Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk
Mar 24, 2006 at 8:04 PM Post #46 of 62
1 drink per hour, 3 drink maximum in a bar is just impossible. What's next? Arresting young men for being a horny person.
Mar 25, 2006 at 12:18 AM Post #47 of 62
Come to think of it, I guess that I'm a libertarian too, or more precisely, I'm leaning more towards that than anything else. I just don't associate myself with any single existing party or an established set of beliefs, even if I may, subconsciously or otherwise, hold them. In fact, I try to stay out of this mess entirely, but when the mess doesn't stay out of your affairs, it becomes increasinly difficult to remain uninvolved.
Mar 25, 2006 at 8:29 AM Post #50 of 62

Originally Posted by RYCeT
1 drink per hour, 3 drink maximum in a bar is just impossible. What's next? Arresting young men for being a horny person.

Being horny and thirsty is not the exclusive preserve of the young you know
Mar 25, 2006 at 5:05 PM Post #54 of 62

Also, bartenders and wait-staff are also getting in trouble for serving over the 3 drink/1 drink an hour rule. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that even if bartenders and such WANTED to monitor and do everything by the book, some places it would just be humanly impossible to do. I've been in bars that are completely packed (reaching maximum capacity) down on 6th St. in Austin where there are only about 3 - 5 bartenders, so apparently they're supposed to keep track of everyone? Ridiculous.

If you knew what the salary for a bar person was you would be amazed.I tip heavy knowing the markup is on the drinks but this goes to the proprietor who then pays the absolute minumum salrary they can leaving it to the patrons of the establishement to tip the person on the other side of the bar to make the actual salary.
If they suck,no tip.No tip means can't survive and they do not last so the good ones are just that.
This salry structure is recognised and is considered taxable income.In some states it is one the honor system (
honest,not tip sat all this week !
) in others they assume a certain level of tips and pre-tax you before you even make it and if you do no-tough ! Deal with it !

So this is no easy job considering you rely on the generosity of the customers to in fact make your salary and in that time do actually have to deal with out of control drunks and/or rude customers (we all have met the type,rude just because they can be
what to do ? You piss off the customer and he will not tip.you let him drink too much and your butt is the one on the line ! tough world there.

There is a required minimum drinking age in all 50 states at 21 and this is assumed to be an age where a person is considered an "adult" so if this is true,and the expectation is at 21 we are an adult in all other things regardless of if that person is immature or not,why then are patrons of bars treated like children and/or criminals in Texas ?

On that "they may screw up" theory of pre-emptive arrest why not arrest suspicious looking characters because they MAY commit a crime ?

Little thing called the constitution is why though in recent years it seems to be used selectively to attain a goal and used as THE authority while on other matters where you do not agree it is called "a living document" or "out of date".Can't have it both ways ?

Wanna bet !
Mar 25, 2006 at 6:53 PM Post #55 of 62
Well I made it out to a bar last night and had over 3 drinks total and over 1 drink an hour (SSSHHH!!) and I made it home fine without being bothered by anyone and such.

And yes, that's why I usually tip heavily to a bartended or waitress (in either a bar or even a dining establishment). Though I go on the thought of you never screw with someone that controls your drinks and or food.

This law has been on the books for a loooooooong time, it's just now being enforced in some areas, and even that won't last long and we'll be back to status quo in a couple of weeks. Regardless it's a stupid law and I wish we could do away with the TABC all together. People's reasoning on us having it is because we have more DWI's than any other state, yet no other state has a TABC. Let us think about that for a bit...

(Feel free to correct my on any of the above.)
Mar 26, 2006 at 8:43 AM Post #56 of 62

Originally Posted by catscratch
This is why the whole "you broke the law, so pony up" attitude annoys the hell out of me. It's fine to say that when it's someone else's *** on the line, but when your time on ice rolls around, don't start crying about mitigating circumstances.

I'm an old-school liberal at heart, not in the sense that the word "liberal" has come to mean, but actual enlightenment-era liberal. You know - life, liberty, privacy, pursuit of happiness, that sort of thing. It's ok if you've never heard of it - somehow, nobody else seems to have

I will respect head-fi's "no politics" rule and ****. But you can guess what I was going to say anyway

The State should exist to serve the people. Instead, it exists to perpetuate itself.

I couldn't agree more, unfortunatly the two political parties don't see it this way.

Who are they sending in to arrest these people, Walker Texas Ranger?
Mar 26, 2006 at 2:39 PM Post #57 of 62
I see this going the way of the Jay Walking laws currently on the books in every community.Not enforced until they want to get someone then used as probable cause to make an arrest AND as the loophole to blame someone else if a drunk screws up : Ambulance Chaser (lawyer) fodder and the blame game so popular in recent years where no one wants to either blame the guilty or accept responsibility for mistakes made.

"Not my fault your honor.If he didn't serve me I would never have drank that last drink.He should be in jail not me"
Mar 27, 2006 at 12:15 AM Post #58 of 62

Originally Posted by SennFan
Note to self: Do not go to any bars in TX

take out the "any bars in" part, and you've got my motto.
Mar 27, 2006 at 5:35 AM Post #59 of 62
the TABC had agents (or whatever they're called) in bars to police (ticket/arrest/fine) the bartenders that were "overserving" (and the owners that "allowed" this practice) -- and then figured "if we're here enforcing the law, might as well be thorough about it" and started nabbing patrons too.

of course, if i were in the news business, i'd probly take the sensationalist route and just say the TABC were arresting drunk people inside bars too, cuz that'd probly grab more readers/viewers.

not taking a side on this, just trying to clarify (since I didn't notice this really being mentioned in any other responses)
Mar 27, 2006 at 6:40 AM Post #60 of 62
Hmmm. Very interesting.

I'm not sure how the police can get around the evidentiary part. For a DUI, they can threaten to take your license if you don't submit a sample. They have to do that, or else there's no way to get a conviction without evidence of your intoxication. The burden is on the state to prove that you were intoxicated. And there's a good loophole there. If you refuse to blow, they most likely will suspend your license. But that's an administrative deal, NOT criminal. See the loophole? You can forfeit your license to avoid the criminal charge. Of course, there are wrinkles on this in every state. DO NOT go out drinking and driving. Even if you avoid arrest, you're likely to kill yourself or others.

To get to my point, how can they prove that you were drunk in the bar if you refuse to submit a sample? That is, when you get to court, what are they going to offer into evidence? They can't take your license if you're not behind the wheel, so what do they do to compel people? You can't just forcibly take it... there's a lot of Constitutional law cases on that topic.

It isn't going to last. There are a couple of quick ways to kill this stupidity. First, someone who gets arrested needs to schedule a pro se (where you represent yourself) jury trial and just turn it into a complete circus. Attorneys are not allowed to do that, generally speaking. You get your head chewed on for bending the rules of evidence and stirring things up. Pro se defendants, on the other hand, can really cut loose. If you can make a messy media circus and humiliate a few DAs, they're probably going to stop enforcing it.

And the other way is from the other end of the spectrum. Take it to trial, and if convicted, appeal the snot out of it. Some part of this has got to violate the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments, and the right appellate attorney will knock them flat.

And if you're wondering, IAAL. Used to do some public defense, too.

Users who are viewing this thread