Karaoke Forums

Kappy, if you still drank, I would buy you one after that post!!  Hear hear!!

_________________
[glow=white][scroll]Live, laugh, and love today--just in case tomorrow doesn't make it[/scroll][/glow]

I should have said strange/weird topic...Funny was a bad choice of words...

I think that if they are going to go into the clubs/bars/adult establishments and enforce the drunk in public law then there should be a level which is determined to be over the limit...such as the DWI laws....Right now to my knowledge there is not any such thing and for them to be subjective and decide that you are a danger to yourself or others is just not right....

And for them to use the same levels that they use for DWI is n ot right either...Cause that level may well be too much to drive but I do not beleive it is too much to be driven home by a DD or a cab or if you live close enought, to walk...

_________________
Will sing or fish for food!!I'm not quite right!!

Well,  Most of my friends (for some strange reason) are cops and atty's..

I've already fought one battle regarding large potentially dangerous reptiles as pets in multidwelling complexes in this state.

Now I'm going to look into this Dave,  I don't like it, I see it as "excessive" governing, and I'm sure it's repealable.  I just need to read how this law is written up because I haven't a clue as to what I'm talking about, for all I know there might be strict criteria for busting in bars...Yet if it's arbitrary cop decision, this BS must go

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Sharon,  Hypothetically in this case...and I remind you this is ENTIRELY hypothetical...



"I have cerebral Palsy, I have had one beer, I DO NOT want to blow into the breathalizer. You have singled me out as a drunk because I am a disabled adult American, you are incorrect in your judgement of my current state of sobriety"



Assuming I must submit to a test, to me this is a CLEAR violation.. I should have a right to decline,  if I'd be arrested based upon that. I should have a BIG law-suit, here's my rationale.. Driving is a priviledge, it's not an entitlement, we test for it, and although I'm not happy about sobriety checkpoints, it doesn't visually single an INDIVIDUAL out, and it's being held on public roads where drivers just plain and simple MUST keep a part of the bargain and stay sober... We agree to stay sober when we drive.... When I'm in a bar I HAVE NOT consented to remain sober, nor should I have to assuming I'm not driving,  for someone now to impinge on my right as an adult based upon visual observation in an establishment allowed to serve me a legal substance, and arbitrarily single me out is more of any aggressive act... I'm not passing thru a checkpoint on a public road,  I'm allowed to drink as an american adult !  I don't want the government or "big bros" watching me looking for a cause to bust me, or a law that can now single me out trying to "trap me" in a bar..All a cop that doesn't like me has to do is set me up now...  Assume I'm correct, in appealing a traffic violation, It's NO longer safe to challenge the police assuming I'm correct,  this is an OPEN DOOR for police to go after select individuals, I don't like it !

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Kappy, I totally aggree with you..

We have a guy named Scott that frequents the bar I go to, when I go out.  He had polio when he was young..He walks with a limp and can drive... However, before he ever has a beer he sounds like he is drunk...I can certainly see where he would be singled out if they even say hello to him.....And that would be a huge lawsuit waiting to happen....

This whole thing is wrong...I think I will jump over to NCB5i and see what is going on on their discussion board about this...Since it's local to Dallas area it should be very interesting reading....

_________________
Will sing or fish for food!!I'm not quite right!!

I found this post on the nbc5i site and thought it was interesting so I am posting it:

scn74  03-23-2006, 6:27 PM    
This sort of reminds me of that movie Minority Report. Get em before they commit the crime b/c we are oh so sure they are going to commit it. My guess is they are going to be making more money off of these fines than say speeding ticket fines. Now I wonder why Jack Astors( A restaurant/bar) on MacArthur shut down? Was it a public enemy with all it's "drunken" guests? As a resident of Irving I'm pretty disgusted with all of this. Especially if the persons/"criminals" have made safe transportation arrangements for themselves. I had a good friend that was killed by a drunk driver but that driver was underaged who got drunk at home and then went on a driving spree. Next there will be limits on how much alcohol you can buy at the liquor store on Northwest Highway. Maybe they can track how many trips you take to the liquor store too off of your driver's license. Maybe scan it in a computer each time you enter the store or something. Then they can create a website for known "alcoholics" in Irving and post peoples pictures and addresses. I'm all for the safety of the public but I feel the authorities have gone too far with this one.

_________________
Will sing or fish for food!!I'm not quite right!!

Don't get me wrong either, I'm not a "conspiracy theorist", nor am I the type that withholds tax money because as a Sovereign Citizen the Federal Reserve act of...yadda yadda...

I don't believe cops are "bad", and they don't normally abuse authority.. Yet we all know that some DO, and have, and will continue to abuse authority, it just happens.. I just believe that this particular law isn't right as it's been described thus-far. It's clearly excessive governing in my eyes, at the expense of adult priviledges in our "land of the free".  Another problem of course I had as an adult is raiding homes because the government hears an adult watches pornography in the privacy of his/her home..  Owning a film does not mean intent to sell and distribute... etc

There are just certain things we MUST as adults be allowed to do.  Our life need not be a parochial school scenerio.  We have a right to our individual choice.

Believe it or not, I'm a conservative  LMAO   It's true !

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Problem when law's like this aren't argued Sharon, is it's NOT a big lawsuit waiting to happen. " The police were just doing their job to the best of their ability" will vindicate even intentional wrong-doing.  This is the reason certain laws should be challenged and argued, or debated. Attempts must be made regarding the con's of a law to try to push compromise, or stalemate things..  This is what legislating should be about,  not just allowing things to freely happen, spread, and soon we lose our bars, rights to drink, etc.. Right to be in public without having to worry about shopping and arbitrarily arrested for arguing with a clerk who says "we'd been drinking and became belicose" so the cops ANYWHERE can arrest you in a public place based on someone saying, "I smelled alcohol on Sharon, she was confrontational at the check-out counter"..Suddenly they are waiting for you to leave the store, and apprehend you in the parking lot based on someone who doesn't like you (perhaps store manager becomes authority figure now setting you up) in the new anti-alcohol nation of ours ??  This is starting to cross the line TOO far IMHO...Conditions should be layed down, not just whim, subjective, or arbitrary choice to "arrest someone" just because "he's one that will make our quota", it's wrong and should be questioned (assuming we opt to repeal certain wrongs as adults in the US)

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

I really hope that those people who were arrested with this "sting" will have the guts to challenge....

IMO That is the only way this will be changed...of coarse with the public outcry that is going on maybe they will just stop..Doubtfull though, typically once they start something like this they do not stop until it is declared unconstitutional or new laws are defined...And the only way to have this changed is to challenge....

_________________
Will sing or fish for food!!I'm not quite right!!

one word: vote.

these beaurocrats(?) think they have a free ride.  politicians suck. either party.  especially those who make a life in civil service. i believe in term limits.

they know just what to say to make "the little people" (voters) say yeah i agree with you.  unfortunately, between the media, the internet and the politicians, most people can't figure out right from wrong.

i am a firm believer in voting.  i vote in everything i can after weighing all sides.  

if you don't like something, change it.  there is no such thing as "you can't fight city hall" anymore. use the system against itself.  

the down side is finding a "credible" lawyer  who believes as strongly as you who also knows precendence.

that's all i have to say.  for now.

_________________
[scroll]we're men, manly men, we're men in tights[/scroll]

There are certain vagrancy laws, loitering laws, and if a person is a danger to themselves, or perhaps others they can detain them. Often they will take a drunk person in for their safety, in certain areas they are considered a public nuisance.. Usually a person (for instance) in New England will be taken off the street when drunk in the winter because their chances of dying of exposure are increased when drunk so they are deemed "incompetent" and a risk to themselves.  Although I never gave this a great deal of thought, I don't see this as the same thing.. SOME of these street people aren't competent, some can't take care of themselves, and they aren't directly being singled out. Other's here live on the street's year round, and they are left alone. If a person is found lying down appearing sickly at 3AM you can be sure the cops will at least question him, and offer him shelter, yet unless there's OBVIOUS danger, some sleep in Coleman canoes near my place  LOL, some are vet's that are angry, and won't go to shelter's, because the shelter's don't allow drinking...Other's are mentally ill be definition, yet they are left alone, etc...

I see this new law as more extreme tho...It's as if the cops assemble and "hunt" deliberately searching for target's in a dark area where they don't "smell" alcohol coming from one specific area, they don't readily notice dilated pupil's.  They are honing in on someone to "what extent" ?  based upon "what criteria" ?  It's just that arbitrary ?   If someone is tired and their head is down on a booth, do the plain clothesman say,  Sir, will you stand up.. We wish to run a test on you to see if you are drunk ?   What if the person is a waiter, or just waiting for his sister, and works three jobs and exhausted ?  Hasn't had a drop ?  Yet he "might've been drunk" ? Which isn't currently a sin.. and shouldn't become one...  He's NO danger to anyone.. He hasn't even had a drink...

OK,  Time for me to shut my yap, and get some sleep

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Good night Kappy....See you next time....

 :hug: and kisses, goodnight...I'm tucking you in now.....

_________________
Will sing or fish for food!!I'm not quite right!!

Would you believe it ?  I'm in board's and searching for info on this new proactive measure now ..

Here's something interesting I found:  Besides reading of course what Sharon initially posted;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bust's in places like hotel bars, where the biggest problem they'd face at the end of the night would be finding the right elevator button for their floor.

No, we are not making this up:

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sent a message to bar patrons last week.

TABC agents and Irving police swept through 36 Irving bars and arrested about 30 people on charges of public intoxication. Agency representatives say the move came as a proactive measure to curtail drunken driving.

North Texans interviewed by NBC 5, however, worried that the sweep went too far.

At one location, for example, agents and police arrested patrons of a hotel bar. Some of the suspects said they were registered at the hotel and had no intention of driving. Arresting authorities said the patrons were a danger to themselves and others.

"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."

What do people think about this? What happened to cops just waiting in the parking lot to see who staggers out and gets behind the wheel -- isn't that a lot more justifiable? Sure, drunks are "are a danger to themselves." (Maybe Mickey Mantle and Billy Martin, to name two, would be still alive if we'd only kept them under 24-hour police surveillance!)

But what if the cops went into a hotel bar and arrested someone who smoked a pack of cigarettes, or was on his cell phone betting heavily on college hoops, or leaving to go upstairs and have unprotected sex. Aren't they "a danger to themselves and others"?

Where does it stop?

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

look at it this way....the odds r it will be men that r jerked out of the club, which in turn inproves the other guys chances of getting lucky....so wheres the grip?

watching the news, they pulled out just as many women and men.

HOORAY FOR EQUAL RIGHTS!!

_________________
[scroll]we're men, manly men, we're men in tights[/scroll]

Awesome perspective on this for a single guy.. ...Especially if they haul out all the ugly ones ...Unfortunately on the news they showed plenty of women getting arrested too..

Interestingly enough with your perspective I do seem to rememeber thinking that all of the poeple they showed were not very attractive....(beer goggles)...But then there have been studies on attractive people vs. unattractive people.

Hmmm.....Interesting

Kappy, yes...that is one of the reasons we are up in arms....You are in the hotel you have a room already and you can't be drunk???  I can't beleive in order to send a message they targeted hotels...On many occasions my friends have stayed at a local hotel so that we didn't have to worry about driving...Such as New Years....And to have the TABC folks with the police in order to enforce is just crazy....IMO....

If you don't know about the politics of Dallas, this is just another string of events that is going to push conventions and revenue out of the city......

_________________
Will sing or fish for food!!I'm not quite right!!

This is something that was written up on one of the accounts in Texas,  The people arrested were in a "private" establishment.  Analogies are being drawn to a Tom Cruise movie,  "arresting people before the crime is committed" or "Why not arrest all living people, since it's living people that 100% of the time are behind homocides"

I say arrest stupid legislature.  Since stupid legislature does public harm too..



Billy, actually they aren't just arresting men, one woman exclaimed as she was pulled out've a hotel bar (hotel where she was staying and not driving)  "Your state sucks" (she was yelling at the cops saying her right's are violated, she doesn't even drive !)   There currently isn't listed the criteria for "intoxicated" in this particular law thus-far, it's being used as a proactive scare tactic, yet has already defeated the "DUI" purpose, because quite a few weren't driving who got arrested.. Yet Texas law reads VERY VERY strictly, saying it is illegal for a person to be served to the point of being "drunk" in any public institution, it's VERY strict on the bartender's as well... yet being drunk is just defined by .08 content. Problem is, nowhere have I read how they decide "who" will be drunk, nothing mentions they even check or need to use any actual gage, it seems quite subjective... almost as if it reads, "If we say you are drunk, you are drunk, now shut up and get into the cruiser, you have no appeal and no rights.. We've determined you are drunk because YOU are the one we felt like picking on" ! It doesn't mention that they use a breath testing device, noone seems to know just how arbitrary this is yet, can't find public info yet.  Assuming they do however even use breathlyzer equip, what this means is if you are a smaller framed female, let's say around 105 lbs and 5' 2",  you are illegal in a public place, and drunk at .08,  and can be hauled out as things currently are stated after 1.5 standard sized glasses of beer.. assuming they are ingested within about an hours time of one-another..  In such a case.... The cops could haul our dates away from us... and then we could go get all frisky without the damn girls getting in the way  :hug:

(you know how these things work,  I could be in a bar with 100 people, they could haul all the males out arresting them leaving me in the bar alone with 49 women,  out've those 49 women, at the end of the night, 24 pairs of women would end up leaving together, and assuming one that was left, decided to leave with me,  she'd be the one who ripped off my wallet, kicked me in the gnads, and claimed I tried  jumping her... so I'd get assaulted, and locked up, and still not getting lucky)

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

You do have a strange law there. In my country cops regularly raid pubs, but not to arrest drunk. They come to get the drug users. Now they even have those potable test kit. If your urine sample tested positive you will end up spending the nite in a lock up. You will be send to a rehab center for 2 yrs
If you have those drugs on your body or your belonging, beyond a certain amount, you are considered a pusher and you will be hang by the neck until you die.

_________________
I can neither confirm nor deny ever having or knowing anything about nothing.... mrscott

That will be the 2007 punishment in the United States for typing negative things about our president on the internet.  Everything we type will be screened randomly and checked by the police, and if you type something negative about the US government, the first offense is they raid your home and take your computer. Second offense is they will hang people. After that thing's will get more strict, that's just the initial grace period.  2009 there will be chip's embedded in our frontal lobe brain section. Just thinking a nasty thought about the government will send a very powerful electric current to that location and first offense will induce a series of temporal lobe seizures..  Second offense the Amperage increases and they fry us

and it all started 3 years prior, because some people said "ah heck, so they lock up the drunks, in Texas so what".  "I don't drink, why should I care ? I don't hang out at bars"

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

For saying something bad about the Leader you can get 6 months to life detention without hope of trial. Many years back when I was active in politic my phone was monitored. You guys are lucky; you can still say nasty things about the Bush

_________________
I can neither confirm nor deny ever having or knowing anything about nothing.... mrscott