Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk

[Tom Schindler]

If the welds Tex will make fail and the one Pedro makes are good, should you worry about Tex and not Pedro.



If they duys causing accidents blow just over the legal limit and those that get "F'ed up" take the cab, arresting those that are drunk is not adressing the issue of drunk driving. Isn't thjat the whole reason they are adressing the issue of Public Intox?



Per quoted message above...

Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk

Undercover agents pursue inebriates in a pre-emptive strategy

The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

“We feel that the only way we’re going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this,” she said.

“There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they’re intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car,” Beck said. “People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss.”

If Tex is the problem, why attack Pedro?



Most of the people I know that have gotten a DUI were not drunks, per se. The Drunks seem to handle the booze better then those "light weights".





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Caymen,

Every quote you displayed in your last post was true and accurate, that is exactly what the problem is and the goals of the TABC and the police.



Unfortunately, your Tex and Pedro scenario are not an accurate comparison. The problem with your scenario is that you have over simplified it. With only two people and two choices, one can weld when drunk an one cannot, you made it too black & white. The problem the TABC is facing is not that simple or that black & White.



In your scenario, assuming both guys could weld when sober, you have only proven that alcohol has an impact on job performance, and most employers have very rigid rules about being at work while intoxicated or after you have been drinking. You only identified one of two welders as the problem.



Your scenario is an over simplification that allows you to easily focus on only two welders. What if you have hundreds or thousands of welders?? It would not be as easy to locate the source of the bad welds. However, if you stop all welders from going to work when obviously intoxicated, you would have eliminated the problem with the bad welds, and probably made a company wide improvement in the quality and improved production as well.



You cannot take the DWI and the PI laws, separate them, to create a valid scenario, and you cannot relate them in an invalid scenario that only addresses one part of the whole equation or reduce the magnitude of the problem down to just two guys. The two laws are only related to each other by time. The reality is that some percentage of the thousands of people who are PI now will become a DWI statistic later, and you have no way of distinguishing which ones will become the DWI statistic and which ones won’t.



The police do not have to prove that the person was intending to drive, or that they person was even a danger to themselves or others to make the arrest. Police can arrest someone in a public place who is obviously intoxicated and they “Believe” they present a danger to themselves or others. Police have the right to arrest anyone who they believe is violating a law. It’s the prosecutor who decides if the arrest met the letter and intent of the law.



…Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

Oh for christs sake, forget about it. I can not possibly make it any simpler then I have already done it.



Simply put, Pedro and Tex do not drink. Neither of the ever drink any alcohol. Both think it is poison and do not want to drink any of it.



Both are sober. Tex is a bad welder. 90% of his welds fail. Pedro is a good welder. 90% of his welds pass.



Lets say you are sent to inspect 100 welds. each are 50 welds from Pedro and 50 welds from Tex. Who's welds should you be more cautious with? Tex.



Now, if "Tex", (not the actual guy that is why it is quoted) is responsible for a higher percentage of DUI's and accidents then "Pedro" is (again, not the actual guy that is why it is quoted)



So, if most accidents are caused by thse that blow just over the legal limit, why are the drunks targeted? Does anyone have any stats about it.



Ah never mind. It is too complex for you to understand. If you use rubbing alcohol, you should be convicted of a DUI. Better safe then sorry.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

So, if most accidents are caused by thse that blow just over the legal limit, why are the drunks targeted? Does anyone have any stats about it.

Do you have any stats about it? About anything? There are lots of analogies being made. Even your question is based in an assumed statistic that "most accidents are caused by those 'just' over the legal limit"...are they?



Let's deal in facts not rhetoric. The legal limit is what it is, and anyone above it cannot drive legally. Anyone want to describe HOW the limit was determined? Using what scientific basis? I don't know, that's why I ask...



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Tom,



Actually it has alot to do with the situation. Statistics are helpful is solving a problem.



What conditions must be met to arrest a guy on public intox? Does he have to be physically drunk? Legally Drunk? Can a police offier sit there and watch a man who might weigh 150 LBS drink a Long Island Iced Tea and arrest him for being drunk?



That is why I asked you that question when I thought you were a police officer...and I swear you have said you were a police officer in the past.



I know there are statistics out there, just maybe they are not for public used. Like it says 100% of second time DUI offenders have had a prior DUI. IIRC, 10% of all first time DUI offenders are alcoholics. 40% of all 2nd time are alcoholics, and something like 90% of all 3rd time offenders are alcoholics. So, it is reasonable to say that the first time offender is not an alcoholic, while a 3rd offender most likely is one.



It is a vailid question. How many of those arrested for DUI are just over the limit compared to those that are flat out hammered? If those that are just over the legal limit are more likely to drive then those that are trashed, then arresting people over a PI law is a farse of being about safety.



Would you agree?



Many laws were put in the books to essentially pad the ticket. lets say you get pulled over for suspected drunk driving. You blow and fail. On the spot you get two tickets. One for driving under the influence of alcohol and the other is driving with a BAC over the legal limit. The prosecution will "throw out" the second charge if you plead guilty the the first. Some police officers will actually cite you with public Intox while you are being arrested because you are drunk in public. They can also charge you with wreckless operation of a motorvehicle is your vehicle was not driving straight.



So in one evening, you can get nailed for a Driving Under the Influence, Blood/Breath Alcohol Concetration above the legal limit, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, and Public Intox.



If you plead guilty to a DUI, we will forget about the rest of the other charges.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Caymen,

I agree. Forget about it. Your attempts to compare this to two welders is rediculous. There is no comparison and your attempts to reduce this to two drunk or sober welders make absolutely no sense. It does not require any bogus analogies or scenarios that stack up the problem the way you seem to perceive it



You keep wanting to make things simple to fit your preconceived notion that the TABC and the Police are targeting only people who drink and not the drunk drivers. They are targeting the "DRUNKS" to reduce the number of Drunk Drivers. You cannot have drunk drivers with people getting drunk. The fact that you don't like that, is moot. It's legal, and I think as the TABC it will prove to reduce incidents of DWI



It''s obvious that you are not capable of understanding something as complicated as a Public Intoxication law and how it can be used to reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road. That's as simple as it gets.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, I think you are confusing me with Longarm, I never said I was a police officer, but I think he was or is.



Caymen also asks:

If those that are just over the legal limit are more likely to drive then those that are trashed, then arresting people over a PI law is a farse of being about safety. Would you agree?

Nope, I wouldn't.



If they are "just over the legal limit", then they shouldn't drive either.



Tom

 

[Tom Schindler]

But are they being arrested for PI if they are not "drunk" so to say, but just over the limit. I am not saying it is right to drive over the limit, but if the majority of those arrested for drunk driving are just over the limit, then arresting the drunk ones is not going to accomplish much, if anything at all.



I think you are right. It was Longarm. He is the Police Officer.

It''s obvious that you are not capable of understanding something as complicated as a Public Intoxication law and how it can be used to reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road. That's as simple as it gets.

You are the one that can not understand a simple analogy. If you actually took the time t read what I wrote, everything would make sense. As usual, you already think I am wrong and no matter what I, or anyone says, if the government says it is good, it has to be. I really feel sorry for you.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Caymen,

I HAVE READ EVER WORD YOU WROTE. And is still makes no sense. You never address any questions or statments I make in my posts, you just keep rehashing you same old crap. It's obvious you have not read my complete posts. You only respond to attacks your lack of logic or common sense.



You just questioned if these these people arrested for Public Intoxication may not be drunk, but are "Just over the limit". It has been repeatedly stated that the TABC and Police are not arresting people who have just had a few drinks. They are arresting people who are OBVIOUSLY drunk. They are staggering, have slurred speach and are exhibiting other signs of intoxication. The people are given either a field sobriety test, or a breathalizer test. Yet you keep harping on the same non-issue



People who are judged to be too drunk to drive may blow a .08 or even up to a .10 and still may not stagger or typically show major signs of intoxication. Only someone lwith a diabetic condition or some other medical problem would stagger around and police are trained to detect these possible medical conditions, or if the preson is high on drugs, or is actually drunk.



Thus far nobody that was arrested has claimed they were not legally drunk, and nobody has accused the police of arresting anyone who was not legally drunk.



Lay it on the line. Stop all the stupid anologies and just tell us what you find wrong with the TABC arrests. Don't add any of your assumptions or what you think the police are assuming.



I'll bet any response from you is just more crap.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

Find some stastics about drunk driving arrests. I will bet that the majority of those in accidents and citations for drunk driving are just over the limit. Those that are blasted drunk are not the problem.



Arresting those that do not contribute to the problem is not adressing the problem..





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, that last quote you gave, I didn't say that. I hope you aren't attributing that to me, or your comments after the quote.



As for your assumptions about who is or isn't being arrested under the PI laws, though I understand how you could see that IF the TABC is only arresting the "falling down drunks", and not worrying about the "just over the limit" guys, then sure, I can see your conjecture that there will still be "drunks" on the road. But it's still a point that requires two assumptions be made before the conjecture, and those points are:



1. That the TABC is only focusing on those that are "falling down drunk"



2. That its those "just over the limit" that cause more drunk driving accidents as compared to the more seriously drunk.



I clearly understood those two points, and I agree that could very well be the case, but I don't like to hang my hat on things that require even ONE assumption to be made, much less TWO.



That's why I said, show some stats, then let's talk.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

I know you did not say that.



For everything else you said, I agree. If those causing accidents are just over the limit and those that are falling down arent, why target those that are falling down. Unless the real motive is revenue and not safety.



I am glad someone has the intellegence to understand what I am saying.





Tom

 

[Mark Grumpy]

Tom,

it appears Rich already conceded;

The whole point of the TABC action was to prevent DWI incidents.

Huh!! I thought it was to enforce a law on the books.



We've been told here that comparing TX law to CAL law is moot. We've been told making analogies of welders is moot and whether or not you drive after drinking is moot. So Tom, apparently you need to use a German welder in a Gasthaus to make a valid analogy.



sllluuuurrrrrppp.



grump

 

[Richard L]

Caymen,

The problem with your stunted logic is that you assume that the majority of the accidents are caused by people who are just over the legal limit of intoxication. And that the falling down drunks are not the problem but are unfairly being targetted by the TABC.



As TJR stated, you are making way too many assumptions.



The TABC are targeting the staggering, falling down, obvious drunks because they are obviously drunk in public. Currently, there is no legal way to run a field sobriety test or breathalize exam on anyone in a bar. The police must believe a law was violated, and the stagger drunk satisfies that part of the PI law.



I have never hear anyone in their right mind imply that we should arrest the drunks who are just over the legal BA limit because you assume they are more guilty, but let the falling down drunks go because you feel we have no proof that they are causing the accidents.



That makes absolutely no sense....You cannot possibly believe your own words, so what makes you think you can convince anyone else. That last statement clearly shows that your logic is seriously flawed.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

Richard L,



Grump hit the nail on the head.



Enough said.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yes, Grump DID hit the nail on the head.



The action by the TABC *IS* to help prevent drunk driving, the breaking of one law.



And, they are enforcing another law that is on the books to do so.



So, as I said, several times, "WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?"



And, please, don't answer with the rhetoric about "HOW DO YOU KNOW if the PI person will drive, or has a DD, etc." because, that is MOOT. A law has been broken, period.



The fact is, a LAW (PI) is broken, and the more PI people you remove from a bar the more you will prevent drunk driving (a statistically logical assertion).



I would agree that if a NEW law were being proposed, or changes to the PI law, than I could understand the uproar.



So please, Tom, others, if authorities can reduce incidents of one law being broken by more aggresively enforcing some other law, what the heck is the problem?



This is NOT the first time one law or set of regulations has been more tightly enforced to curb the breaking of some other law, is it? And if not, do you DISAGREE with all such similar situations?



TJR

 

[Richard L]

The TABC has never said or implied that for every PI arrest, they are taking a drunk driver off the road.



The simple fact that intoxicated people are being arrested in bars and the heavy media coverage of this controversy, should act as a strong deterent to other people from drinking excessively. You never know if the guy sitting at the back table is an police officer It is the TABC's hope that indirectly these action will reduce DWI incidents.



If the statistics show that DWI incident declined shortly after the TABC's PI actions, these PI arrest will contine, and probably spread to other states.



It's as simple as that. No anolgies, no welders, and no assumptions.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

The fact that a law is being "broken" in a place designed to consume an intoxicating beverage is MOOT.



How do you like those apples?





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Caymen,

What was the point of your last statement ?? :wacko:



Perhaps it is just that kind of statement that lead others to misunderstand you.



...Rich

 

[Dale Carlson]

So as long as you guys are making assumptions, tell me this, and I'd like you to answer the question instead of dodging it like every other time I've asked similar questions (and I'll type it really, really, slow, so I don't go too fast for you):



How is it that the TABC can ASSUME that the drunks they're arresting are a danger to themselves or others (intoxication-level not required for the purposes of this question)?



This (endangerment) is the second element of that law, being intoxicated the first element. BOTH elements are required, according to the Public Intoxication Statute of Texas (49.02 Public Intoxication).