Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Alfndrate wrote:
It's not (that I know of), it was a typo by Seaward.

Yup. Fixed.

 Frazzled wrote:
If you're not driving a car, you've not given consent and therefore that is illegal.

You can be stopped for riding a bicycle in several states, or walking if you happen to live in a college town.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If you're not driving a car, you've not given consent and therefore that is illegal.

You can be stopped for riding a bicycle in several states, or walking if you happen to live in a college town.

You can be stopped. Show me the case law where you can be forced to take a breathalyzer though. IIRC alcohol tests can be made for vehicle drivers because they consented to such with the license. "Implied consent" gives them the right. As someone in a house, there is no implied consent to anything.

You should immediately call your vampire, er lawyer.

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If you're not driving a car, you've not given consent and therefore that is illegal.

You can be stopped for riding a bicycle in several states, or walking if you happen to live in a college town.

You can be stopped. Show me the case law where you can be forced to take a breathalyzer though. IIRC alcohol tests can be made for vehicle drivers because they consented to such with the license. "Implied consent" gives them the right. As someone in a house, there is no implied consent to anything.

You should immediately call your vampire, er lawyer.

They were arresting everyone who refused.

Six plain clothes coppers to catch kids buying underage drink seems like a poor use of resources before you consider that they wrongly identified the stuff they were carrying and all the nonsense that followed.

 rubiksnoob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If you're not driving a car, you've not given consent and therefore that is illegal.

You can be stopped for riding a bicycle in several states, or walking if you happen to live in a college town.

You can be stopped. Show me the case law where you can be forced to take a breathalyzer though. IIRC alcohol tests can be made for vehicle drivers because they consented to such with the license. "Implied consent" gives them the right. As someone in a house, there is no implied consent to anything.

You should immediately call your vampire, er lawyer.

They were arresting everyone who refused.

And?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Six plain clothes coppers to catch kids buying underage drink seems like a poor use of resources before you consider that they wrongly identified the stuff they were carrying and all the nonsense that followed.

Indeed. Further, not knowing what cans some wimminz had in their bag when they walked out of a store is not exactly PC.
Pick up that can citizen.

Just donated $50 to the ACLU.

 Seaward wrote:
I hate ABC

I find hilarious the fact that you have those. Up here that job is left for the rookies in their first year of training.

In my town it was either that or IDing those going to the private beach. Weirdly, most seemed to prefer the private beach...

 Seaward wrote:
PBR's the nectar of the gods.

Huh, every time I drink a Stella it comes out as nectar of the gods an hour later.

Well, all I have to say is that I definitely know my new dream job. I mean, what other position allows you to turn a routine beer check into a mother-fething action movie?

Make sure you take the shotgun grayshadow, you never know when a teenage girl might try to smuggle some near beer past you, or god forbid! Perrier!

My only comment on this thread is to praise the use of "Pick up the can, citizen"; a phrase which never fails to make me snort when it's appropriately fielded as it was here.

If there is a better shorthand for stupid, senseless government brutality, I don't know what it is.

Seaward wrote:
Drinking age is 21 in the States.

Virginia's fething weird with liquor. You can sell beer and wine pretty much anywhere, but all liquor has to go through ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) stores. They're government-run, basically. No liquor stores in the Old Dominion.

But yes, it's very much a non-job.

Are six plain clothes agents really a appropriate method of tackling underage drinking?

Admittedly I'm from the UK where our drinking age is 18 and not 21 but even so I've never read of the police arresting a 17 year old in this country for carrying a beer, or even drinking one for that matter. It would be generally viewed a shocking waste of the police’s time.

This really does strike me as a staggering example of petty puritanical bullying by pointless jobsworths.

 LuciusAR wrote:
Are six plain clothes agents really a appropriate method of tackling underage drinking?

Nope. But, again, this is all they have to do. It's this, or chasing the Dukes of Hazzard.

Admittedly I'm from the UK where our drinking age is 18 and not 21 but even so I've never read of the police arresting a 17 year old in this country for carrying a beer, or even drinking one for that matter. It would be generally viewed a shocking waste of the police’s time.

You normally don't get arrested for underage drinking here, either. It tends to be a citation. She wasn't arrested for underage possession - she didn't have any beer, after all - but instead ludicrous assault charges.

This really does strike me as a staggering example of petty puritanical bullying by pointless jobsworths.

It's got zero to do with puritanism at this point, it's all about the money the ABC scheme brings in. The current governor of Virginia (a Republican) floated a plan to start phasing out ABC not long ago, and got shouted down by all sides, 'cause they like the cash. So ABC cops occasionally try and justify their existence with stunts like this.

It's got zero to do with puritanism at this point, it's all about the money the ABC scheme brings in. The current governor of Virginia (a Republican) floated a plan to start phasing out ABC not long ago, and got shouted down by all sides, 'cause they like the cash. So ABC cops occasionally try and justify their existence with stunts like this.

Interesting, how does the ABC scheme raise money exactly? Does it dish out fines?

 LuciusAR wrote:
Interesting, how does the ABC scheme raise money exactly? Does it dish out fines?

It does, but it also runs the liquor stores. You can buy beer and wine at supermarkets, but if you want to buy a bottle of whiskey, or any sort of liquor at all, you need to do it through an ABC store. We don't have private liquor stores in the Commonwealth.

According to their site, Virginia ABC generated 1.7 billion for the state over the past five years.

Things like this happen everywhere. Having a position of authority doesn't protect from incompetence. What happens after is where the quality of a state is decided. If this affair ends with the officers in question being suspended and the student compensated the system will have proved it's value.

Yes, but the price for incompetence is high when guns are involved, especially when they are using said guns to stop someone from buying alcohol 1 year too young. Why do they even carry guns? Is there a major boot legging gang problem?

Why do they even carry guns?

That one I can answer: if you are enforcing governmental authority in a country where every paranoid is allowed to carry, you not only need irons, but flak armour too.

I mean, in Germany carrying is not allowed, but still there are incidents of people shooting onto cops doing car controls. Seldom, but nevertheless. Now over there it is legal to be armed on the streets...

 Steve steveson wrote:
Yes, but the price for incompetence is high when guns are involved, especially when they are using said guns to stop someone from buying alcohol 1 year too young. Why do they even carry guns? Is there a major boot legging gang problem?

They're law enforcement officers. I'm unaware of any American law enforcement agency that doesn't issue firearms.

Now, they're absolutely unnecessary LEOs, but still.

 Hruotland wrote:
Things like this happen everywhere. Having a position of authority doesn't protect from incompetence. What happens after is where the quality of a state is decided. If this affair ends with the officers in question being suspended and the student compensated the system will have proved it's value.

NO Staggeringly incorrect. In the US, having a position of authority does protect from incompetence, as long as they were "following policy"
Godwin time. The thought that people couldn't be Fascist (or any "Ist") here is hilarious. "Following policy" has become the excepted excuse of the bureaucrat from the lowly school principal all the way to the top.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hruotland wrote:
Things like this happen everywhere. Having a position of authority doesn't protect from incompetence. What happens after is where the quality of a state is decided. If this affair ends with the officers in question being suspended and the student compensated the system will have proved it's value.

NO Staggeringly incorrect. In the US, having a position of authority does protect from incompetence, as long as they were "following policy"
Godwin time. The thought that people couldn't be Fascist (or any "Ist") here is hilarious. "Following policy" has become the excepted excuse of the bureaucrat from the lowly school principal all the way to the top.

...which I'd suspect was the modus operandi for many Germans during the early period of the Nazi regime, too, when you think about it.

Parallelllllsssss....

Yep.

 Seaward wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
Interesting, how does the ABC scheme raise money exactly? Does it dish out fines?

It does, but it also runs the liquor stores. You can buy beer and wine at supermarkets, but if you want to buy a bottle of whiskey, or any sort of liquor at all, you need to do it through an ABC store. We don't have private liquor stores in the Commonwealth.

According to their site, Virginia ABC generated 1.7 billion for the state over the past five years.

I've just done a bit of googling about what the ABC do and was quite shocked. I had no idea that some counties had state run liquor stores that are the only ones licensed able to sell certain types of booze.

Seems rather unamerican to me.

Every county in Virginia. I don't know if that's the case for all 17 other control states, but I imagine it is.

And yes, I agree that it's rather un-American. It's...it's practically socialized boozing!

It's a holdover from the end of Prohibition and long since stopped being necessary.

Maybe they thought it was case of Zima... and they just wanted to save the coeds from it all enthusiastic like... you know?

ZIMA?! GOD WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Did you have to go and mention that eldritch abomination?

 Seaward wrote:
It's...it's practically socialized boozing

Did you know that in Virginia they ration spirits?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
It's...it's practically socialized boozing

Did you know that in Virginia they ration spirits?

That's worse than rationed healthcare

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
It's...it's practically socialized boozing

Did you know that in Virginia they ration spirits?

If that's not legal grounds for armed revolution I don't know what is.