"The right to get drunk at home is under threat," Mr Laverriere says

[Shaman King]

US man sues for right to be drunk

The right to get drunk at home is under threat, Mr Laverriere says
A US man who spent a night in police custody after being arrested at a friend's house party is suing for the right to be drunk on private property.

Eric Laverriere was arrested at a New Year's Eve party in Massachusetts under a law allowing police to detain people who are drunk and deemed to be a danger to others or themselves.

He argues that police had no right to take him from the house when he was not causing any trouble.

"One thing people should be able to do is drink in their own house," he told the Boston Globe newspaper. "That's the beauty of the land of the free."

The local police chief has not commented on the lawsuit.

Fourteenth Amendment

Mr Laverriere was arrested under Massachusetts state's Protective Custody Law.

He says he had had several beers but was not drunk when police arrived at the party complaining that bottles had been thrown at a passing patrol car.

When party-goers denied any bottles had been thrown, he says, the officers became angry.

Mr Laverriere says he then picked up a video camera and began filming the police.

An officer removed the camera from his hands and restrained him, injuring his shoulder.

The police report says he was "intoxicated" and seemed unhappy to leave the party.

Mr Laverriere fell to the floor as he resisted attempts to handcuff him, the report says.

A lawyer who has defended the police was quoted by the Associated Press news agency as saying officers were obliged to take a person into custody if they appeared intoxicated and threatening.

Mr Laverriere, who has maintained he was neither drunk nor dangerous at the time, is arguing that his right to be drunk in private is enshrined in the constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4665771.stm

I couldn't find the article on the Globe website, but <s>the damn Brits were too lazy to write their own article</s> this is pretty much verbatim <small><em>and also the first thing that Google found for me</small></em>

I think this is very scary, on several levels. There's issues of police brutality, police exercising downright scary amounts of power... just a lot of general unpleasentness by the police.

[MST3Kakalina]

god i hope they never visit a college campus.


=/

[t3]

Well. Glad I'm too much a pussy to drink alcohol. (S'too bitter.)

[Rory Storm]

I have decided not to drink or smoke in my life.
"It is the one drink that leads you to the path of more, which make you act foolish"
I am also against smoking because of the fact that I almost, when younger, as in baby, died from a lung infection from being around my smoking aunt.

I do, however, believe that a person does have the right to get drunk in their own house, or by permission of the person housing them. I also think that if the person putting up said housing, or party, says enough, then enough is enough, and the person must stop.
Now I know that I am not yet 21, but I have seen what drinking can do to a person, and how alcohol and be addictive. I want no part of that.
If the person is, however, in their own house and making a disturbing noise, or actions, they should then be dealt with. A person can get drunk, but enough is enough.

[implode]

errr... c'mon, guys. read into this a little deeper.

He says he had had several beers but was not drunk when police arrived at the party complaining that bottles had been thrown at a passing patrol car.

When party-goers denied any bottles had been thrown, he says, the officers became angry.

<i>Mr Laverriere says he then picked up a video camera and began filming the police.</i> yeah, great idea. "the grizzly bear is visibly agitated, at this point. so what we're going to do... we're going to sneak up on him, real quiet-like, and we're going to jam our thumbs in his butthole!"

the first thing you need to know about cops is that if they're visibly agitated, it's probably not the best idea to do <i>anything</i> that might piss them off further. in this case, the guy was probably under the impression that he'd have a way-cool police brutality video to show to his friends at his next party, but he was retarded enough to make it very obvious that he was filming them, and probably commenting on how ridiculous they were acting, too. so. we now have our thumb firmly implanted in the grizzly's butthole.

An officer removed the camera from his hands and restrained him, injuring his shoulder.

The police report says he was "intoxicated" and seemed unhappy to leave the party.

Mr Laverriere fell to the floor as he resisted attempts to handcuff him, the report says. and here's where he starts twirling it around. he probably said something along the lines of "what, is it illegal to film you guys, now?" or something equally inflammatory instead of just putting the damned camera down and filming the rest from inside. at this point, he's pissed off the cops to NO end, who were obviously looking for someone to arrest anyway, since they "became angry" when nobody would own up to throwing the bottles. cops get bored, man. the only thing you can do to deal with them in situations like this is kill them with kindness. if you're unfailingly polite and compliant, they'll begrudgingly leave you alone and look for someone else who <i>won't</i> be as compliant. someone was getting arrested. they should have known that. it's this guys own fault that it was him. just because they had to invoke some obscure law to rationalize it doesn't mean a damned thing. police don't invoke obscure laws to screw you over for no reason. he was obviously being difficult in the worst situation to be difficult in. it's like getting pulled over for suspected drunk driving and chewing the cop out because you haven't had a sip. he'll get you for a "busted taillight" after he whacks it out with his nightstick.

and frankly, i DO think this law is understandable. you've never been with somebody who's just been <i>way too drunk?</i> now, what if he happens to be an agressive drunk? do you just wait for him to start throwing elbows before you take him into custody? no, you throw him in the drunk tank and wait 'til morning. this guy is an idiot for trying to sue the police department. he's inviting a whole WORLD of trouble onto himself, <i>especially</i> if he wins. christ. think things through, man.

[implode]

FUCK YOU ERIC RAWR

[SLUM WIZZARD]

...and seemed unhappy to leave the party.
No shit?
If I was having a good time at a party, I'd be pretty agitated about being taken away too.

(But the guy does seem like a dick. [I would have filmed from the bushes])

[MST3Kakalina]

yeah, you shouldn't be a dick to the police, but isn't that like saying, "the police have the right to arrest anyone who even looks at them funny?"

[töm]

you're probably committing some sort of crime no matter what you're doing at any given moment.

[tater]

Dude, when they say they can get you for something, they're not lying. There are so many laws in this country it's ridiculous. State laws ... man. My soc. Professor read a list of laws that are still on the books today and not one person in my class would have gone free. It's illegal to do any kind of work on Sundays in many states. Old blue laws. It's amazing.

However, I see Koba's point. It's not really cool to send the message "Don't piss off the cops, they'll arrest you". That gives the police way too much power. There has to be a happy medium and this guy just got a little too close to that line. I'd rule in favor of the guy if I were the judge, based on the fact that they got annoyed when the partiers denied guilt. The police were out for blood and that's unacceptable.

[SLUM WIZZARD]

but wouldn't it be better if the guy was using the defence that the police had no right to arrest him specifically rather than saying that core american freedoms were on the line?
Yeah, but this is the same guy that ran up to a police officer with a camcorder not expecting him to say "Hey, why the hell are you recording me? Turn it off.".