The New Assault Weapon: McDonald's Fries

Histrionic police officers in Lowell Massachusetts charged a 26 year old man with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon for tossing some french fries at his 13 year old stepdaughter. The man plead not guilty and was released without bail, and the Lowell Sun reports that the 13 year old girl "suffered no significant injuries".

Ya think? How hot and greasy would a french fry have to be in order to be classified as a weapon? If they were so deadly, how was it they didn't cause any harm to the man who threw them? Presumably he would have had to touch the fries in order to toss them.

If this man is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, why in the hell was he released without any bail?

This is just another example of overzealous police stacking charges - if any at all were merited - in an attempt to overwhelm the individual with the awesome machinery of the state.

If those fries had cooled significantly by the time the man tossed them at his step daughter the "deadly weapon" aspect is bogus, and while "assault" and even "battery" may apply here, police often could care less if such charges are applicable or not and seem to think their job is to slap as many charges on a person, onerous or not, and let the courts sort it out. As if due process didn't begin the moment they got involved.

It is way past time that individuals return the favor to overzealous police and prosecutors and if the police and prosecutors turned to legitimate statutes in order to invent jurisdiction where none existed, then the individual who was the brunt of that action should file a verified complaint and have the police and prosecutors arrested for simulation of legal process, acting under color of law, impersonating a police officer and/or prosecutor, and obstruction of justice and demand they be tried for their crimes and demand of a jury they convict these criminal thugs.

Assault with a deadly weapon indeed. We are days away from pillow fights being raided for their gangland slaying like behavior.

They are a deadly weapon, the man did not use them right. Your supposed to feed them to people not throw them.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Histrionic police officers in Lowell Massachusetts charged a 26 year old man with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon for tossing some french fries at his 13 year old stepdaughter. The man plead not guilty and was released without bail, and the Lowell Sun reports that the 13 year old girl "suffered no significant injuries".

Ya think? How hot and greasy would a french fry have to be in order to be classified as a weapon? If they were so deadly, how was it they didn't cause any harm to the man who threw them? Presumably he would have had to touch the fries in order to toss them.

If this man is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, why in the hell was he released without any bail?

This is just another example of overzealous police stacking charges - if any at all were merited - in an attempt to overwhelm the individual with the awesome machinery of the state.

If those fries had cooled significantly by the time the man tossed them at his step daughter the "deadly weapon" aspect is bogus, and while "assault" and even "battery" may apply here, police often could care less if such charges are applicable or not and seem to think their job is to slap as many charges on a person, onerous or not, and let the courts sort it out. As if due process didn't begin the moment they got involved.

It is way past time that individuals return the favor to overzealous police and prosecutors and if the police and prosecutors turned to legitimate statutes in order to invent jurisdiction where none existed, then the individual who was the brunt of that action should file a verified complaint and have the police and prosecutors arrested for simulation of legal process, acting under color of law, impersonating a police officer and/or prosecutor, and obstruction of justice and demand they be tried for their crimes and demand of a jury they convict these criminal thugs.

Assault with a deadly weapon indeed. We are days away from pillow fights being raided for their gangland slaying like behavior.

Iam from Germany, but i think fries are cheaper than ammunation ? GET SOME FRIES!!!!

You could...just saying..

Originally posted by Infi8nity
They are a deadly weapon, the man did not use them right. Your supposed to feed them to people not throw them.

Considering how unhealthy McDonald's food can be, it was probably less dangerous for him to throw them in her face than if he were to feed them to her.

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by Infi8nity
They are a deadly weapon, the man did not use them right. Your supposed to feed them to people not throw them.

Considering how unhealthy McDonald's food can be, it was probably less dangerous for him to throw them in her face than if he were to feed them to her.

i bet he could prove that in court for his defense as well.....

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by Infi8nity
They are a deadly weapon, the man did not use them right. Your supposed to feed them to people not throw them.

Considering how unhealthy McDonald's food can be, it was probably less dangerous for him to throw them in her face than if he were to feed them to her.

Oooo that could be my new Avatar!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If those fries had cooled significantly by the time the man tossed them at his step daughter the "deadly weapon" aspect is bogus, and while "assault" and even "battery" may apply here, police often could care less if such charges are applicable or not and seem to think their job is to slap as many charges on a person, onerous or not, and let the courts sort it out. As if due process didn't begin the moment they got involved.

Agreed, and even if the fries were piping hot, I would have a hard time with the "deadly weapon" charge. To me, a deadly weapon implies injuries inflicted with the weapon could be fatal.

That being said, of course this 26 year old is out of his mind throwing anything at a 13 year old girl, and I hope the appropriate charges stick.

The reasoning is probably skewed by the fact that the girl is 13 and isnt capable of defending herself against a healthy adult. It goes too far however. Even if the fries were hot or frozen solid, throwing a pack or 20-30 fries wont do much damage at all unless the person throwing them is really trying to maim/kill the victim. And if that were true it would escalate rather quickly from throwing food at one another. The charges are too excessive.

Its called disciplining your child. If he spanked her, what would that be? Attempted Murder????

Fries feel like lead when eaten, not when thrown at someone.

reply to post by mattime


Lol, I'm dying to know what his reason for throwing the fries was...

If McDonalds fries are a deadly weapon then Hot Pockets are a weapon of mass destruction. The cheese in those things is hotter than lava and sticks to you like napalm. Throw a fresh Hot Pocket at someone and you could permanently disfigure them.

reply to post by drwizardphd

That being said, of course this 26 year old is out of his mind throwing anything at a 13 year old girl, and I hope the appropriate charges stick.

Assault and Battery probably applies here:

An assault and battery is the unconsented and unlawful touching of another person, however slight, if it would be harmful or offensive to a reasonable person. That means that, in addition to fighting with or hitting someone, an assault and battery can be a push, a shove, a slap, or even spitting on someone. A missed punch is an assault without a battery, which is also a criminal offense.

Or does it? The man, after all, is her parent. While throwing french fries as a form of discipline strikes me as poorly thought out and not all that effective, who the hell am I, as a reasonable person, to determine what is an effective way of dealing with a mouthy 13 year old while two parents are arguing?

Here is what I think, and I've been trying to find more details on the incident, but if the child's mother is the one who pressed charges then the police had to file the charges of assault and battery. However, the very fact that they stacked those charges adding assault with a deadly weapon makes the police suspect at this point. I am skeptical that the mans wife pressed charges and this was all the decision of rogue police officers.

Had an actual peace officer, such as MikeNice81, or WTFover had arrived on the scene, and assuming the man had no other priors working against him, I cannot imagine any charges being brought against the man, and just a stern warning that throwing french fries in a public parking lot is not the most prudent form of parenting and that if this type of incident happens again charges of assault and battery will be brought against him.

I cannot speak for Mike or WTF, but I know these two are extremely reasonable police officers who have the peoples best interest at heart.

I do not believe that police should be making a habit of arresting parents for loosing their cool with children and doing stupid things like tossing french fries at them.

You give a child an inch and they take a mile. You give a police officer an inch and more times than not they take a parsec.

Man arrested for throwing fries!

Really a man was arrested for throwing fries?

Seems people can throw shoes,and other things at people and they are not arrested yet here we are just waiting for the BATF to start regulating fries.

Instant back ground on ordering fries, 200 dollar tax stamp for large orders.

Even tho some frown on the action of a fry being thrown at a child seems only fair after the years of throwing food at the parent.

The police do not write the laws theyare employed to enforce, legislators do?

Right?

Given the context, it's hard to make a definite claim either way.

We don't know if "throwing french fries" involved lightly tossing a few fries at the girl, or chucking the entire box at her face full-on. A 26 year old guy can cause some damage to an 11 year old girl, even with something as innocuous as french fries.

And I agree with your assessment of the parenting in question here. However personally I'm against corporal punishment in all forms, and I don't believe we should be excusing parents and step parents who lose their cool and react recklessly in a way that could injure the child.

The dangerous weapon charge is ridiculous, and does call the entire event into question. However if the guy threw the fries at his 11 year old daughter intending to hurt her, then he deserves the battery charge. There's no excuse to hurt your children over something as petty as an argument or misbehavior.

Who woulda thought we would live to see the day an age when a man could go to jail for having a simple food fight with his daughter?




They would've had to call out the SWAT team in full riot gear to put that down and lock up all the kids for life.

People aren't allowed to have a little harmless fun anymore.

I wonder if the cop really had any choice in the matter. I have heard from a friend's personal experience, that once a cop is called in on a claim of domestic abuse, he/she must take someone down to the station, whether they want to or not.

From the article, it is apparent that...

1. Hacket and his wife get into an argument on the way out of McDonalds about god knows what

2. Step-daughter chimes in.... probably not with anything constructive.

3. Hacket throws his fries at the step-daughter for the possibly nonconstructive remark.


And I am guessing that...

4. Wife seeks revenge and calls the police to make ridiculous claim.

5. Cop has to take someone in.

AmericKa, where a food fight is a felony.

"What are you in here for"?

"I killed man in front of his family and then ate his liver with a nice bottle of chiante......you?".

"I uhhh, ummm, well I sorta.....tossed some uhhhhm...... french fries......At uhhh, you know what, I killed TWO men"!

This country is a joke.

reply to post by Zarniwoop

4. Wife seeks revenge and calls the police to make ridiculous claim.

5. Cop has to take someone in.

If 4 is true then 5 is unavoidable. If 4 is false then 5 is dubious at best, criminal at worst.

Cops do have choices and all of them took an oath of office to protect and defend both the federal Constitution and the state Constitution in which they live. The Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a Declaration of Rights:

All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.

Article V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.

Article XIV. Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities prescribed by the laws.

These Declaration of Rights are a part of what a sworn police officer has taken an oath to protect and defend. Any subsequent legislation that would command a police officer to ignore any part of these rights, i.e. Article XIV, has no lawful authority. Police officers have neither any duty nor any obligation to act unlawfully.

Again, if the wife pressed charges my concerns are moot. If the wife did not press charges and the police simply just used statutes on the book to jam a person up, then my concerns are more than legitimate as should be any persons regarding the overzealous and malicious prosecution of people.

Well, some of them can be pretty pointy.

A dangerous weapon? really?

The person who charged him should be called as a witness to demonstrate how dangerous they are.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

If 4 is true then 5 is unavoidable.

Either the wife or the daughter had to have called the cops, as the incident took place while the wife was driving. (I think the only witnesses were in the car)

Again, if the wife pressed charges my concerns are moot

That is the 64,000.00 question.

Pretty crappy reporting on this story, really. But, if all the facts were there, it might not make national news.