Goodbye USA.
 
2006-03-22 09:04:08 AM  
Remember when the US government used to poison Mexican cannabis with Paraquat in an attempt to eradicate it and to also discourage US consumption?

I fully support the legalized sale of poisoned drugs and alcohol to prevent their illegal use. Bars should randomly drop arsenic in the drinks of those who've had too much. That would solve this problem in a jiffy.

Support our government, you commie bastards!
 
2006-03-22 09:04:45 AM  
Public intoxication? You mean drunk in public? They weren't drunk in public! They were drunk in a bar!

/has nobody else said this already?
//early morning slashies
 
2006-03-22 09:10:31 AM  
Public intoxication? You mean drunk in public? They weren't drunk in public! They were drunk in a bar!


They serve the public. Therefore it's a PUBLIC bar.
 
Rat [TotalFark]
2006-03-22 09:11:04 AM  
Ok, so I go to the 'Gentlemans' bar and I get there early enough for the free buffet (like usual) but there is a two drink minimum since there was no cover charge. Say, for example, that after my two Long Island Teas that I'm sloshed, and basically drunk in public. I order a table dance. She's hot. Where am I going with this?

©
 
Displayed 50 of 401 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report