McDonalds Employee Beats Up Two Women With A Metal Stick

reply to post by BrokenCircles


ill assume that your not sniping with two liners due to me leaving out a key word...

I read and listened to both...


sir the word/phrase was:
for a felony

the two ladies are only getting misdemeanors ...

________________________________________________


the act was a robbery in progress...
(note not armed robbery)

by law the females should be tried for the same thing the guy is....

My understanding was that any crimes that occur due to the act of robbery make the robbers as guilty as the ones who committed the acts

so they should both be charged for the same thing he is plus what they did..

then the guy offered immunity for testifying against them

See, its a sad day in America when you cant beat on mouthy money-snatching jerks with a metal stick. He should have hit them a few more times to make that felony charge worth it.

I know what this tool is. It is not a hollow rod. It is solid steel, and the end of it, used like it was, pierces skin. Being hit with it, as those people were hit with it, could kill someone.

The woman and man who went behind the counter should be charged with assault, attempted robbery, etc, but the man who told them not to get up and then hit them again and again when they tried to, the man who almost killed one of them, needs to never be allowed in public again. Yes, he most certainly had the right to defend himself, but he knew he could kill them with that tool. He had the upper hand and should have stopped after a defensive hit.

I just saw this video today, before I got home from work. It took my breath away and made me sick to my stomach. Where the hell was the manager? Did they not hear the commotion when the argument about the money started? Why did that manager not come racing up to the counter with a phone in hand, calling the cops? Why was a convicted felon with a violent crime record allowed to work there?

I cannot comprehend the violence that is increasing daily, it seems. I cannot understand people who think it is ok to verbally or physically abuse people just because they work in the service industry. Without those people, who the hell is going to cook or clean for you since you don't seem to be doing it yourself? (Speaking to those who do this sort of thing.) Seriously. This stuff is unbelievable.

Because there were two people aggressively attacking one, there existed what is called "disparity of force", which from a legal standpoint (in general, most places in the US) opened up the door for the person being attacked to use lethal force to defend them self.

Metal tube guy needs to lawyer up.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by imd12c4funn

the heat is the (in my calculation) 45% possibility that was unknown.

Your calculation is rubbish.
There is a 100% possibility that they did not have a gun.
If they had a gun, you would be reading a different headline.

 

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

How do you know they weren't there to rob the place?

common sense

I'm not saying the women had guns. I amsaying that if someone threatened you in that enviroment, you would not know if there was a gun unless it was displayed.
I am saying that in 100 of these incidents, I would calculate that 45 of these would be with persons packing guns,
Whether they came into play is another percentage to be calculated. Probably 85% of the 45%, unless drunk, then more probably it would be around 94%.
The 6% remaining would be passing out or not enough coordination to draw a gun, lert alone jump the counter.

Originally posted by Ceriddwen
I know what this tool is. It is not a hollow rod. It is solid steel, and the end of it, used like it was, pierces skin. Being hit with it, as those people were hit with it, could kill someone.

The woman and man who went behind the counter should be charged with assault, attempted robbery, etc, but the man who told them not to get up and then hit them again and again when they tried to, the man who almost killed one of them, needs to never be allowed in public again. Yes, he most certainly had the right to defend himself, but he knew he could kill them with that tool. He had the upper hand and should have stopped after a defensive hit.

I just saw this video today, before I got home from work. It took my breath away and made me sick to my stomach. Where the hell was the manager? Did they not hear the commotion when the argument about the money started? Why did that manager not come racing up to the counter with a phone in hand, calling the cops? Why was a convicted felon with a violent crime record allowed to work there?

I cannot comprehend the violence that is increasing daily, it seems. I cannot understand people who think it is ok to verbally or physically abuse people just because they work in the service industry. Without those people, who the hell is going to cook or clean for you since you don't seem to be doing it yourself? (Speaking to those who do this sort of thing.) Seriously. This stuff is unbelievable.

If I was attacked at my work by two persons, I would grab a weapon that was handy, and I too would beat them down again and again, with a warning to stay down after the first difusing.

With a jury trial, the past record might be rejected as evidence as well.

Maybe McDonalds will get a reputation of the bad-asses that work there and deter future altercations from cocky patrons.

Originally posted by imd12c4funn

If I was attacked at my work by two persons, I would grab a weapon that was handy, and I too would beat them down again and again, with a warning to stay down after the first difusing.

With a jury trial, the past record might be rejected as evidence as well.

Maybe McDonalds will get a reputation of the bad-asses that work there and deter future altercations from cocky patrons.

I already stated that I thought he had the right to defend himself. Absolutely. He did NOT have the right to fracture a skull when he was in control with the weapon.

I wish with everything I have that people would not treat these workers the way they do, as though they are dirt under their feet, but violence is not the way to stop it. I am not saying I have an answer as to how to stop it, but I know it isn't violence.

As for the trial of the man, I wish him the best, and I wish him treatment for his issues, not necessarily the jail time he is sure to get, because I know that these people who spend long amounts of time in jail are usually worse when they get out. That said, with a violent history such as he has, and the current violent act, he is trending towards someone I wouldn't want to be in a closed room with, let alone a public space.

Anyone who thinks that working in fast food or retail is low stress, easy work hasn't done it. Period. People have no right to behave as those two women did, and I see it every single day. (Yes, I said earlier man and woman. Now I realize it was two women.)

Originally posted by Ceriddwen
~snip~
I already stated that I thought he had the right to defend himself. Absolutely. He did NOT have the right to fracture a skull when he was in control with the weapon.
~snip~

Question for you....

What if it had been two males that had jumped the counter and went after the guy? Would you feel differently?

Because to me, once they hopped over the counter and lit into the guy, they lost their right to "not" have their heads cracked open.

Originally posted by tjack
Question for you....

What if it had been two males that had jumped the counter and went after the guy? Would you feel differently?

Not a bit. As I said, he deserved to defend himself. This is not a racial issue or a sex issue, not for me. This is a humanity issue.

reply to post by Ceriddwen



Then where do you draw the line? What level of force is allowable to defend your life with? Also, do you think some enraged person or people are going to give you the same courtesy?

reply to post by tjack


When you regain control of the situation, are still armed, and still able to injure or even kill, but don't have to. When you take the upper hand, you can make the decision not to do what that person did. He made the wrong choice.

Responding to your edit, of course they aren't, but he had the choice to be the better person, to be A better person, and not allow his past, his anger, his fear, WHATEVER it was that drove him to cause a skull fracture. He could have gotten them on the ground and run away. He didn't have to keep hitting them, telling them to stay down, etc. He could have walked or run away. He didn't. That is where he crossed the line.

Again I ask, where was the manager?

From the time that woman hit the guy and jumped over the counter she deserved a whipping, same as her mate, if your big and bad enough to hit someone and try to attack them then your big and bad enough to take a beating back, I mean come on going over the counter what did they expect the guy to do stand there like a pussy. Sorry ladies but you got the whipping you deserved.

Originally posted by Ceriddwen

Originally posted by imd12c4funn

If I was attacked at my work by two persons, I would grab a weapon that was handy, and I too would beat them down again and again, with a warning to stay down after the first difusing.

With a jury trial, the past record might be rejected as evidence as well.

Maybe McDonalds will get a reputation of the bad-asses that work there and deter future altercations from cocky patrons.

I already stated that I thought he had the right to defend himself. Absolutely. He did NOT have the right to fracture a skull when he was in control with the weapon.

I wish with everything I have that people would not treat these workers the way they do, as though they are dirt under their feet, but violence is not the way to stop it. I am not saying I have an answer as to how to stop it, but I know it isn't violence.

As for the trial of the man, I wish him the best, and I wish him treatment for his issues, not necessarily the jail time he is sure to get, because I know that these people who spend long amounts of time in jail are usually worse when they get out. That said, with a violent history such as he has, and the current violent act, he is trending towards someone I wouldn't want to be in a closed room with, let alone a public space.

Anyone who thinks that working in fast food or retail is low stress, easy work hasn't done it. Period. People have no right to behave as those two women did, and I see it every single day. (Yes, I said earlier man and woman. Now I realize it was two women.)

edit on 17-10-2011 by Ceriddwen because: further commentary

I believe his issues started when he was 19 and packing a gun. It went off as he was drawing it and killed his friend and the bullet passed through the victim into an 8 year old.

It was more a tragic accident but, when a jury was deadlocked regarding ther murder vs. manslaughter verdict, he opted to take a plea on manslaughter.

He did the time and got a job.

These women have possibly ruined the rest of his life by instigating a criminal act and it is yet to be determined if he indeed executed a felony or if self defence will prevail, but as far as issues, I would say he issued what most are agreeing is self defence (besides, what you can't see on the video is what the assaulting pair were reaching for while on the ground, warranting additional moral improvement by metal stick) -so his issues are moot.

He is a victim of corporate scapegoating, draconian laws and a legal system that churns people through like butter, whipping an entire economy out of it for the benefit of judges, lawyers, state and federal gov't and the prison system (privatized for even higher profits).

Think of all the dollars that will go through the justice system just over OWS arrests world wide.

Corner the market on that. You could chose your seat under Denver International with that kind of loot.

Call me a softie, call me what you will, for advocating that violence is not the answer. I can't stomach what he did, and I derive my statements from that gut feeling. Nor can I stomach that those women thought that what they did was ok, and that he deserved the treatment they gave him. I can't stomach those statements saying he did the right thing. I guess I am done replying to this thread since I am seriously unable to understand these viewpoints. I am sickened that people think, it seems, that violence answering violence is the answer.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
A fractured skull isn't just a light beating ... He's charged with felony assault (as he should be) and the two women are charged with menacing, disorderly conduct, and trespassing (as they should be) the dude went overboard and could have killed one of them. An elbow to the jaw would have been enough to protect himself (or at least, stop hitting with the bar once they went down!) but he kept going after they were no longer a threat. He couldn't control himself and now his butt is back in prison with additional felony charges. He didn't win this. In the court-of-public-opinion, they now have the sympathy vote and might win big with a lawsuit, as well.

edit on 16-10-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)

You know, some people, like myself, have short tempers sometimes when dealing with these kinds of people.
You wanna put him away because he "almost killed someone" One of them jumped the counter and swaggered his/her way over to him, looking ready to beat him down. Even though they SAW him with the metal pipe (which i personally think he was originally gonna use to scare em off) they STILL decided to come at him.
This man should not be locked up. He's got off his ass, GONE TO WORK and defended himself against two aggressors. Drunk or not, you want to act like a fool and throw your weight around you better realise that there's always someone bigger then you.
These two idiots clearly went looking for trouble and they found it. Give the guy a break, he works at mcdonals for god's sake.

reply to post by blupblup

Originally posted by blupblup

They're lucky that they just got a whoopin' with a thin metal bar.... looks a lot worse,
[color=F5FFD4]I'm pretty sure he wasn't caving their heads in, just whacking their bodies and legs as if to say "keep trying to get up"

'Pretty sure'

One woman's [color=F5FFD4]skull was fractured and her arm was broken.... NY1

I think I had read both of the females names yesterday, so not positive about this. Maybe the names have since been pulled, due to concerns from the family? Two recent articles, from last night (about 10 hours ago), each stated this.

"From what I understand, this guy just viciously beat my daughter," said the father of one of the victims, who did not want her name released fearing she could be targeted again.

Her injuries are severe. [color=F5FFD4]Her skull was partially crushed. "She's not out of the danger zone. she's had some severe injuries. her right arm is broken. the [color=F5FFD4]left side of her head was caved in pretty good."
kare11

ibtimes

Originally posted by imd12c4funn

I'm not saying the women had guns. I amsaying that if someone threatened you in that enviroment, you would not know if there was a gun unless it was displayed.
I am saying that in 100 of these incidents,...45 of these...... 85% of the 45%, ......probably it would be around 94%......6% remaining would be .......

Your calculated percentages are nothing but straws. Tiny irrelevant straws that you are repeatedly pulling out, as some sort of a defense for your extremely weak argument.

reply to post by ripcontrol

the word/phrase was:
for a felony

3 words = phrase. Yes, that is exactly why I replied to you.
The reasoning behind that was because it was not accidental, and that was not all of it. You also re-worded the rest of the post, so that it would coincide with the falsehood. It was all intentional, so that your rage would hopefully appear as if it were more justifiable.

the act was a robbery in progress...
(note not armed robbery)

You're not the first to say that. However, of the several different articles I have read, and the few videos/news reports that I have seen, none of those mention anything at all about a robbery. No armed robbery. No robbery in progress. A more likely possibility but still no; No attempted robbery.
So where is it?

by law the females should be tried for the same thing the guy is....
so they should both be charged for the same thing he is plus what they did..

yeah. She should be charged with bashing in her own skull. That's logical.... [color=7D7D7D]/Sarcasm

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by ripcontrol

 

the word/phrase was:
for a felony

3 words = phrase. Yes, that is exactly why I replied to you.
The reasoning behind that was because it was not accidental, and that was not all of it. You also re-worded the rest of the post, so that it would coincide with the falsehood. It was all intentional, so that your rage would hopefully appear as if it were more justifiable.

Good sir do not accuse me of editing my post after you responded... Respectfully do not make a false accusation...

When I find out someone has responded to a post that usually makes me not edited any further... with the exception being that the computer posted the post on my end before I was finished...

neither which is the case....The second you posted it removed my ability under my honor to edit the post. It leaves me giving explanations... I respectfully asked that the thought be put there but my bad english is my fault as the rudeness being trolled is not mine....

the act was a robbery in progress...
(note not armed robbery)

You're not the first to say that. However, of the several different articles I have read, and the few videos/news reports that I have seen, none of those mention anything at all about a robbery. No armed robbery. No robbery in progress. A more likely possibility but still no; No attempted robbery.
So where is it?

Having worked for a living... Sir please, let me brake down the process as I see it, so you understand what I am saying

Counterfeiting

Counterfeiting is a specific form of forgery. Typically, counterfeiting is the creation of bogus versions of money, bonds, securities or other valuable documents with the intent to defraud or deceive. It also covers consumer goods such as software, drugs, media (i.e., DVDs, CDs), and “knock off” designer merchandise. Forgery includes many such criminal hoaxes, whether through printing, engraving, or via use of the computer. In many cases, it is illegal simply to be in possession of forged items.

Forgery also includes the falsification of things from wills to signatures, checks to evidence. Forgery is generally considered a form of fraud — the intentional use of deceit or other dishonest means to deprive another person of money, property, or a legal right.

and...

Theft of services

Theft of services is the legal term for a crime which is committed when a person obtains valuable services — as opposed to goods — by deception, force, threat or other unlawful means, i.e., without lawfully compensating the provider of said services. It may also overlap with some types of fraud in which payment is made on credit, but under an assumed identity, and ultimately disavowed ("Identity theft"). The most common form of this happening is when a person uses uses someone elses wifi without asking.

and

Battery

Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that:

1. an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and
2. the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching.

Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure.

and...

Robbery

Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force and/or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear.[1] Precise definitions of the offence may vary between jurisdictions. Robbery differs from simple theft in its use of violence and intimidation.

tbc--- next post

reply to post by BrokenCircles

by law the females should be tried for the same thing the guy is....
so they should both be charged for the same thing he is plus what they did..

yeah. She should be charged with bashing in her own skull. That's logical.... [color=7D7D7D]/Sarcasm

the next part is eaiser to explain..yes she should

It is established the following

Employee went to check fifty ( theft of services, attempting counterfeiting- which translate to a higher crime of robbery...)

Females in concert attacked the employee -via slapping ( battery)

at this point note that the man tried to de-esculate the situation... he walked away... clearly
(under most laws this is enough he tried to retreat or leave... even under castle laws he did more then was required)

At this point the Perps also had opportunity to walk away.... They chose to attack... (under most laws you are not allow to reload a gun or stab more then enough to disable your attacker.. note DISABLE your attacker)

No they jumped the counter- passed other employees and headed straight to the victim...
(no ability to claim insanity exctra... they had by this act proven intent to harm the victim.)

The two perps got their rears kicked... they where effectively disabled- ( they hitting of both qualifies as self defense... when they moved to get up the victim waqs with in rights to insure the attacker was disable and unable to attack...)

note at this time the victim(the mcd's employee) does qualify for insanity... He was by legal definition stalked to the back area.. (check mc d's some have employees only signs posted....) cornered having attempted to retreat he was traumatized and like any animal who is cornered he defended himself...

watch the video... I am sorry I chase a guy to beat his six I am not going to keep walking towards him when he picks up a weapon unless I have one...

The two female perps had zeroed in on him and decided to attack...

So attempt robbery took place... they jumped behind the counter and attempted to remove what they perceived as the strongest employee.

Each jurisdiction has its own version of 'party to the crime rules'... When your are in the act of committing a crime (such as robbery, counterfeiting, or assault) and another crime occurs (such as attempted murder, ect) during this crime you initiate your guilty of the other crime regardless of who the perp was during the act...

EX.. during a bank robbery they shot and kill the guard... By law all the robbers (regardless of wither the robbery was a success) are able to be tried and convicted of murder...( note this includes the driver for the robbers who never sets foot in the bank)

Forensic- evidence

Thus, actually committing a criminal act is not the only way in which a person can be convicted of that crime. It is easily understood that a person who is engaged with another in the commission of a crime is also responsible for the others' acts committed during the pursuit of a common criminal venture. This is all part of what the law calls being a "party to the crime of another" and falls in the category of "criminal accountability."

Related to this is the concept of "felony murder," wherein all accomplices are guilty of the murder committed by one of them in a common undertaking. Similarly, when persons are engaged in a criminal conspiracy, all conspirators are guilty of the criminal acts of any of them, as long as those acts are a part of the common criminal enterprise. In conspiracies this is true even if one conspirator commits an act in the commission of a crime that was not anticipated by the others prior to the crime's execution. Conspiracy liability for acts of others is therefore very broad, and it extends even to liability for unanticipated conduct of co-conspirators, as long as it could be reasonably anticipated that a cohort might engage in the unplanned crime during the commission of the crime that they had jointly planned. Less clear are the circumstances under which a defendant can be found guilty of a crime committed by another when the defendant is simply present at the place and time where the crime occurs but when he renders no visible aid to the principal, and when no prior criminal agreement between the defendant and the others who commit the crime can be proved.

Yes they can be charged for the very act that hospitalized them because by law they are responsible for it...




No this legally very easy... the perps escalated the situation and at two points they chose to escalate it
1) initial slap on the victim behind the counter
2)jumping over the counter stalking victim

both acts took premeditation--
bad customer service walk away

employee leaves you at counter...
complain to manager or walk away

tbc

reply to post by BrokenCircles


In conclusion the perps (two customers) chose to assault and thus via the acts they committed are chargeable for assault and battery for injuries that are a result of crimes they instigated

This also means that McDonalds can sue them for their crimes

The employee could also sue them....

same reason....

If I owned the mc donalds corporation i would sue them with the employee so he did not sue me...

(someone asked where was a shift leader or manager) it kinda makes McD's liable

the perps should go to jail and be forced to compensate civilly their victim the mc d's employee