What to do, potential criminal charges.

[Bandit Bill]

Whether the perp in this case had a blackout or not, i think is irrevelant. Alcohol simply removes the inhibitions to pre-existing behavior and personality traits. Once a thief, always a thief. Alcohol simply made the perp too stupid to get away with it, in not recognizing CCTV surveillance.

If the perp was 'blacked out' .. it sounds like buddy has some substance dependancy issues that HE needs to address - it's not the LLBO responsibility to moderate his behavior, it's his own responsibility. Though it's the 'law' that bars monitor alcohol consumption, i still can't understand for the life of me how people think that other's are responsible for their own actions and behavior. It's not like the bartender tied him down on the bar and forcibly drained a 40oz down their throat water-boarding style.

Whether the victim has set the perp up for a potential extortion attempt or not, again irrevelant. I'd call that an informal victims surcharge if the money didn't exist in the first place. Not extortion. Your buddy did wrong with the theft, not the victim. If it did exist, how'd your buddy know one way or the other .. he was 'blacked out', remember.. and yet he claims it had maybe $30.00 innit? Something sounds pretty hinky with buddy if you ask me.. It sounds like the victim was giving the OP's buddy a chance to come clean and fix the crime, before taking it to the next level - criminal proceedings.

Sometimes returning an item and saying 'sorry' just don't cut it. Buddy wasn't 5 years old and lifting a candy bar from the corner store, and got caught by the shop-keeper or mamma..

Lastly, find different friends than 'buddy'. Friends like that have the tendancy to drag you down into the slime they live in. Let him fight his own fight, and live with the well deserved consequences of his own actions.

 

[Petraeus]

1. Get a lawyer
2. Don't admit to being "blacked-out" drunk to the cops
3. see #1 or have a conviction on your criminal record for 5 years

 

[vrus]

My advice is to find another $4,000 or so to add to the $1,000 that was in the purse. and then use that as a down payment on a good lawyer's retainer fee.

We don't know how much was in the purse....

 

[turbodish]

We don't know how much was in the purse....

Well, we have it on good authority that the victim claims there was $1,000 in it. If you have to pick someone to believe, who would you believe? The thief, or the thief's victim?

 

[vrus]

Well, we have it on good authority that the victim claims there was $1,000 in it. If you have to pick someone to believe, who would you believe? The thief, or the thief's victim?

All of the OP's information came from his buddy in the first place. Going by what you're sayin, it already is hard to believe in the first place

 

[wearelopey]

It's true, no one truly knows how much was in the purse except my buddy or the actual waitress.

Thing is, he is still my friend. He is a stupid friend, but a friend none the less.

In someone's darkest hour, I would rather be by their side helping them through it than tormenting him with how he is an untrustworthy theif. Buddy is more than that, he is still a person.

In the end, he has learn't his lesson, whether it be through the courts or not is yet to be seen.

This isn't some kind of witch hunt. Hell, if you knew the things that people did, and were never caught for, I don't think anyone would trust anyone.

Again,

I appreciate the help and advise. Thank you.

 

[twinn]

interesting case.

Here is the dilema for the club, they are not supposed to serve people to the point of intoxication, yet if they release the video of the theft, they might be incriminating themselves and that sets them up for a big liability down the road. Was the same bartender that purse was stolen serving the "theif"?

is there more to this story that you are holding back? was there a one night stand involved in this story? Just sounds kind of sketchy, how this bartender remebers 2 weeks after the fact, after the purse was returned that she lost $1000 and how in the world would she be able to find this guy on facebook if she doesnt even know his name/city/school or place of work etc..

Honestly, unless the crown could prove that this guy had the intent to steal the purse, there is no case. Too many variable, the "drunk" guy could have thought it was his girlfrends/ some girl he picked ups purse etc... not advocating lying-- but thats were a comptent lawyer will go to prove reasonable doubt. if buddy pleads not guilty, there has to be a trial, that means that the jury has to beleive that your buddy, wanted and actually stole the purse, and that there was in fact $1000 in the purse, thats assuming that everyone shows up to trial and the club still has the footage.

 

[promac]

Alcohol simply removes the inhibitions to pre-existing behavior and personality traits. Once a thief, always a thief. Alcohol simply made the perp too stupid to get away with it, in not recognizing CCTV surveillance.

I'd call that an informal victims surcharge if the money didn't exist in the first place. Not extortion.

This is a perfect example of opportunity and justification. Extortion is wrong......extortion is theft. But it seems like a good idea to you. According to your logic, you have the personality traits of a thief. LOL!

 

[promac]

Honestly, unless the crown could prove that this guy had the intent to steal the purse, there is no case. Too many variable, the "drunk" guy could have thought it was his girlfrends/ some girl he picked ups purse etc... not advocating lying-- but thats were a comptent lawyer will go to prove reasonable doubt. if buddy pleads not guilty, there has to be a trial, that means that the jury has to beleive that your buddy, wanted and actually stole the purse, and that there was in fact $1000 in the purse, thats assuming that everyone shows up to trial and the club still has the footage.

The bartender should never have contacted the alleged thief. I think you're right though - a competent lawyer could rip the bartenders credibility to shreds because of it. It was a very bad move on her part. As far as the bartender goes, not having to prove anything, that's just not the reality when it's the plaintiff vs and defendant. It's a fatal mistake - hubris. The victim is always on trial - buddy should pray her and the crown are that stupid.

 

[Bandit Bill]

This is a perfect example of opportunity and justification. Extortion is wrong......extortion is theft. But it seems like a good idea to you. According to your logic, you have the personality traits of a thief. LOL!

No, i'd call it being on the sharp end of the saying "Do unto others, as they do unto you".

Not that i would do it, or have ever done it, but i can certainly understand why someone would do it in retaliation. As Adrath has already stated, this would not have happened if OP's buddy had kept his thieving little hands inside his own pockets. As he didn't, it comes down to a chicken vs the egg argument.. which evil doin' is worse in this situation, the original theft, or a counter-extortion attempt in retaliation?.

We've got people on the forum who advocate vigilante posses to camp out in undergrounds for the purposes of breaking legs of bike thieves... is perpetrating bodily harm not more grievious than theft?? Who's condemning them?

We've got people on the forum who blame the victim of theft in this case for being careless with their purse/belongings rather than the perp for being a thief in the first place.. Is that not wrong?

We've got people on the forum who justify a theft upon a 'blackout' defence, despite their actions clearly indicating concious intent on CCTV, is that not wrong?

We've got people on the forum who'll justify a theft as being a lesser evil when they claim that it was only $30.00, despite being 'blacked out' with no claimed recall at the time.. than it would be if it was involving a hypothetical $1000.00 supposedly being 'extorted' by a victim with more credibility than the perp, at this point. The degree of theft is irrevelant to the actual deed committed, as far as i am concerned.

Some people call it extortion, you choose to call it theft by any other name, I call it Karma biting the OP's thieving friend in the arse.

Does it all matter? it'll be up to the Courts to decide, instead of this forum's kangaroo court to decide what is wrong, and who is guilty in this case.

 

[promac]

It's true, no one truly knows how much was in the purse except my buddy or the actual waitress.

Thing is, he is still my friend. He is a stupid friend, but a friend none the less.

In someone's darkest hour, I would rather be by their side helping them through it than tormenting him with how he is an untrustworthy theif. Buddy is more than that, he is still a person.

You would know him best. If you genuinely believe his is a good guy and that his impairment influenced his decision to do a very stupid and inadvisable thing, your efforts are noble. If it goes to court, perhaps he could use some good character references if mens rea is an issue in determining his guilt. It would be unfortunate to see an otherwise "good guy" get hammered down for an alleged theft, given the situation and no priors.

On the other hand, I had a neighbour, crazy Andre, LOL, who allegedly robbed a Brinks truck. His parents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on his defence to no avail. He had his parents convinced to the bitter end that he didn't do it. I didn't know him well enough to say either way.

 

[promac]

No, i'd call it being on the sharp end of the saying "Do unto others, as they do unto you".

LOL - that's "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."

"Eye for an eye", maybe, but she did get the purse back. Whether she really had $1,000 in the purse is anybody's guess. I'm on the probably not, side of the fence.

Karma can be a ***** sometimes - LOL!

 

[Bandit Bill]

No, i'd call it being on the sharp end of the saying "Do unto others, as they do unto you".

LOL - that's "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."

"Eye for an eye", maybe, but she did get the purse back. Whether she really had $1,000 in the purse is anybody's guess. I'm on the probably not, side of the fence.

Karma can be a ***** sometimes - LOL!

My hackneyed saying, or your correct saying - both work in this case.

 

[klr_guy]

It would be unfortunate to see an otherwise "good guy" get hammered down for an alleged theft

OP: "Buddy was caught stealing a bartenders purse (they caught him on video tape at the bar)"

 

[FiReSTaRT]

An eye for an eye and the world goes blind

If his story checks out, he still did commit theft. Sometimes a one-time screwup can haunt you for the rest of your life. I had a couple of those but fortunately never got nailed (even though mine did not involve any of the particularly nasty offenses). Your buddy should keep his trap shut and get himself a good lawyer. As for the bartender.. If she tried to extort money.. She'd also be lowlife in my books.

 

[promac]

OP: "Buddy was caught stealing a bartenders purse (they caught him on video tape at the bar)"

Indeed, but he was also quite drunk. In some states, it's considered rape if you have intercourse with a female who is impaired - even if she consents at the time of the act. So on the one hand, drunken buddy is held fully responsible for his actions, whereas the drunken female is fully indemnified and held harmless. You could also consider those held unaccountable for their actions when they're insane. Then consider the fact that a drunken individual cannot enter into a legally binding contact. But pickup a purse, that in his mind and drunk state at the time, may well have have been found money that he felt he was entitled to at the time, for instance, and everyone assumes the very worst and is ready to burn him at the stake. Personally, I've never sought to persecute a drunken persons unbecoming behavior, but dismissed it as "relax, buddy, you're a little drunk".

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The actions of one's self, vs. being taken advantage of by the actions of another.

 

[Bandit Bill]

Indeed, but he was also quite drunk. In some states, it's considered rape if you have intercourse with a female who is impaired - even if she consents at the time of the act. So on the one hand, drunken buddy is held fully responsible for his actions, whereas the drunken female is fully indemnified and held harmless. You could also consider those held unaccountable for their actions when they're insane. Then consider the fact that a drunken individual cannot enter into a legally binding contact. But pickup a purse, that in his mind and drunk state at the time, may well have have been found money that he felt he was entitled to at the time, for instance, and everyone assumes the very worst and is ready to burn him at the stake. Personally, I've never sought to persecute a drunken persons unbecoming behavior, but dismissed it as "relax, buddy, you're a little drunk".

Your mamma obviously didn't raise you too well..

Pcked up a purse, and considers it 'found money' that he is 'entitled to'? Drunk, sober or high - i've never considered someone elses property as good as my own, much less a purse belonging to the opposite gender. Is this what you do with lost (or found) valuable property? Strip it of any possible value and toss it aside as a 'found' item that you are entitled to? What ever happened to turning something in, to be returned to it's lawful owner?

That's what is wrong with this world. A sense of entitlement.

I'm drunk, so i'm entitled to have my bad behavior foregiven.
I'm poor, I think i'm entitled to your money to give me a free ride. *take*.
I'm not poor, but i'm entitled to your property anyway, because i felt like it. *swipe*.
I'm drunk, hey.. look at that motorsickle, lets sit on it, hey, he left his helmet on it, lets PISS in it!
I'm drunk, and i just killed a family of four while behind the wheel, but that's ok, i'm not responsible for my actions since i was drunk.

How many of the above statements go over real well? All, some, none? Fail. Try again.

'drunk' is generally a voluntary and temporary state of existance. Ask yourself, how many people volunteer to go 'insane' .. short term, long term, whatever?

Theft under the influence - or any other anti-social behavior for that matter, is unacceptable, period. It's going just a little beyond "relax, buddy, you're a little drunk".

That's an attitude/statement that i think i'd likely hear from a sorority buddy, who is as equally plastered ..

 

[promac]

The actions of one's self, vs. being taken advantage of by the actions of another.

Yes, there may be a component of being taken advantage of by the actions of another, and that in itself is wrong, but the fact remains - the impaired party is fully indemnified from the consequences of their own misguided actions. Sure, we're protected from others, but not ourselves? Why would the bar owner get sued if the OP's buddy drove impaired and killed someone? I'm just trying to point out that someone's judgement can be severely impaired if they're drunk - some are indemnified and some are not. Why shouldn't one face the consequences of being taken advantage when their drunk?

 

[promac]

Your mamma obviously didn't raise you too well..

Pcked up a purse, and considers it 'found money' that he is 'entitled to'? Drunk, sober or high - i've never considered someone elses property as good as my own, much less a purse belonging to the opposite gender. Is this what you do with lost (or found) valuable property? Strip it of any possible value and toss it aside as a 'found' item that you are entitled to? What ever happened to turning something in, to be returned to it's lawful owner?

That's what is wrong with this world. A sense of entitlement.

I'm drunk, so i'm entitled to have my bad behavior foregiven.
I'm poor, I think i'm entitled to your money to give me a free ride. *take*.
I'm not poor, but i'm entitled to your property anyway, because i felt like it. *swipe*.
I'm drunk, hey.. look at that motorsickle, lets sit on it, hey, he left his helmet on it, lets PISS in it!
I'm drunk, and i just killed a family of four while behind the wheel, but that's ok, i'm not responsible for my actions since i was drunk.

How many of the above statements go over real well? All, some, none? Fail. Try again.

'drunk' is generally a voluntary and temporary state of existance. Ask yourself, how many people volunteer to go 'insane' .. short term, long term, whatever?

Theft under the influence - or any other anti-social behavior for that matter, is unacceptable, period. It's going just a little beyond "relax, buddy, you're a little drunk".

That's an attitude/statement that i think i'd likely hear from a sorority buddy, who is as equally plastered ..

I'm not saying those are my beliefs and thoughts - God only knows what goes through a drunk persons mind........and I don't disagree that mentally impaired persons should be afforded protection from others. But if that's the case, why shouldn't one be protected from themselves? I'm just throwing ideas out there to gauge the level of others' compassion when an impaired person is in the wrong. Is a drunken state really voluntary in all cases? If believe impairment is gradual and progressive in nature, but can also be premeditated and intentional or completely unintentional. Otherwise, why would they call it impairment in the first place? Perhaps this individual did not anticipate that he would need to make such a critical judgement call and was involuntarily indisposed to do so when the time arose. I've seen people get pretty sick when drinking excessively - can we say this person would have done the same in the absence of impairment? It certainly doesn't look like they're having much fun. What is the probability that the OP's buddy would have stolen the purse anyway if he was sober. Yeah, I understand you can't start letting criminals use the "I was drunk" defense, but it is an interesting situation.