The other night,
Me and some colleagues hit up the local tarvern for some refreshing breverages... okay, we got hammed, and hit the bar... now vaguely I don't remember really being there, but I know I was.
Appearently, I stole some beer taps from the beer well.
They got me on camera, but, I was hammered when this all occurred.

I am aware that being intoxicated is no defense.
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 wasn't cut off. I really shoudn't have been served.
Do I have any legal grounds for such a defense?

(I am a B.C resident)

Offer restitution in return for dropping charges.

I live in Canada, so our systems a bit different.

No charges have been laid as of yet. It's all been a scare tactic so far.
I just want to know if I have a defense or not, can't afford a criminal record with my career choice.

My answer doesn't change. They have you on camera. Whether they were wrong in letting you get that drunk is not likely to save you from a conviction. It might make a difference in sentencing.

If it's a scare tactic what are they trying to scare you into? Making restitution? Then do it.

Not to sound offensive, but I'd like peace of mind, what education do you have? (not that I don't believe what you're telling me)

And are you takin' the "serving it right" law into consideration?

Well, you could talk to the owner and see if there is anything you can do seeing as no charges have been laid... yet.

I don't think it is the responsibility of the bartender to babysit all of their customers. How are they suppose to know how each and everyone of them act when they have had enough?

BTW... my dad is a supervisor at a Canadian Federal Penetentiary and he says that if you could eliminate drugs and alcohol, the jails would be at least half empty.

No offense taken. My education, in this instance, is a matter of being very widely read on a number of disciplines. I am not an attorney and do recommend you consult one.

But what I know of the law (at least in the US) is that extenuating circumstances do not preclude a conviction. With photographic evidence that you committed the crime, a jury or a judge, especially , will be forced to convict. You cannot get off after shooting someone by saying they handed you the gun.

What you are asking is a way to get out of the situation by placing the blame on someone else. That's not going to work In my opinion. There are similar laws in the US that state a bartender can ALSO be held liable for the actions of a patron if they serve them past a certain point. The key point is that ALSO. It does not absolve you of responsibility.

If you want to threaten the bartender with a counter suit, you might get the bar to back off from prosecuting. My opinion is that what you might have to pay to fight the charge will be more than restitution.

http://www.go2hr.ca/ServingItRight/R...1/Default.aspx

Explain how they can be held responsible, even if it is 50%.

My defense is, had I not been overserved, I would have been in a mind state where takin' a beer tap sounded like a good idea. (cause in a sboer state it doesn't).

I should not have been served upon arrival. Had I not been served, I wouldn't have been there to take those objects.
They also had a phone go missing that night... but that was taken by a different party... yet, due to the first two televised observances, they are tryin' to blame me as well.

I have to say, no offense of course, but your attitude is not the greatest. If you want to blame the bartender why not blame who drove you to the bar? Or who invited you to go out that night? Or who introduced you to that person? Or.. Get it? Why should you have been served upon arrival? Were you so drunk that you should not have even been there? Who's fault is that?

Take responsibility. These people who sue McDonald's for making them fat or tanning beds for giving them cancer are out to lunch. If you are old enough to drink you should be old enough to tell yourself when you've had enough.

I am tryin' to get a hold of lawyers, but its Sunday, so I got to wait.

Two beer taps were taken, one of which has been returned.
The other is M.I.A.

The only reason why they can do anything really is because I was a ex employee, had I only been on camera, they'd have no name, or other information, I'd be fine.

I will get a hold of a lawyer, but I just wanted a bit of peace of mind for the time being.
The bartender is their senior bartender... so I'll see what will occur.

You aren't listening to me. The link you included just supports what I have said. The hotel was held liable in a CIVIL action. You are dealing with a CRIMINAL action. The evidence shows you committed the crime, therefore you will, most likely, be convicted of the crime.

If you want to counter sue the bar, you might have a case, but that won't save you from the criminal conviction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2Tense

The only reason why they can do anything really is because I was a ex employee, had I only been on camera, they'd have no name, or other information, I'd be fine.

---

Not true. There may have been other ways of finding you. I agree with aqua, your attitude here leaves a lot to be desired. According to you, the evidence shows you committed the crime. Instead of trying to take responsibility you are doing everything you can to try and dodge it. How much can a beer tap cost? Probably less then trying to beat the rap.

Hello 1:

The ONLY reason?? Dude, you're a crook. That's the only reason they're going to do anything to you. Peace of mind? BS! You wanted to tell us how guilty THEY are. Didn't work.

excon

I understand what you are saying, the previous post was written prior to your response.
There's a whole miriade of reasoning behind this entire situation.

I've returned what I have... it their time to play.

The company is in the red as is, any counter sue and they may get scared.
I received threats as of Friday.
I just want to know what I am entitled too..
Or mainly, how best I can **** them over.
I don't mind gettin' a few scrapes for their black eye.

I'm also good at assaulting.

Want to meet up at Bellis fair mall?

Their special order.

Basically, in a nut shell,

A few months back, I got in a car accident (not my fault, the drive rI was with) [now, if you want to say I'm spreading the blame again, fine, but I didn't control the car] I was out for ten days from work, and even came in earlier to help, upon returning I was given my resignation.

They further ****ed me by not giving me severance.

Now, I can't find the owner and beat him senseless, (much like I would other business)...

So I need something.

And I do have a bad atitude, but it ain't showed itself... yet.

Furthermore, it is the bartenders job to cut anyone off whose been too intoxicated.

Being an ex employee, this rule was neglected for me.

This is all gettin' off topic.

If anyone can help with the original question I'd appreciate it.

And lastly, why would anyone go here if they weren't a criminal?

Don't need help with the law, until you break it.

I see what Scott is saying. You did it... the video shows you did it! No matter the reason you are guilty of that. You did break the law. From what you have said about what happened with you and the bar when you were an employee, that just sounds like motive.

I don't think you have any defense. You did it! I think you have to take whatever is handed out. If I leave the bar and go home and beat my kids, no matter how drunk I was or how bad I feel about it now, I still beat them and will go to jail and they will be taken away. Is the bartender still responsible then?

Hello again 1:

Lots of people come here who've committed a crime. They want help defending themselves. You were given good advice concerning how you can stay out of trouble. You weren't interested in that advice. Instead, you wanted to tell us how guilty THEY are, and that's what you're going to base your case on. Knock yourself out.

excon

Unfortunately here in Canada, the defence of intoxication does work sometimes. It depends on the circumstances. And the cases I have read about were crimes resulting in death or injury, not simple theft.

Scott gave you some great advice.

If you do NOT want to be charged, go and talk with the owner. Tell him you were drunk, and you are sorry and you wish to return the beer taps and maybe give him a bit extra for his troubles. In exchange, he has to agree NOT to press charges.

He very well may go for it.

After all, if he gets his property back, plus extra stuff, why would he then bother to go through the whole police thing?

I said I did it.
That's not the problem.
It's the legal loops holes to get through.
And it sounds like Serving it right may get them to back off.
In any event, I will contact a lawyer, who actually knows what he's talking about.
Aqua, I hope you aren't tryin' to be a lawyer. You're too judgemental. You got to see people as objects, clean and innocent, not as individuals with moral delemmas.
Scott, If you're tryin' to be a lawyer, pursue it. You have the ability of chatting with a guilty man, and hearing him as if he's innocent.

I'mma wait for their bluff.
A beer tap has been returned, the other is gone.

Dude, you need to get rid of your attitude.

Don't piss them off. Be the apologetic one, do not BLAME them.

Since you don't want a conviction, gravel now so they WON'T press charges.

The bartender could be held partial responsible, as he knows he shouldn't be giving you so many drinks, there's a law, every server and bartender must have serving it right by law. The bartender, therefore, did not follow the law.
The systems ****ed. But, its all about the lawyer.

Its all hearsay at this time.
No charges have been pressed.
Ive returned what I had..

I'm going to sum up here.

1) You are guilty
2) You are guilty
3) You are guilty
4) If prosecuted I have almost no doubt that you will be convicted.
5) I don't know what the beer taps are worth (I'm not even sure what they are). But I would suspect this is a petty theft crime.

6) You have 2 recourses to make this go away.
a) Make full restitution in return for an agreement to not press charges.
b) Try to scare them off by counter suing

I vote for restitution and putting it behind you. The fact that you have a greivance against them because of their firing you is just going to maske it EASIER to convict you. It provides a motive beyond just a drunken prank. And any prosecutor will use that to advantage.

If you want to try to scare them off by suing, you will need to discuss that with an attorney first. I strongly suspect, unless you are rich and can afford to pay the attorney fres, that you will be told the same thing I'm telling you.

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.