Re: Don't drink in Tejas...

"Neil X." wrote:

DG wrote:

Busting people in bars for being drunk is going to piss off
bartenders, bar owners and patrons. Stupid tejans...

Well, I gotta say, it makes a lot more sense to me to bust drunks for
being drunk than what they do up here in Massachusetts, which is
prosecute bartenders for serving liquor to patrons who commit crimes
after leaving their bar.

My sister was a bartender for more than 20 years until they dragged her
into court because someone she served **one Miller Lite** to caused an
accident and had a blood alcohol level higher than the legal limit.
She wasn't convicted, but only because an off-duty police officer was
in her bar and testified that the guy only drank one beer there and
didn't appear drunk to him. She was damn lucky. She gave up
bartending after that, and now she drives a cab. She makes half of
what she used to, but I don't blame her. That is one loco law, and I
must say, it is representative of the worst of the liberal mind-set:
the tendancy to blame everyone but the perptrator for his actions.

I can't remember if the law was on the books yet, but at one of The
Channel's lunchtime mgrs meetings, the topic of what to do with drunks
who got tossed came up. A few nights before, someone who'd been thrown
out for being too drunk and obnoxious got in his car and plowed into
someone while he was trying to get out of the club's parking lot.

The owners were concerned that the club could get in trouble for things
like this and, given the constant threat of liquor license revocation
hanging over their heads, wanted to come up with a fool-proof solution
that could be put into use that night. The bar mgr and I tried to
explain that in a small pub-type setting, it'd be relatively simple to
keep an eye on everyone and remember who'd been shut off at the bar; but
in a dimly lit, 1500 person capacity warehouse (that was frequently
oversold by two to three hundred) with over a dozen bar stations, there
was absolutely no way that bartenders or bouncers could make sure nobody
was getting too drunk.

It was suggested that when someone was being thrown out, the bouncer ask
him to surrender his keys and have the club call a taxi for the person.
That was quickly shot down because they didn't want to spend any money
on the cab rides, but it did plant an ugly seed.

One of the more slow-witted in the room announced that the only sure
fire way to make sure drunks didn't get behind the wheel was to have the
bouncers take their keys away (even if it meant reaching into their
pockets to get them) and hand them a card telling them to come back the
following day to retrieve them from the person manning the ticket desk.
I said there was no way we could expect employees to steal peoples' keys
and not expect to be arrested, sued, or both.

Nobody paid attention and it was decided that was going to be the new
policy and that I was to gather the bouncers together a few minutes
before the doors opened and fill them in.

Shortly before I started rounding everyone up to give them the news, one
of the owners came over to me and told me to forget the new plan, and to
just have the bouncers try to keep a better eye out for drunks.

It wasn't until a few days later that I found out that the club's lawyer
had gone to dinner with the owners that evening and was told about the
policy. He said the same thing I did, but it carries more weight when
it comes from a lawyer.


Now if we could just advance our public policy to embrace the idea that
you punish those who actually harm others, not those who the government
deems likely to cause harm. It's a subtle distinction, but makes all
the difference. Not arresting a driver soley due to a number on a
blood alcohol test would be a good start.

I've met a number of people over the years who've been arrested for
drunk driving. Not one of them was arrested solely because of their
blood alcohol level. They were convicted because of their blood alcohol
level, but arrested because they failed a number of field sobriety tests
that included a breathalyzer test. It's a subtle distinction.

Unless there's an actual guideline set to determine sobriety, it'd be
near impossible to ever convict someone of drunken driving. Failure on
many of the field sobriety tests can be explained away by a half-decent
lawyer; bad knee/sprained ankle/inner ear infection caused my client to
stumble when asked to walk a straight line, the anxiety and pressure
from the flashing police lights caused my client to mess up while
reciting the alphabet backwards, dust caused my client's eyes to be
red/watery, etc, etc, etc...

When the actual trial finally rolls around, if all those plausible
afflictions have cleared up, the state would then have to base its
decision on things like whether the arresting officer smelled alchol on
the person, or whether there were empty/open cans/bottles in the vehicle
(which would fall under a different law). But even then, that could be
explained away by the lawyer reminding the judge/jury that a single
drink will make someone's breath smell of booze, or by claiming that a
complete stranger had accidentally spilled her drink on the client, who
was innocently drinking a soda at the bar (which *has* happened to me).

I don't know about you, but as a person with long hair and a beard, I
wouldn't be comfortable with a judge deciding my fate simply on whose
version of the story (mine, or a short-haired, uniformed police officer)
he chooses to believe. I want something a little more concrete than
that.

As of right now, the most inarguable way (that I'm aware of) to
determine someone's level of intoxication is to measure the amount of
alcohol present in the blood at the time of the arrest. It serves as a
baseline that the courts can use to decide whether someone was operating
a vehicle in a condition that endangers others.

Are some people more affected at a certain blood alcohol level than
others? Sure. Is there some way to accurately judge the impairment
level of each person on an individual basis that won't have the police
tied up for hours on every suspected drunk driver and the courts tied up
for years with cases that will likely never be resolved? Not that I'm
aware of.

At some point, a line needs to be drawn and appropriate punishments be
defined for those who step over it. Currently that line is .08. It's
not a secret law. It's not something that's suddenly sprung on people
when they get pulled over after having a few too many.

There's plenty of information available for people to get an idea of
about how many drinks, based on their body size, it takes to get to that
level (http://tinyurl.com/eacu2). You can even figure it out online
(http://tinyurl.com/j27cs) before you head over to your favorite
watering hole.

Following the logic of your sentence that began with, "Now if we could
just...", it's alright for a drunk person to climb behind the wheel and
drive as long as they don't hurt someone in the process. Maybe that's
not your meaning, but that's how it reads.

I think that people who are caught driving drunk (or high) *should* be
arrested before they physically hurt someone. Waiting until after an
impaired driver has killed or injured someone doesn't benefit anyone.

There are a couple things that bother me about the existing drunk
driving laws, at least the ones in MA. The first is that they're
selectively enforced (judges, politicians, off-duty cops, celebrities,
and the wealthy/influential often escape with little more than a verbal
warning that will never appear on their driving records). The other is
that, in many cases, they're simply ineffectual (repeat offenders are
given their licenses back time and time again, and many simply continue
to drive while their license is suspended).

Frankly, I'd like to see harsher penalties for operating under the
influence, BUT I'd like to see them applied equally to everyone, not
just the connection-less.




--
..
.

Relevant Pages

  • Squadron plumber
    ... Wished your aircraft would drop something on a politicians house ... Have sung rude songs in a bar, in a foreign country (and had to do an encore ... Felt embarrassed by the aircrew turning up at the bar in their "Grow-Bags" ... Returned drunk to the billet and woke everyone up by turning all the lights ...
    (rec.models.scale)
  • Re: Squadron plumber
    ... Wished your aircraft would drop something on a politicians house ... Have sung rude songs in a bar, in a foreign country (and had to do an encore ... Felt embarrassed by the aircrew turning up at the bar in their "Grow-Bags" ... Returned drunk to the billet and woke everyone up by turning all the lights ...
    (rec.models.scale)
  • Re: Dont drink in Tejas...
    ... Busting people in bars for being drunk is going to piss off ... bartenders, bar owners and patrons. ... field sobriety test if they observe objective signs of intoxication. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Dont drink in Tejas...
    ... Busting people in bars for being drunk is going to piss off ... bartenders, bar owners and patrons. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Arresting drunks in bars before they have a chance to drive...
    ... The purpose of a bar is to sell booze, ... One person's drunk is another ... bartenders are not allowed to serve a drunk. ... has broken the law too by serving him, ...
    (rec.music.phish)