Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2Tense

I just want to know if I have a defense or not, can't afford a criminal record with my career choice.

---

If you can not afford a criminal record, stop trying to blame them.

Suck it up and pay them back.

As you said, you can not afford to be convicted of a petty theft case because of your career, then do everything possible so as to not be! That will be not getting charged in the first place!

Stop saying, well, they are partially responsible. You said you CAN not be convicted, so act like it.

You want to roll the dice?

Go for it.

You will probably still be found guilty, and then your career will be over.

And what career are you in where a petty theft criminal charge hurts you that much?

No, you have no legal grounds for a defense. You have your own liability and the bar tender has his. You're both responsible for your respective indiscretions.

2Tense, you're reading way too much into circumstances. You're reaching for straws that simply aren't there. You're guilty and so is the bartender, albeit of different offenses. 2 wrongs don't make a right, they just make 2 wrongs and put 2 extra feathers in the prosecutor's cap. The prosecutor will indeed have a field day with the both of you. Now, as others have suggested, trying to negotiate a deal with the bar out of court to the effect that you make restitution and not call them on the carpet for continuing to serve you while intoxicated in exchange for them dropping the charges against you may be a good idea and may well prove to be the path of least resistance for all involved.

Hi all,

I was talking to my husband last night. He works in Alberta and BC and he said that if this were taking place in Alberta this guy would definitely have a case. He wasn't sure about the law in BC, but the law does exist in some places. I think it is a ridiculous law.

I would like to know though why you shouldn't have been served in the first place. I think that if you were to walk in there drunk already that would take the ownis off anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aqua@home

Hi all,

I was talking to my husband last night. He works in Alberta and BC and he said that if this were taking place in Alberta this guy would definitely have a case. He wasn't sure about the law in BC, but the law does exist in some places. I think it is a ridiculous law.

I would like to know though why you shouldn't have been served in the first place. I think that if you were to walk in there drunk already that would take the ownis off anyone.

---

I think you are misunderstanding something here. We have agreed that 2Tense might have a case against the bar and bartender for serving him. But as S_cianci said, that is totally separate from the theft. Using the grounds that he shouldn't have been served does not absolve him of the guilt of the theft.

Mental impairment is a defense, intoxication that impaired your thinking is a defense, you did it... there is proof you did... offer restitution to the bar... most bar keepers rather have the restitution... it keeps their insurance down and the hiring of a lawyer to collect on something that cost 1/10th of the lawyer's fee is poor management... this may be a scared tactic... any how pay for the damage... punishment is necessary to discourage other bad behavior from other customers and employees... you will fell better... if you give the money back... ask for a receipt and be sure to write on the receipt paid in full or paid under protest... whatever is appropriate at the time... guilty or innocent protect your rights...

Boys, canadian law differs from American law.

We can't sue like you all can. And its much harder.

But in other respects, our system is more "user friendly".

This isn't a little bar either. Its rather big. But, their in the red, won't be out for another 2/3 years, if things go good.
Am I defending against crown or the bar?

I do realize that the Canadian court system is different. But there is still a difference between criminal and civil. Theft is a criminal action prosecuted by the government. Liability is a civil issue with two parties against each other. As I see it the bar has no civil case against you, but there is a criminal case (where you are guilty). You MAY have a civil case against the bar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2Tense

But I am also aware, that by law, a bartender has to cut off anyone who has had a few too many wobbly pops.... I really shoudn't have been served.
Do I have any legal grounds for such a defense?

---

In the bartender's defense, if it would go to a jury trial, he could say he didn't know you were intoxicated, and they would have to take his word for it. He's not the one being charged. You need to accept responsibility for your actions. Being intoxicated is no defense at all. It will not hold up in court. If you try to use that to get out of trouble, it will only make you look even more irresponsible. Your best bet would be to admit to it, offer restitution, it's only petit larceny. YOu won't get time for it unless you have a long criminal history.

You can hold the bartender and the owner of the bar responsible for your actions... they served you too many drinks... of course the reply will be that is what we are in business for... here in Irving, Texas... if a police officer catches you drink inside a bar... you are ticketed... and if it is really bad arrested for intoxication... this action is for your protection and the owners protection... the most you can ask for in your situation is not 50% but 70%... you destroyed property... that was from your lips to the writing to our eyes... own up to your responsibilities... bad behavior should never be dismissed... by making the statement the devil made me do it... just does not make it in my opinion... society needs rules.. be a diplomat... pay your part... :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I think you are misunderstanding something here. We have agreed that 2Tense might have a case against the bar and bartender for serving him. But as S_cianci said, that is totally separate from the theft. Using the grounds that he shouldn't have been served does not absolve him of the guilt of the theft.

---

You may be right, but this is what I understand: because the bartender can be found at fault (in Alberta), this somewhat nullifies his actions. Or at least that's what 2Tense wants to happen (I think).

To be fair, I am bowing out because I don't know with a 100% accuracy.

My Understanding Is That 2 Tenses Does Not To Be Responbile For Her Actions... I Want The Responsibility Of The Actions To Be Split With The Major Decision In Favor Of The Bar...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LUNAGODDESS

You can hold the bartender and the owner of the bar responsible for your actions...

---

I disagree. One can hold the bartender and bar owner LIABLE for one's actions but not responsible for them. US law, at least, holds a person responsible for their actions. The only exception to that is if the person was mentally incapable of telling right from wrong and that's pretty hard to prove. Again, in the US intoxication is not a defense for wrong doing. If it was, then there would be no DUI laws.

Being intoxicated could be a mitigiating factor and could be used to lessen the severity of a sentence, but it doesn't make you less guilty.

The most likely scenario I see for 2Tense in going to trial, is being found guilty and ordered to pay restitution in lieu of jail time. But that will still mean a conviction on his record that he claimed he didn't want. The only way to avoid that is to pay restitution under agreement that charges won't be pressed.

The bar & bartender's liability is a separate issue. It can be used to scare the bar into not pressing charges. It can be used to extract money from them. But its not going to be a defense to be found innocent of the theft charges.

The previous post above has it all correct and should clear up any misunderstandings that people have had concerning this situation.