Deja NON Vu: Someone Was Imprudent Enough to Mention It

[Sue U]

Incorrect, the bartender can legally 'cut you off' if you are endagering yourself. If some one was hurt in anyway in his bar, he could be liable; especially an alcohol overdose.

A bartender's civil liability for his own conduct that foreseeably leads to harm of a drinker is something quite different than a criminal statute that prohibits the drinker from drinking in the first place.

[Andrew D]

How would we get people to stop? I don't know. But surely an essential step in that is making it clear that people ought to stop.

Steve and Edi used to say that all the time at the CSB. Steve actually believe if he posted enough bad news at the CSB, people would all come to their senses and .....something.....would happen.

I do not believe that posting something here -- once, twice, a billion times -- is likely to have any substantial effect.

But millions of people posting here and at millions of other places?

Maybe.

If we're lucky.

[Andrew D]

Keld Feldspar referred above to Joel Feinberg, a highly regarded and influential philosopher in this area. From Prof. Feinberg's obit in the NYT:

As Jules L. Coleman, another former student who is a professor of philosophy at Yale University Law School, put it, ''Feinberg defends the view that the state's power can be employed against individuals primarily only if their actions are likely to be harmful to others and not, for example, if they are merely offensive or morally repugnant to a powerful majority.''

That is the issue in a nutshell.

Bingo again!

[Sean]

(Personally, I think Sean's argument is tantamount to blaming rape victims for wearing a skirt "too short.")

That, by the way, was insulting, misplaced and completely false.
Please explain (if you can) how the fuck you got that from my post?. I honestly thought you had more intelligence than that!

I direct your attention to the following quote (emphasis added):

I disagree with this. Hypothetical I know, but I wonder what would happen to rape and sexual assault statisitics if women walked around nude?

Can you see the parallel?

"I wonder what would happen to rape and sexual assault statistics if women walked around in short skirts?"
"I wonder what would happen to rape and sexual assault statistics if women walked around with ankles exposed?"
"I wonder what would happen to rape and sexual assault statistics if women walked around in public?"

Rape and sexual assault are not crimes of women's clothing (or lack of it). To suggest that they are is to excuse the rapist and blame the victim for his actions.

You are an intelligent woman Sue. I don't really believe that you failed to see the actual meaning behind my words but just in case, I'll explain it to you.
There are men out there who see women as sexual objects. These men slaver over fully clothed women. How do think they would react when presented with a naked woman say, on a quiet street at night? This is the RAPIST'S fault. Rape is the fault of the RAPIST. Always. Clear enough yet? It disgusts me that you leap in and accuse me of what you did. Of course, there are always going to be radical feminists like yourself who will try to hit out at all men with bullshit accusations like the one you levelled towards me.

If you really still believe that I'm blaming the victim and excusing the rapist then shame on you for your knee-jerk reaction! It says less about me and much more about your misandric tendencies.

[loCAtek]

I can go into a bar and drink an unhealthy amount of alcohol.

Yes, a bartender can cut me off.

Still, I can go into a bar and drink an unhealthy amount of alcohol.

After having drunk an unhealthy amount of alcohol, I can walk home.

Yes, the police can arrest a person who is "in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others".

Still, after having drunk an unhealthy amount of alcohol, I can walk home.

All that assumes is you didn't get caught* drinking the unhealthy amount and/or being drunk in public. That would go the same for your heorin user; so long as they don't get caught, they can shoot up to thier heart's content.

*My police friends say DIP can be used as a catch all, say to disperse boys singing too loudly in the street, in the middle of the night; as a means to maintain the peace. My fav vlogger NatesVlogs, recently got sent to the 'drunk tank' in Vegas on that charge, while he insists he was being polite and respectful.

[Scooter]

At least in California, which is where Andrew lives, being visibly drunk in public is insufficient in itself to warrant a charge of public intoxication:

California Penal Code 647(f) considers public intoxication a misdemeanor. The code describes public intoxication as someone who displays intoxication to liquor, drugs, controlled substances or toluene and demonstrates an inability to care for themselves or others, or interferes or obstructs the free use of streets, sidewalks or other public way/

So unless he/she meets one of the other conditions, he/she cannot be charged with public intoxication merely for having been "caught" being drunk in public.

[loCAtek]

I'm in California too, as is Nate of Natesvlogs. You may not be charged (Nate wasn't) but you may arrested and held. My friend Sheriff Dectective Seabee says they can go as far as yank you off your own front porch if you're drinking ...but they rarely do that. Mainly, they just use it as a threat to 'suggest' you voluntarily comply.

[Scooter]

I will quote the actual statute, since you don't seem to get it yet:

Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance, or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way.

To reiterate, simply being found drunk in public is not enough to be charged. One must either (a) be a risk to one's own safety or the safety of others, or (b) be hindering the use of public streets or sidewalks. If your friend Nate was held, it was because either (1) he was doing one of (a) or (b) above, or (2) he was arrested illegally.

Being caught drinking on your front porch is something completely different from being caught drunk. Nice attempt to move the goalposts, though.

[loCAtek]

I already agreed with you that you may not be charged. Although, Nate would say he was Guilty of being Black. While it shouldn't happen, it does very often.

[Gob]

I do not believe that posting something here -- once, twice, a billion times -- is likely to have any substantial effect.

But millions of people posting here and at millions of other places?

Maybe.

If we're lucky.

Which brings me back to my original, if a little sarcastic, point. Who, what, when, where, why, and how is this movement of millions of people going to start and be organised?

I KEEP six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.

[Scooter]

I already agreed with you that you may not be charged.

But you keep pressing the assertion that you could be charged, which is false based on the statute.

Having the proof shoved right under your nose is not enough, obviously.

Did you even bother to read the statute? Could you point to the words that say it is enough to be drunk in a public place, without any risk to safety, disorderliness, etc., in order for the possibility to exist that someone could be charged?

Didn't think so.

[loCAtek]

My assertion was that you could be arrested for it, which is, as Andrew stated, one of 'society's penal mechanisms'.

[Scooter]

And your assertion is wrong, because the statute says otherwise.

Did you read it? Didn't think so.

[Gob]

Please don't indulge her...

[loCAtek]

Move on Gob, as your wife says. Or take your own advice and ignore me ...if you can.

[loCAtek]

Scooter, in the real world you can arrest outside of the statute ...so long as you don't charge.

[loCAtek]

Will anyone, please! ... Who claim espouse the ignore feature, pretty please, actually use it? With sugar on top?

[Scooter]

Scooter, in the real world you can arrest outside of the statute ...so long as you don't charge.

In the real world arresting without charge is a gross violation of the Constitution...I would have assumed the discussion was about what police could do LEGALLY, and not when acting like common thugs.

But hey, if that's how you need to move the goalposts in order to cling to your bogus assertion, so be it.

Gob, sometimes I just like to see how far down she'll keep digging the hole. This time she's gone so far as to characterize the U.S. as a police state where people are routinely arrested without charge and with complete disregard for the rule of law, and all to save face when she was corrected on a minor point.

Then again, maybe she has a lot more personal experience with being arrested for being drunk in public than she has thus far been willing to let on...

[Sue U]

You are an intelligent woman Sue. I don't really believe that you failed to see the actual meaning behind my words but just in case, I'll explain it to you.
There are men out there who see women as sexual objects. These men slaver over fully clothed women. How do think they would react when presented with a naked woman say, on a quiet street at night? This is the RAPIST'S fault. Rape is the fault of the RAPIST. Always. Clear enough yet? It disgusts me that you leap in and accuse me of what you did. Of course, there are always going to be radical feminists like yourself who will try to hit out at all men with bullshit accusations like the one you levelled towards me.

If you really still believe that I'm blaming the victim and excusing the rapist then shame on you for your knee-jerk reaction! It says less about me and much more about your misandric tendencies.

Sean, I'm not sure what it takes to be a "radical" feminist in your book, but I can assure you that I don't "try to hit out at all men" with accusations, bullshit or otherwise, and I rather doubt I have "misandric tendencies" (misanthropic, maybe ). I am not trying to insult you or pick a fight with you (I think you know that's not really my style), and I am certain that you are not one to blame the victim in the case of rape or other sexual assault. However, while I understood what you were getting at, I think that your statements concerning clothing reflect a flaw in your logic.

For your contention to be true, it would mean that either 1) rapists choose their victims according to the amount of clothing they wear, or 2) men (or some set of men) become rapists when simply confronted with nudty. Obviously, neither is the case. (E.g., are the "men [who] slaver over fully clothed women" just rapists waiting for an opportunity? How much less than "fully clothed" must one be to trigger an attack? Parka and sweater over snowpants? T-shirt and jeans? Sun dress? Halter top and mini-skirt? Topless? What?)

My point is that once you start talking about clothing or the lack of it as somehow relevant in assault, you are automatically introducing the blameworthiness of the victim. Men are not animals who cannot control themselves, and nudity is not an invitation to assault (hell, even animals, who are by and large nude all the time, generally indicate desire/receptiveness before sex).

Neither am I advocating that all people go naked all the time. My view is that there is a time and a place for everything, but as a general rule, if there is no objective harm in some particular conduct, then whether to engage in that conduct should be decided by the person or people involved, not by the preemptive coercion of the state.

[Sean]

Sean, I'm not sure what it takes to be a "radical" feminist in your book, but I can assure you that I don't "try to hit out at all men" with accusations, bullshit or otherwise, and I rather doubt I have "misandric tendencies" (misanthropic, maybe ). I am not trying to insult you or pick a fight with you (I think you know that's not really my style),

I do know that Sue, that's why you words shocked and angered me so much.

and I am certain that you are not one to blame the victim in the case of rape or other sexual assault.

Your previous words would suggest otherwise...

Rape and sexual assault are not crimes of women's clothing (or lack of it). To suggest that they are is to excuse the rapist and blame the victim for his actions.

However, while I understood what you were getting at, I think that your statements concerning clothing reflect a flaw in your logic.
For your contention to be true, it would mean that either 1) rapists choose their victims according to the amount of clothing they wear, or 2) men (or some set of men) become rapists when simply confronted with nudty. Obviously, neither is the case.

There is of course an option 3.) A sicko who is barely able to control his urges may be pushed over the edge by the sight of a naked woman. Again, this is his fault and not hers.

(E.g., are the "men [who] slaver over fully clothed women" just rapists waiting for an opportunity? How much less than "fully clothed" must one be to trigger an attack? Parka and sweater over snowpants? T-shirt and jeans? Sun dress? Halter top and mini-skirt? Topless? What?)

You'd have to ask the sicko about that one...

My point is that once you start talking about clothing or the lack of it as somehow relevant in assault, you are automatically introducing the blameworthiness of the victim. Men are not animals who cannot control themselves, and nudity is not an invitation to assault (hell, even animals, who are by and large nude all the time, generally indicate desire/receptiveness before sex).

My point is that clothing (or indeed the lack of it) is relevant to sexual feelings/urges/desires in human beings (to be fair Sue, your comparison to unclothed animals is a bit silly really and almost verging on the scarecrowesque... ). Do you honestly not think that men look at unclothed women in a different way to fully clothed women? That's human nature. Fortunately, most men have evolved to a point where they can look, appreciate and stop there. There is the minority however...

Neither am I advocating that all people go naked all the time. My view is that there is a time and a place for everything, but as a general rule, if there is no objective harm in some particular conduct, then whether to engage in that conduct should be decided by the person or people involved, not by the preemptive coercion of the state.

Fair enough. Do you have any thoughts on how we should quantify objective harm? On who should set the limits and impose the restrictions on public nudity?