Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

So yeah sold a minor a pack of smokes today, court next weekFollow

#27 Apr 19 2006 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts



It can also be considered entrapment if the officers contrive a situations such that an ordinary reasonable citizen would likely have also ended up breaking the law as a result of the contrivance.

Hence, dying a kid's hair and making him up to look older is entrapment (they really did used to do this). If joe average guy is going to look at that person and assume he's in his 30s as a result of the police's actions, then that's entrapment.


I was wrong before. If you want a shot at spending any time in jail, make this sort of ******** argument before a judge ready to dismisss this in exchange for court cotsts.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#28 Apr 19 2006 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
MentalFrog wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it is required by law to card anyone who buys tobacco products. I'd look it up but I don't have the time. If it isn't the law they do teach clerks that it is a requirement. Saying she looked old enough is no excuse. I was clerk years ago and it was required. I carded a 75 year old. It's his fault and nobody elses doesn't matter what they look like.


In California, you're required to ID someone who appears to be under the age of 35. This is actually relatively new. It used to be that you had to ID anyone who appeared to you to be underage. However, that got them in a lot of trouble for the reasons I pointed out above. Appearance of age is pretty subjective, and it's darn hard to tell whether someone is 17 or 18. They bumped it to 35 on the idea that if the person looks "young", they're required to ID that person to verify that he/she is actually over 18.

I don't know about other states, but at least here it's absolutely not required that a store clerk ID every single person who purchases tobacco products. Only those who look like they "might" be underage.


And Smash. That depends on what the judge is going to do. Sure. If the standard for an offense like that is to dismiss it and charge a court fee, then take it. However, at least here in California, you'll get nailed for like a 1500 dollar *fine* (not sure if that's for first offense or not, but I know it's freaking expensive for some guy earning a clerks wage), not just court fees. They absolutely don't dismiss them. You get a fine and probation. If you get nailed again during probation you are subject to harsher punishments each time.

If you are in a state that does that, it is very much in your interest to fight for a reduction if you can. If you believe that the case involved entrapment, it's *definately* in your interest to fight it. Unless you're ok with having offenses in your criminal record for something you don't think you did wrong that is...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Apr 19 2006 at 10:10 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I don't know about cigarettes, but in TN, the law requires you to card ANYONE who buys alcohol, no matter what they look like. By law, everyone is supposed to have ID on them anyway. I'm asuming the same law applies for smokes here.
#30 Apr 19 2006 at 10:11 PM Rating: Good
***
3,908 posts
Myself any time i have to go to court i try to waste as much as the taxpayers money as possible and to make a mockery of the system. First ask for a continuance saying you want to cross examine both the police officier and the teenage girl. Court delayed, weeks sometimes months later, try to find some other reason to delay the case, if you can get it over a year you can usually win by saying that your rights to a quick and fair trial where ignored and you wish to ask for a dismissal.

This work great for radar tickets when you ask for all work records of the radar gun 30 day prior and post of the offense, especially if any work was done you can then ask to cross examine the guy who fixed it, plus the cop. One question thats important that alot of ppl forget to ask to the cop is did you test and calibrate the radar gun before issuing to ticket that day, most cops don't; automatical dismassal.

Also do you really care about your job, can you find another. You can usually blame your employer for improper job training, did you ever take a short quiz or watch a video on proper IDing of suspected minors if not, you can most likely get off. Bonus if they do then fire you within the next 6 months to year you could probably take your employer to court for unfair dismissal.
#31 Apr 19 2006 at 11:10 PM Rating: Decent
**
354 posts
Sorry to hear about this mate :s It must suck just waiting around for a result. I hope it gets over and done with quickly and not too much punishment.
#32 Apr 20 2006 at 3:33 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,315 posts
I am getting a new hope, at least hopefully in the near future. I've applied for a position at a home for metal disable children(i'm an education major), which is the real reason I'm worried about this.
#33 Apr 20 2006 at 6:16 AM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
HunterGamma wrote:
I am getting a new hope, at least hopefully in the near future. I've applied for a position at a home for metal disable children(i'm an education major), which is the real reason I'm worried about this.


Not to scare ya, since this may not apply to your exact situation.

Pay close attention to exactly what you are charged with in your case. It's possible (and very locality dependant) that your charge will be some varient of "contributing to the deliquency of a minor", which tends not to look so hot when applying for a job dealing with children...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Apr 20 2006 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I've applied for a position at a home for metal disable children(i'm an education major), which is the real reason I'm worried about this.


I'd smoke in court, then, and offer one to any children nearby.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#35 Apr 20 2006 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
HunterGamma wrote:
I am getting a new hope, at least hopefully in the near future. I've applied for a position at a home for metal disable children(i'm an education major), which is the real reason I'm worried about this.


Written like a true academic.
#36 Apr 20 2006 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
gbaji wrote:
HunterGamma wrote:
I am getting a new hope, at least hopefully in the near future. I've applied for a position at a home for metal disable children(i'm an education major), which is the real reason I'm worried about this.


Not to scare ya, since this may not apply to your exact situation.

Pay close attention to exactly what you are charged with in your case. It's possible (and very locality dependant) that your charge will be some varient of "contributing to the deliquency of a minor", which tends not to look so hot when applying for a job dealing with children...

I'd even go a step further, and tell you to be proactive- Inform your lawyer that you want to plea to anything less if it means that the charges won't sshow up compromising on your record. I'd also see what the schools in your area seem to frown upon (whether it's just felonies, just crimes against children, etc.). Now's your time to take some positive, informative action on your own behalf.

Edited, Thu Apr 20 10:06:29 2006 by Atomicflea
#37 Apr 20 2006 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Now's your time to take some positive, informative action on your own behalf.


Gbaji told me informative action was just reverse rasicsm.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#38 Apr 20 2006 at 9:21 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Now's your time to take some positive, informative action on your own behalf.


Gbaji told me informative action was just reverse rasicsm.


That was last week.
#39 Apr 20 2006 at 5:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Now's your time to take some positive, informative action on your own behalf.


Gbaji told me informative action was just reverse rasicsm.


No no no. Affirmative action is reverse racism. Informative action is just reverse moranism.

I can see why you'd be equally offended by that though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Apr 20 2006 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,802 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
I'd even go a step further, and tell you to be proactive- Inform your lawyer that you want to plea to anything less if it means that the charges won't sshow up compromising on your record. I'd also see what the schools in your area seem to frown upon (whether it's just felonies, just crimes against children, etc.). Now's your time to take some positive, informative action on your own behalf.


/nod Depending on what you plea to, you may also have the possibility of having the charge ex-punged off your record after a year or two, as long as you are not arrested for any other law violations during that period.
#41 Apr 20 2006 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
***
3,908 posts
Quote:
am getting a new hope, at least hopefully in the near future. I've applied for a position at a home for metal disable children(i'm an education major), which is the real reason I'm worried about this.


I definately blame the employer for improper training, make it there fault. If you have too, get into the bosses office find your employee file and shred it, that way the have no proof of any work safty/selling procedures you may have taken.
#42 Apr 21 2006 at 2:33 AM Rating: Decent
In Ohio you have to card anyone buying cigs that appears to be under the age of 27. If their card is expired or damaged in any way it isn't concidered a valid form of ID for the purposes of buying alcohol or cigs.

If you are charged as a misdemenor you don't have to report it to a potential employer if its a felony and they ask you do. You maybe able to explain your way into a new job anyway. I had marks for underage consumption and public drunkeness when I was 20 and am a teacher today because I was able to point out that I had made a stupid mistake and had learned from it.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 221 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (221)