Excessive or Well Deserved?

Off Topic
522

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

Let me ask you. What if that 70lb kid is coming at you with a bat and your holding your new born baby and back against the wall?[/quote]

27 ninjas with machine guns.

EVERY SITUATION CHANGES DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES!

Stop trying to plug in variables here and there to change the situation that you’re dealing with RIGHT HERE.

You can change them infinitely, and everything else based off it changes accordingly, so there’s literally NO purpose to hypotheticals here.[/quote]

I agree., LIke how you left out the Question I was answering:

"What if its a 70lb kid with a gun/pipe :wink:

I agree that both have the potential to be deadly, that’s clear to most people. But I think that a gun (just a pistol, even) is deadly in more situations/more often than a pipe is."

[/quote]

Apologies if I misunderstood.[/quote]

No issues, hell this is the most interesting subject going on in GAL.

523

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]rambodian wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:
Funny, I was just on my way to add this to the superhero thread.

It serves to reinforce the point I was trying to make in that thread; that there is a difference between instinctive aggression in response to a threat, and losing all sanity resulting in aggressive actions.

She slaps the cashier, with the perception that the counter will protect her from retaliation. You can see her retreat when he attempts to strike back. He probably shouldn’t have swung back, but I can’t blame him. Him missing, and the physical layout of the restaurant emboldens her to take it to the next level.

Her first step behind the counter was when this went from crazy to insane. She was crossing a line (literal and figurative), with conscious intent to do harm. There is no more “heat of the moment” excuse here. He retreats to a defensive position, until he reaches a point where he feels he has to take a stand, and strikes her with whatever happens to be available. Justified.

It is only at the point where he continues to strike after the threat has been neutralized that he has crossed the line. If his colleague had grabbed/tackled him at the point where he steps in front of the Coke machine, he probably would not have been arrested.[/quote]

This sums the situation up quite well
[/quote]

We are talking like Lawyers. I would argue what training has this fry cook had to determine when the threat is neutralized. If 5 LA police officers can say a man on his back is still in a attack postion why can’t a fry cook argue the same. It would come off as weak to me but at least its a defense.[/quote]

I may not be a lawyer, but I made the decisions about the strategy, value, etc. of thousands of civil suits and I’ll tell you this; McDonald’s and/or the franchise FUCKED themselves right in the ass when they threw this guy under the bus. Their official response basically sets up recovery for the two animals - they all but admitted that he was guilty and they insta-fired him in an effort to save public face without thinking it through. They should have suspended him, investigated, and retained him the best criminal lawyer they could find in the hopes of getting him off. Instead, they did the opposite and fucked themselves in the process.

Or, they decided that they lose more in public relations commerce than they do paying the resultant lawsuit. I’d be interested to know what their strategy was there. Thinking it thru, from a Corporate perspective, I think it would be pretty untenable from a public relations standpoint to defend him.

525

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The law does not require you take a beating. [/quote]

Heads up for you, in case you ever make good on that threat to move to Japan:

Apparently, it does here, based on converations I’ve had with 2 different LEOs. They told me you only have the right to strike another person in a life or death circumstance. They don’t care who attacked who; get in a fight and you’re held responsible.

Apparently if you get attacked, you’re supposed to retreat and call the police.[/quote]

I’m not sure I understand, but that law sounds like many we have in some states in the USA.

The question is who determines Life or Death cicumstance? Do I have a right to say this person was or is trained in combat and I’m just a guy who likes to lift heavy things. Can a lawyer argue this in Japan or is it left to a Judge.

529

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]rambodian wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:
Funny, I was just on my way to add this to the superhero thread.

It serves to reinforce the point I was trying to make in that thread; that there is a difference between instinctive aggression in response to a threat, and losing all sanity resulting in aggressive actions.

She slaps the cashier, with the perception that the counter will protect her from retaliation. You can see her retreat when he attempts to strike back. He probably shouldn’t have swung back, but I can’t blame him. Him missing, and the physical layout of the restaurant emboldens her to take it to the next level.

Her first step behind the counter was when this went from crazy to insane. She was crossing a line (literal and figurative), with conscious intent to do harm. There is no more “heat of the moment” excuse here. He retreats to a defensive position, until he reaches a point where he feels he has to take a stand, and strikes her with whatever happens to be available. Justified.

It is only at the point where he continues to strike after the threat has been neutralized that he has crossed the line. If his colleague had grabbed/tackled him at the point where he steps in front of the Coke machine, he probably would not have been arrested.[/quote]

This sums the situation up quite well
[/quote]

We are talking like Lawyers. I would argue what training has this fry cook had to determine when the threat is neutralized. If 5 LA police officers can say a man on his back is still in a attack postion why can’t a fry cook argue the same. It would come off as weak to me but at least its a defense.[/quote]

I may not be a lawyer, but I made the decisions about the strategy, value, etc. of thousands of civil suits and I’ll tell you this; McDonald’s and/or the franchise FUCKED themselves right in the ass when they threw this guy under the bus. Their official response basically sets up recovery for the two animals - they all but admitted that he was guilty and they insta-fired him in an effort to save public face without thinking it through. They should have suspended him, investigated, and retained him the best criminal lawyer they could find in the hopes of getting him off. Instead, they did the opposite and fucked themselves in the process.

Or, they decided that they lose more in public relations commerce than they do paying the resultant lawsuit. I’d be interested to know what their strategy was there. Thinking it thru, from a Corporate perspective, I think it would be pretty untenable from a public relations standpoint to defend him. [/quote]

What?? They fired the guy??

So what is Mcdonalds stance on protecting employees? That fry cook may have a case that Micky "D"s put him in a untrained position to defend his life by not having security on site. If his ass goes to jail he may have a case against McDonalds.

Although it wont help him in Jail

530

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]rambodian wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:
Funny, I was just on my way to add this to the superhero thread.

It serves to reinforce the point I was trying to make in that thread; that there is a difference between instinctive aggression in response to a threat, and losing all sanity resulting in aggressive actions.

She slaps the cashier, with the perception that the counter will protect her from retaliation. You can see her retreat when he attempts to strike back. He probably shouldn’t have swung back, but I can’t blame him. Him missing, and the physical layout of the restaurant emboldens her to take it to the next level.

Her first step behind the counter was when this went from crazy to insane. She was crossing a line (literal and figurative), with conscious intent to do harm. There is no more “heat of the moment” excuse here. He retreats to a defensive position, until he reaches a point where he feels he has to take a stand, and strikes her with whatever happens to be available. Justified.

It is only at the point where he continues to strike after the threat has been neutralized that he has crossed the line. If his colleague had grabbed/tackled him at the point where he steps in front of the Coke machine, he probably would not have been arrested.[/quote]

This sums the situation up quite well
[/quote]

We are talking like Lawyers. I would argue what training has this fry cook had to determine when the threat is neutralized. If 5 LA police officers can say a man on his back is still in a attack postion why can’t a fry cook argue the same. It would come off as weak to me but at least its a defense.[/quote]

I may not be a lawyer, but I made the decisions about the strategy, value, etc. of thousands of civil suits and I’ll tell you this; McDonald’s and/or the franchise FUCKED themselves right in the ass when they threw this guy under the bus. Their official response basically sets up recovery for the two animals - they all but admitted that he was guilty and they insta-fired him in an effort to save public face without thinking it through. They should have suspended him, investigated, and retained him the best criminal lawyer they could find in the hopes of getting him off. Instead, they did the opposite and fucked themselves in the process.

Or, they decided that they lose more in public relations commerce than they do paying the resultant lawsuit. I’d be interested to know what their strategy was there. Thinking it thru, from a Corporate perspective, I think it would be pretty untenable from a public relations standpoint to defend him. [/quote]

What?? They fired the guy??

So what is Mcdonalds stance on protecting employees? That fry cook may have a case that Micky "D"s put him in a untrained position to defend his life by not having security on site. If his ass goes to jail he may have a case against McDonalds.

Although it wont help him in Jail[/quote]

I thought I saw in one of the articles that McDonald’s has one of those policies aimed at preventing employees from being heroes during robberies and the like and that was the justification for firing. Similar to BestBuy employees being forbidden from stopping thieves.

531

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
I’m a bit intrigued by this claim that a metal rod is “a deadly weapon, just like a gun.”

Are they really viewed more or less equally in the eyes of the law? I find that very hard to believe.

And what object is NOT a deadly weapon, then? A flashlight? A glass ashtray? Hell, how about a pencil?[/quote]

Then you’ll also find this interesting.

SOme jurisdictions have found that boxing gloves are a deadly weapon. Try this on. A skilled boxer starts a non consensual fist fight (barehanded). He breaks the other man’s jaw and orbit, causes massive internal bleeding etc. He is charged/convicted with ‘regular’ assault (and whatever else, not relevant). In a different scenario, the same man is leaving his boxing gym, still has his gloves on for whatever reason and picks the same fight. Same injury occurs. He gets charged/convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.

Clearly we know that a boxing glove will soften the blows, making the strikes less dangerous all else equal. But that’s how the law works. Any OBJECT can be a deadly weapon depending on how it is used. However, a body part, teeth for example, will not be deemed a deadly weapon. Manually sharpened teeth? Who knows.

If any actual lawyer needs to correct this, please do. [/quote]

Not that I don’t believe you, but I would REALLY like to see what case this is from or cited as being from.

as a boxer, I can’t wrap my head around it.
[/quote]

It is true. And even if you fight just with your hands, if the other guy can provide evidence that you have had proper boxing (mma, martial arts, etc…) training they can and will add assault with a deadly weapon and/or premeditation, treachery and advantage. Happened to me twice in high school, good luck for me this 3rd world country is full of incompetent prosecutors.

532

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]rambodian wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:
Funny, I was just on my way to add this to the superhero thread.

It serves to reinforce the point I was trying to make in that thread; that there is a difference between instinctive aggression in response to a threat, and losing all sanity resulting in aggressive actions.

She slaps the cashier, with the perception that the counter will protect her from retaliation. You can see her retreat when he attempts to strike back. He probably shouldn’t have swung back, but I can’t blame him. Him missing, and the physical layout of the restaurant emboldens her to take it to the next level.

Her first step behind the counter was when this went from crazy to insane. She was crossing a line (literal and figurative), with conscious intent to do harm. There is no more “heat of the moment” excuse here. He retreats to a defensive position, until he reaches a point where he feels he has to take a stand, and strikes her with whatever happens to be available. Justified.

It is only at the point where he continues to strike after the threat has been neutralized that he has crossed the line. If his colleague had grabbed/tackled him at the point where he steps in front of the Coke machine, he probably would not have been arrested.[/quote]

This sums the situation up quite well
[/quote]

We are talking like Lawyers. I would argue what training has this fry cook had to determine when the threat is neutralized. If 5 LA police officers can say a man on his back is still in a attack postion why can’t a fry cook argue the same. It would come off as weak to me but at least its a defense.[/quote]

I may not be a lawyer, but I made the decisions about the strategy, value, etc. of thousands of civil suits and I’ll tell you this; McDonald’s and/or the franchise FUCKED themselves right in the ass when they threw this guy under the bus. Their official response basically sets up recovery for the two animals - they all but admitted that he was guilty and they insta-fired him in an effort to save public face without thinking it through. They should have suspended him, investigated, and retained him the best criminal lawyer they could find in the hopes of getting him off. Instead, they did the opposite and fucked themselves in the process.

Or, they decided that they lose more in public relations commerce than they do paying the resultant lawsuit. I’d be interested to know what their strategy was there. Thinking it thru, from a Corporate perspective, I think it would be pretty untenable from a public relations standpoint to defend him. [/quote]

What?? They fired the guy??

So what is Mcdonalds stance on protecting employees? That fry cook may have a case that Micky "D"s put him in a untrained position to defend his life by not having security on site. If his ass goes to jail he may have a case against McDonalds.

Although it wont help him in Jail[/quote]

I thought I saw in one of the articles that McDonald’s has one of those policies aimed at preventing employees from being heroes during robberies and the like and that was the justification for firing. Similar to BestBuy employees being forbidden from stopping thieves.[/quote]

hahah, Yeah but what they where atempting to rob was his azz. hahaha.

If they have no security on site and the only conflict training they gave that fry cook is on “give me the cash or more fries” 101 then Mcdonalds has blame in this.

533

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]rambodian wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:
Funny, I was just on my way to add this to the superhero thread.

It serves to reinforce the point I was trying to make in that thread; that there is a difference between instinctive aggression in response to a threat, and losing all sanity resulting in aggressive actions.

She slaps the cashier, with the perception that the counter will protect her from retaliation. You can see her retreat when he attempts to strike back. He probably shouldn’t have swung back, but I can’t blame him. Him missing, and the physical layout of the restaurant emboldens her to take it to the next level.

Her first step behind the counter was when this went from crazy to insane. She was crossing a line (literal and figurative), with conscious intent to do harm. There is no more “heat of the moment” excuse here. He retreats to a defensive position, until he reaches a point where he feels he has to take a stand, and strikes her with whatever happens to be available. Justified.

It is only at the point where he continues to strike after the threat has been neutralized that he has crossed the line. If his colleague had grabbed/tackled him at the point where he steps in front of the Coke machine, he probably would not have been arrested.[/quote]

This sums the situation up quite well
[/quote]

We are talking like Lawyers. I would argue what training has this fry cook had to determine when the threat is neutralized. If 5 LA police officers can say a man on his back is still in a attack postion why can’t a fry cook argue the same. It would come off as weak to me but at least its a defense.[/quote]

I may not be a lawyer, but I made the decisions about the strategy, value, etc. of thousands of civil suits and I’ll tell you this; McDonald’s and/or the franchise FUCKED themselves right in the ass when they threw this guy under the bus. Their official response basically sets up recovery for the two animals - they all but admitted that he was guilty and they insta-fired him in an effort to save public face without thinking it through. They should have suspended him, investigated, and retained him the best criminal lawyer they could find in the hopes of getting him off. Instead, they did the opposite and fucked themselves in the process.

Or, they decided that they lose more in public relations commerce than they do paying the resultant lawsuit. I’d be interested to know what their strategy was there. Thinking it thru, from a Corporate perspective, I think it would be pretty untenable from a public relations standpoint to defend him. [/quote]

What?? They fired the guy??

So what is Mcdonalds stance on protecting employees? That fry cook may have a case that Micky "D"s put him in a untrained position to defend his life by not having security on site. If his ass goes to jail he may have a case against McDonalds.

Although it wont help him in Jail[/quote]

I thought I saw in one of the articles that McDonald’s has one of those policies aimed at preventing employees from being heroes during robberies and the like and that was the justification for firing. Similar to BestBuy employees being forbidden from stopping thieves.[/quote]

hahah, Yeah but what they where atempting to rob was his azz. hahaha.

If they have no security on site and the only conflict training they gave that fry cook is on “give me the cash or more fries” 101 then Mcdonalds has blame in this.[/quote]

even worse, another article said that McDonald’s decided against having extra security and policing at this location against recommendations in order to save money. If that is true, maybe the cashier has a suit!

534

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
I’m a bit intrigued by this claim that a metal rod is “a deadly weapon, just like a gun.”

Are they really viewed more or less equally in the eyes of the law? I find that very hard to believe.

And what object is NOT a deadly weapon, then? A flashlight? A glass ashtray? Hell, how about a pencil?[/quote]

Then you’ll also find this interesting.

SOme jurisdictions have found that boxing gloves are a deadly weapon. Try this on. A skilled boxer starts a non consensual fist fight (barehanded). He breaks the other man’s jaw and orbit, causes massive internal bleeding etc. He is charged/convicted with ‘regular’ assault (and whatever else, not relevant). In a different scenario, the same man is leaving his boxing gym, still has his gloves on for whatever reason and picks the same fight. Same injury occurs. He gets charged/convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.

Clearly we know that a boxing glove will soften the blows, making the strikes less dangerous all else equal. But that’s how the law works. Any OBJECT can be a deadly weapon depending on how it is used. However, a body part, teeth for example, will not be deemed a deadly weapon. Manually sharpened teeth? Who knows.

If any actual lawyer needs to correct this, please do. [/quote]

Not that I don’t believe you, but I would REALLY like to see what case this is from or cited as being from.

as a boxer, I can’t wrap my head around it.
[/quote]

Ha I knew someone would ask. I dont remember the case name off hand and I dont have my notes right now. I’ll look on monday.

535

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]rambodian wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:
Funny, I was just on my way to add this to the superhero thread.

It serves to reinforce the point I was trying to make in that thread; that there is a difference between instinctive aggression in response to a threat, and losing all sanity resulting in aggressive actions.

She slaps the cashier, with the perception that the counter will protect her from retaliation. You can see her retreat when he attempts to strike back. He probably shouldn’t have swung back, but I can’t blame him. Him missing, and the physical layout of the restaurant emboldens her to take it to the next level.

Her first step behind the counter was when this went from crazy to insane. She was crossing a line (literal and figurative), with conscious intent to do harm. There is no more “heat of the moment” excuse here. He retreats to a defensive position, until he reaches a point where he feels he has to take a stand, and strikes her with whatever happens to be available. Justified.

It is only at the point where he continues to strike after the threat has been neutralized that he has crossed the line. If his colleague had grabbed/tackled him at the point where he steps in front of the Coke machine, he probably would not have been arrested.[/quote]

This sums the situation up quite well
[/quote]

We are talking like Lawyers. I would argue what training has this fry cook had to determine when the threat is neutralized. If 5 LA police officers can say a man on his back is still in a attack postion why can’t a fry cook argue the same. It would come off as weak to me but at least its a defense.[/quote]

I may not be a lawyer, but I made the decisions about the strategy, value, etc. of thousands of civil suits and I’ll tell you this; McDonald’s and/or the franchise FUCKED themselves right in the ass when they threw this guy under the bus. Their official response basically sets up recovery for the two animals - they all but admitted that he was guilty and they insta-fired him in an effort to save public face without thinking it through. They should have suspended him, investigated, and retained him the best criminal lawyer they could find in the hopes of getting him off. Instead, they did the opposite and fucked themselves in the process.

Or, they decided that they lose more in public relations commerce than they do paying the resultant lawsuit. I’d be interested to know what their strategy was there. Thinking it thru, from a Corporate perspective, I think it would be pretty untenable from a public relations standpoint to defend him. [/quote]

What?? They fired the guy??

So what is Mcdonalds stance on protecting employees? That fry cook may have a case that Micky "D"s put him in a untrained position to defend his life by not having security on site. If his ass goes to jail he may have a case against McDonalds.

Although it wont help him in Jail[/quote]

He has no case against McDonald’s. NY is an “at-will employment” state which generally means they can fire you with or without cause, as you can quit whenever you like as well. The usual exceptions to the rule are discrimination. They don’t have a duty to train him for self-defense, security or any other such occupation. They could fire him solely on the basis of his verbal jousting with the customer, arguing he inflamed the situation. She said something about his mother, and he returned the insult. THAT alone can get you fired. Forget what followed. They may not have known he was a felon. He may have lied on his application. We simply do not know.

There IS an interesting angle that he was a victim of violence on the job and that McDonald’s failed to provide adequate security but there are problems with that angle. One, he didn’t get injured so no damages. His arrest is self-inflicted so no recovery there unless he is 100% exonerated of any wrongdoing. And, McDonald’s may have no obligation whatsoever to provide security unless the nature of the crime is foreseeable and there has been a sufficient pattern and past of such crime at the location. I don’t think this place was a “high crime” area. The duty to provide security is a very technical one.

The issues are pretty simple, yet complex. And I’m just spitballing here as I lie here…I’m not really quarterbacking this thing fully.

536

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]rambodian wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:
Funny, I was just on my way to add this to the superhero thread.

It serves to reinforce the point I was trying to make in that thread; that there is a difference between instinctive aggression in response to a threat, and losing all sanity resulting in aggressive actions.

She slaps the cashier, with the perception that the counter will protect her from retaliation. You can see her retreat when he attempts to strike back. He probably shouldn’t have swung back, but I can’t blame him. Him missing, and the physical layout of the restaurant emboldens her to take it to the next level.

Her first step behind the counter was when this went from crazy to insane. She was crossing a line (literal and figurative), with conscious intent to do harm. There is no more “heat of the moment” excuse here. He retreats to a defensive position, until he reaches a point where he feels he has to take a stand, and strikes her with whatever happens to be available. Justified.

It is only at the point where he continues to strike after the threat has been neutralized that he has crossed the line. If his colleague had grabbed/tackled him at the point where he steps in front of the Coke machine, he probably would not have been arrested.[/quote]

This sums the situation up quite well
[/quote]

We are talking like Lawyers. I would argue what training has this fry cook had to determine when the threat is neutralized. If 5 LA police officers can say a man on his back is still in a attack postion why can’t a fry cook argue the same. It would come off as weak to me but at least its a defense.[/quote]

I may not be a lawyer, but I made the decisions about the strategy, value, etc. of thousands of civil suits and I’ll tell you this; McDonald’s and/or the franchise FUCKED themselves right in the ass when they threw this guy under the bus. Their official response basically sets up recovery for the two animals - they all but admitted that he was guilty and they insta-fired him in an effort to save public face without thinking it through. They should have suspended him, investigated, and retained him the best criminal lawyer they could find in the hopes of getting him off. Instead, they did the opposite and fucked themselves in the process.

Or, they decided that they lose more in public relations commerce than they do paying the resultant lawsuit. I’d be interested to know what their strategy was there. Thinking it thru, from a Corporate perspective, I think it would be pretty untenable from a public relations standpoint to defend him. [/quote]

What?? They fired the guy??

So what is Mcdonalds stance on protecting employees? That fry cook may have a case that Micky "D"s put him in a untrained position to defend his life by not having security on site. If his ass goes to jail he may have a case against McDonalds.

Although it wont help him in Jail[/quote]

I thought I saw in one of the articles that McDonald’s has one of those policies aimed at preventing employees from being heroes during robberies and the like and that was the justification for firing. Similar to BestBuy employees being forbidden from stopping thieves.[/quote]

hahah, Yeah but what they where atempting to rob was his azz. hahaha.

If they have no security on site and the only conflict training they gave that fry cook is on “give me the cash or more fries” 101 then Mcdonalds has blame in this.[/quote]

even worse, another article said that McDonald’s decided against having extra security and policing at this location against recommendations in order to save money. If that is true, maybe the cashier has a suit![/quote]

he has no suit. he wasn’t injured. his arrest was self-inflicted and his criminal act likely broke the chain of events arguably caused by the “lack of security”. and, he’d have to be exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing which is unlikely.

“at will employment” is pretty strong so it’s unlikely he has any unlawful termination claim either.

and I wouldn’t just buy any report that they refused to post security to save money. i read somewhere else the place was not really high crime. further, it’s probably the franchise decision and I’m sure the agreements have hold harmless favoring Corporate. Bottom line - no way he gets to the big pocket at Corporate. The firing, decision for security, etc., all happens at the franchise level.

537

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The law does not require you take a beating. [/quote]

Heads up for you, in case you ever make good on that threat to move to Japan:

Apparently, it does here, based on converations I’ve had with 2 different LEOs. They told me you only have the right to strike another person in a life or death circumstance. They don’t care who attacked who; get in a fight and you’re held responsible.

Apparently if you get attacked, you’re supposed to retreat and call the police.[/quote]

I’m not sure about Japanese LEO but LEO in general does not necessarily always understand the nuances of the law and they are often wrong. Now, if a judge or your equivalent of a prosecutor told you that or even a lawyer…then that’s credible.

I don’t know about moving but definitely want to visit. Soon.

538

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]rambodian wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:
Funny, I was just on my way to add this to the superhero thread.

It serves to reinforce the point I was trying to make in that thread; that there is a difference between instinctive aggression in response to a threat, and losing all sanity resulting in aggressive actions.

She slaps the cashier, with the perception that the counter will protect her from retaliation. You can see her retreat when he attempts to strike back. He probably shouldn’t have swung back, but I can’t blame him. Him missing, and the physical layout of the restaurant emboldens her to take it to the next level.

Her first step behind the counter was when this went from crazy to insane. She was crossing a line (literal and figurative), with conscious intent to do harm. There is no more “heat of the moment” excuse here. He retreats to a defensive position, until he reaches a point where he feels he has to take a stand, and strikes her with whatever happens to be available. Justified.

It is only at the point where he continues to strike after the threat has been neutralized that he has crossed the line. If his colleague had grabbed/tackled him at the point where he steps in front of the Coke machine, he probably would not have been arrested.[/quote]

This sums the situation up quite well
[/quote]

We are talking like Lawyers. I would argue what training has this fry cook had to determine when the threat is neutralized. If 5 LA police officers can say a man on his back is still in a attack postion why can’t a fry cook argue the same. It would come off as weak to me but at least its a defense.[/quote]

I may not be a lawyer, but I made the decisions about the strategy, value, etc. of thousands of civil suits and I’ll tell you this; McDonald’s and/or the franchise FUCKED themselves right in the ass when they threw this guy under the bus. Their official response basically sets up recovery for the two animals - they all but admitted that he was guilty and they insta-fired him in an effort to save public face without thinking it through. They should have suspended him, investigated, and retained him the best criminal lawyer they could find in the hopes of getting him off. Instead, they did the opposite and fucked themselves in the process.

Or, they decided that they lose more in public relations commerce than they do paying the resultant lawsuit. I’d be interested to know what their strategy was there. Thinking it thru, from a Corporate perspective, I think it would be pretty untenable from a public relations standpoint to defend him. [/quote]

What?? They fired the guy??

So what is Mcdonalds stance on protecting employees? That fry cook may have a case that Micky "D"s put him in a untrained position to defend his life by not having security on site. If his ass goes to jail he may have a case against McDonalds.

Although it wont help him in Jail[/quote]

I thought I saw in one of the articles that McDonald’s has one of those policies aimed at preventing employees from being heroes during robberies and the like and that was the justification for firing. Similar to BestBuy employees being forbidden from stopping thieves.[/quote]

hahah, Yeah but what they where atempting to rob was his azz. hahaha.

If they have no security on site and the only conflict training they gave that fry cook is on “give me the cash or more fries” 101 then Mcdonalds has blame in this.[/quote]

even worse, another article said that McDonald’s decided against having extra security and policing at this location against recommendations in order to save money. If that is true, maybe the cashier has a suit![/quote]

he has no suit. he wasn’t injured. his arrest was self-inflicted and his criminal act likely broke the chain of events arguably caused by the “lack of security”. and, he’d have to be exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing which is unlikely.

“at will employment” is pretty strong so it’s unlikely he has any unlawful termination claim either.

and I wouldn’t just buy any report that they refused to post security to save money. i read somewhere else the place was not really high crime. further, it’s probably the franchise decision and I’m sure the agreements have hold harmless favoring Corporate. Bottom line - no way he gets to the big pocket at Corporate. The firing, decision for security, etc., all happens at the franchise level. [/quote]

I must be missing a whole lot from this case. Was he CONVICTED. because to say he has no case just because he was arrested is a long shot. And he was not injured but he was put into a postion to defend himself at work.

539

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]rambodian wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:
Funny, I was just on my way to add this to the superhero thread.

It serves to reinforce the point I was trying to make in that thread; that there is a difference between instinctive aggression in response to a threat, and losing all sanity resulting in aggressive actions.

She slaps the cashier, with the perception that the counter will protect her from retaliation. You can see her retreat when he attempts to strike back. He probably shouldn’t have swung back, but I can’t blame him. Him missing, and the physical layout of the restaurant emboldens her to take it to the next level.

Her first step behind the counter was when this went from crazy to insane. She was crossing a line (literal and figurative), with conscious intent to do harm. There is no more “heat of the moment” excuse here. He retreats to a defensive position, until he reaches a point where he feels he has to take a stand, and strikes her with whatever happens to be available. Justified.

It is only at the point where he continues to strike after the threat has been neutralized that he has crossed the line. If his colleague had grabbed/tackled him at the point where he steps in front of the Coke machine, he probably would not have been arrested.[/quote]

This sums the situation up quite well
[/quote]

We are talking like Lawyers. I would argue what training has this fry cook had to determine when the threat is neutralized. If 5 LA police officers can say a man on his back is still in a attack postion why can’t a fry cook argue the same. It would come off as weak to me but at least its a defense.[/quote]

I may not be a lawyer, but I made the decisions about the strategy, value, etc. of thousands of civil suits and I’ll tell you this; McDonald’s and/or the franchise FUCKED themselves right in the ass when they threw this guy under the bus. Their official response basically sets up recovery for the two animals - they all but admitted that he was guilty and they insta-fired him in an effort to save public face without thinking it through. They should have suspended him, investigated, and retained him the best criminal lawyer they could find in the hopes of getting him off. Instead, they did the opposite and fucked themselves in the process.

Or, they decided that they lose more in public relations commerce than they do paying the resultant lawsuit. I’d be interested to know what their strategy was there. Thinking it thru, from a Corporate perspective, I think it would be pretty untenable from a public relations standpoint to defend him. [/quote]

What?? They fired the guy??

So what is Mcdonalds stance on protecting employees? That fry cook may have a case that Micky "D"s put him in a untrained position to defend his life by not having security on site. If his ass goes to jail he may have a case against McDonalds.

Although it wont help him in Jail[/quote]

I thought I saw in one of the articles that McDonald’s has one of those policies aimed at preventing employees from being heroes during robberies and the like and that was the justification for firing. Similar to BestBuy employees being forbidden from stopping thieves.[/quote]

hahah, Yeah but what they where atempting to rob was his azz. hahaha.

If they have no security on site and the only conflict training they gave that fry cook is on “give me the cash or more fries” 101 then Mcdonalds has blame in this.[/quote]

even worse, another article said that McDonald’s decided against having extra security and policing at this location against recommendations in order to save money. If that is true, maybe the cashier has a suit![/quote]

he has no suit. he wasn’t injured. his arrest was self-inflicted and his criminal act likely broke the chain of events arguably caused by the “lack of security”. and, he’d have to be exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing which is unlikely.

“at will employment” is pretty strong so it’s unlikely he has any unlawful termination claim either.

and I wouldn’t just buy any report that they refused to post security to save money. i read somewhere else the place was not really high crime. further, it’s probably the franchise decision and I’m sure the agreements have hold harmless favoring Corporate. Bottom line - no way he gets to the big pocket at Corporate. The firing, decision for security, etc., all happens at the franchise level. [/quote]

I must be missing a whole lot from this case. Was he CONVICTED. because to say he has no case just because he was arrested is a long shot. And he was not injured but he was put into a postion to defend himself at work. [/quote]

you are.

as I explained, in an “at will employment” state the company can fire you with or without cause, at any time, they just can’t discriminate, among the few exceptions. his “customer service exchange” with the girl was enough. he could have lied on his application. or it could be the totality of the incident, including the “assault”.

to have a viable civil suit, you generally need “damages”. he has no damages, other than arguably the loss of his job - but refer back to “at will employment”.

540

LOL at “customer service exchange”.

541

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]rambodian wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:
Funny, I was just on my way to add this to the superhero thread.

It serves to reinforce the point I was trying to make in that thread; that there is a difference between instinctive aggression in response to a threat, and losing all sanity resulting in aggressive actions.

She slaps the cashier, with the perception that the counter will protect her from retaliation. You can see her retreat when he attempts to strike back. He probably shouldn’t have swung back, but I can’t blame him. Him missing, and the physical layout of the restaurant emboldens her to take it to the next level.

Her first step behind the counter was when this went from crazy to insane. She was crossing a line (literal and figurative), with conscious intent to do harm. There is no more “heat of the moment” excuse here. He retreats to a defensive position, until he reaches a point where he feels he has to take a stand, and strikes her with whatever happens to be available. Justified.

It is only at the point where he continues to strike after the threat has been neutralized that he has crossed the line. If his colleague had grabbed/tackled him at the point where he steps in front of the Coke machine, he probably would not have been arrested.[/quote]

This sums the situation up quite well
[/quote]

We are talking like Lawyers. I would argue what training has this fry cook had to determine when the threat is neutralized. If 5 LA police officers can say a man on his back is still in a attack postion why can’t a fry cook argue the same. It would come off as weak to me but at least its a defense.[/quote]

I may not be a lawyer, but I made the decisions about the strategy, value, etc. of thousands of civil suits and I’ll tell you this; McDonald’s and/or the franchise FUCKED themselves right in the ass when they threw this guy under the bus. Their official response basically sets up recovery for the two animals - they all but admitted that he was guilty and they insta-fired him in an effort to save public face without thinking it through. They should have suspended him, investigated, and retained him the best criminal lawyer they could find in the hopes of getting him off. Instead, they did the opposite and fucked themselves in the process.

Or, they decided that they lose more in public relations commerce than they do paying the resultant lawsuit. I’d be interested to know what their strategy was there. Thinking it thru, from a Corporate perspective, I think it would be pretty untenable from a public relations standpoint to defend him. [/quote]

Most/all of the chains do this.

Wallmart fired the workers in this case:
story

Video

Regards,

Robert A

542

^ OK this raises a question. At what point are you no longer defending “WALMART” goods and are defending your life?

I must admit the way he explains it…It sounds like they did something against company policy. He story kinds of changes from the start to the end. The policy is set up to protect the company. He and the crew did a good thing sorry it cost them a job.

The Mcdonalds kid was not protecting anything but his azz. If it was not for his friends trying to stop him and the lady screaming I bet he would still have a job.