Prohibition Returns!

[Ryanh1801]

And that "former" cop needs his ass kicked in a bad way. That cop who didn't take that guy in cannot be held responsible for that. That is ridiculous.

Departmental policy not much you can do about it.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

Now I'm all fired up about how much I hate cops... I'm gonna watch some father ted and calm down.

No offense to you at all, Ryan, I total understand your bias. I had a friend in high school who drove drunk and killed an old man, I feel he deserved everything he got for that ****. My dad was hit by a drunk driver and it scalped his head, he was in the hospital for a week. But, the fact is, these people were morons, they ere completely irresponsible and WAY beyond .08. When I'm being responsible and leaving the friend's house after only 2 or 3 beers, or when I decide I"m too drunk to drive and I"m gonna sleep it off in my car, I should be praised if anything. F' those power hungry, egotistical cops.

 

[Whiskey]

And that "former" cop needs his ass kicked in a bad way. That cop who didn't take that guy in cannot be held responsible for that. That is ridiculous.

Actually yes the Officer would be held responsible. Legally and civilly. As far as the getting a DUI in a parked car, DUI/DWI apply everywhere, you could be doing donuts in your front lawn with a BAC of .08 and get arrested for DUI.

I've also never seen a DUI case get thrown because the drunk was sleeping his car. It probably happens, but it will depend on the judge and how well the Officer dotted his I's and crossed his T's.

 

[mrkristofo]

On the note of public intoxication, I concur that it is ridiculous, but there is a reason for it other than giving a reason for cops to hassle drunks.

The reasoning is that the law enforcement agencies are established to serve and protect, and that for an officer to acknowledge you're drunk and potentially dangerous to (not only others) yourself, but not take any action, falls into the realm of negligence on the officer's part. It's that liability thing again. I know, it sounds absurd, but we went over it in a state and local government course. There's a case behind it somewhere that maybe one of the legal types can help me out with.

But relevant to public intoxication, you should all know that if you are cited three times for public urination you are a registered sex offender. Just in case anyone's on the verge and has the urge....

 

[Ryanh1801]

Now I'm all fired up about how much I hate cops... I'm gonna watch some father ted and calm down.

No offense to you at all, Ryan, I total understand your bias. I had a friend in high school who drove drunk and killed an old man, I feel he deserved everything he got for that ****. My dad was hit by a drunk driver and it scalped his head, he was in the hospital for a week. But, the fact is, these people were morons, they ere completely irresponsible and WAY beyond .08. When I'm being responsible and leaving the friend's house after only 2 or 3 beers, or when I decide I"m too drunk to drive and I"m gonna sleep it off in my car, I should be praised if anything. F' those power hungry, egotistical cops.

Sorry I got two bias's working against me. Going into LE I have to read way to many ****ed up cases. Don't hate on me. I see your points and trust me, I think its ****ty that if you have no plan to drive to go to jail. Just one of those things I guess.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

Actually yes the Officer would be held responsible. Legally and civilly. As far as the getting a DUI in a parked car, DUI/DWI apply everywhere, you could be doing donuts in your front lawn with a BAC of .08 and get arrested for DUI.

I've also never seen a DUI case get thrown because the drunk was sleeping his car. It probably happens, but it will depend on the judge and how well the Officer dotted his I's and crossed his T's.

DOing donuts in your car is a lot different then sleeping in your car with the keys on the outside, which they CANNOT arrest you for. I've talked to the DA from my hometown about it. Now that's in Alabama, so I dunno about other states for sure, but I seriously doubt it.

 

[Whiskey]

My bad missed the keys outside the vehicle part.

 

[Dude]

On the note of public intoxication, I concur that it is ridiculous, but there is a reason for it other than giving a reason for cops to hassle drunks.

The reasoning is that the law enforcement agencies are established to serve and protect, and that for an officer to acknowledge you're drunk and potentially dangerous to (not only others) yourself, but not take any action, falls into the realm of negligence on the officer's part. It's that liability thing again. I know, it sounds absurd, but we went over it in a state and local government course. There's a case behind it somewhere that maybe one of the legal types can help me out with.

But relevant to public intoxication, you should all know that if you are cited three times for public urination you are a registered sex offender. Just in case anyone's on the verge and has the urge....

Oh come on. So I could be dead sober, sleeping in my car, but suicidal. The officer could be held accountable because he was negligent in not taking me in because I was a hazard to hurt myself? BS.

 

[mrkristofo]

Oh come on. So I could be dead sober, sleeping in my car, but suicidal. The officer could be held accountable because he was negligent in not taking me in because I was a hazard to hurt myself? BS.

That was my reaction too. You have to give the officer reason to think you're posing a danger though, so sleeping in your car wouldn't do it. But I'm no lawyer, nor am I a cop. Just a guy sitting through a law class. I'll look for the case. If I remember right, the details were something like this woman was obviously very drunk, cop came by and asked if she was ok, she belligerently said some things to him and he left. She was assaulted later, and then filed suit against the officer responsible for not giving her a ride.

 

[Whiskey]

Oh come on. So I could be dead sober, sleeping in my car, but suicidal. The officer could be held accountable because he was negligent in not taking me in because I was a hazard to hurt myself? BS.

If the Officer found you sleeping in your care, dead sober, wakes you up to check on you and you spontaneously tell him "I was sleeping in my car because I'm going to kill myself" and the Officer does nothing about it and you go on kill yourself, you can bet your ass he would be held responsible.

 

[Evan!]

Just one of those things I guess.

But, see, that's just the problem with so many f*cked up things in our country. It doesn't affect their daily lives, so they shrug it off as "just one of those things I guess". Man, sh*t, I know you're biased and all, but what if that dude who hit you was eating a sandwich instead of blowing a 0.09? Would you be all "let's throw people in prison for eating sandwiches"? Somehow I doubt it...

No offense, because I know some things really hit close to home, but...that kind of passive, "it's just one of those things" attitude is why our government gets away with as much liberty-squashing bullsh*t as it does. No, dammit, it's not "just one of those things". It's "yet another attack on our goddamned personal freedom, all in the name of some sort of amorphous public safety". We're treated like children...grown adults, treated like children, even if we do the right thing and sleep it off in our car. And I don't know about the rest of you, but every day, I feel like I'm treated this way more and more by our government. And every time someone shrugs and says "ehhh, what're ya gonna do?", an Alberto Gonzales Angel gets his wings.

We're the frogs in the slowly boiling pot of water, guys. Sure, if the government came straight out and removed all your freedoms at once, we'd all flip out and they'd get put in their place. But by slowly chipping away, they're able to get one guy to shrug his shoulders at crap and say "it's just one of those things". No revolution, no pushback...and suddenly, no smoking in bars in Washington DC. The march to tyranny is always slow and incremental, so remember that next time you shrug some sort of tyranny off as "just one of those things".

anyway, I'm gonna get off MY soapbox now :fro:

 

[mrkristofo]

If the Officer found you sleeping in your care, dead sober, wakes you up to check on you and you spontaneously tell him "I was sleeping in my car because I'm going to kill myself" and the Officer does nothing about it and you go on kill yourself, you can bet your ass he would be held responsible.

Just as if he'd seen him sleeping in his car, dead sober, with a hose going from the exhaust to the window...

and for what it's worth, I've spent about 45 minutes looking for the case that was discussed in class. I can't find it, so perhaps it was an example. I can find that PI has been a crime since it dates back to a 1606 English statute, 4 Jac. 1, c. 5; and that in all states (except MO) public intoxication is a crime, and it defined as "A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another." As it's written, harming themselves is definitely a concern. Or being in a state that makes them more vulnerable to robbery, assault, etc.

 

[Ryanh1801]

Not exactly were I was going with that Evan. But point taken. IMHO its the lawyers in this country that are ruining things, more so than the government.

 

[Evan!]

If the Officer found you sleeping in your care, dead sober, wakes you up to check on you and you spontaneously tell him "I was sleeping in my car because I'm going to kill myself" and the Officer does nothing about it and you go on kill yourself, you can bet your ass he would be held responsible.

But me sleeping in my car drunk without the keys is no more a forewarning that I'm gonna go kill someone than if I happened to have a hunting knife in the glove compartment.

We're seriously starting to tread on the realm of Pre-Crime here. Where do we draw the line? And yeah, this also starts to shift this debate over into the realm of civil liability law, which is somewhere I'm just not prepared to venture at this point in the night. But the point is, if you get arrested for DUI, etc., and have to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars just so some doofus police officer can cover his ass from a liability suit, the something is seriously f*cking wrong with our system.

 

[Ryanh1801]

But me sleeping in my car drunk without the keys is no more a forewarning that I'm gonna go kill someone than if I happened to have a hunting knife in the glove compartment.

We're seriously starting to tread on the realm of Pre-Crime here. Where do we draw the line? And yeah, this also starts to shift this debate over into the realm of civil liability law, which is somewhere I'm just not prepared to venture at this point in the night. But the point is, if you get arrested for DUI, etc., and have to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars just so some doofus police officer can cover his ass from a liability suit, the something is seriously f*cking wrong with our system.

If it makes any difference our teacher said in those cases the DA would normally not accept charges, so its not like you where out any money, just one night of your life in jail.

 

[Evan!]

Not exactly were I was going with that Evan. But point taken. IMHO its the lawyers in this country that are ruining things, more so than the government.

Word...

but it's the government that allows it to happen by letting someone who is financially vested in the case(s) act as an officer of the court. Sure, it'd completely turn our economy on its head, but think about it for a second: what if, every time you wanted to sue someone, you were appointed a government legal rep who had no vested financial interest in the outcome. How many "20 million dollars goes to you because you spilled coffee on your own dumb self" suits do you think we'd see through the courts? It IS the attorneys...but only because the government allows it. It's why OJ can get off but a small-time junky can't...and it's why some money-grubbing hack puts an ad on the teevee right after Merck screws up on their drug testing: the government allows financially-vested players to be officers of the court. It's wacked.

edit: didn't I just say I wasn't prepared to tread here?v

 

[rdwj]

But, see, that's just the problem with so many f*cked up things in our country. It doesn't affect their daily lives, so they shrug it off as "just one of those things I guess". Man, sh*t, I know you're biased and all, but what if that dude who hit you was eating a sandwich instead of blowing a 0.09? Would you be all "let's throw people in prison for eating sandwiches"? Somehow I doubt it...

No offense, because I know some things really hit close to home, but...that kind of passive, "it's just one of those things" attitude is why our government gets away with as much liberty-squashing bullsh*t as it does. No, dammit, it's not "just one of those things". It's "yet another attack on our goddamned personal freedom, all in the name of some sort of amorphous public safety". We're treated like children...grown adults, treated like children, even if we do the right thing and sleep it off in our car. And I don't know about the rest of you, but every day, I feel like I'm treated this way more and more by our government. And every time someone shrugs and says "ehhh, what're ya gonna do?", an Alberto Gonzales Angel gets his wings.

We're the frogs in the slowly boiling pot of water, guys. Sure, if the government came straight out and removed all your freedoms at once, we'd all flip out and they'd get put in their place. But by slowly chipping away, they're able to get one guy to shrug his shoulders at crap and say "it's just one of those things". No revolution, no pushback...and suddenly, no smoking in bars in Washington DC. The march to tyranny is always slow and incremental, so remember that next time you shrug some sort of tyranny off as "just one of those things".

anyway, I'm gonna get off MY soapbox now :fro:

Well said - 4 stars from me!!

 

[Evan!]

If it makes any difference our teacher said in those cases the DA would normally not accept charges, so its not like you where out any money, just one night of your life in jail.

But regardless, the spectre is enough to scare someone into attempting to drive home (and risk arrest) or walk home (and risk arrest) or hang out at the bar for a little longer (and risk arrest). All of this has a chilling effect, which is sort of the point of the original article I linked to: it's the new, more insidious and covert type of prohibition. Instead of just outright banning booze, which the public would never agree to in this day and age, they just make it extremely difficult to drink anywhere.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

But regardless, the spectre is enough to scare someone into attempting to drive home (and risk arrest) or walk home (and risk arrest) or hang out at the bar for a little longer (and risk arrest). All of this has a chilling effect, which is sort of the point of the original article I linked to: it's the new, more insidious and covert type of prohibition. Instead of just outright banning booze, which the public would never agree to in this day and age, they just make it extremely difficult to drink anywhere.

Well put.

 

[finchlake]

I had to get my wife out of jail on christmas eve three years ago. She had a 0.00 alcohol level. She was arrested on open container. She had a steafoam(sp) cup inthe console from a frozen mix drink. With the help of our sorry public defender, he had her plead guilty to dwi.

 

[Philip1993]

Not exactly were I was going with that Evan. But point taken. IMHO its the lawyers in this country that are ruining things, more so than the government.

Any the predominant occupation for judges, legislators, etc is?

It's not just the lawyers, it's all the judges, cops, lawyers, councilmen, etc. who manipulate our legal system to increase their power/money/etc.

 

[Philip1993]

just one night of your life in jail.

Back to the subject of f'ed up logic....

Depriving someone of their liberty for 5 minutes is not something the government should do lightly...

 

[mrkristofo]

Any the predominant occupation for judges, legislators, etc is?

It's not just the lawyers, it's all the judges, cops, lawyers, councilmen, etc. who manipulate our legal system to increase their power/money/etc.

Which could bring the burden right back around to falling on the people, the ignorant and impetuous who continue to vote for the corrupt because he's local to them, and he's a "good guy".

 

[Philip1993]

Which could bring the burden right back around to falling on the people, the ignorant and impetuous who continue to vote for the corrupt because he's local to them, and he's a "good guy".

I don't disagree. Unfortunately, elected government officials (like those mentioned) make a career of manipulating the system AND of manipulating public opinion.

It's not unlike the reasoning behind prohibiting teacher/student relationships and/or sexual harassment. Persons in a position of authority over a subordinate group of individuals are in the unique position of being able to abuse their victims and atthe same time manipulate them into believing that their situation (the abuse) is normal and expected behavior.

 

[Ize]

But, see, that's just the problem with so many f*cked up things in our country. It doesn't affect their daily lives, so they shrug it off as "just one of those things I guess". Man, sh*t, I know you're biased and all, but what if that dude who hit you was eating a sandwich instead of blowing a 0.09? Would you be all "let's throw people in prison for eating sandwiches"? Somehow I doubt it...

No offense, because I know some things really hit close to home, but...that kind of passive, "it's just one of those things" attitude is why our government gets away with as much liberty-squashing bullsh*t as it does. No, dammit, it's not "just one of those things". It's "yet another attack on our goddamned personal freedom, all in the name of some sort of amorphous public safety". We're treated like children...grown adults, treated like children, even if we do the right thing and sleep it off in our car. And I don't know about the rest of you, but every day, I feel like I'm treated this way more and more by our government. And every time someone shrugs and says "ehhh, what're ya gonna do?", an Alberto Gonzales Angel gets his wings.

We're the frogs in the slowly boiling pot of water, guys. Sure, if the government came straight out and removed all your freedoms at once, we'd all flip out and they'd get put in their place. But by slowly chipping away, they're able to get one guy to shrug his shoulders at crap and say "it's just one of those things". No revolution, no pushback...and suddenly, no smoking in bars in Washington DC. The march to tyranny is always slow and incremental, so remember that next time you shrug some sort of tyranny off as "just one of those things".

anyway, I'm gonna get off MY soapbox now :fro:

Nailed it.

To be honest I prefer to drink at home because I don't have to deal with people in general. I deal with people all day long, and when I get home, that's it. I want my family and that's all.

But more and more, somehow D.C. and the States are chipping away, and the simple sad fact is, we're letting it happen.

We've let that vocal minority play the guilt card on us so much, and most of all they have played it to the lawmakers in such a way that we're now left to deal with this BS.

I don't have a problem with an ascending scale regarding drinking and driving. I don't have a problem having a delegated smoking area. But that's not what we're getting. It's coming down to an all-or-nothing, here's the way it is, take it and like it mentality, dictated by a small (very small) few, and it's only going to get worse. And the Pols are buying into it! Sorry, my confidence in politicians achieving ANYTHING good for society as a whole ranks about ZERO. (I'm biased, I'm in Illinois and we have just about the MOST F-d up political system in the country right now. Abe is shatting in his hat...)

Long story short, I'm content to drink at home. (they've already screwed drinking outside your home unless you have a Chauffeur) It doesn't make me happy, but I do it. However, don't think it's going to get any better, because someone out there has a voice to the Gov't that thinks they know what's better for you than you do.

In the end, the only way to change it is to call your Pols and stay on 'em. Let them know what you think. Their phone numbers are in the book. It's just a phone call or email....

Ize

 

[Evan!]

Nailed it.

To be honest I prefer to drink at home because I don't have to deal with people in general. I deal with people all day long, and when I get home, that's it. I want my family and that's all.

But more and more, somehow D.C. and the States are chipping away, and the simple sad fact is, we're letting it happen.

We've let that vocal minority play the guilt card on us so much, and most of all they have played it to the lawmakers in such a way that we're now left to deal with this BS.

I don't have a problem with an ascending scale regarding drinking and driving. I don't have a problem having a delegated smoking area. But that's not what we're getting. It's coming down to an all-or-nothing, here's the way it is, take it and like it mentality, dictated by a small (very small) few, and it's only going to get worse. And the Pols are buying into it! Sorry, my confidence in politicians achieving ANYTHING good for society as a whole ranks about ZERO. (I'm biased, I'm in Illinois and we have just about the MOST F-d up political system in the country right now. Abe is shatting in his hat...)

Long story short, I'm content to drink at home. (they've already screwed drinking outside your home unless you have a Chauffeur) It doesn't make me happy, but I do it. However, don't think it's going to get any better, because someone out there has a voice to the Gov't that thinks they know what's better for you than you do.

In the end, the only way to change it is to call your Pols and stay on 'em. Let them know what you think. Their phone numbers are in the book. It's just a phone call or email....

Ize

Well, think about it: when's the last time you saw a politician propose a bill that increased our freedoms? Power corrupts, and it's oh-so-easy for self-serving politicians to restrict the freedoms of everyone if it buys him the votes of a few. And in this case, it's even easier because alcohol is still a bogeyman in this country, an easy scapegoat...and no politician wants to be seen as "soft on drunk drivers". It's an easy decision for most of them...put more otherwise innocent people in prison and/or ruin their lives by taking their license and making them pay 10 grand in fees and fines...all just by redefining what "under the influence" means. Who cares whether it actually gets results? Our drunk driving accident rates have stagnated since 1997, so they attack the easy targets: the casual drinkers who aren't any more impaired than someone changing the radio station dial. It buys them the votes of a few ignorant people, and it doesn't really cost them very much because not very many votes are going to not vote for someone because they bolstered "drunk" driving laws.

We have many bogeymen/scapegoats in this country that politicians milk for political gain...trrrrrrism, booze, drugs, sex, etc. The return on their investment for attacking those bogeymen is very high for them, but after awhile, we all get screwed. The government's war on prescription painkillers has led to a chilling effect where doctors won't even prescribe them anymore for fear of ending up in prison for life (like some have) if the DEA decides that they don't like how you're prescribing. And so it becomes increasingly difficult for people in excruciating pain to get medicine to help them...all because oxycontin is a perfect bogeyman.

The fact is that there are very real problems with drugs, alcohol, terrorism, etc., but more often than not, the gubmint uses slow-but-steady avenues to strip us of all our personal liberty in the name of these problems. And by the time it's all said and done, we hardly remember what it was like to have those liberties...and their work is done.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

I forgot the ratio, but some unimaginable percentage of our congress have been busted for MULTIPLE dui's

 

[ohiobrewtus]

Wow - I'm not sure how I missed this thread until now, but I'll go ahead and chime in (albeit a bit late).

If there's a dependancy that a substantial percentage of Americans can have, the government will find a way to take advantage of it financially.

Alcohol - Increases taxes on it. Assign arbitrary outrageously steep fines to those who operate a motor vehicle while they are imparied under rediculously low standards.

There absolutley are people who should not be driving under any circumstances. There absolutely are people who should go to jail because they are repeat offenders.

My parents should not have to worry about getting a DUI after having 1 glass of wine each on the way home from their anniversary dinner. That's what .08 comes down to.

DUI laws were originally put in place to protect innocent people from the dangers of other being drunk and driving. Now DUI laws are a cash cow to make up for overspending and budgeting deficiencies.

Tobacco - I still have the occasional cigar, but I quit smoking cigarettes a few months ago, so this issue is still kind of personal to me. Some may see it as a different topic altogether, but I see it as an extension of the same device as alcohol:

Take financial advantage of a select (minority) group of people who are doing something that the general public sees in a negative light.

Is the state lottery not quite providing the money that you wanted? No problem, add another $.60 a pack to cigarettes to make up for it - smokers are all dirty people anyway.. plus they're addicted and will pay just about anything. It's like free money.

It's not like this everywhere, but here in Ohio - alcohol and tobacco have been taxed to death. A 6 pack of just about anything costs $.70 - $1.50 more than it did just 2 years ago. A pack of cigarettes costs roughly $3 more than it did 3-4 years ago.

Those numbers are not due to inflation or in increase in cost of goods or even rising manufacturing costs.. Those numbers are our government unfairly imposing taxes upon a select minority of the population in order to directly benefit the population as a whole.

While both of these topics are hotbuttons for some, to me they are no different than adult entertainment, chronic shoppers, or any other multitude of addictions that people can have.

Why stop at overtaxing alcohol and tobacco - why not collect a $20 'naughty tax' everytime that someone walks into a strip club? Why not have a 'luxury shopping tax' - that way women who spend thousands of dollars per year on shoes get taxed more than guys like me who only buy shoes when I absolutely have to? Why not tax people who drive hybrid cars - they're saving money that they rest of us have to spend - why not get that back?

My examples are meant to be a bit rediculous. The bottom line for me is that it's wrong for our goverenment to attempt to abuse control or over-tax certain things just because they can. It's even more wrong, imho, to take financial advantage of a select minority (for a choice that they have every right to make for themselves).

I'll say it again - DUI's have become cash cows for all 50 states. The story in the OP - DC cops will say that it's 'zero tolerance', but that's unlikely. It's a budget increase. A portion of the fees for eery DUI that they record, in one way or another, ends up back in their budget for the following year. Need some new police cruisers - want a new chopper? No problem, let's institute a 'zero-tolerance' policy and not tell anyone about it. That way we can start arresting people for DUI when they blow a .03 and we can hide behind out 'zero tolerance' policy.

It's similar to speeding tickets. I rarely see any police shooting radar on the local highways. Come the last 3-5 days of the month when they have to hit their 'quotas'... you can't drive 3 minutes without seeing a sherrif or Highway patrol car.

</END RANT>

 

[Evan!]

What it boils down to, as I see it, is that the various special interest jagoffs get pushback when they try to overtly affect legislative behavior change. I mean, even the staunchest social conservative can admit that the real job of the government should not be to "life coach". So instead, they either cloak it in "public safety" or "it's for the children", and the government is more than happy to use the tax code and various fine/fee regimes to do their bidding...because it's gets them more money. It's a win-win for the gubmint and the special interests...but it's a loss all around for our personal liberties.

It's an insidious system that we've got...where money and power encourages those with the money and power to lord over the weaker minorities. Brewtus is all too right...that the motivation behind arresting .03'ers is as much about $$ as it is about getting votes...probably moreso.

 

[jezter6]

Giddy up mates! Finally hearing rational thought on a message board - I never thought it could happen.

Smoking bans are by far the worst idea I've ever heard. I mean, I don't mind if it's McDonald's or even a classy restaraunt, but a f-ing BAR? Everyone chain smokes in the bar, and if you don't somke, you still come out to the bar to have a good time. Sadly, they're using the 'employee' as the scapegoat in this thing. There are plenty of waitress/bartender jobs out there, and if you don't want to deal with the smoke, find a nice place like McD's to work. You shouldn't go discriminate against smokers because a dumb ass employee who doesn't want second hand smoke wants to work in a smoking establishment.

I'm all fine for non-smoking areas, even fully non-smoking places. But let that decision up to the owner of the place. If he wants to cater to smokers, then he should be able to. If a self righteous MFer wants to have a non-smoking bar, then all the whiny waitresses can go work there with the whiny customers who think smoking is the devil.

Don't like the smell of my smoke? Screw off. I don't like the smell of your 'too much perfume' or your 'haven't taken a bath in 3 days', but I don't have the right to shut you bastards out of places I want to go.

What ever happened to one of our greatest freedoms: the freedom of choice? I choose to smoke, but it seems that freedom is outweighted by a couple of butthole dingleberries who can't bother to choose NOT to go near a bunch of smokers. Nope, they have to come in and invade our establishments and then cry about it.

All this crap about alcohol is even worse. Getting arrested for PI inside a bar. Guess what, it's not illegal for a cop to arrest you for PI in the bar because it's a PUBLIC BAR. That's what P in PI stands for. They are basically begging you to come out and get arrested, and that's frickin crazy.

I'm all for private establishments like the Moose and the American Legion. Places where police can't just come in and start arresting people because it's private property. Police are not allowed in your club without a WARRANT! Now, let's get together and form more of these places and keep the namby pamby non-smoker non-alcohol people out of our way!

Viva la revolution!!!