Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk

[Bill V]

Rich, I think grump's point was that if you urinate in a public restroom, technically, you're "in public", (per the definitions of "public" that say that a bar is a "public" space) and therefore in violation of the law. The connection is that both discussions involve definition of what "in public" means.

 

[Richard L]

I understand the connection that you all are attempting to make. but the two issues are not connected!!



1. A bar in Texas is considered a public place, and you are not permitted to be intoxicated in a public place.



1. In San Fransciso, a man pees on the street and is arrested for peeing on a public steet or sidewalk.



So I will admit that both are public places.



The connection you seem to want to make a huge leap to, is that a restroom in a bar is a public place and a steet is a public place, so you should either be allowed to pee in the street or bars do not need restrooms, the patrons should just pee on the floor, or some other combination of the two? Or you are trying to imply that if peeing in public is illegal, then peeing in a bar is illegal since it is also a public place ????



If that is what you are saying, and that you truely think there is any relationship to these to cases, then PLEASE STOP! That is totally bizzare leap in logic that it's not worth discussing. Our society dictates that public or private restrooms are a semi-private place even if they are part of another entity that is a totally public place. Your logic would never fly in court anywhere in this country.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

If that is what you are saying, and that you truely think there is any relationship to these to cases, then PLEASE STOP! That is totally bizzare leap in logic that it's not worth discussing.

Isn't that what interpretation of the law is all about. A public place is a public place. A restroom is a public place. It doesn't matter what the room is used for. States require all public places to be smoke free. Even if a company had a "semi-private" smoking room, like a rest room is, you are still not allowed to smoke in it. Some could say that secondhand smoke is deadly. Some is the crap out of a person with diseases. Womes rest rooms during the time of thier month. It is a known fact that blood carries AIDS and the virus that causes it, HIV. Just because it is semi-private, does not mean it is no longer a public place.



Peeing in public is illegal. Getting drunk in public is illegal. No difference between the two.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Mince the words and laws all you want, but the solid facts are:



Bar = Public Place.



Public Intoxication = Illegal



Therefore, Intoxication within a Bar = Illegal



*AND *



Designated Rest Room in public venue = Public Place



Public Urination = Illegal



However, Urination in Public Rest Room = Legal



Is it a contradiction, yeah, on the surface, but there is one MAJOR DIFFERENCE...A Public Rest Room is a DESIGNATED EXCEPTION to the public urination law...it is the ONE public place urination is allowed, and everyone knows it!



There is no publically designated drunk area.



That's why the analogy and seeming contradiction don't hold weight.



A Bar is NOT a designated public intoxication area...though clearly some want it to be, or be an exception area to the PI law.



TJR

 

[Mark Grumpy]

Almost there Rich...

Or you are trying to imply that if peeing in public is illegal, then peeing in a bar is illegal since it is also a public place ????

Close. If peeing in public is illegal (Yes, it should be), then peeing in a TOILET, in a bar is illegal because it is STILL the same PUBLIC place.



I think I'm giving up before the TX Crapper and Commode Police (TCCP) come looking for me smoking my ciggie on the pot in the bar. 3 strikes - you're out.



TJR - agree, just stirring the pot - tried not to "pee anyone off in public" just being a debater.



Exit the big poop stirring butt hole with the gigantic spoon. :lol:

 

[Richard L]

While the bar is a public place, the restroom is a specificly designated convenience in a public place provided for patrons to releive themselves. So in Texas, you can be arrested for public intoxication or any other crime even while in a restroom, but peeing in a restroom is legal.



At least that's the law in Texas and most other states I have been to. I can't speak for the laws in California. Perhaps it is illegal to pee in a restroom, and I guess I'm lucky I didn't get arrested. But since I don't go to California that often, and I don't stay that long, I guess I will just try to hold it while I'm there. :huh:



I swear, didn't your mothers teach you anything ??? :wacko:



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

Again, it is all how one interprets the law. There is money to be made and that is all what it is about. it isn't safety, it is about money.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Caymen,

If you or anyone else is interpreting any law that peeing in a public restroom is illegal, then that is only "YOUR" interpretation. The nation the police, and the judicial systems obviously have a much more logical interpretation, since we are not hearing about anybody being arrested for peeing in public restroom, nor are the citizens complaining that people are peeing in public restrooms. So in the end, your public restroom arguement is only a smoke screen, that has nothing to do with original issue which was the police in Texas aresting people in bars for Public Intoxication.



...Rich

 

[Mark Grumpy]

Rich,

you're taking this too serious Bud. It's tongue-in-cheek. It is merely an attempt to demonstrate how two different people or laws or States can have a different definition or level of interpretation for the same word. No one is actually interpreting the peeing in public law the way you think we are.



cheers



grump

 

[Tom Schindler]

Grump,



You hit the nail on the head. I wonder why some people just don't get it.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yeah, I wonder why some people just don't get that TABC is simply enforcing the laws on the books, and that's a GOOD THING!



(sorry, embers were only glowing).

 

[Tom Schindler]

As I said before. Just because it is the law does not mean it is right. Why take the manpower from something more important, like murder investigations, theft, drugs, etc. and put them in bars as undercover agents.



And police wonder why they have such a bad image. I guess they just don't get it.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Actually, Caymen, regarding the "manpower better served elsewhere" and "why police have a bad image", I think that is a simplistic viewpoint.



If a policeman gives me a ticket for doing 42 in a 35, I don't get irked because I think he should be out catching "real criminals!" That's just a rationalization, IMHO.



Different law enforcement agencies have different focuses, work independently, have differing budgets/manpower resources and some agencies are large in of themselves and multi-faceted.



Therefore, to get all bent out of shape as to why the policeman enforcing the traffic laws isn't fighting other types of crime, for these reasons, are overly simplistic and moot. He or she is doing his job as intended. You may think other areas of enforcement are more important, but that's like bitching at the mailman because the garbage man spilled your garbage.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

TJR, I disagree. As you said, these agencies have different focuses, manpower, and budgets. But someone is determining how the taxpayers' money is divvied up for those budgets. And I see no problem with disagreeing with those who do that divvying, or the results of that process.



I do agree with you that it's inappropriate to complain to the officers involved about that--they are doing their job. But that doesn't make the complaint any less valid, if made to the proper personnel--be it through direct complaint, or through the ballot box.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

BillV, I didn't say we shouldn't disagree on principle or because we think a single agency and it's tasks are a waste of money. But to compare them one against the other and to complain that the TABC guy should be out catching drug dealers (for example) is just somewhat pointless (IMHO).



Again, as an analogy, it would be like asking the patrolmen that gives you a ticket to "Wash My Car", because that's how "I THINK YOU SHOULD Protect and Serve ME!"



My taxes pay for crap I don't want all the time. I tend to not villify those delivering those services though, as I said, I think it's a pointless exercise. Like you said, BillV, there are other channels for those regresses....no need to "flip the bozo switch" on all cops because you think the job a few of them are doing is misguided.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

grumpy,

I know that you guys are just pushing the evevelope to keep this thread going. Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots in this world who use similar bizzare objections, or illogical analogies to to show their disaproval of some law and claim there is this big government conspiracy to deprive us of our rights.



Yes, there has been some reduction in rights, and there have been some interpretations by judges and even the Supreme Court that have not been well received by many Americans. It would not be the first time, and it will not be the last.



If anyone thinks that we are turning into Nazis, or Communists, they should try moving to a different country. Even in many free countries, there are far more restrictions on their society, higher taxes, and far less government services.



...Rich

 

[Dale Carlson]

You know, Rich, I have lived in other countries that do have more restrictions on their citizentry, like England and Germany, for instance. BUT, in neither of those countries would they even think of going in to the local pub or gasthaus and making arrests for public intoxication.

 

[Richard L]

kefguy,

You should also mention that most european countries have an even greater alcohol problem than we do.



Secondly, I only visited England, but I lived in Germany for 8.5 years and I can assure you that the I have witnessed on a number of occassions, the German police enter bars/gasthouses and arrest drunks. The only difference is they don't go in the bars in plain clothes, they are aways in uniform.



Another thing, you failed to mention is, if you are stopped for suspected drunk driving in Germany, you have no right to refuse a blood test to determine you blood alcohol level and you can be beaten into submission. I know people who that happened to. There is no such thing a s police brutality in Germany. That is something we would never tolerate here, but it is accepted by the the Germanys.



Things may me a little different now, but while I was there, the Bader-Meinhof terrorist where roaming around Germany doing bombings, kidnappings and murders. It was not uncommon to be driving along and get stopped at a road block, have your car surrounded by a police SWAT team and you and your car were searched and your ID checked.



I guess you would have to make the decision as to whether you prefer getting stopped in Germany for drunk driving and perhaps having the blood drawn from your bleeding fractured skull, or getting ticketed or arrested in Texas because you are intoxicated in a bar. Since I don't drink enough to get drunk, I can survive in both places. I enjoyed Germany, and I would love to return for a visit some day. That does not mean that I would give up my US citizenship because someone got arrested for public intoxication, and nor would I nitpik the law regarding what I felt was or was not a public place. That decision has already been made.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

I know that you guys are just pushing the evevelope to keep this thread going. Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots in this world who use similar bizzare objections, or illogical analogies to to show their disaproval of some law and claim there is this big government conspiracy to deprive us of our rights.

Is this the pot calling the kettle black?

Another thing, you failed to mention is, if you are stopped for suspected drunk driving in Germany, you have no right to refuse a blood test to determine you blood alcohol level and you can be beaten into submission.

Did you know in Ohio, if you refuse to subit a sample, your licence is suspended on the spot and still get charged with a DUI. Try beating that rap. You wont. You are convicted.



How is that any different?





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Tom,

I am responding to remarks made in this thread because I enjoy it, even if some peole act like children and make astounding leaps in logic to imply that if peeing on the street is illegal, then peeing in a public restroom should be illegal.



I am also aware that not only Ohio, but many states will suspend or revoke your drivers license if you are stopped on suspicion of drunk driving, and you refuse to submit to a blood alcohol test. What's wrong with that ??? At least you have the right to refuse. In Germany and many other countries, you don't. The blood can be taken from you by force. I don't know about you, but I think our way is better.



...Rich