What to do, potential criminal charges.

[Rob MacLennan]

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?

In the situation you mention the drunk driver is held liable for his actions but the bartender, who profited from continuing to serve someone whose judgment was impaired at that point, can also be liable. The blame of the one doesn't mitigate against the responsibility of the other.

 

[twinn]

In the situation you mention the drunk driver is held liable for his actions but the bartender, who profited from continuing to serve someone whose judgment was impaired at that point, can also be liable. The blame of the one doesn't mitigate against the responsibility of the other.

Here is a real life case of how an establishment was held liable for serving to much alcohol.

I will not name the establishment, security company or year.

A club in the GTA served to much alcohol to a person. Now wiether this person was already drunk at time of entry or weither the club served them is immaterial, as soon as he was allowed entry, it was the club's liability.

The person was ejected from the premise because he was acting disorderly and considered to be drunk. The person did not put up a fight when asked to leave.

Person was upset about this and he took it upon a steel baricade to protest this decsion, well, the steel baricade won that battle as he ended up with a broken leg, as in the person kicked the baricade so hard, it broke a leg or ankle. BTW, this whole episode was caught in CCTV.

The person decided to sue the establishment, as if they would have followed the regs set out by AGCO, the perosn would never have been served that much alchol and as such would not have broken a leg or ankle. Upon advice of lawyers the establishment and security company decided to settle out of court, note, both the establishment and security company had insurance but decided against making a claim. the settlement was rumored to be in the 40-60K range.

 

[short stop]

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.

This.

I'm surprised more people aren't picking up on this. If buddy was blacked out and doesn't remember stealing the purse, how the hell can he remember how much $$ was in it when he took it?

As for the bar being liable for over-serving - remember, buddy is only *saying* he was blacked out. It can be a convenient claim in an attempt to absolve responsibility.

 

[promac]

This.

I'm surprised more people aren't picking up on this. If buddy was blacked out and doesn't remember stealing the purse, how the hell can he remember how much $$ was in it when he took it?

As for the bar being liable for over-serving - remember, buddy is only *saying* he was blacked out. It can be a convenient claim in an attempt to absolve responsibility.

"This" is no different than the guy stealing in the first place, except if done by the Proceeds of Crime or Income Tax legislation. IMO, an extortion attempt by a sober person is far worse than a theft by someone that's impaired.

Perhaps he checked the contents of the purse when he sobered up - anyway, the bartender needs to prove that the $1,000 was in the purse - good luck with that, when your cash controls are so poor the money is allegedly subject to theft in the first place. How can a bartender work without cash?

He may have witnesses that attest to his state of impairment. Cross examinations should bring a lot of worms out of the woodwork on both sides. A professional witness could squash the $1,000 in the purse claim and put the bartender under scrutiny for extortion - contacting the thief was a fatal error. I couldn't imagine a bar surviving with such poor cash controls. If he can afford such a defense is another problem.

 

[turbodish]

I couldn't imagine a bar surviving with such poor cash controls.

Why are you assuming that the cash in HER purse was the bar's cash? Wouldn't the bar's cash be in the till?

 

[short stop]

Perhaps he checked the contents of the purse when he sobered up - anyway, the bartender needs to prove that the $1,000 was in the purse - good luck with that, when your cash controls are so poor the money is allegedly subject to theft in the first place. How can a bartender work without cash?

If he was blacked out to the extent that he can't remember or take responsibility for stealing the purse, there's no way he can account for what happened to the money between the time he took possession and the time he sobered up. His credibility is shot by his own admission of inebriation.

And wasn't this some employee's personal purse? What does that have to with cash control of the establishment?

 

[Griffin]

"This" is no different than the guy stealing in the first place, except if done by the Proceeds of Crime or Income Tax legislation. IMO, an extortion attempt by a sober person is far worse than a theft by someone that's impaired.

Perhaps he checked the contents of the purse when he sobered up - anyway, the bartender needs to prove that the $1,000 was in the purse - good luck with that, when your cash controls are so poor the money is allegedly subject to theft in the first place. How can a bartender work without cash?

He may have witnesses that attest to his state of impairment. Cross examinations should bring a lot of worms out of the woodwork on both sides. A professional witness could squash the $1,000 in the purse claim and put the bartender under scrutiny for extortion - contacting the thief was a fatal error. I couldn't imagine a bar surviving with such poor cash controls. If he can afford such a defense is another problem.

Wow. Remind me never to have you on the jury of a rape case. You'd have it all the victim's fault for not staying in a fortress.

So, if I get your views correctly: scumbag steals purse = bad, victim trying to get her money back by contacting the crook = bad, potential for victim to get any punishment on scumbag due to "extortion" or any other means = bad. Is that about it?

Let me give you another scenario: scumbag sexually assaults my daughter = bad, scumbag gets murdered by me = just deserts. Yeah, you can rant all day about me killing the guy is a bad thing but I'll have no troubles with my conscience or my ethics.

The OP's buddy initiated a bad thing but stealing someone's purse. Bad things should happen to that person, IMO. The victim gets a lot of sympathy from me. She never asked anyone to steal her purse.

I really can't believe the comments posted here by some folks. I agree with the observer that noted that if we were talking about a motorcycle being stolen it would be an entirely different story for those that think somehow thief is the victim.

 

[promac]

So, if I get your views correctly: scumbag steals purse = bad, victim trying to get her money back by contacting the crook = bad, potential for victim to get any punishment on scumbag due to "extortion" or any other means = bad. Is that about it?

Yes, that's correct. Had I been the victim, I would have called the police, given them all the information I gathered and let the justice system take it's course. My hands remain clean and I see the thief punished for his crime.

Let me give you another scenario: scumbag sexually assaults my daughter = bad, scumbag gets murdered by me = just deserts. Yeah, you can rant all day about me killing the guy is a bad thing but I'll have no troubles with my conscience or my ethics.

I don't think many fathers would feel much different than you, but as a father, the movie "Law Abiding Citizen" comes to mind. But you'd be looking at a life sentence for first degree murder - the rapist would become the victim of your crime. Not that you'd have the opportunity anyway......the police would protect the rapist from you and he would be brought to justice. Nonetheless, on the other hand, you could let the justice system do it's work.

The OP's buddy initiated a bad thing but stealing someone's purse. Bad things should happen to that person, IMO. The victim gets a lot of sympathy from me. She never asked anyone to steal her purse.

Bad things will come to the thief. But those bad things may be reduced or eliminated as the thief claims that she served him excessive amounts of alcohol and entrapped him into stealing her empty purse so she could attempt to extort $1,000 from him. Outlandish, yes..........but the thief will go balls out and try anything to get off the hook. If she did try to extort the money, it is unlikely she will press charges or witness against the thief, as she has much to lose as well. It's amazing how a seemingly innocent or trivial act or sequence of events can be transmogrified into a serious crime. At the end of the day, the evidence can be quite compelling.

I really can't believe the comments posted here by some folks. I agree with the observer that noted that if we were talking about a motorcycle being stolen it would be an entirely different story for those that think somehow thief is the victim.

If the bartender attempted to extort $1,000 from the thief, although she is a victim, he is also a victim. Given the sequence of events by the OP, I would be inclined to believe the bartender may have attempted to extort $1,000 from him.

 

[promac]

If he was blacked out to the extent that he can't remember or take responsibility for stealing the purse, there's no way he can account for what happened to the money between the time he took possession and the time he sobered up. His credibility is shot by his own admission of inebriation.

Perhaps not - who knows what happened to the money or if it was even there to begin with. Had the bartended contacted the police in the first place, they could have got a search warrant in short order and perhaps caught the thief red-handed with some or all of the cash. In any court of law, that's pretty solid and compelling evidence. Some or all of the property may have been recovered. Who knows, the thief may claim that, in his impaired state of mind, merely found the purse and was planning to turn it into police or find the rightful owner in due course.

Why would a bartender leave a purse unattended? Even more incredible and remarkable, is that a bartender, would leave a purse with $1,000 cash unattended. Who in their right mind does that? $1,000 is a huge amount of money by anyone's standards, let alone a bartender. You'd think that any person with even a fraction of a brain would leave their purse in a secure area, someone else's care or locker if they had to leave it unattended.

And wasn't this some employee's personal purse? What does that have to with cash control of the establishment?

I asumed the purse stolen was of a fanny pack type that is used to store a float of cash to provide change to customers, store cash collected from customers and store receipts (cash & credit card) until she cashed out at the till from time to time. Why would a bartender bring a $1,000 cash to work? A judge is going to want to make sense of it all. The police will want to know why this individual had such a large amount of cash in her possession. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe she will tell all that she planned to score some drugs.

 

[Bandit Bill]

Yes, that's correct. Had I been the victim, I would have called the police, given them all the information I gathered and let the justice system take it's course. My hands remain clean and I see the theif punished for his crime.

IF the victim lost $1000.00 .. what recourse is he/she going to have to get that money back? As far as i know the victims compensation fund compensates for violent crimes only, not financial losses due to theft, fraud, etc. The court may order restitution be paid to the victim by the convicted individual if loss can be proven for that amount.

The thief punished for his/her crime? Come on now, put down the crack-pipe for a moment and come back to reality. This is Ontario, where 50 hrs. community service and 3 months probation will be the likely outcome, and maybe partial or whole restitution to the victim, if the perp can't prove that it will pose a 'financial hardship' for him/her to repay, as a first time offender.

What punishment?

I'm more inclined to believe that the victim knows that the $1000.00 is worth more than the justice system, and attempted to work a situation where the money was returned more conveniently in terms of time, energy and end results, rather than relying upon the courts to MAYBE see some partial restitution.

Bad things will come to the thief. But those bad things may be reduced or eliminated as the thief claims that she served him excessive amounts of alcohol and entrapped him into stealing her empty purse so she could attempt to extort $1,000 from him. Outlandish, yes..........but the thief will go balls out and try anything to get off the hook. If she did try to extort the money, it is unlikely she will press charges or witness against the thief, as she has much to lose as well. It's amazing how a seemingly innocent or trivial act or sequence of events can be transmogrified into a serious crime. At the end of the day, the evidence is quite compelling.

If the bartender attempted to extort a $1,000 from the thief or her purse, although she is a victim, he is also a victim. Given the sequence of events by the OP, I would be inclined to believe the bartender may have attempted to extort $1,000 from him.

You keep saying that the victim in this case is extorting. Yet, above, you say that the victim was unlikely to press charges if he/she was indeed extorting.

The above outlandish theory isn't a plausable theory .. it's a conspiracy theory of the grassy-knoll shooter type that pre-supposes guilt upon part of the victim, and is really reaching for a reasonable-doubt defence that is not directly related to the theft charge in the first place. There is no tangable proof of the victims guilt/innocence in relation to an extortion attempt, that exists in the first place.

Newsflash: She was at the Police Station pressing for charges to be laid, according to the OP. This is what the OP is freaking out about - not just about the OP's "Buddy" who's done the theft in the first place. The victim is not showing that supposed 'fear' of being found for an attempted extortion. It's pretty clear that OP's "buddy" thought a 'sorry' and the return of a purse of which he can't clearly remember (blackout, remember?) the contents, would call off the Dogs. OP's buddy is freaking out that the dogs are now barking pretty damn loud.

The perp is a victim? The perp is a perp, nothing more. Without having started this whole process with the victims purse, none of this would have gone down. He's a victim by his own hands and deeds only, literally and figuratively.

 

[AdRath]

Also lets remember the only evidence that this is an attempt to extort is from the mouth of the thief who has no credibility at this point. The thief didn't come clean until caught and now is attempting to hide his behaviour behind an extortion story to paint himself as the victim here. This is the equivalent of claiming rape after you have sex with someone you are emberassed about and get caught.

Why is everyone assuming that someone would not have $1,000 in their purse? Bartenders work in a cash business and you would be surprised at the bankrolls that have been pulled out when drinking with bartender friends. Maybe the bartender has proof we don't know.

 

[turbodish]

I asumed the purse stolen was of a fanny pack type that is used to store a float of cash to provide change to customers, store cash collected from customers and store receipts (cash & credit card) until she cashed out at the till from time to time. Why would a bartender bring a $1,000 cash to work? A judge is going to want to make sense of it all.

A bartender wouldn't have to bring $1,000 to work. Buddy was drunk, or so he claims. That suggests that the theft probably occurred after some time spent drinking, perhaps towards the end of a night. A good bartender at a popular bar can easily make $1,000 in tips on a busy night. All it takes is 50 patrons leaving $20 worth of tips each, or 100 patrons leaving $10 each. There, now the judge has a sense of it all.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

If the OP's friend claims to have been so lit that he can't remember the act of stealing the purse, then he has no defence against the accusation of stealing the $1K. As has been said that amount is far from out of line, for good wait staff, in an active business.

 

[Bandit Bill]

Why is everyone assuming that someone would not have $1,000 in their purse? Bartenders work in a cash business and you would be surprised at the bankrolls that have been pulled out when drinking with bartender friends. Maybe the bartender has proof we don't know.

How many of us go out to seriously buy a bike with nothing more than a promise to pay?

I'd reckon more than a few of us go shopping with a fair quantity of cash in hand, and if it's a private sale deal - cash talks, BS walks..

I know i have a bankroll in my wallet/pocket for just that purpose, a few times every year .. or any other big-ticket expense that i don't want to put on plastic, for that matter.

I'd say that it's a quite common occurance, not just in the bartending biz..

 

[brockmx]

theft under 5000, sucks but i beat that charge only because i was 19, drunk and was a first offence and everything was returned before police were involved. That being said the lawyer was only 1500 and worth every penny. one of the lower points in my life

 

[promac]

If the cash was from tips, wouldn't make sense that the bartender would have that money in hand or on her person? Not left somewhere unattended, easily assessable by bar patrons? Or is bar tending like Halloween - once you fill a bag with loot, you leave it at the curb unattended while you start filling another? And of course it's perfectly safe there, so any kid would feel comfortable leaving it there.

Who says the bartender lost the $1,000 to begin with? Who's to say she doesn't already have her tip money for the night? The extortion attempt was likely an attempt to scam the guy for an additional $1,000...........in addition to whatever she already had. The loss is fabricated, so there is no need for any sort of victims compensation........but who knows, if there was such a thing, she probably try and scam from that as well. If the $1,000 theft was legitimate, going to the police immediately may have led to the recovery of some or all the money. Instead, her contacting him alerted him to the possibility of arrest and a search warrant, giving him sufficient lead time to conceal evidence. Then, it's really too late for the police to recover any stolen property, if any.

Isn't it rather dangerous for a female to confront a thief on her own? If this thief is such a bad guy, who knows what else he may be capable of. Perhaps now, he can identify her.

 

[short stop]

It doesn't matter whether the $1000 was there to begin with or not. By buddy's own admission, he was blacked out drunk. His word vs the victim isn't going to fly. He's at the mercy of the purse owner in this situation. And I don't really feel sorry for him.

 

[Bandit Bill]

If the cash was from tips, wouldn't make sense that the bartender would have that money in hand or on her person? Not left somewhere unattended, easily assessable by bar patrons? Or is bar tending like Halloween - once you fill a bag with loot, you leave it at the curb unattended while you start filling another? And of course it's perfectly safe there, so any kid would feel comfortable leaving it there.

Who says the bartender lost the $1,000 to begin with? Who's to say she doesn't already have her tip money for the night? The extortion attempt was likely an attempt to scam the guy for an additional $1,000...........in addition to whatever she already had. The loss is fabricated, so there is no need for any sort of victims compensation........but who knows, if there was such a thing, she probably try and scam from that as well. If the $1,000 theft was legitimate, going to the police immediately may have led to the recovery of some or all the money. Instead, her contacting him alerted him to the possibility of arrest and a search warrant, giving him sufficient lead time to conceal evidence. Then, it's really too late for the police to recover any stolen property, if any.

Isn't it rather dangerous for a female to confront a thief on her own? If this thief is such a bad guy, who knows what else he may be capable of. Perhaps now, he can identify her.

Anything brought to this forum table is nothing but suppositions.

There is little in the way of fact beyond this.

OP's buddy got drunk.
OP's buddy got light-fingered.
OP's buddy got caught red-handed on camera.
OP's buddy when caught red-handed returned purse.
OP's buddy claims he was blacked out, and supposedly can't remember stealing the purse, and by logical default, exactly what was in the purse.
OP's buddy claims he returned the purse and said 'sorry'.
OP's buddy is freaked because sorry wasn't good enough and the victim has decided to go to the police.

The only thing that is pretty much a given, is that OP's buddy is guilty by evidence and circumstance. He'll get done for it - regardless of any other secondary facts or innuendo over any supposed 'extortion' attempt.

Anything else involving the victim, is irrevelant.

You can let the rest of your defence rest on this probability. OP's buddy is still going to be found guilty of theft under $5g's based upon the OP's story, if it goes to court. Everything else is pretty much irrevelant - to us, the victim, the perp, or to the court system. He's gonna get done not for the contents of the purse, but for the theft of the purse itself.

 

[DaveOke]

Which bar is this? I should quit my job and go work there! Let's say I only work three nights a week raking in $1000 a night... That's $156,000 a year! If I worked five nights I could have my house paid off in a year.

 

[promac]

It doesn't matter whether the $1000 was there to begin with or not. By buddy's own admission, he was blacked out drunk. His word vs the victim isn't going to fly. He's at the mercy of the purse owner in this situation. And I don't really feel sorry for him.

If his word didn't fly, then nothing he said would fly. If he did say anything, according to that logic, he'd be charged with perjury. Anything she testifies to in court could be used against her at some future point in time to bring charges/civil suit for damages against her and the owner of the bar ie serving him an excessive amount of alcohol and/or extortion. The $1,000 won't matter unless she can prove it was in the purse. Her word won't be sufficient. Cash is very difficult to prove - that's why you should always get a signed receipt for it, document it's movement and keep it safe and secure, all the time, every time. When you go to a bank and deposit cash, you need to see the teller and prove the amount together, instead of putting it in the deposit box.