Taco Bell Offers White Customer $20 Gift Card After Beating By Black Employees

a reply to: shawmanfromny

First mistake was ordering Taco Bell. Had that been me, I don't know what would have pissed me off more, my girlfriend being attacked (because that would make me go postal and level that place before I stopped seeing red), or the fact that my buddy recorded instead of helping my GF once she got attacked. I would've been in the middle of that faster than they could've blinked if that had been my buddy and his GF.

At any rate, that's not the point of this. The point is that the white guy was offered $20 dollars after being beaten by blacks in what would be considered a hate crime if the roles were reversed and both of the people attacked should be getting checks for millions each while the three black bums spend a long time in jail.

a reply to: Blaine91555

According to this article, Taco Bell did eventually release the names of the employees involved in the assault. I guess now we'll have to wait and see if the victim goes vigilante...right?

According to Reese, after he filed a complaint, the chain gave him a $20 gift card, but would not release the names of the employees involved so he could press charges. Eventually, they did release the names, but it is unknown if Reese has pressed charges for assault yet.

www.yahoo.com...

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Looks to me like Taco Bell did the only thing they could do. They fired them. I'm not for punishing a business for actions by employees the company had no part in. It's dishonest to blame Taco Bell.

The police though, need to charge them all with assault and follow through. Punishment is their job.

Assault? That's all? Why not a hate crime?

a reply to: LSU2018

BINGO

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Wow. Lots of possible reasons for employees to be stressed out; delivery services are now fulfilling orders and they seem to get precedence over in-store customers. They were likely overwhelmed and understaffed making for an impossible situation. I've worked in corporate chains before and they are notorious for understaffing and having expectations that are more or less impossible.

That said it's still no excuse to attack customers, regardless of how rude they might have been. Unless they themselves were assaulted then they should be charged with assault. I don't believe in "hate crimes" so I wouldn't want that being a part of any prosecution. The fact the Philly PD is dragging their feet and didn't immediately arrest those employees seems to betray a minority bias. Reverse the races and this would be front page news, lead story on National news, another racist attack against unarmed black people.

Sick to death of this agenda they're pushing, this isn't the 1920's anymore and the KKK is not lurking around every corner. Looks to me like these Democrat-run big cities are the worst when it comes to racial politics.

I don't believe in hate crimes either but they should be thrown in jail for assault and a hate crime. Until this country starts giving equal justice to colors other than white, we'll continue seeing # like this.

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: schuyler
How about a $20 million lawsuit instead?

As long as it's directed at the people who did it. Do you think those former Taco Bell employees have that kind of money?

No, I doubt they even have the $20 dollars. Taco Bell hired them, if the three blacks can't afford the lawsuit then it should fall on Taco Bell. It may not sound fair, but neither does being followed out by their employees and having your ass beat and getting nothing for it.

originally posted by: cooperton
2019 dilemma - Friend gets assaulted, what do you do:

a) help defend him from potentially permanent physical damage.
b) pull out a camera for litigation purposes.

^^^ This guy gets it ^^^

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Philadelphia Police say they are investigating not only this incident, but a second fight between a delivery person and Taco Bell employees at the same location, about the same time, just days later on March 3.

You think this case would be high priority in that city? The story is still ongoing and the police are doing their jobs.

Remember Jussie Smollett? That high priority case last month that became a top headline immediately and many reporters interviewed Smollett for the crimes committed against him by those two white Trump supporters in red MAGA hats? There wasn't even any evidence when the country pitied him for what those mean anti-gay racists did to him.

Yeah, case in point right there.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

If taco bell were not comfortable with givingrambothe names of the perps then they should have just called the police right then when he was present or on the phone.

So the victim all of a sudden has turned into Rambo - where do you come up with such tripe?

It was hyperbole cause another member claimed taco bell could not tell the victim who the perps were in case the victim decides to kill em all. It was a weak argument somewhat cause taco bell told neither the victim nor the police until the victim forced them too with the use of social media.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: AtlasHawk

I'm not disbelieving it. I'm admitting I don't have enough information to judge either way. Others are assuming his story is the only one.

I'm also not trying to blame Taco Bell because evil corporation. Taco Bell did nothing to anyone. Taco Bell would have been stupid to give the guy it's employees names. No company would do that for obvious reasons.

The question of why did they follow him outside is not answered, nor is there a video in the articles showing what happened inside. I'd like to know before judging.

While true, they still followed him outside and assaulted him. If a black walked in my office and called me a cracker and then me and two more white employees walked outside and beat him and his GF up, we'd be top headline news and immediately charged with a hate crime and you know it.

He has baby scratches. Be a man.. next time dont talk # to the employees. Customer isnt always right.

originally posted by: SoulStoner225
He has baby scratches. Be a man.. next time dont talk # to the employees. Customer isnt always right.

Well, we know which side you're on. At least you don't need evidence to solidify your assumption, eh?

If there are many customers complaining, and they single out one customer.. probably the loudest or most racist at the time. But Id fire them too.. because 6 on 1 and he has a scrape..

Acting like he was left for dead,
People need to be accountable for their mouths. Ive seen the news flip # even local stories. Like i was jumped, but actually they instigated it.

Too bad the guy wasn't a concealed weapon holder. That would have straightened out those Taco Bell employees.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Not to blame what are you smoking a business is totally responsible for what happens on their grounds. Why did the manager not call cops or go assist customer being assaulted. I used to work at a department store as a security guard and later as an operations manager, I have had employees who assaulted customers and I had to drag them off customer and restrain them till cops showed up to arrest them. A business is totally responsible for their customers safety while in their business and as such this taco bell will likely face a lawsuit where they will likely settle out of court and ask for a nda to protect them. It's also the reason they refused to name perps to keep them from getting arrested and making taco bell look worse ..

a reply to: Blaine91555

No but taco he'll does its their store they have a responsibility they lucky this was not a gun loving sdtate might have ended even worse .

a reply to: proteus33

You think the employees would call the police on themselves and turn themselves in?

You do know they chased him off the property across the street where it happened?

The victim did not report it for a few days. Even the victim did not call the police. He instead called the company asking for compensation; you know, money and when he did not get it, then he called the police. We only have one side of the story and for all anyone knows the victim assaulted one of the employees inside the store first. I doubt the police simply assume the victim is telling the whole story or the entire truth. I know I'd be very skeptical. He screwed up by not immediately calling the police.

Yes they will settle out of court if the victim does not get greedy. If he gets greedy they will sick the big guns on him since he only had a few mild scrapes and bruises. They will pull out his history and if his history has anything to do with why he did not call the police when it happened, they will use it to bury him.

No company just gives out employee names to an angry person calling in. Only an idiot would do that and if an employee or a local manager did, they would not be working there anymore. They give the names to the police, but remember, he did not call the police for a few days.

a reply to: hombero

???

He called the victim a Rambo -

a reply to: LSU2018

Taco Bell hired them, if the three blacks can't afford the lawsuit then it should fall on Taco Bell. It may not sound fair, but neither does being followed out by their employees and having your ass beat and getting nothing for it.

Common sense would suggest that there needs to be a Tort by Taco Bell before going down that path. Do you have any evidence that it was Taco Bell policy to allow a Franchisors employees to assault customers?

a reply to: proteus33

No- business is responsible for negligent acts, like leaving the floor wet after being advised that its a hazard, that lead to injury among others.

A 2 sec search of US law shows its similar to Australian law

www.hg.org...


Respondeat Superior

The general legal theory that is used in cases involving employer liability for employees is “respondeat superior.” This legal theory means “let the master answer.” It holds employers liable for the actions of its employees. However, this rule only applies to actions that are within the course and scope of employment.

Generally, if an employee caused harm while performing work duties or acting on the employer’s behalf, the employer will be found liable for its employee’s acts.

This rule may apply in cases in which the employee injured someone in an automotive accident, even if the employee had taken a small personal detour at the time of impact. A detour is considered a small deviation from the employer’s instructions but that is still related to the original instructions. In this scenario, an employer is still held liable. However, if the employee was on a frolic, a more significant deviation from the employer’s instructions for the employee’s own personal gain or benefit, the employer is generally not held liable.