Maccas staff member bashes the shit out of a customer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah

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"?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 :)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

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...

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