The journey from there to here

Imagine this scenario: You have just arrived at your favorite buffet. Armed with utensils, you proceed to fill up your plate. You finish your meal and go back for seconds. A man from the table next to you approaches you, cuffs you, and arrests you for public gluttony.

This scenario might seem like something that would play out in a bad, unbelievable science fiction novel, but the simple truth is, we're already headed in that direction. When we gave police officers the power to go into strip clubs and "adult movie houses" to arrest people who were, umm, taking certain matters into their own hands, we employed a logic that has never been sensible in a free society: that what you do behind closed doors DOES matter, and that the government has a right to regulate your behaviour to ensure your own safety.

The logic has recently been extended, in the state of Texas at least, to include police officers trolling the bars to arrest people for public intoxication. The logic is that it will stop drinking and driving, but the logic does not hold, because it presumes a behaviour that is not necessarily guaranteed. While I wouldn't argue the RIGHT of Texas law enforcement officials to uphold a law already on the books, I would argue that their actions certainly give us cause to question the validity of such laws in the first place. Baker rightly commented on terpfan's thread on the police issue that government only has as much power as we give it. That is why we must stop giving it so much power.

The long term implications of these actions are terrible. In Texas, if you're a member of a country club, you are in a private club, and there would be no right to enforce such a law. So the wealthy, of course, are immune to these actions. And as an increasing number of employers require background checks, a growing number of Texans stand to become part of a permanent underclass because of their free time activities, regardless of how responsible they are in the exercise of those activities. Certainly noone is going to advance to a boardroom with a number of public intoxication convictions on their "rap sheet".

We need our police force to protect and to serve. They SHOULD be there for domestic assault; they SHOULD be there to answer a rape call. They should not be there to police activities of individuals who are doing no public harm in the course of their actions. To do so wastes the money of taxpayers and leads to greater resentment of the lower class towards a police force that was allegedly designed to protect them, but is increasingly being employed to harass them.


Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Apr 01, 2006
Broad authority? The police are charged with law enforcement. That's their job.

All I know is that I run in Texas all the time, and I visit bars in Texas quite often. I also don't get sloppy drunk. I have never been bothered, nor have I seen anyone else bothered. I drink in bars all over Texas, small towns, and large cities.

If a person can't go out to a bar and enjoy a few drinks and some social activity without getting so drunk they have to worry about being arrested for public drunkenness perhaps they have no business going to a bar in the first place.

What's absurd is to say that the police shouldn't be making efforts to enforce the law just because it somehow cramps your style or social life. They are paid to enforce the law, and that's what they're doing.

Again, you try to make it sound like they are arresting people for simply being in a bar and having a drink or two, but I've seen nothing to support this paranoid assertion.
on Apr 01, 2006
Gid, you either have to accept that people:

a) have the right to make such things as public intoxication illegal
demand that all laws have enough riders and exceptions to satisfy almost everyone
c) tell us we can't make such laws at all.

I don't really understand how you would propose to fix this. You could redefine the concepts of public and private. You could redefine the law, tagging on an ever changing list of places that it shouldn't count, amending it every time we come up with new places.

Or, sometimes a cigar isn't a social issue, it's just a cigar. Maybe, just maybe, people just wanted to make a law that kept the sloppy drunks out of their face when they are in public. Maybe they pondered the need to make it just chuck e. cheeses, and decided that it was too big of a pain to make a list of places it was okay or not okay to be drunk.
on Apr 03, 2006
Broad authority? The police are charged with law enforcement. That's their job.

All I know is that I run in Texas all the time, and I visit bars in Texas quite often. I also don't get sloppy drunk. I have never been bothered, nor have I seen anyone else bothered. I drink in bars all over Texas, small towns, and large cities.


You're right, Mason, the police officers getting on the nightly news beating their chests and telling us they're going to bust us for being drunk in bars are really just conspiracy theorists who are impersonating cops (rolls eyes)
on Apr 03, 2006
"You're right, Mason, the police officers getting on the nightly news beating their chests and telling us they're going to bust us for being drunk in bars are really just conspiracy theorists who are impersonating cops (rolls eyes)"


Again, maybe the thing to do is change the law, instead of just insisting that the police are wrong for enforcing it. There's no difference between being drunk in a mall or a bar, both are privately owned, both are public.

If you want to go in and start specifying where you can and can't be drunk, great. You're just going to make more complex laws and more government definition of our lives, though.
on Apr 04, 2006
nothing good is gonna result from assigning cops to hang out in bars. alternatively, they could conduct surveillance outside bars (which would mean most of the state of wisconsin would have to be deputized).

OR...when there's evidence of a bar owner outta compliance with requirements of his or her license resulting in an increase of complaints from neighbors or police contact with patrons of the place, the city pulls the license causing the problem to go away.
on Apr 04, 2006
They have no sobriety standards for public intoxication, mason. So one person's "drunk" could be another person's "tipsy".


i suggested an alternative in reply #23 to bakerstreet's 'liberty's dichotomy' article Link
on Apr 04, 2006

Again, maybe the thing to do is change the law, instead of just insisting that the police are wrong for enforcing it.

Baker,

You're right. You're 100% right. But HOW DO YOU CHANGE A LAW? Do I wave a magic wand and say "unjust law, go away?" Nope, it doesn't work like that.

You change a law by POINTING OUT the folly of the law as written. You have to write articles, inform the public. Another step in changing the law is to lobby your legislators. Again, you need facts, for which articles written on the topic may be used as a starting point. It also doesn't hurt to bring up the laws by running for public office yourself.

I think I'm MORE than putting my money where my mouth is here, Baker.

on Apr 04, 2006
Ah, now there's a totally different discussion. It's one thing to fault the police for enforcing the law. It's quite another to speak out against the law itself.

While the orginal article pretty much does say that the law itself is wrong, the following comments seem to point more at the police themselves as somehow being in the wrong and abusing their authority to which I disagree.

While I do not disagree with the need for public intoxication laws themselves because drunks can and are a public menace at times who kill innocent people on a daily basis, perhaps the law should more clearly state the definition and scope of public intoxication itself.

While I still have seen no evidence that the police have in any way abused this enforcement practice by arresting people who were not demonstrably drunk, I think I see your point to a certain extent. But I have to add a "but" here, if a person can't go out to a bar and have a good time without getting sloppy drunk, obnoxious, or become a public danger, perhaps they should just stay home.
on Apr 04, 2006
But I have to add a "but" here, if a person can't go out to a bar and have a good time without getting sloppy drunk, obnoxious, or become a public danger, perhaps they should just stay home.


I agree with you on that point, mason, but you have to look at it in context. This is a HEAVILY Southern Baptist area of the country, and the city nearest us is run by the pastor of one of the largest churches in town (not southern Baptist, but VERY conservative). Many of the officials charged with the enforcement of the law are people who believe that just being IN such places is a mortal sin in and of itself (the city I live in, in the same county, is a dry city). We can't leave police the authority to so broadly interpret a law.
on Apr 04, 2006
I understand that but you keep making it sound like they are arresting people for merely being in a bar which is simply not the case and actually hurts your otherwise understandable point. This is the part I have been contesting and which you continually insinuate.

It isn't a case of the police interpreting the law, it's a case of them enforcing the law as it exists.
on Apr 04, 2006
I understand that but you keep making it sound like they are arresting people for merely being in a bar which is simply not the case and actually hurts your otherwise understandable point. This is the part I have been contesting and which you continually insinuate.

It isn't a case of the police interpreting the law, it's a case of them enforcing the law as it exists.


Actually, it's not me stating it this way, but the police chief of Amarillo, who said that he will be placing police in the bars to arrest anyone who "appears" to be drunk in the bars. He did not make any comments to the fact that they needed to be disruptive, just that "appearing" drunk would constitute probable cause for his officers to arrest. So it's not me making these comments, but the official who is actually GIVING INSTRUCTION to officers, at least in Amarillo.

And, actually, the police ARE interpreting the law, because the law states that, for public intoxication to apply, you need to present a clear danger to yourself and others. While you and I would agree that a "slightly intoxicated" patron waving car keys and heading to the driver's side of a car would be a good time for a police officer to intervene (note: this occurs in the parking lot, not in the actual building) to prevent drunk driving, no such intent can be inferred by the buffoon who staggers to the men's room.

Frankly, in the illustration I used, the arrested individual should THANK the officer; by busting them before they took the wheel, the officer saved them potentially thousands in fines and they received a misdemeanor ticket rather than a felony conviction. But as it stands, the instructions as they are being stated to us in the general public, are too vague, and FAR too subjective.
on Apr 04, 2006
Actually, it's not me stating it this way, but the police chief of Amarillo, who said that he will be placing police in the bars to arrest anyone who "appears" to be drunk in the bars.


Ok, that's not exactly the same as arresting someone for merely being in a bar, is it?


You:
To view all of us as potential criminals and throw us in the slammer for being at the bars is insane, frankly.


I can't afford a ticket for public intoxication. So I don't even go NEAR the bars
on Apr 04, 2006

Ok, that's not exactly the same as arresting someone for merely being in a bar, is it?

Well, since if I go into a bar, I'm GOING to drink a beer because I happen to like the beverage, it pretty much does restrict me. MUCH safer to stay home and not mess with it.

I'm too much of a cheapskate to get falling down drunk; I can nurse a beer like nobody's business. Besides, my favorite nightspot waters it down so much it's nearly impossible for me to get drunk on it. In an area as rural as ours, all it would take is one arrest for public intoxication and the story would blow up into me being an alcoholic, whether I beat the charge or not.

My point is, it's not the sort of thing one should have to worry about when going out to have fun. The thing is, these officers are being told to arrest anyone who APPEARS drunk. I'm a little bit clumsy at times, so "appearing" drunk is an EXTREMELY subjective standard.

My point is, these officers ARE being forced to interpret the law, rather than to enforce it, and that's not a position in which they should be placed.

on Apr 04, 2006
And, to restate: I have NO problem with telling officers if someone is clearly headed out to drive their car after drinking a significant amount, bust them for public intox before they get there. When they get behind the wheel, they DO present a danger to themselves or others. I DO have a problem with giving officers carte blanche.

I KNOW two police officers in the area; both of them will brag openly that if they want to pull you over, they'll FIND a reason. Do we REALLY want this mentality making these sorts of judgements?
on Apr 04, 2006
" And, to restate: I have NO problem with telling officers if someone is clearly headed out to drive their car after drinking a significant amount, bust them for public intox before they get there. When they get behind the wheel, they DO present a danger to themselves or others. I DO have a problem with giving officers carte blanche."


...but there's not way to really do that unless you have the police sitting on the bars... which you say is a waste of money and an imposition on the "lower class". You see what I mean? You say you oppose the public intoxication law and want it changed, but then you say what I quote above.

Legally there's no difference between inside the bar and in the bar's parking lot, Gid. Both are private property. When the police drive onto private property they're not doing any less than when they go inside. So sitting looking at people in the parking lot and looking over people inside is still going onto private property to enforce public intoxication laws.

I've known a lot of cops, and all of them have said the thing about pulling you over you mention. That doesn't come from giving police too much power, it comes from them being lambasted for not doing anything about crime and then taking away their ability to fight it.

People will be angry the next time someone staggers out of a bar and kills a kid in their car, but in the meantime they'll do everything they can to keep policemen from being able to make a judgement call on the drunk in question. No, police don't get the attitude you're talking about from having too much power, just the opposite. If they had too much power they wouldn't need to find an excuse.

You're stuck in a quandry about 'private property' Gid, and while I know you want to change the law, you really aren't offering what you want to change about it. On the one hand you want them in the parking lot, but you don't want them inside. You want them to be able to nab people who are noticably a danger to themselves, but you don't want them making subjective judgement calls.

How would you draft this law?
4 Pages1 2 3 4