Maccas staff member bashes the shit out of a customer

[iLOVENZB]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/15/justice/new-york-fast-food-beating/index.html

:huh:

[mjmacky]

First off, what a pussy for going back to get a weapon.

Secondly, if he's already beating people with a metal object, take the jaw off that annoying blond cunt.

[megabyteme]

The "women" crossed the line. Literally. When they came across the counter, it was obvious they had intent to do him (and possibly others) bodily harm. The argument was started when the customer tried to pass a "questionable" $50 bill (if counterfeit, that's already a felony) These women are NOT by any means good, upstanding citizens. The employee was being charged at by two violent women- there was no way for the employee to know if they had weapons. While he did have time to "escape" momentarily, it wasn't like he could just keep running indefinitely. Would it have been better for him to be chased by them into a dark parking lot? Grabbing the piece of metal to defend himself, and his co-workers, was a reasonable stance.

Similarly to Rodney King, the women kept trying to get up- most likely to keep fighting. Should he give up his upper-hand in the fight when he was facing two unknown, hostile attackers? I don't think so. As long as they continued to be aggressive, and remain behind the counter, I think he was within his rights to keep hitting them.

While this is a public relations mess for a big-bucks mega-restaurant, I think the corporation, and the franchisee, are being chickenshit assholes to an employee caught in a bad circumstance. It is FAR easier for them to turn their backs on a disposable, minimum wage employee than to stand up for the guy. Certainly, it would have been preferable for them if the guy just took a beating, got stabbed, shot, or whatever from the two women and did absolutely nothing. If he had gotten seriously injured in the attack, the company wouldn't even give him paid time off- and workman's compensation doesn't usually kick in until the worker has been unable to work for somewhere between 1 week, and 1 month. Medical for a minimum wage worker? Yeah, right.

Unfortunately, none of what I have said will really matter. The company has already fired the worker, and will most likely reward the violent bitches with a nice cash settlement. Fucking bullshit, if you ask me...

[NotLettingItGo]

If you go around getting all aggressive and violent towards other people, you should expect that sooner or later you'll meet someone who will give you a fucking good seeing to... well done that man.

It's not as good as the other story CNN are carrying... look women raping men in Zimbabwe (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/15/world/africa/zimbabwe-sperm/index.html)... maybe OlegL should go for a holiday in Zimbabwe.

[iLOVENZB]

megabyte there's usually a procedure that staff have to do when they're in such situations. I wonder if the self defense card will be used in court.

[mjmacky]

Well, this particular corporation has to appeal to gutter trash in the U.S., it's a large part of their consumer base.

And about the weapon, I'm just saying why even let the bitch make it over the counter. Just grab her by her weave and introduce her face to the cash register. An appropriate line would have been, "*slam* look this is real money, let's take another peek *slam*. You see that? *slam* Real money! *slam*" If any of those bitches did make it over, introduce them to the deep fryer (showing them the real dangers of entering a kitchen workspace recklessly).

[Burnsy]

I'd have to question how out of control he was when even his own colleagues started to back away from him... sure, I agree with being able to defend yourself and giving the good news to anyone who's stupid enough to leave you feeling threatened... but when members of your own team start to back away, then you have to ask if the level of violence is proportionate to the event it's trying to stop.

IMO he went a little over the top

[mjmacky]

I'd have to question how out of control he was when even his own colleagues started to back away from him... sure, I agree with being able to defend yourself and giving the good news to anyone who's stupid enough to leave you feeling threatened... but when members of your own team start to back away, then you have to ask if the level of violence is proportionate to the event it's trying to stop.

IMO he went a little over the top

It's possible they just don't know him that well. I've never worked in a place with such a quick revolving door as McDonald's, but I have worked in a pizza chain location. Even after working there for months, my temper was tested only once and it scared the hell out of everyone (who all had only perceived me to be an amicable guy).

[Burnsy]

It's possible they just don't know him that well. I've never worked in a place with such a quick revolving door as McDonald's, but I have worked in a pizza chain location. Even after working there for months, my temper was tested only once and it scared the hell out of everyone (who all had only perceived me to be an amicable guy).

Very true, but nicely illustrates my point in that the guy possible went OTT with his immediate justice. I'm not arguing that the 2 lasses didn't deserve a bit of a wake up call, but the reaction of everyone around kinda leads me to believe that he went above and beyond with his eagerness to protect those burgers and fries... surely if he was relative in giving them a slap it should only have taken someone to give him a tug on the arm and say "enough's enough now" and he would have stopped?

[NotLettingItGo]

I'd have to question how out of control he was when even his own colleagues started to back away from him... sure, I agree with being able to defend yourself and giving the good news to anyone who's stupid enough to leave you feeling threatened... but when members of your own team start to back away, then you have to ask if the level of violence is proportionate to the event it's trying to stop.

IMO he went a little over the top

He'd already been verball assualted, physically assaulted, and advanced upon by two extremely aggressive individuals... how much more abuse should he have endured before picking up the metal bar and defending himself? Should he have waited until one of them had hit him to the floor and the other one was busy kicking his head about like a football? Or maybe until one of them found one of the kitchen knives and decided they should implant its blade in his body to get their ire across?

If they didn't want him going all "out of control" upon them... maybe they shouldn't have gone all out of control upon him. They got what was coming.

[Burnsy]

If they didn't want him going all "out of control" upon them... maybe they shouldn't have gone all out of control upon him. They got what was coming.

And where did I say they didn't?

The point I'm making is that even though he is fully protected in law with his inherent right to self defence, the force used to defend himself must be relevant to the perceived threat. I fully back him in everything he does up until he continues to beat the 2 idiots when they go down... at that point the self defence stops and the assault begins.

Or should there be no limit to how mush of a beating you're allowed to give just because you think "they got what was coming"?

[NotLettingItGo]

He wasn't beating them when they were down, he was only beating them when they tried to get up. Keeping violent individuals down isn't an "out of control" response, you can tell because the beater stops the beating when the indivdual is down, and only recommences to keep the individual down.

[Burnsy]

He wasn't beating them when they were down, he was only beating them when they tried to get up. Keeping violent individuals down isn't an "out of control" response, you can tell because the beater stops the beating when the indivdual is down, and only recommences to keep the individual down.

Going by that logic then, once down, they have no right to get back up (even if their intent was to get the hell out of there?) without being continually struck with a metal bar? And that's not OTT in your book?

If his intent was solely to keep them there, against their will, then I'd not bet against charges of false imprisonment and holding them against their will being lodged as well :lol:

[NotLettingItGo]

Going by that logic then, once down, they have no right to get back up (even if their intent was to get the hell out of there?) without being continually struck with a metal bar? And that's not OTT in your book?

If his intent was solely to keep them there, against their will, then I'd not bet against charges of false imprisonment and holding them against their will being lodged as well :lol:

Nice try, but preventing a criminal leaving the scene of their crime, isn't false imprisonment.

[Burnsy]

Going by that logic then, once down, they have no right to get back up (even if their intent was to get the hell out of there?) without being continually struck with a metal bar? And that's not OTT in your book?

If his intent was solely to keep them there, against their will, then I'd not bet against charges of false imprisonment and holding them against their will being lodged as well :lol:

Nice try, but preventing a criminal leaving the scene of their crime, isn't false imprisonment.

But continually assaulting them is in itself a crime, which is where I was going with it all... hence the reason I said I thought he was a tad OTT/over zealous...

The false imprisonment thing was a flippant remark, not serious, but I reckon we'll not agree much... best leave it to the courts and see what they think :)

[mjmacky]

It wouldn't be a hard defense to muster for the former employee. Also recall that once attacked and pursued, the ability to make rational decisions and metered response go pretty much out the window. In fact, I'd make the case that it was quite commendable that he took a break from beating them when they remained down.

[Burnsy]

It wouldn't be a hard defense to muster for the former employee. Also recall that once attacked and pursued, the ability to make rational decisions and metered response go pretty much out the window. In fact, I'd make the case that it was quite commendable that he took a break from beating them when they remained down.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but could it not then be argued on the flip side, that the breaks in the beating were in fact pre-meditated attempts to study the situation and inflict the maximum possible damage, which might not be possible when the "ability to make rational decisions and metered response go pretty much out the window", and just randomly swinging in self defence?

[megabyteme]

Picture yourself in the position of one of the "women" getting hit. You have two options- 1, get up and continue fighting. 2, crawl away from the person beating you. I did not see either one attempting to get away. They were not subdued, they were still attempting to get up and continue fighting, IMO. If someone continues to get up, you keep hitting them- otherwise, you will find yourself the recipient of their blows. And with every indication they would not show him mercy. Not in the slightest.

[Burnsy]

I must be watching a different video to everyone else then, because quite frankly, and after the 2 females go down, I can't see shit about what they may/may not be doing/trying to do... so to say they are definitely trying to get up and continue their attempted assault (which imho would be very stupid considering they had both just been decked by someone who is still brandishing a weapon) is a bit presumptuous... how does anyone on here know, without any doubt, what they were trying to do?

Like I say, I'd love to see where these 'assumptions' are founded...

[IdolEyes787]

I dunno but after watching that video I was left with an uncontrollable desire to beat iLOVENZB.

[megabyteme]

Like I say, I'd love to see where these 'assumptions' are founded...

I do know what it would look like if either one of them had tried to get away. The action would be panning hard left towards the door. They stayed and tried to get up. Is that the direction you would chose if you wanted to stop fighting?

[iLOVENZB]

I dunno but after watching that video I was left with an uncontrollable desire to beat iLOVENZB.

:huh:

[Burnsy]

Like I say, I'd love to see where these 'assumptions' are founded...

I do know what it would look like if either one of them had tried to get away. The action would be panning hard left towards the door. They stayed and tried to get up. Is that the direction you would chose if you wanted to stop fighting?

They stayed? How do you know? It could be counter argued they weren't allowed to move, surely?
They would have panned left? Really? With 2 other staff members blocking their route, either intentionally or unintentionally...

Again, this seems to be another assumption... to my mind, the person with the mobile phone can see just as little as the rest of us viewing the clip, which does pan left towards the exit but as everything is happening under the counter it would seem we are left to use our over active imaginations. Why does it pan left? I have no idea... like I said before, I can't see anything.

I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong... but there are certainly assumptions being made without any under-pinning proof one way or another.

Did the girls deserve to be taught a lesson? Too right they did...
Did the guy with the metal bar go a bit over the top? IMO he did a bit, but in saying that, he only did if the immediate threat had been removed... and had it? Well we don't know for definite one way or another, and everything else is just opinion that cannot be based on any fact gleaned from the clip.

[megabyteme]

I still think the true injustice is how the corporation and the franchisee immediately fired, and condemned the employee. He was entirely disposable- right, or wrong. Didn't really matter.

[Burnsy]

I still think the true injustice is how the corporation and the franchisee immediately fired, and condemned the employee. He was entirely disposable- right, or wrong. Didn't really matter.

I'm assuming this is going to court (I didn't actually read the news report, just watched the video), so the outcome will probably have some bearing on where he stands for wrongful dismissal... if he was indeed just defending himself, was proportional in the force he used, and was only exercising (and what I'm assuming is constitutionally protected) his inherent right of self defence, then he should have a case against McDonald's.

[teflon05]

First off, I'm all for one defending themselves when threatened, But I definitely believe this guy went over the top. The reason being, neither of the women had a weapon.
While it's true one of them did slap him, his downfall is going to be that he used a weapon on them when they were (apparently) unarmed. Had he just punched them a few times, he probably wouldn't have a problem (although he probably still would have been fired.)
When this goes to court, all the jury is going to see, is a man striking two unarmed women with what looks like a metal rod, repeatedly, even after they were on the floor. As far as their intentions when rising goes, after being slammed in the head a few times with that rod, there's a good chance they just wanted to get away. Shit, they might have not even known where they were after that.
At least, that's what I believe a jury will see, but who knows?

[mjmacky]

It wouldn't be a hard defense to muster for the former employee. Also recall that once attacked and pursued, the ability to make rational decisions and metered response go pretty much out the window. In fact, I'd make the case that it was quite commendable that he took a break from beating them when they remained down.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but could it not then be argued on the flip side, that the breaks in the beating were in fact pre-meditated attempts to study the situation and inflict the maximum possible damage, which might not be possible when the "ability to make rational decisions and metered response go pretty much out the window", and just randomly swinging in self defence?

Well, that's really faulty given that he didn't start swinging again until she started standing up, way too easily to be construed as a threat since they were the aggressors.

I had to watch the video again to make sure the 'evidence' is not in conflict with my point. An advertisement popped up, how I wished it was a McDonald's advertisement.

Also, every time I see the video, I really want to beat the fat blond to a pulp, it's so fucking irritating.

[mjmacky]

While it's true one of them did slap him, his downfall is going to be that he used a weapon on them when they were (apparently) unarmed. Had he just punched them a few times, he probably wouldn't have a problem (although he probably still would have been fired.)

I found that a bit cowardly as well, but what if this is in a neighborhood where you have every reason to believe they've got weapons on them? Or that they just look like shady people likely to produce one. Being that the two women were the aggressors, and he was forced to retreat, I think the jury will find him to be acting only in terms of defense.

[Burnsy]

Well, that's really faulty given that he didn't start swinging again until she started standing up
So is it not possible he could have used the time to have a think about where he would strike again should they continue to pose a threat?


way too easily to be construed as a threat since they were the aggressors.
Agreed, but can you say with 100% certainty they were still being the aggressors and not trying to escape? They had just been knocked about the place with a metal-pole-type-thing... :lol:



Also, every time I see the video, I really want to beat the fat blond to a pulp, it's so fucking irritating.
You won't get any argument from me there :lol:


While it's true one of them did slap him, his downfall is going to be that he used a weapon on them when they were (apparently) unarmed. Had he just punched them a few times, he probably wouldn't have a problem (although he probably still would have been fired.)
I'm with teflon05 on this one...

[mjmacky]

So is it not possible he could have used the time to have a think about where he would strike again should they continue to pose a threat?

Agreed, but can you say with 100% certainty they were still being the aggressors and not trying to escape? They had just been knocked about the place with a metal-pole-type-thing... :lol:

About these points, the reason I made them in the context of court defense is because no one even needs to aver it 100 %. They cast very reasonable doubts. The only thing needed to establish with undeniable certainty would be his guilt and with that the intention to do both women harm with no regards to his personal safety. If those were white women, for sure he'd be convicted.

[megabyteme]

While it's true one of them did slap him, his downfall is going to be that he used a weapon on them when they were (apparently) unarmed. Had he just punched them a few times, he probably wouldn't have a problem (although he probably still would have been fired.)

I found that a bit cowardly as well, but what if this is in a neighborhood where you have every reason to believe they've got weapons on them? Or that they just look like shady people likely to produce one. Being that the two women were the aggressors, and he was forced to retreat, I think the jury will find him to be acting only in terms of defense.

I was thinking the same thing about the neighborhood. I have to wonder how much of his response to the attack was reflex from having to defend himself (and possibly others) while growing up. Judging from the actions (and words) of the customers and employees, I think the restaurant is in a bad part of NY.


As for suing McDonalds, it is unlikely he will be able to afford a lawyer (unless someone sees this video and does it pro-bono) who would stand a chance against the army of corporate lawyers on retainer. And if this video had not made it to public attention, he would have NO chance at all of recourse.

Again, those "women" had absolutely NO reason to be behind the counter other than physical violence on the employee(s). IMO, their actions (which they were charged with) were similar to entering a person's home to physically harm someone. They no longer have the same protections as if he grabbed the metal-thingy and approached them in the lobby area. As someone who has worked in restaurants, I can tell you it is VERY threatening when a customer crosses that line.

[mjmacky]

I would advise soliciting a pro bono case for the employee. That's a matter easily achieved by settlement, the threat and follow through of a lawsuit wouldn't do much to help McDonald's one way or the other (not something they need the attention for).

Unfortunately, they'd probably have to settle solicitations from both for the employee and the aggressors. Guess which one of those two parties would ask for a ridiculous amount of money.

[Quarterquack]

Am I the only one who sees the makings of a world-class golf player? What's one puny ball when he managed to keep two ogres down?

On the flip side, I've never worked retail, but have known many people who have for the better part of their lives. No one ever sings a positive tune about the situation. I'm totally for the guy, but if I were in his position, once I put them down, I'd have stepped back and asked them if they wanted to leave. As someone earlier on in the thread mentioned, there's something to be said when people on your side (other employees) start backing away, too. The true lesson here is: If you live in New York, don't pay in $50 bills.

[iLOVENZB]

Well I'm starting to have a different view after see the couple of seconds at the start:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tFvPKHABgk

CNN edited that the bitch provoked him?

[mjmacky]

I can honestly say that if I was one of the other employees, those girls wouldn't have had a chance to get near him. I'd also be pretty poor and unsatisfied with my job.

[megabyteme]

A better view- gotta "love" how a "news source" makes the video more one-sided by editing... :ermm:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sdXdYHzdIeY

[megabyteme]

Am I the only one who sees the makings of a world-class golf player?

I don't know about his golf game, but I bet he ROCKS at Whack-A-Mole. :yup:

[mjmacky]

Stop making me watch, I need to hunt down and murder the fat screaming blond now. It's becoming a priority on my life's to do list.

I at least laughed when the fat kid couldn't get his video game to load properly. This, on the other hand, has become the most irritating sound I've ever heard in my life and I must destroy the source.

[megabyteme]

Anybody know what the metal-thingy might be? At first, I thought it was fairly solid, now I'm thinking it might have only been a bit thicker than a standard car radio antenna- more of a lashing effect than a crushing blow.

[iLOVENZB]

Maybe it's a whip that managers use for their lazy staff?

Could be anything really, the fact that he didn't take long to get it must mean that it's something of use in production area.

[Burnsy]

Stop making me watch, I need to hunt down and murder the fat screaming blond now. It's becoming a priority on my life's to do list.


Any chance you could put it up on YouTube when you do? I bet if he hadn't snapped/bent his metal thingy he would have liked to have introduced her to it as well...

[anigav]

The girl trespassed and the guy defended... whats wrong..

[Tv Controls you]

I'm undecided on the situation.

The man attempted to retreat when faced with two drunk people assaulting him. (key for self defense)
The man when backed into an isle is advanced on defends himself with an object (greatly escalating the situation, but considering he has two attackers justifiable to a certain degree)
The women despite his weapon decide to precede regardless, in which he defends himself. (Justifiable)
Once on the ground, the attacker (seemingly angrily) assaults the individuals on the ground. (Raises the question what is the line between defending yourself, but then assaulting someone)

A large part of the self defense card, is you try to avoid conflict at all cost. I believe once on the ground, the man could have ran to safety with the now staggering assailants.
Or at least backed away, and held his ground with the weapon.

The women on the other hand clearly assault the man, and charges should be filled. There erratic and public drunkenness endangered the safety of all individuals in the restaurant.
Notice everyone backing away from the woman as she proceeded to get violent with the cashier. She was clearly seen as a threat at such point, and became an assaulter.
It should be noted that the cashier keep a semi cool composure until his safety was concerned. I don't believe he would have attacked the two women if he hadn't felt that he was at risk.

The main issue is his last few swings containing angry blows that seem to be done out of pure angry. It almost felt like I have the opportunity to beat the shit of someone, so I'm going to go full out here.

On the topic of McDonalds and CNN portraying this issue..... Tv Controls you... Don't even get me started.
It makes me sick to think about the robots watching this programming and not thinking for one fucking second to formulate their own opinions.

[megabyteme]

Justice rarely finds both sides not-guilty. What makes me mad about the situation is how QUICKLY McDonalds, the franchisee, and CNN turned on him. He was expected to take the beating with a smile. Pucking forporate cricks.

[InTheBasement]

If those were white women, for sure he'd be convicted.

If those two were white women the $50's would have been real... lol, jokes.

[megabyteme]

If those were white women, for sure he'd be convicted.

If those two were white women the $50's would have been real... lol, jokes.

:lol:

You fucking racist. :mellow: