Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on March 23, 2006, 02:02:57 pm
-
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2006-03-23T150137Z_01_N22388344_RTRUKOC_0_US-BARS1.xml
-
This made me crack up: "People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss." :lol:
-
People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss
Wow, just where do they put these bars anyway? Around here everything of the sort is either at street level is below. And on the same note, what's probably the most popular bar area here in Copenhagen is located right next to a canal, so people don't walk into traffic when they're drunk, they just get soaking wet and probably sobered up a bit :p
-
Next up: arresting people for having non-marital sex or affairs. Oh, and women for dressing revealingly.
-
...:wtf:
Maybe they arrest drivers for not looking where the hell they are going or building companies for not putting decent railings up on balconies then?
-
(http://www.theihs.org/images/page-spec/abe-prohibition-poster.jpg)
-
What did you people expect? After all, it's Texas. ;)
-
What did you people expect? After all, it's Texas. ;)
Ugh, and I have to live here. The TABC is notorious for being a bunch of hardasses.
-
Intoxicated Texans in a bar? OH NOES ALERT THE MEDIA!!
-
Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkeness, Beck said.
:wtf:
Unreasonable search and seizure, anyone?
-
Not sure how you'd successfully apply that; the institution is open to the public, and the cops could just walk right in (after all, they do technically constitute members of "the public") and make arrests for public drunkeness if they wanted.
Actually, that's probably a much better idea.
-
The problem is, as far as I'm aware, a bar does constitute private property. Whether or not it is open doesn't change the fact that the law is supposed to prevent the police from entering it without consent of the owner. However, since the people getting arrested are not actually the owners, and the police aren't taking evidence to be used against the bar itself or its employees, I don't know how much protection the law offers. Of course I've heard police around here say that the line drawn for public drunkenness is the street, not the bar.
-
The problem is, as far as I'm aware, a bar does constitute private property. Whether or not it is open doesn't change the fact that the law is supposed to prevent the police from entering it without consent of the owner. However, since the people getting arrested are not actually the owners, and the police aren't taking evidence to be used against the bar itself or its employees, I don't know how much protection the law offers. Of course I've heard police around here say that the line drawn for public drunkenness is the street, not the bar.
Privacy can be a threat to government and public, therefore it constitutes as treason. Besides nothing you do in privacy will stay entirely private, so it's better to dimantle the obsolete concept of personal privacy than to change laws regarding it. After it, it's for the children and public safety!
-
Sometimes this world makes me think a gun to the mouth and a squeeze of a trigger is a better alternative. =/
It really does.
-
Is "Drunks in a Bar" the sequel to "Snakes on a Plane"?
-
Is "Drunks in a Bar" the sequel to "Snakes on a Plane"?
LoL, I was just starting to think that... :p
-
Does... not... compute...!
:lol:
-
Oh, yes, Heavan forbid these drunks be prevented from getting in their car and killing someone!
The need for privacy is one thing, but I have absolutely no problem with police picking up people who are drunk oout of their skulls. Better they cool their heels at the local lockup rather than get in their cars and hurt themselves or - even worse - someone else. Anyway, considering 36 bars were 'infiltrated' and only 30 people taken in, it's more than likely they only targeted the truly off-their-arse types, it's not like they were cuffing people who'd had half a pint.
-
Dude, if someone is drunk in a bar, it doesn't mean they will leave by car. Ever heard about the concept of taxi? Or better yet, walking!! Besides. Some people still retain their sanity (relatively speaking) even if they are totally drunk. A person can be totally wasted and still behave like a responsible (drunken) human being, and then ask the next morning if they did anything stupid 'cos they can't remember a thing.
30 people from 36 bars seems a pretty high number for me. What I consider to be too drunk, is when person is rolling over the floor and not being able to walk without causing harm to himself and others. Basically not able to take care of himself anymore. I don't know about texas. But around here, if I visit 5 bars, chances are that in one of them is a person who who qualifies as too drunk. But according to those numbers I should be seeing at least 4 of those cases. Then again, Finland and texas propably have different drinking habits and culture...
-
Telescreens ahoy!
-
K, morality discussion split.
-
Oh, yes, Heavan forbid these drunks be prevented from getting in their car and killing someone!
The need for privacy is one thing, but I have absolutely no problem with police picking up people who are drunk oout of their skulls. Better they cool their heels at the local lockup rather than get in their cars and hurt themselves or - even worse - someone else. Anyway, considering 36 bars were 'infiltrated' and only 30 people taken in, it's more than likely they only targeted the truly off-their-arse types, it's not like they were cuffing people who'd had half a pint.
They're not being arrested for drink driving though, or even getting in a car whilst drunk- they're being arrested for public drunkeness in a pub. More importantly, the reason given as justification is that 'they might do something stupid'. It is effectively moral policing, and the question has to be how moral it is to arrest people for this before they've done anything that is provably wrong. I don't drink, and I hate people who get pissed out their face, but I wouldn't arrest them simply for being drunk (but would for vandalism, intimidating people, etc). Particularly as the metric here for what justifies the arrest seems to be very open to the officers interpretation and thus has a potential for abuse.
-
[q]In other news, a human baby boy was born to a normal family just north of Houston, Texas. Police were on the spot at the time of birth, and allowed the doctors to clean the newborn up before placing him under arrest, citing that the baby 'might do something stupid" when he grew older. The length of incarceration could be as long as 120 years, or as long as the person in question is deemed to be a possible threat to others.[/q]
-
I don't drink
Egads! A scot that don't drink! =o
What's the world coming too! :shaking:
:p
But yeah, arrest them for picking fights and being tards, not for simply being drunk. Again, living on a policy of what might occur is bad form.
-
I don't drink
Egads! A scot that don't drink! =o
We have a quota system; 1 in 10 of us doesn't drink in order to bring down the average - so no-one realises we're a nation of pickles.
-
We have a quota system; 1 in 10 of us doesn't drink in order to bring down the average - so no-one realises we're a nation of pickles.
:lol:
I'm not so sure that its working. ;)
Would explain why your always on the ball when posting though. Half the time I post when I'm half pissed. :p