|
flamebait resume advice (pg. 86)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Adamo |
 |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
What is it with you and this refrain? You are consistently bringing it up as if it hasn't been dealt with, already. It doesn't matter since, in order to fully indemnify itself from prosecution, a clerk must have proof - a word for which appearance falls quite short of. There are 16 year olds who look like 25 year-olds. The fact that they appear to be 25 is negated by the fact that they are 16.
|
While I understand what you are saying. The point here is that the grounds of apperance were not introduced until 2005. Also under this premise I could tackle someone to the ground on suspicion of being a murderor. It doesn't work that way. If you don't have evidence or belief that someone is committing a crime, you can't treat them like a criminal. If you do you are violating their rights. It is called harassment.
Frankly the law specifically stated the grounds to which someone is required to ID. At the time I was not within those grounds. And it was not legal for someone to request my ID or require me to show ID on any other grounds. Legal ID is special in that it is only required to be shown in specific instances. If mary had stated 18, or 16 in the age she believed me to be, then I could understand the situation. But she didn't have reasonable belief. Under her store policy she was required to bring the manager. They were both legally allowed to, and required to sell the cigarettes to me unless they beleived me to be a minor, the clerk did not, and had sold to me on a previous instance.
| quote: | | Stop being so ing thick on this issue. It's been shot down so many times there's nothing left but bird-shot for its carcass. You are one of the most obdurate people I have ever, ever encountered. You really are. |
Well you can think this, it doesn't make it true.
---
The discretion line was beleif of the person to be under the legal age. I wasn't end of story.
It is as assinine as to refuse sale because you believe ID to be fake then for the cops to arrive beat up the guy and tell you the ID was real.
Unless you have reasonable grounds to believe the person is commiting fraud, you ought to beleive the person. Sure while liability to exist it was easily within reasonable grounds to believe me to be over the age of 19. Personally I didn't have ID at the time, and I shouldn't be refused access to good that don't require ID to obtain.
Even alcohol had much the same guidelines - the server could refuse to serve if they thought you were a minor, and could request ID to verify.. but not every patron was required to show ID, only if there was a belief the person was a minor. Same deal with cigarettes. |
|
|
| Spam |
| Dude, no matter how old a person looks like, a store can NOT sell, nor COULD they ever sell, tobacco to a person who was under the age of majority (in this case, 19). The fact that the law now states that ID must be provided if you look up to 25, doesn´t change the fact that if you looked 23, and they sold you cigarettes, and you were actually 17, they were SCREWED. Which gives them the right to demand ID, no matter how old you look, no matter how old you actually are. And you´re a retard for believing otherwise. |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Dude, no matter how old a person looks like, a store can NOT sell, nor COULD they ever sell, tobacco to a person who was under the age of majority (in this case, 19). |
Irrelevant.
| quote: | | The fact that the law now states that ID must be provided if you look up to 25, doesn´t change the fact that if you looked 23, and they sold you cigarettes, and you were actually 17, they were SCREWED. |
No the case could be heard providing reasonable grounds to believe the person was of age, and that fraud occurred by the minor. And the minor would be liable to conviction for committing fraud by lying about their age.
While there could be a fine, judges try cases presenting the fact, and should only fine them if reasonable grounds did not exist, or that the point of sale believed the person to be a minor. That is how it works. The defence ground is pretty much an absolute defence. It still doesn't mean there arn't other grounds such as being defrauded. This is much the same as illegal ID used, if they produce ID that is illegal and the owner gets caught it is much the same deal, as illegal means were used to obtain the goods. Unless they are believed to be a minor then there should be no issue, and it is the minor who is the person at fault. Attack the right source, depriving the general publics rights just isn't the way a judge should go. Show me the case law that demonstrates your point that a clerk selling to a minor that was believed reasonable to be of age was still fined. Fact is that it was 19 years of age previously and changed to 25 in ontario on sale on grounds of appearance. That is it right there so your point is not legally applicable. What happens if the gun someone sells to someone is used to kill someone? Is the person who sold the gun responsible?
There was no legal prohibition of sale to me, there was no absolute ID requirement in place at the time of the incident. In 2005 the prohibition was altered to appearance of 25. What don't you get about this?
| quote: | | Which gives them the right to demand ID, no matter how old you look, no matter how old you actually are. And you´re a retard for believing otherwise. |
No it doesn't. Just like it doesn't give a store owner to search me if they think I might steal something from them without seeing me steal something. Sorry but there are specific laws in relation to when someone must furnish ID and in the case of purchase of cigarettes it only applied to people beleived to be under the age of lawful purchase 19. This was changed as stated to 25 after the case. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Personally, I think it was Forwells - he's been supplying little bits of plausibility to throw off the scent of Forwells, like stating that it's a 24 hour store, probably while knowing full-well that Forwells was never open that late.
There's a few things about alibis that are almost always indicators that they're false - and one of them is if they're based upon information supplied during an interrogation. Ashley took forever to come up with his alabi, even after you had repeatedly, in rather largely bolded script, asked him where it had happened - and that's another indicator, right there. |
I hope the police Taser the out of him next time. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
While I understand what you are saying. The point here is that the grounds of apperance were not introduced until 2005. Also under this premise I could tackle someone to the ground on suspicion of being a murderor. It doesn't work that way. If you don't have evidence or belief that someone is committing a crime, you can't treat them like a criminal. If you do you are violating their rights. It is called harassment. |
From the Canadian Tobacco Act of 1997:
(2) A person shall not be found to have contravened subsection (1) if it is established that the person attempted to verify that the person was at least eighteen years of age by asking for and being shown documentation prescribed for the purposes of verifying age, and believed on reasonable grounds that the documentation was authentic.
Mr. Ashley,
I would be a fool to rely on what you are "self" reporting as an accurate interpretation of any legal code, what-so-ever. Point me to a link and excerpt the information you want me to observe from that link. I have not found any such addendum or amendment to the law I have read which stipulates, specifically, that when ID cannot be furnished proving the legal age of the purchaser, appearance should take precedence as legally evidential proof of age. |
|
|
| idoru |
Have any of you been paying attention to his signature?
| quote: | | Thankyou for those who donated, I have 37 cents left in my paypal account after renewing the domain for another year. You can still donate to http://williamashley.info to build up the 10$ required in May to provide for hosting for another year or two. Be Part of the cause - Help a William Ashley |
That means that somebody read his signature and donated money within the last day or two. Which one of you crazy s did it? :mad: |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
That means that somebody read his signature and donated money within the last day or two. Which one of you crazy s did it? :mad: |
******** clearly deserves it more than you, you unentertaining, useless and sane twat. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| Whether it was Forwells or 7-11 he's full of . Back in 2004 there were 2 24 hour stores at king and Victoria (a block from the 7-11) and there is a 24 hour gas station across the street from Forwells. Regardless, even if there was no other store around the proper reaction would be to wait and get smokes later; rather then assault the clerk. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Whether it was Forwells or 7-11 he's full of . Back in 2004 there were 2 24 hour stores at king and Victoria (a block from the 7-11) and there is a 24 hour gas station across the street from Forwells. Regardless, even if there was no other store around the proper reaction would be to wait and get smokes later; rather then assault the clerk. |
So are you saying he made the story up or exaggerated it? Like he got denied for cigs one day then he played out this scenario in his head. Or did it really happen but he's now trying to change the location because he doesn't want people to hear what happened from another more reliable source. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Or did it really happen but he's now trying to change the location because he doesn't want peopl asking the store employees what really happened. |
This is what I think happened. I'm actually hoping that it happened. I would love to hear the other side of this story. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| He provided the facebook link to the Mary he claims ed him over... why doesn't someone add her and find out? |
|
|
|
|
