|
flamebait resume advice (pg. 84)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| w_ashley |
| quote: |
The bottom line is that no matter how old she have thought you were, if she asked for ID, it meant that she was uncertain. |
No actually it doesn't. It means as you stated she was trained to do that. Not that she thought I was a minor. I have no doubt in my mind she believed me to be of legal age.
| quote: | | There is absolutely no reason she would ask for ID otherwise. |
Wrong again. It is store policy. However where the situation is "her fault" is that she didn't get her manager, and she was suppose to by store policy.
| quote: | | You not providing the ID |
I didn't have ID to provide. I would have if I had it. I'm not someone to disturb things without a reason. You can say but you did this you did that. Fact is I could give you a reason for it.
| quote: | | As such, she had no obligation to sell them to you. |
The store was obligated to sell them if they didn't have grounds to refuse sale such as belief that I was a minor or provision or resale in breach of the law. They however didn't indicate this to be the situation. Nor was any reason given in court for refusal of sale.
| quote: | | Please verify that this was in Forwells on Lancaster |
Is forwells 24 hours, has it ever been?
It was in Kitchener not waterloo. I think this is just a cover for your slip about tracy and mary though. It was downtown.
Did mary kletke work with tracy at forwells?
That would be another purjury... just watch yourelf lie and cover this one up now. |
|
|
| Spam |
Ok Will. From the Tobacco Control Act, 1994 (that means, before the 2005 amendments vis a vis the "Smoke-Free Ontario Act")
PROVISION OF TOBACCO TO PERSONS UNDER 19
Selling or supplying to persons under 19
3. (1) No person shall sell or supply tobacco to a person who is less than 19 years old. 1994, c. 10, s. 3 (1).
Defence
(3) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the defendant believed the person receiving the tobacco to be at least 19 years old because the person produced a prescribed form of identification showing his or her age and there was no apparent reason to doubt the authenticity of the document or that it was issued to the person producing it. 1994, c. 10, s. 3 (3).
Note that point 3 is very clear. No person shall sell or supply tobacco to a person who is less than 19 years old. Period.
It doesn´t provide any exception to the sale of anyone who simply APPEARS to be 19 or older, except in the case where, well would you look at that, ID IS PROVIDED!
you´re stupid. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
I didn't have ID to provide. I would have if I had it. I'm not someone to disturb things without a reason. You can say but you did this you did that. Fact is I could give you a reason for it. |
If she asks for your ID and you don't have it, she's not allowed to sell you cigarettes. What do you not seem to understand about this?
| quote: | | The store was obligated to sell them if they didn't have grounds to refuse sale such as belief that I was a minor or provision or resale in breach of the law. They however didn't indicate this to be the situation. Nor was any reason given in court for refusal of sale. |
Nope. They aren't obligated to sell you . If you come into the store acting violent and belligerent, they don't have to sell you a pack of gum. You had no ID, so that means no cigarettes. Are you really this stupid? |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
The officer was probably giving you clear instructions to step away from the clerk and come talk to him. |
no.
| quote: | | The fact that your mind is hazy and you can't remember anything he was saying seems to indicate you were in a state of mental psychosis. |
No, it indicates I wasn't involved with him at the time and the clerk was unstable at the time.
| quote: | | The officer didn't know you were crazy and assumed you were a perfectly sane person who was ignoring him..so he rightly interpreted that behavior as a sign of resistance and called for backup. |
No I'm very clear he stated I was resisting arrest.
Technically ignoring is not resisting arrest it is disobeying a lawful order of a peace officer or obstruction not resisiting arrest. Fact is I wasn't yet charged or under arrests I was a suspect seen as a subject at the time.
Note my defence on the obstruction is that it wasn't intentional. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Technically ignoring is not resisting arrest it is disobeying a lawful order of a peace officer or obstruction not resisiting arrest. Fact is I wasn't yet charged or under arrests I was a suspect seen as a subject at the time. |
You just admitted that the officer was speaking, but your mind was elsewhere and you didn't comprehend his words. How do you know he wasn't saying "Step back, you're under arrrest." |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Is forwells 24 hours, has it ever been?
It was in Kitchener not waterloo. I think this is just a cover for your slip about tracy and mary though. It was downtown.
Did mary kletke work with tracy at forwells?
That would be another purjury... just watch yourelf lie and cover this one up now. |
Dude, you should know which store it was in. The Forwells on Lancaster, which is in Kitchener, has never been 24 hours (it closes at 11PM and opens at 5AM). The last name you are giving for Mary is not the last name of the Mary that I know who works at this Forwells. I haven't lied about a damn thing, I am just wondering if it is bizarre coincidence that you are talking about people with the same names of people I know at a different convenient store. Since you have never denied that it was Forwells, it has lead me to believe that the connection isn't just coincidence. However, with you giving a wrong last name and saying that the store is 24 hours makes me question whether you are telling the truth, or if we're not talking about the same store.
How the hell can you not know with absolute certainty which store it was?
There is another Forwells on the corner of University and King St. They are owned by the same family, but I never worked there and as such, do not know the people who did work there. It would be a really weird coincidence if there was a Mary and Tracey who worked there as well. |
|
|
| w_ashley |
Offences relating to public or peace officer
129. Every one who
(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,
(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or
(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,
is guilty of
(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 118; 1972, c. 13, s. 7.
The specific law would be here. Fact is I simply wasn't given enough information and it wasn't clearly indicated.
What ended up resulting was a totally different charge which didn't acurately represent what occured which is why there wasn't a conviction.
My record is in regard to the assualt on the clerk, which was a due to perjury of Mary and Tracy. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
How the hell can you not know with absolute certainty which store it was? |
Because his mind is ed up [insert nicer medical expression here]. Or because he made it up, but after this thread I'd place my bets on the former. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | | Originally posted by ******** I was honestly more involved with the clerk at the time and didn't really acknowledged the cops presence. In retrospect he likely did say a couple things: But I at first didn't know who was speaking I was communicating with the clerk, not with the officer. |
5 bucks says that the things he likely said that you didnt hear was "Sir, you are under arrest"
just sayin'............... |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Because his mind is ed up [insert nicer medical expression here]. Or because he made it up, but after this thread I'd place my bets on the former. |
Ah I only thought there was a forwells on king up near university...
this was a different store chain without the name forwells.
It was downtown kitchener no where near lancaster
Tracy Matthews and Mary Kletkee were the names I was given. They stated they didn't know each other. And that Tracy wasn't a regular at the store.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Trac...hews/1435043695 |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Ah I only thought there was a forwells on king up near university...
this was a different store chain without the name forwells.
It was downtown kitchener no where near lancaster |
You are dense. It´s already been posted that there is another Forwells at King and University.
Also, you´ve conveniently ignored my posting of the Tobacco Control Act law that proves you are wrong. Although there´s no big surprise there. |
|
|
| UWM |
| It's fun to watch a sociopath in action. |
|
|
|
|
