I’m in the “You don’t hit women” club. But to me, this isn’t really about that.
It’s more about a customer’s place in a commercial establishment. You NEVER jump over or go around the counter in a threatening manner or otherwise. If you do, then you risk harm. Your fault.
[quote]groo wrote:
Ok so obviously my view is colored by the fact that I support the guy…
This is local paper that goes a lot more in depth there a links to a lot of their articles on the case including the one released after.
In a couple of them they quote the other workers saying the women were threatening and verbally abusive to the other employees…I don’t know that all the other employees followed this same line in their testimony, but I’d lay significant money on it.
The grand jury was convened to determine indictments for all the people in the incident. Not just the guy. They are in fact the ones that will determine if the women should be prosecuted for trespassing.
I imagine that the rules of what you can introduce in a grand jury proceedings are much looser than an actual trial so tidbits like the one chick getting fired for stealing and the other chick being arrested for harassment probably got in which I am sure did them no favors.
Also its unclear what tone the prosecution took…tbh the interviews on the prosecution side look like they took a somewhat favorable view of his actions…obviously they are being pc but there is no talk of travesty of justice except from the one woman’s attorney.
Looking through the other links related to the first story it was abundantly clear he had a ton of local support and DA’s are political animals.
The articles list a couple other fights that have happened in or around that mcd’s so I’d say in general you’d be more geared up for serious trouble working there than in some suburban mall.
Also the women it appears declined to testify in their defense on the trespassing charges so it was largely his word that they claimed they were going to “cut him” versus no rebuttal. I’d guess his coworkers jumped on that bandwagon as well.
So we have a case where they can either drop or they can risk prosecuting thats very unpopular with terrible supporting eyewitnesses and only unclear video to back it up. Probably didn’t push it too hard.
Lol apparently he’s considering a lawsuit against his employer… no real opinion on that but it seems funny.[/quote]
Good post. Especially about the women refusing to testify. We obviously don’t have the benefit of all the testimony, but I thought the coworker trying to stop him when they were down would seal his fate. Would have been interesting to see what he said. Would have been even more interesting to see if the prosecutors even bothered with him or that line of questioning. Maybe they were less than impassioned about prosecuting this guy. We’ll never know.
Those weren’t women. They were foul-mouthed and aggressive men with vaginas.
That dude has a good swing as well.
Respect!
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Ok so obviously my view is colored by the fact that I support the guy…
This is local paper that goes a lot more in depth there a links to a lot of their articles on the case including the one released after.
In a couple of them they quote the other workers saying the women were threatening and verbally abusive to the other employees…I don’t know that all the other employees followed this same line in their testimony, but I’d lay significant money on it.
The grand jury was convened to determine indictments for all the people in the incident. Not just the guy. They are in fact the ones that will determine if the women should be prosecuted for trespassing.
I imagine that the rules of what you can introduce in a grand jury proceedings are much looser than an actual trial so tidbits like the one chick getting fired for stealing and the other chick being arrested for harassment probably got in which I am sure did them no favors.
Also its unclear what tone the prosecution took…tbh the interviews on the prosecution side look like they took a somewhat favorable view of his actions…obviously they are being pc but there is no talk of travesty of justice except from the one woman’s attorney.
Looking through the other links related to the first story it was abundantly clear he had a ton of local support and DA’s are political animals.
The articles list a couple other fights that have happened in or around that mcd’s so I’d say in general you’d be more geared up for serious trouble working there than in some suburban mall.
Also the women it appears declined to testify in their defense on the trespassing charges so it was largely his word that they claimed they were going to “cut him” versus no rebuttal. I’d guess his coworkers jumped on that bandwagon as well.
So we have a case where they can either drop or they can risk prosecuting thats very unpopular with terrible supporting eyewitnesses and only unclear video to back it up. Probably didn’t push it too hard.
Lol apparently he’s considering a lawsuit against his employer… no real opinion on that but it seems funny.[/quote]
Did you read the comments on the article? There where only four but one of them claimed one of the women started a fight the next day!!
If he sues McD’s I wonder if he could prove unsafe working conditions? There where several fights at that particular eatery[/quote]
He’s mentioned a suit but the problem is his damages are limited. McDonalds can always mitigate its damages by offering him his job back. But the twist here is that just b/c he wasn’t indicted doesn’t mean that McDonalds has to view his behavior as acceptable. They could still have grounds to fire him. For all we know, he lied on his application about his criminal past. He mentioned a lack of security and that’s great if HE were hurt but he wasn’t. He was not injured, he CAUSED injury to another. In a security type theory, the only damages I see are his legal expense and he may not have incurred any. I think it would be a stretch to argue the time in jail etc b/c the LAW put him in jail. Of course he’ll argue that if not for the lack of security none of this happens, but I don’t think it’s a great case. It’s just not a slam dunk. I think he’ll get some money though, most likely a modest settlement.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Ok so obviously my view is colored by the fact that I support the guy…
This is local paper that goes a lot more in depth there a links to a lot of their articles on the case including the one released after.
In a couple of them they quote the other workers saying the women were threatening and verbally abusive to the other employees…I don’t know that all the other employees followed this same line in their testimony, but I’d lay significant money on it.
The grand jury was convened to determine indictments for all the people in the incident. Not just the guy. They are in fact the ones that will determine if the women should be prosecuted for trespassing.
I imagine that the rules of what you can introduce in a grand jury proceedings are much looser than an actual trial so tidbits like the one chick getting fired for stealing and the other chick being arrested for harassment probably got in which I am sure did them no favors.
Also its unclear what tone the prosecution took…tbh the interviews on the prosecution side look like they took a somewhat favorable view of his actions…obviously they are being pc but there is no talk of travesty of justice except from the one woman’s attorney.
Looking through the other links related to the first story it was abundantly clear he had a ton of local support and DA’s are political animals.
The articles list a couple other fights that have happened in or around that mcd’s so I’d say in general you’d be more geared up for serious trouble working there than in some suburban mall.
Also the women it appears declined to testify in their defense on the trespassing charges so it was largely his word that they claimed they were going to “cut him” versus no rebuttal. I’d guess his coworkers jumped on that bandwagon as well.
So we have a case where they can either drop or they can risk prosecuting thats very unpopular with terrible supporting eyewitnesses and only unclear video to back it up. Probably didn’t push it too hard.
Lol apparently he’s considering a lawsuit against his employer… no real opinion on that but it seems funny.[/quote]
Did you read the comments on the article? There where only four but one of them claimed one of the women started a fight the next day!!
If he sues McD’s I wonder if he could prove unsafe working conditions? There where several fights at that particular eatery[/quote]
He’s mentioned a suit but the problem is his damages are limited. McDonalds can always mitigate its damages by offering him his job back. But the twist here is that just b/c he wasn’t indicted doesn’t mean that McDonalds has to view his behavior as acceptable. They could still have grounds to fire him. For all we know, he lied on his application about his criminal past. He mentioned a lack of security and that’s great if HE were hurt but he wasn’t. He was not injured, he CAUSED injury to another. In a security type theory, the only damages I see are his legal expense and he may not have incurred any. I think it would be a stretch to argue the time in jail etc b/c the LAW put him in jail. Of course he’ll argue that if not for the lack of security none of this happens, but I don’t think it’s a great case. It’s just not a slam dunk. I think he’ll get some money though, most likely a modest settlement. [/quote]
That’s why I’m not a lawyer or pretned to be one, I was just curious since this establishment has had trouble in the past if he could use that as a way to seek damages for his termination.
On a side note I am so glad he won’t be prosucuted because it seemed sort of like he was trying to do the right thing, vis a vis his past criminal record working for a living instead of continuing into more crime etc, and these harpies attacked him. I felt that if this went to trial he would have been convicted and I feel too many people are in jail for stupid reasons now to have another one added.
The fact that he alleged she said “I’m going to cut you” does change it a bit for me (although I’m not sure I believe him. It’s pretty much the only story he can tell. I do think he lost his cool and that his history proves he has poor impulse control but that’s another debate lol.
Bonez is right that the GJ process is just to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed with charges (indict) and I think there was, but this GJ heard testimony from the defendant (which is unusual, most defendants don’t bother at the GJ for various reasons) which made this case almost a trial of sorts. Given the fact that the grand jury heard him claim he feared for his life and that they threatened to cut him and that that testimony was unopposed by the women (they did not testify), it’s much easier to understand the outcome. Wouldn’t you agree Bonez?
Kevin, there are two different distinct (separate) potential claims there for him. The first is wrongful termination. If NY is at “at will” employment State, that’s a tough case. They didn’t discriminate against him. They terminated him for what they judged to be unacceptable conduct (notwithstanding the reasonableness or legality of the beating he gave, it could be argued that he precipitated the attack when he insulted the girl’s mother in turn - most employers would want you to just shut up, remain professional and manage the abuse better than that). That the GJ didn’t indict doesn’t necessarily mean that McDonalds was liable for its termination of him. Given he’s a minimum wage worker though, any damages from this type of claim, even if it were good, is limited.
The second of course is the security theory. However, security cases usually work when YOU are the one injured, not when you whip someone’s ass and get criminally charged for it LOL 
Security cases are tough cases and not as straightforward as you would think. And again, even if he did have a claim, his damages are limited.
McDonalds really fucked the pooch on this one. They should have suspended him, with pay, pending the outcome of the criminal matter. McDonald’s insurer should have funded his criminal defense since it was in their best interest that he be criminally exonerated. After the entire affair, they could have quietly terminated him (if they desired) by mutual agreement by offering him a modest severance which he likely would have viewed as a windfall and been quite happy to accept.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Bonez is right that the GJ process is just to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed with charges (indict) and I think there was, but this GJ heard testimony from the defendant (which is unusual, most defendants don’t bother at the GJ for various reasons) which made this case almost a trial of sorts. Given the fact that the grand jury heard him claim he feared for his life and that they threatened to cut him and that that testimony was unopposed by the women (they did not testify), it’s much easier to understand the outcome. Wouldn’t you agree Bonez?
. [/quote]
Yeah it explains the outcome. I still think the GJ compltely overstepped its bounds, legally speaking.
We have an adversarial trial process for a reason. THe GJs role isnt to decide the weight of the facts. Let alone the weight of the facts based on half of a story not subject to cross examination.
GJ was simply sending a message. And apparently the prosecutor agreed with the message by not refiling the charges. Oh well. GJ’s can do that, and I think that’s a good thing in general. But not in this instance.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Bonez is right that the GJ process is just to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed with charges (indict) and I think there was, but this GJ heard testimony from the defendant (which is unusual, most defendants don’t bother at the GJ for various reasons) which made this case almost a trial of sorts. Given the fact that the grand jury heard him claim he feared for his life and that they threatened to cut him and that that testimony was unopposed by the women (they did not testify), it’s much easier to understand the outcome. Wouldn’t you agree Bonez?
. [/quote]
Yeah it explains the outcome. I still think the GJ compltely overstepped its bounds, legally speaking.
We have an adversarial trial process for a reason. THe GJs role isnt to decide the weight of the facts. Let alone the weight of the facts based on half of a story not subject to cross examination.
GJ was simply sending a message. And apparently the prosecutor agreed with the message by not refiling the charges. Oh well. GJ’s can do that, and I think that’s a good thing in general. But not in this instance.
[/quote]
Agreed, but with his unopposed testimony this ended up being a mini-trial. It gave the GJ an opportunity to choose to believe him and given that the “I’m going to cut you” allegation went unopposed, it gave them an opportunity to legally justify the blows while the women were down and trying to get up.
What I’m really interested in is the testimony of the co-worker that tried to stop him. If I’m the prosecution, he’s my star witness. The only logical conclusion is that if he was trying to stop him from hitting the women at that point, how much of a threat were they? I’m really interested to know if that angle was pursued or not.
[quote]alanlat wrote:
Those weren’t women. They were foul-mouthed and aggressive men with vaginas.
That dude has a good swing as well.
Respect![/quote]
lol
2 women got indicted for a felony (or multiple felonies). Article doesnt say what.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
2 women got indicted for a felony (or multiple felonies). Article doesnt say what. [/quote]
If they get convicted then justice will be served
I bet those two ignorant bitches have done ridiculous shit like that at many other establishments. After this whole experience, i bet you they dont jump a counter at a fast food joint again.
Someone had to put em in their place, and im glad that guy did it.
It’s been a LONG time since my few months as a teenager in fast food, but…I don’t seem to recall that many heavy weapons in a take-out kitchen. The more recent article says that the weapon was a kitchen cleaning tool…can anyone give me an idea of how hard-hitting a weapon that might be? I.e., appropriate for zombies, or not?
Does anyone know if the fractured skull and broken arm were a result of the beating, or of the fall? I don’t know if that would make that much of a difference in regards to how this case is viewed, but I am just curious.
[quote]Rodimus Black wrote:
I’ve got a warm-fuzzy that he wasn’t indicted, although, I AM curious as to what caused him to beat them after they were down. With seconds between the blows. I’m thinking that may have been the difference maker. Could one of the ladies have been going for a weapon???
Also surprised this was in NY.[/quote]
Pretty sure I remember him saying, “Stay down,” or something like that and that’s why he hit them. Because there was a pause before he started hitting them again. So I think it’s safe to assume they were trying to get up when he hit them again, but it’s still an assumption.