Don't mess with Texas

[Krendeli]

They are now arresting people for beink drunk IN the bar

http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=4674361&nav=menu90_4

[Apathy]

Am I crazy to think that this is borderline/blatant entrapment/gestapo techniques?

No, I'm not. Someone will appeal one of those arrests with a good lawyer and slam that law.

[peam]

BY GOD JESUS AIN'T CONDONE NO DRAAAAAANKIN'

[Latrinsorm]

I could see it being entrapment if the police were the ones serving the alcohol or if police were dragging people into bars. How could this at all be seen as entrapment?

What I wish we could do with drunk drivers is temporarily remove their hands. I don't know if jailing people just for being drunk is as effective.

[beef]

I don't agree with the tactic or with the law, but in MA it is illegal for a bartender to server alcohol to an intoxicated person

Any person licensed to serve alcohol may not serve intoxicated persons. To do so may result in civil liability for injuries caused by the intoxicated person and/or suspension or revocation of the license. M.G.L.c.138, #69.

http://web.mit.edu/alcohol/www/laws.html#mass3b

But...I don't know about you, I don't usually go to a bar to stay sober. God damn you Big Brother...

[Skirmisher]

Yes to the comment about big brother, that is the kind of feeling that this evokes in me also.

I have to admit that someone who is a belligerent drunk is better off in the tank cooling off than potentially driving, but what about the countless others who get drunk but are still able to know that and know that someone else will be driving or they will be walking home etc...

But also having a family friend who was killed just this last year at the age of 18 because her driver was drunk makes me hard pressed to argue too vociferously against this kind of enforcement.

I guess I'm at the point where i understand the need but still think it kind of sucks.

[Alfster]

that shit would never fly in wisconsin

[Sean of the Thread]

But also having a family friend who was killed just this last year at the age of 18 because her driver was drunk makes me hard pressed to argue too vociferously against this kind of enforcement.

I guess I'm at the point where i understand the need but still think it kind of sucks.



I agree that it seems a bit much. If they wanted to make a point they a ticket and call them a cab maybe.

I'm sorry for your loss of a family friend. Being 18 years old makes it easy to be an idiot and get in a car with someone who was drinking and driving. I know everytime I was in a car with someone who was drinking at 18 I wasn't exactly clear headed enough to make the right decision and not get in the car with them.

[Apathy]

I'm fairly certain theres a law in many states the bartenders/servers/establishment can be held responsible for continuing to serve an intoxicated person.

I say entrapment because I find it hard to believe all 2200 of these people that have been arrested or cited were with proper evidence that they were going to drive home. What are they doing, sitting at the bar with a breathalyzer in their pocket waiting for someone to start to leave so they can charge them with at least a PI?

It's a blatant money scheme by the city. I would not be surprised if it is taken to Texas' Supreme Court. In fact, I hope it is.

[Ebondale]

Here in Alaska the bars will actually get a cab for people that are too drunk to drive themselves. Pretty sure you've got to ask them for one, though.

[Alfster]

Here in Alaska the bars will actually get a cab for people that are too drunk to drive themselves. Pretty sure you've got to ask them for one, though.

yup, free taxi's here too. They don't advertise that shit though, you gotta ask and they'll call you one.

it's wisconsin though, everyone drives anyhow

[Ebondale]

yup, free taxi's here too. They don't advertise that shit though, you gotta ask and they'll call you one.

it's wisconsin though, everyone drives anyhow

My Colonel has gotten himself a lot of connections in the Alaska community. Hes actually taken this a step further and gone around to all the bar-owners and told them that if he finds out that they are overserving anyone in his command he will make it his personal mission to have their liquor license revoked.

Commendable on his part, I think. He really does care about the community and about the people that serve under him.

[Alfster]

My Colonel has gotten himself a lot of connections in the Alaska community. Hes actually taken this a step further and gone around to all the bar-owners and told them that if he finds out that they are overserving anyone in his command he will make it his personal mission to have their liquor license revoked.

Commendable on his part, I think. He really does care about the community and about the people that serve under him.

isn't their motto "work hard and play hard"?

In that case, i'd think this is a douche move.

[Ebondale]

Not since there have been three DUIs in our squadron in just this month. Hes doing his part to keep one of our guys from (God forbid) getting behind the wheel of an automobile and killing some innocent person.

[Alfster]

Not since there have been three DUIs in our squadron in just this month. Hes doing his part to keep one of our guys from (God forbid) getting behind the wheel of an automobile and killing some innocent person.

Perhaps he should discipline that soldier instead of going after the bar? I'm not a fan of drinking and driving but I dont' think it's fair to go after the establishment. With the legal limit at .08, two to three drinks can put you over the limit.

[Ebondale]

Certainly the airmen responsible have to take personal responsibility, and they do, but these people aren't just "over the legal limit".

We had someone blow like a .209 on a breathalizer. I think someone else blew a .15 and another a .18.

The people that get DUIs are actually discharged from military service. Bars shouldn't be serving them that much alcohol, though.

[Alfster]

Bars shouldn't be serving them that much alcohol, though.

I disagree with that, but I also live in an area where binge drinking is the norm.

If the bars have to cut people off after so many drinks, those people will get pissed, and drive to antoher bar where that bartender wont know how much they had before they got there. Proceed to drink until cut off, drive to antoher bar. It's a viscious circle that I've seen in the past.

THe problem is it should be the drinkers responsibility to know how much they can handle, but this isn't the case. People these days are so quick to point the fingers at other people when they should realize it was their own mistake.

[Ebondale]

Thats why bars here have bouncers. So that big guys can take your keys from you when you're too shitfaced to know better. ;) No keys, no driving to another bar.

I know what you mean, though.

State law in Alaska says that if you get caught and blow a .15 on a breathalizer (obviously your license is taken away) and when it is reinstated you have to have a breathalizer installed in your car that you have to blow into just to start it up. If you blow even a .01 then your car will not start.

Anyone else have a law like this in their state?

[Alfster]

I think you get one here after your 3rd DUI

I know arizona has an extreme DUI law, which I do believe is .15

[Sean of the Thread]

yup, free taxi's here too. They don't advertise that shit though, you gotta ask and they'll call you one.

it's wisconsin though, everyone drives anyhow

Florida pwns more. Free taxi (pain in the ass) OR you can call AAA and they'll tow you home if your drunk for free.

[Ebondale]

I think you get one here after your 3rd DUI

I know arizona has an extreme DUI law, which I do believe is .15

http://www.safety-devices.com/baclimits.htm

Just found this link. Looks like most states have a .08 legal limit

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Archive/Limit.08/PresInit/impaired.html

From this link it looks like there is a Presidential movement to make .08 the national BAC limit.

[Alfster]

yes, I was saying that they have an extreme DUI...

The penalties for that are far worse than the regular DUI

[Latrinsorm]

I say entrapment because I find it hard to believe all 2200 of these people that have been arrested or cited were with proper evidence that they were going to drive home.That's not entrapment though, that's just shoddy law enforcement. Entrapment means you're luring someone into doing something (illegal) that they may not have done otherwise, and from the way the article sounds the police are just neutral observers in the bars. Not having enough evidence is just not having enough evidence.

[xtc]

Don't mess with Texas....it is already a mess.

[Kuyuk]

Lets just outlaw alcohol again. It solved all the problems the first time, right?


K.

[Apathy]

That's not entrapment though, that's just shoddy law enforcement. Entrapment means you're luring someone into doing something (illegal) that they may not have done otherwise, and from the way the article sounds the police are just neutral observers in the bars. Not having enough evidence is just not having enough evidence.

Bleh, we agree to disagree.

Cops w/o lights on = entrapment
Cops with parking lights on = legally catching speeders
Cop who says "Want to buy some weed?" = entrapment
Cop who gets stoner to say "Can I buy some weed?" = legal

I do not see any possible way for police to simply be sitting, undercover, in a bar and not speaking to anyone and then being able to accumulate 2200 arrests in a short period. Sure, they're going to get that loud drunk who screams "We're bar hopping!" waving his keys around while pissing himself. That's good. I suspect they're also getting people who are taking their coats to their car because its too hot in the bar. That's bad. They are walking in the grey area between legality and entrapment.

You say legal, I say entrapment.

[Latrinsorm]

To be fair, it's less than 10 people a day (been doing it since August) and it IS Texas we're talking about. I'm not saying Texans get drunk more than average, I'm just saying Texas is probably big enough to be able to find 10 people twenty-nine sheets to the wind a day without looking too hard.

[Sean of the Thread]

To be fair, it's less than 10 people a day (been doing it since August) and it IS Texas we're talking about. I'm not saying Texans get drunk more than average, I'm just saying Texas is probably big enough to be able to find 10 people twenty-nine sheets to the wind a day without looking too hard.

I see you have added pretty stupid assumptions to your resume right next to the pretty bad analogies section.

[Latrinsorm]

Well if it was Florida they could just arrest you 10 times a night, but we're talking about Texas. You see Xyelin, drunks are like St. Ives Swiss Formula Apricot Scrub. They gently exfoliate ("remove the stress of daily life"), but they also demoisturize ("are drunk"). You have to add something like Aveeno moisturizer ("THE POLICE") to keep society's skin smooth and lovely.

[Alfster]

To be fair, it's less than 10 people a day (been doing it since August) and it IS Texas we're talking about. I'm not saying Texans get drunk more than average, I'm just saying Texas is probably big enough to be able to find 10 people twenty-nine sheets to the wind a day without looking too hard.

you're starting to sound like backlash

lovers?

perhaps.

[Latrinsorm]

Alfster, don't be like a broken alarm clock coated in Peroxyl. You're foamy and noisy, it's just not a good combination. Don't even get me started on how your avatar is like a comb that someone put glue on that was made from puppies.

[Tsa`ah]

Bleh, we agree to disagree.

It's fine to disagree, but you simply do not understand what qualifies as entrapment.


Cops w/o lights on = entrapment
Cops with parking lights on = legally catching speeders

Actually a safety hazard. It has more to do with not endangering the public for citations than it has to do with entrapment.


Cop who says "Want to buy some weed?" = entrapment
Cop who gets stoner to say "Can I buy some weed?" = legal

A cop who attempts to sell weed borders on entrapment, but they can't do it because it's illegal to "posses" drugs. It's a lesser crime to buy and posses than it is to posses and sell. If a person takes the bate from an undercover "seller" ... what are they going to charge the person with? Buying imaginary drugs?

It's that mentality and lack of understanding that keeps an OD victim from medical treatment. Unless said person is in possession of said substance, the police can only question them.


I do not see any possible way for police to simply be sitting, undercover, in a bar and not speaking to anyone and then being able to accumulate 2200 arrests in a short period. Sure, they're going to get that loud drunk who screams "We're bar hopping!" waving his keys around while pissing himself. That's good. I suspect they're also getting people who are taking their coats to their car because its too hot in the bar. That's bad. They are walking in the grey area between legality and entrapment.

You say legal, I say entrapment.

It would be entrapment if the police/municipality owned and operated said bar. If the owner of the bar had a problem with it (and if he/she/it cared about the customer base) they could have removed said law enforcement from the premises and requested they return with a warrant for the action they were taking.

It is not entrapment however, not by any stretch. It is incredibly stupid and poorly planned however as they must prove that the arrested person was indeed going to drive. However, the ordinance covers public intoxication and the bars are open to the public.

If they had thought it through, they would have scheduled stings in which officers were in plain clothes and unmarked cars scouting the parking lots and spaces around the bars ... nabbing the completely shit faced walking out of the bars or trying to gain entry into their vehicles.

[Gan]

To be fair, it's less than 10 people a day (been doing it since August) and it IS Texas we're talking about. I'm not saying Texans get drunk more than average, I'm just saying Texas is probably big enough to be able to find 10 people twenty-nine sheets to the wind a day without looking too hard.

The ignorance about Texas in this thread is astounding.

[Latrinsorm]

There are over 15 million people above 18 in Texas. How is it hard to believe just under 10 a day (on average) would get DRUNK drunk at bars?

[RichardCranium]

State law in Alaska says that if you get caught and blow a .15 on a breathalizer (obviously your license is taken away) and when it is reinstated you have to have a breathalizer installed in your car that you have to blow into just to start it up. If you blow even a .01 then your car will not start.

Anyone else have a law like this in their state?

Louisiana law leaves it at the discretion of the judge. Of course, you spend more time in jail for a first or second offense DUI than for a third or higher here.

I have a breathalizer in my car. Court ordered.

[xtc]

The ignorance about Texas in this thread is astounding.

"Texas led the nation in alcohol-related deaths in 2002 with 1,745. That was 47% of the traffic fatalities in the state. The national average was 41%. (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 2003)"

http://www.texansstandingtall.com/stats.htm

"In Texas it was estimated on a survey-weighted hierarchical Bayes estimation approach that the total number of individuals with an alcohol addiction or alcohol abuse problem over a one year period was 1,320,000."

http://www.usnodrugs.com/statistics.htm?state=Texas&cat=alcohol

[Latrinsorm]

"In Texas it was estimated on a survey-weighted hierarchical Bayes estimation approach that the total number of individuals with an alcohol addiction or alcohol abuse problem over a one year period was 1,320,000."

Even if only 1/100th of those people actually were alcoholics, it would be easy as pie to get 10 a day for a good long time. I'm guessing that place has less than a 10,000% margin of error.

[ElanthianSiren]

I think it's great (you knew that was coming), and I don't see it as entrapment. I've gone to plenty of clubs/shows and not consumed any alcohol at the bar. An individual being in a bar doesn't mean that they are there to drink necessarily; they could be hanging out with friends, grabbing a bite to eat, or the designated driver. If you're under the limit when you're hauled off, I absolutely think you should take legal action, and I think the system will have to be monitored closely to make sure it's not abused, but people who are not in control of themselves do not belong driving. The law has set control at a certain point. If you think that should be changed, you can petition to change it.

Banning alcohol isn't the answer IMO. Making sure the average person behaves responsibly is.

-M

[Sean]

"In Texas it was estimated on a survey-weighted hierarchical Bayes estimation approach that the total number of individuals with an alcohol addiction or alcohol abuse problem over a one year period was 1,320,000."

Even if only 1/100th of those people actually were alcoholics, it would be easy as pie to get 10 a day for a good long time. I'm guessing that place has less than a 10,000% margin of error.

I bet it's a lot hard on a monday, tuesday, wednesday than it is on a thursday, friday, saturday, or sunday (during football season).

[Sean of the Thread]

Hell a police cruiser running radar for a speed trap without at least his parking lights on is considered entrapment.

[Apathy]

It's fine to disagree, but you simply do not understand what qualifies as entrapment...


Fine.

Judging from your post, neither do you.

[Gan]

Texas led the nation in alcohol-related deaths in 2002 with 1,745. That was 47% of the traffic fatalities in the state. The national average was 41%. (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 2003)"
GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE
http://www.texansstandingtall.com/stats.htm (http://www.texansstandingtall.com/stats.htm)
GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE
"In Texas it was estimated on a survey-weighted hierarchical Bayes estimation approach that the total number of individuals with an alcohol addiction or alcohol abuse problem over a one year period was 1,320,000."
GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE
http://www.usnodrugs.com/statistics.htm?state=Texas&cat=alcohol (http://www.usnodrugs.com/statistics.htm?state=Texas&cat=alcohol)
GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE



And your post indicates that you’re learning some statistics about Texas??? Your second link doesn’t work (for me with repeated attempts at linking at least).

Let me help you out a little more.

· In 2005 there were 18.9 million motor vehicles registered in Texas. (TXDOT). 223 billion in the US (NHTSA).

· The average daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on all Texas roadways in the state is 597.8 million miles. (TXDOT). 2.9 Trillion VMT (NHTSA) in the US.

· Total Texas population (2000 Census): 20.8 billion people (TexasDataCenter - Office of the State Demographer). Total US population (2000 Census): 281 billion (US Census Bureau).

· In 2004 Texas had 3,470 fatal crashes where no alcohol was present in the driver, representing 71% of all fatal crashes in the state, whereas the national average was 76%.

· In 2004 Texas had 221 fatal crashes where alcohol was present in the driver at levels of BAC .01 - .07, representing 5% of all fatal crashes in the state, whereas the national average was 4%.

· In 2004 Texas had 1,166 fatal crashes where alcohol was present in the driver at levels of BAC .08+, representing 24% of all fatal crashes in the state, whereas the national average was 20%.

· Of the last statistic (BAC .08+), Texas ranked the most in overall quantity but yet was tied for 9th as a percentage of the state’s population while a total of 27 states had higher percentages than the national average for the year, not just Texas...

o These statistics are from the NHTSA (see first link below and go to page 178-179).

Texas has a very aggressive law enforcement model that has been adopted by the State and large metropolitan law enforcement agencies. Considering how many people and how many roads/cars populate this huge state, it is understandable. Mass transit systems take second seat to private car ownership and use because of the wide open spaces, even in large metropolitan areas such as Houston, Dallas, Austin, Ft.Worth, San Antonio, etc. But saying the state is messed up just because they choose to go after possible DUI occurrences proactively, in recognition of the high statistics that already are already historically evident is missing the mark.

I personally support the effort, if you want to get your drunk on, do it at home after you’ve locked up the keys to the vehicles. If you don’t choose to adopt a responsible demeanor while in public then Texas will help you. Imagine how much more enjoyable going out to clubs, ball games, and other places where alcohol is served, will be. We already scored a huge win with the banning of smoking in public areas, I see this as a second hit over the fence.


Sources:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2004.pdf (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2004.pdf)

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html)

http://txsdc.utsa.edu/download/pdf/txcensus/dp1/dp_tx_2000.pdf (http://txsdc.utsa.edu/download/pdf/txcensus/dp1/dp_tx_2000.pdf)

[Latrinsorm]

I bet it's a lot hard on a monday, tuesday, wednesday than it is on a thursday, friday, saturday, or sunday (during football season).Even if people only went out seriously drinking two nights, that'd only be 35 people a night on those two nights. Again, not all that hard given the size of Texas.
Let me help you out a little more.I'm glad you took a shot at me and ended up supporting with my position. Good show.

[Gan]

I'm glad you took a shot at me and ended up supporting with my position. Good show.

It wasnt directed solely at you, but at a few of the other posts before yours, I just used your post as a reference marker. But if you want to think so thats ok, it CAN be all about you if you wish.

[Alfster]

I think it's great (you knew that was coming), and I don't see it as entrapment. I've gone to plenty of clubs/shows and not consumed any alcohol at the bar. An individual being in a bar doesn't mean that they are there to drink necessarily; they could be hanging out with friends, grabbing a bite to eat, or the designated driver. If you're under the limit when you're hauled off, I absolutely think you should take legal action, and I think the system will have to be monitored closely to make sure it's not abused, but people who are not in control of themselves do not belong driving. The law has set control at a certain point. If you think that should be changed, you can petition to change it.

Banning alcohol isn't the answer IMO. Making sure the average person behaves responsibly is.

-M

>>>>>> If you're under the limit when you're hauled off, I absolutely think you should take legal action, and I think the system will have to be monitored closely to make sure it's not abused, but people who are not in control of themselves do not belong driving. The law has set control at a certain point



Drinking in a bar does not equate to driving home drunk everytime.

Your stance sounds more like the banning of the substance is the answer. Most people may go out and get completely shitfaced and be responsible enough to get a sober ride home.

[ElanthianSiren]

How is my stance banning the substance? The law says, don't be drunk in public. Don't be drunk in public. The law says, don't drive drunk. Don't drive drunk. The law says you may consume as many alcoholic beverages as you like in areas where you are safe from possibly engaging in behaviors that would be dangerous to other individuals. Cool with me. Get trashed in your house, friend's house, or other private area where other people won't have to deal with that behavior. Stay over night.

That's not really prohibition; that's making sure other people aren't endangered by someone else's behavior. Drunk people can be fun to be around, but personally, I'd prefer to pick and choose when I'm around them and rather not be around them on the highway ever, so if there's a way to make those instances lower, I'm for it. I wouldn't, however, advocate prohibition. We saw what alcohol prohibition did, and we've seen what the War on Drugs has cost/done. Instead, I'd advocate laws that press/require responsible behavior.

-M

[Skirmisher]

Your stance sounds more like the banning of the substance is the answer. Most people may go out and get completely shitfaced and be responsible enough to get a sober ride home.

Another way to look at it is that most people don't actually go out and GET completely shitfaced.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'd say in his demographic they do. Joe College Student.

[Tsa`ah]

Fine.

Judging from your post, neither do you.

None of your examples coincide with the definition of entrapment.

"To lure into performing a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act."

A police cruiser without exterior or interior illumination will not lure people into speeding or performing some other illegal activity in a car. The illumination is for safety purposes. Ticketing someone in a "trap" without the cruiser visible and illuminated is a hazard and illegal ... not entrapment.

Selling imaginary pot for a bust is not entrapment. They just don't do it because there will be nothing to charge the person with. Selling real pot for a bust is illegal and not entrapment. It could be entrapment if they were offering it to anybody that passed by for free ... because that is putting people in a situation they normally wouldn't put themselves in.

This goes right back to arresting people in a bar. It is NOT entrapment as the police are not placing people into situations they haven't willingly put themselves into before hand. The police are not offering free booze with plain clothes officers at the exit with handcuffs.

Again, you are disagreeing but completely misunderstanding what entrapment is.

[Alfster]

How is my stance banning the substance? The law says, don't be drunk in public. Don't be drunk in public. The law says, don't drive drunk. Don't drive drunk.
-M

My point is wtf does driving drunk have to do with being arrested in a bar? Absolutely nothing.

[Alfster]

I'd say in his demographic they do. Joe College Student.

Um, yeah. At Stout when I actually attended school, the weekly binge drinking rate on campus was something like 82% of the students.

[Latrinsorm]

It wasnt directed solely at youa) I'm sorry I didn't read the parts of your post that you didn't post. My bad.
b) I'm still right, unless you can provide evidence that 99.9999% of Texans of drinking age get drunk less than once a week.
c) Nyah.

[Apathy]

It's fine to disagree, but you simply do not understand what qualifies as entrapment.

Congratulations I'll actually type more than 2 sentences this post.


Actually a safety hazard. It has more to do with not endangering the public for citations than it has to do with entrapment.

A police cruiser without exterior or interior illumination will not lure people into speeding or performing some other illegal activity in a car. The illumination is for safety purposes. Ticketing someone in a "trap" without the cruiser visible and illuminated is a hazard and illegal ... not entrapment.

Your first point is mostly wrong. Your second point is incorrect. Your second point also contradicts your first point.


A cop who attempts to sell weed borders on entrapment, but they can't do it because it's illegal to "posses" drugs. It's a lesser crime to buy and posses than it is to posses and sell. If a person takes the bate from an undercover "seller" ... what are they going to charge the person with? Buying imaginary drugs?

Selling imaginary pot for a bust is not entrapment. They just don't do it because there will be nothing to charge the person with.

You are so far off in the first paragraph it's not even funny, and I like to laugh. Police in a reverse sting operation are allowed to sell drugs then arrest the buyer. In a normal sting operation, police are the buyer and allowed to arrest after the sale. That urban legend about police having to identify themselves if asked and used slang words to buy drugs is 100% false. Your second paragraph is right, because police don't sell imaginary drugs, they sell real ones.

You said police never attempt to sell drugs undercover...

This does not border on entrapment - It is entrapment.


It's that mentality and lack of understanding that keeps an OD victim from medical treatment. Unless said person is in possession of said substance, the police can only question them.

Your first point makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Are you saying hospitals don't treat people who have OD'd? And someone who is OD'd with no drugs on them can as easily be arrested as someone who is drunk with no liquor on them.


It would be entrapment if the police/municipality owned and operated said bar. If the owner of the bar had a problem with it (and if he/she/it cared about the customer base) they could have removed said law enforcement from the premises and requested they return with a warrant for the action they were taking.

This goes right back to arresting people in a bar. It is NOT entrapment as the police are not placing people into situations they haven't willingly put themselves into before hand. The police are not offering free booze with plain clothes officers at the exit with handcuffs.

Here we go. Besides pointing out that you contradicted yourself again, I would like you to explain to me why, legally, it matters who owns the bar? No matter who owns the bar people are coming in and out of their own volition, so how is one instance entrapment and the other perfectly legal?


If they had thought it through, they would have scheduled stings in which officers were in plain clothes and unmarked cars scouting the parking lots and spaces around the bars ... nabbing the completely shit faced walking out of the bars or trying to gain entry into their vehicles.

I agree.


None of your examples coincide with the definition of entrapment.
"To lure into performing a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act."
Again, you are disagreeing but completely misunderstanding what entrapment is.

I completely understand what entrapment is. I'll reiterate my point - I find it hard to believe that all of these 2200 arrests and citations were all performed correctly. I highly suspect there are entrapment techniques taking place.

You are stating entrapment is a black and white law. It is not. It is a grey area that is meant to protect citizens whose arrests fall into those grey areas. Your definition of entrapment is not wrong, but it is every bit as wrong as mine.

This is also why is said borderline/blatant entrapment/gestapo.
That means borderline entrapment and blatant gestapo.

Here: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

You: "A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case."

Me: "On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty."

Do you see the settle difference?

[Tsa`ah]

Congratulations I'll actually type more than 2 sentences this post. .........


And you have yet to point out a single case of entrapment, let alone my "contradictions".

Cops busting people in a bar - not entrapment.
Cops busting people in a speed trap with or w/o exterior illumination - not entrapment.
Cops busting people for buying or selling drugs - not entrapment.

You ARE NOT comprehending the definition of entrapment. You are taking a personal opinion (busting people in a bar is wrong) and attaching a legal definition of why it is wrong (entrapment). This does not mean your argument or examples are correct ... you have yet to point out a single case or example of entrapment.

[Skirmisher]

My point is wtf does driving drunk have to do with being arrested in a bar? Absolutely nothing.

Just to play the devils advocate I'll tell you what I'm sure the police would.

As most people do not actually reside within a bar they must go home at some point.

While some may take public transportation, a goodly percentage at the least use a private automobile.

Reducing the numbers of stumbling around and plainly visible drunks from a bar by escorting them away in police custody will inevitably reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road.

[Alfster]

If they tried that shit here, there would be a revolution

[Skirmisher]

Okie Dokie

[xtc]

And your post indicates that you’re learning some statistics about Texas??? Your second link doesn’t work (for me with repeated attempts at linking at least).

Let me help you out a little more.

· In 2005 there were 18.9 million motor vehicles registered in Texas. (TXDOT). 223 billion in the US (NHTSA).

· The average daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on all Texas roadways in the state is 597.8 million miles. (TXDOT). 2.9 Trillion VMT (NHTSA) in the US.

· Total Texas population (2000 Census): 20.8 billion people (TexasDataCenter - Office of the State Demographer). Total US population (2000 Census): 281 billion (US Census Bureau).

· In 2004 Texas had 3,470 fatal crashes where no alcohol was present in the driver, representing 71% of all fatal crashes in the state, whereas the national average was 76%.

· In 2004 Texas had 221 fatal crashes where alcohol was present in the driver at levels of BAC .01 - .07, representing 5% of all fatal crashes in the state, whereas the national average was 4%.

· In 2004 Texas had 1,166 fatal crashes where alcohol was present in the driver at levels of BAC .08+, representing 24% of all fatal crashes in the state, whereas the national average was 20%.

· Of the last statistic (BAC .08+), Texas ranked the most in overall quantity but yet was tied for 9th as a percentage of the state’s population while a total of 27 states had higher percentages than the national average for the year, not just Texas...

o These statistics are from the NHTSA (see first link below and go to page 178-179).

Texas has a very aggressive law enforcement model that has been adopted by the State and large metropolitan law enforcement agencies. Considering how many people and how many roads/cars populate this huge state, it is understandable. Mass transit systems take second seat to private car ownership and use because of the wide open spaces, even in large metropolitan areas such as Houston, Dallas, Austin, Ft.Worth, San Antonio, etc. But saying the state is messed up just because they choose to go after possible DUI occurrences proactively, in recognition of the high statistics that already are already historically evident is missing the mark.

I personally support the effort, if you want to get your drunk on, do it at home after you’ve locked up the keys to the vehicles. If you don’t choose to adopt a responsible demeanor while in public then Texas will help you. Imagine how much more enjoyable going out to clubs, ball games, and other places where alcohol is served, will be. We already scored a huge win with the banning of smoking in public areas, I see this as a second hit over the fence.


Sources:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2004.pdf (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2004.pdf)

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html)

http://txsdc.utsa.edu/download/pdf/txcensus/dp1/dp_tx_2000.pdf (http://txsdc.utsa.edu/download/pdf/txcensus/dp1/dp_tx_2000.pdf)

Second link still works fine for me.

From the first link:

"Texas led the nation in alcohol-related deaths in 2002 with 1,745. That was 47% of the traffic fatalities in the state. The national average was 41%. (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 2003)"

I would say you guys do a fair amount of drinking so his statement wasn't ignorant.

[Gan]

You're absolutely correct. Here's the most ignorant thing posted in this thread to date.


Don't mess with Texas....it is already a mess.

[xtc]

You're absolutely correct. Here's the most ignorant thing posted in this thread to date.

Have a sense of humour. Whenever I bring up Canada I hear every Canada joke out there and for a Texan you're pretty smart.

[Gan]

Sorry, I guess I'm just out of good Canada jokes of late so I'm feeling a bit insecure. :(

[Back]

Whenever I visit Texas, the alcohol consumption rate goes up at least 2 percentage points.

Can never get enough Shiner Bock and tequila. Did you know Shiner makes a Blonde and a Heifen Weizen? Not as good as the Bock, but kick ass over other weizens and lagers.

[xtc]

Sorry, I guess I'm just out of good Canada jokes of late so I'm feeling a bit insecure. :(

Well we wouldn't want that, so here you go:

A Canadian is walking down the street with a case of beer under his arm. His friend Doug stops him and asks, "Hey Bob! Whacha get the case of beer for?"
"I got it for my wife, eh." answers Bob.
"Oh!" exclaims Doug, "Good trade."

[Back]

Texas halts arrests of drunks in bars (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2006-04-14T170827Z_01_N13257090_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-BARS.xml)


SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - A controversial Texas program to send undercover agents into bars to arrest drunks has been halted after a firestorm of protest from the public.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission has "temporarily suspended" what it called "Operation Last Call" even though it still believes it was worthwhile, commission spokeswoman Carolyn Beck said on Thursday.

"We understand that everything has room for improvement, this included," she said.

She said most of those arrested in the sting operations had been "dangerously drunk" and might have tried to drive if TABC agents had not busted them.

The TABC has launched an internal investigation of Operation Last Call and a Texas Legislature committee will hold hearings on the program on Monday.

The TABC announced the program in late August but it received little attention at the time.

But recent media reports that drunks were being arrested in bars provoked both ridicule and anger around the world and, perhaps more importantly, complaints from hotels, restaurants and bars in Texas who said it could hurt business.

The program drew support from groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The Houston Chronicle found that 1,740 people across the state had been arrested for public intoxication in Operation Last Call.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

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

Last call on Operation Last Call.

[Sean]

And who said whining over the internet doesn't accomplish anything...