The two girls that where attacking, need to be charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault, for each time they came back to attack her.
EVERYONE that stood around needs to be charged with accessory after the fact of attempted murder.
The person that was filming the crime needs to be charged with accessory after the fact and aiding and embedding attempted, because he told the girls to leave before the police showed up.
McDonalds needs to be sued to the for allowing it to happen.
The Following User Says Thank You to RiverOfIce For This Useful Post:
The two girls that where attacking, need to be charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault, for each time they came back to attack her.
EVERYONE that stood around needs to be charged with accessory after the fact of attempted murder.
The person that was filming the crime needs to be charged with accessory after the fact and aiding and embedding attempted, because he told the girls to leave before the police showed up.
McDonalds needs to be sued to the for allowing it to happen.
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Nexus(Toro)
Samsung Galaxy S III
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 36
Thanked 73 Times in 67 Posts
McDonalds won't get charged. it wasn't their fault the girl was attacked, and from the video, from a legal standpoint, the manager intervened to try and stop the attack. Now granted he could have been more assertive, there is only so much he can do without catching a case himself.
Now as far as the girls, yeah they should have the book thrown at them. its one thing to beat up on somebody, but to continuously pursue them with physical assault...yeah... go to prison.
The two girls that where attacking, need to be charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault, for each time they came back to attack her.
EVERYONE that stood around needs to be charged with accessory after the fact of attempted murder.
The person that was filming the crime needs to be charged with accessory after the fact and aiding and embedding attempted, because he told the girls to leave before the police showed up.
McDonalds needs to be sued to the for allowing it to happen.
I disagree that everyone standing around should be charged with anything. Nobody is required by law to put their own lives in danger to save another person. That's like saying anyone who doesn't try to stop a bank robbery in progress is an accessory.
Should they have done something? Probably. But by law I don't feel they should be required to.
__________________
"A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than you love yourself" - Josh Billings
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lordofthereef For This Useful Post:
Quite sad and I am not surprised one bit or shocked anymore. And that is the real tragedy; that it is just another story, one of thousands and nobody is as outraged as they should be.
Except for those that will spin it in some way to say the white girl said the N-Word or some-such.
I see a big thing coming and I am not sure what it will be. Just it will not be good and it too will be spun. Or perhaps it is just too sad that I no longer care because so much happens these days. You will not live a healthy life if you worry about what goes on because the quantities are just too great.
Perhaps it is time we stop thinking about the ramifications of what could happen if you interfere or do not interfere and simply (in this example) grab the girls doing the beating and stop it no matter what it takes.
If one of them is hurt because they were subdued, tough crap basket. If one pulls a knife, you double up a fist and break the little woman's teeth. Take your chances in court where you will be labeled a violent racist and you go to jail for beating silly a little broad that deserves to be beaten silly.
Too much?
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
But by law I don't feel they should be required to.
Yes but if you encourage the crime you are guilty of the crime. The video had at least two of them encourage the crime, by taunting the girl and laughing and pointing.
Quote:
The U.S. criminal code makes aiding and abetting a federal crime itself a crime:
(a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.
Aiding and abetting an attempted murder is accessory after the fact. Anyone that did not come to the aid of the girl or at least called the cops committed the crime.
But given your example. If you had a bank robbery, and a person in the bank started to encourage the act, telling them where the cash is, not calling the police, and filming the crime, it leds to the concept of "guilty mind".
The people in the mcdonalds knew a crime was being committed, but did not want to help or get involved until the girl was seriously injured. By laughing, pointing, commenting, instructing, and commanding the girls to leave, they acted as a conspertor in the crime and there for have a guilty mind which is grounds for accessory after the fact.
Should everyone get charged, no, the person that called police when the crime first happen should not. The people that tried to stop the crime should not.
But those that stood around recording, commenting, instructing, and commanding the attack should be charge.
That is the law.
As for the law suit for mcdonalds, the assault happened on their property, so they are legally liable, that to is also the law.
Perhaps it is time we stop thinking about the ramifications of what could happen if you interfere or do not interfere and simply (in this example) grab the girls doing the beating and stop it no matter what it takes.
If one of them is hurt because they were subdued, tough crap basket. If one pulls a knife, you double up a fist and break the little woman's teeth. Take your chances in court where you will be labeled a violent racist and you go to jail for beating silly a little broad that deserves to be beaten silly.
Too much?
Sure, but this is a moral issue you bring up, not a legal one.
I know when I worked at Walmart they said if any altercations came up do NOT lay your hands on the customer. The designated AP (asset protection) people could only do that and even then they'd have to wait till another employee was there for a witness. Sad state of this country, the people who instigate stuff still can sue people who try to break it up.
In this case the video would've acted as the witness so they should've broken it up. If you get hurt trying to help someone, you can sue whoever instigated the situation and created that bad situation in the first place. So those two girls could be held responsible for everything. Yes, if you feel scared and don't want to get involved you can simply stand by, but by instigating and taunting as River said, you can get charged for that.
Also, they are all grown men and an old lady hopped in to break things up before they did. It's really sad how some people are.
Also, they are all grown men and an old lady hopped in to break things up before they did. It's really sad how some people are.
Just so that we are looking at both sides of the coin, that "old lady" might have a better shot in court if they tried to sue her than a grown man going after some twenty-something women. Sure there may be witnesses, but none of them can be forced to testify...
At the end of the day it is easy for everyone to say what they would have done or what should have been done, yet the vast majority of people stand around when soemthing like this happens. Think of all the people that are witnesses to crimes and never come forward. It's not sad, it's self preservation.
That's sad, credit to the old lady who made a much more serious attempt at stopping it than the guy did. Sadly, it's the society we live in now. So many people are afraid that if they get involved they will get hurt, sued, or whatever other unpleasant thing. Then there are the people that actually like watching that crap.
It's also sickening that the idiots that just stood there and watched told the girls to leave before the cops showed up.
I know when I worked at Walmart they said if any altercations came up do NOT lay your hands on the customer. The designated AP (asset protection) people could only do that and even then they'd have to wait till another employee was there for a witness. Sad state of this country, the people who instigate stuff still can sue people who try to break it up.
In this case the video would've acted as the witness so they should've broken it up. If you get hurt trying to help someone, you can sue whoever instigated the situation and created that bad situation in the first place. So those two girls could be held responsible for everything. Yes, if you feel scared and don't want to get involved you can simply stand by, but by instigating and taunting as River said, you can get charged for that.
Also, they are all grown men and an old lady hopped in to break things up before they did. It's really sad how some people are.
So the position of Walmart is to wait to break up a beating and only do so when a graduate of the Wallmartian Police Academy is present? Sounds like Walmart wants to protect their Arse more than anything else.
Those grown men and that old lady come from a time when they knew what was right and wrong, I should think.
I think it is dangerous to get involved, but sometimes, it is the right thing to do. I would hate to stand by and do nothing and a death of a young girl is the result from my inaction.
__________________
"Listen, you *censored* you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the *censored*, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up."
They must tell their employees not to get involved. If they encourage involvement, they must offer some sort of training or when something happens and a McFryboy gets his arse kicked or someone dies because of his involvement, McDonalds must explain why they have a policy of getting involved and why they did not provide training if this was their policy.
The problem is not McDonalds, it is the lower quality of life form running free. Not sure what McDonalds is supposed to do. Kids these days seem to be a tad more violent than in my day, and they like McDonalds. Not sure what new policy McDonalds should put into place to combat McViolence.
any non 1 on 1 fight should be tried as attempted murder, stop being pussies.
And prosecuted for filming and providing the only evidence? Are you high? Telling them to leave before the cops get there is aiding and abetting? My friend is a bouncer and they are trained to mention police as soon as the fight begins - I do the same thing when there is a fight, it gets the cretins running, and stops the beatings. You aren't aiding the criminal act. I agree everyone could have done more, but there should be no legal ramifications for anyone but the 2 assailants. McDonald's responsible? OK, I'm gonna stop, but river you have no idea the way law works in the US.
So the position of Walmart is to wait to break up a beating and only do so when a graduate of the Wallmartian Police Academy is present? Sounds like Walmart wants to protect their Arse more than anything else.
It is sad, but they must protect themselves as a large company. You also have to keep in mind, the kind of people that steal and commit such violent crimes in the first place, are the scum bags that will turn around and sue someone in a heartbeat when they get a hand laid on them even though they started it. Yes it is morally bad to have that kind of procedure for a situation, but on a business side it is very smart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempusfugit
And prosecuted for filming and providing the only evidence? Are you high? Telling them to leave before the cops get there is aiding and abetting? My friend is a bouncer and they are trained to mention police as soon as the fight begins - I do the same thing when there is a fight, it gets the cretins running, and stops the beatings. You aren't aiding the criminal act. I agree everyone could have done more, but there should be no legal ramifications for anyone but the 2 assailants. McDonald's responsible? OK, I'm gonna stop, but river you have no idea the way law works in the US.
She wasn't talking about just filming. Just choosing not to get involved and standing by and filming for evidence is not wrong at all.
The problem with them is they were laughing, pointing, encouraging the beating, and in all that instigated more violence. You can indeed get in trouble for that, especially when it's a beating like this.
I do agree the mentioning of cops is not bad though. It'll scare off many and stop fights and get people to leave.
It reminds me of what happened in richmond va. Trucker gets involved in a bad wreck and is pinned in his truck. He truck catches fire and risks burning alive. Bystander tries to help the guy. The Trucker says cut my leg off I don't want to die. The guy makes sure its what the Trucker wants. So he cuts the guy leg off. Few weeks later the Trucker sues the guy for making him a cripple and should of never listened to him. I think he even won.
So see its not worth getting involved in matters that don't pertain to you. Don't have a dog in the fight. Stay out of it. Big corporations don't want to waste money on lawsuits and court fees. What do the cops always says don't get involved? If i see something I will call 911. But as long as I don't have family involved. Then not my problem.
So see its not worth getting involved in matters that don't pertain to you. Don't have a dog in the fight. Stay out of it. Big corporations don't want to waste money on lawsuits and court fees. What do the cops always says don't get involved? If i see something I will call 911. But as long as I don't have family involved. Then not my problem.
Unless . . . it is your daughter being hurt and I say to you, "I decided not to help because I ain't got no dog in the fight." "Too bad she died because of her injuries, but I did not want to be sued." Guess that gets me off your Christmas card list, huh?
Unless . . . it is your daughter being hurt and I say to you, "I decided not to help because I ain't got no dog in the fight." "Too bad she died because of her injuries, but I did not want to be sued." Guess that gets me off your Christmas card list, huh?
Bob
He mentioned if it was a stranger, he won't get involved. By his response if it involved someone he was related to or loved dearly it sounds like he would get involved.
It's much different jumping in for a loved one versus a stranger.
Also as lord mentioned earlier, we can all say we'd jump in and help a stranger, but when things actually go down a majority of us would stand by doing nothing. For this case, it'd be easier to decide since they're two smaller girls. However, say they were two huge guys...the chances a stranger will intervene has gone down to near zero.
Unless . . . it is your daughter being hurt and I say to you, "I decided not to help because I ain't got no dog in the fight." "Too bad she died because of her injuries, but I did not want to be sued." Guess that gets me off your Christmas card list, huh?
Bob
First I wouldn't know you and we wouldn't be having a convorsation in the first place. So your point is mute.
Now I say on to you you intervene and hurt one of the attackers. He now file assault charges on you and you are sitting in jail wondering what just happened. You post bond and think the worse is over. Then you are served for his medical bills due to you assaulting him. You now have pay them and your criminal case comes up for assault. All this because you decided to play the good Samaritan.
Device(s): Two Chinese Androids: Kliton I806LS, Lenovo P700i
Carrier: PCCW, China Mobile(roaming in HK)
Thanks: 1,388
Thanked 1,222 Times in 847 Posts
I have to ask, is there any credibility to this video? How do we know it wasn't just staged as a stunt against a certain fast-food restaurant chain?
The video's source, 'World Star Hip-Hip' doesn't seem like a credible news source to me. Does anyone know of a reliable Reuters, AP, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Xinhua, etc. news article covering this story? It's much more like a rather vulgar internet meme.
__________________
The People's Guide to Android in the People's Republic.
Honorary Grand Poobah Shenzhen University English Corner. http://welcometomychina.tumblr.com/ There are nine million bicycles in Beijing.
There are nine million Androids in Shenzhen.
Last edited by mikedt; April 24th, 2011 at 12:10 AM.
When I first moved to New Mexico in the 70s, there was a front page story about a citizen who put an end to similar nonsense.
The Albuquerque DA was interviewed, and was asked when it was OK to use deadly force to interrupt a violent crime. He replied - only when the perpetrator is squarely within your gunsights.
Since then, everyone has been trying to civilize the place so it's like the rest out there.
The fact that the girl/boy was transgendered has the makings of a real interesting case. Race and gender, to begin with. Apparently it was because the two girls thought the victim was a man in the woman's bathroom and freaked out.
Also, the cameraman was fired from McDonald's. Doesn't mean much, but it's a start.
As someone mentioned before, there have been a ton of fights recently at fast food places. I think there was on in PC this past spring break that was just a ton of vandalism. I don't think anyone was seriously hurt. Reminds me a bit of post offices and "going postal." That it's some sort sick trend that's sweeping the nation.
As a sidenote, the cameraman's Facebook suggested that the victim faked the seizure at the end. It was pretty sad.
As a guy, I don't know what I WOULD have done and how much trouble I would have been in had I had to absolutely lay both of them out. Would it be worth a criminal record? Well, it would be, but it would be a very shitty sacrifice. This case already has race written all over it, I seriously doubt a judge would condone a hard hit to a woman by a man. Freaking double standards.
Last edited by EarlyMon; April 24th, 2011 at 02:43 AM.
Reason: Uh - "freaking" ok, thanks.
Two people were ran over by a car following a fight in a McDonalds parking lot in Cleveland during their big 50,000 person hiring event last week. Great idea McDonalds!
When I first moved to New Mexico in the 70s, there was a front page story about a citizen who put an end to similar nonsense.
The Albuquerque DA was interviewed, and was asked when it was OK to use deadly force to interrupt a violent crime. He replied - only when the perpetrator is squarely within your gunsights.
Since then, everyone has been trying to civilize the place so it's like the rest out there.
Perhaps NM is a little different, but nobody anywhere I have ever lived carries a gun (unless they plan to use it for illegal activities).
I know many people that have concealed weapons permits and carry daily. In fact if I recall correctly, here in West Virginia, you can walk right down the street with a gun on your side as long as it is in plain view of everyone else.
Equal rights... those guys could have stopped the fight by knocking those girls out. Its completely legal to defend another with equal force.
Second they should locked the girl being attacked in the bathroom.
The manager should have locked the attackers out. Locked down the store till the police arrived.
Mcdonalds can be sued. You have a duty to protect your patrons. Especially inside the store. It even extends to the parking lot.
Freaking animals. Two on one how cowardly is that?? While shes on the ground.
Ok your signature has me curious. Are you the lawyer there?
Then I have to ask clarification about this: Equal rights... those guys could have stopped the fight by knocking those girls out. Its completely legal to defend another with equal force."
Really? There wouldn't be some hubbub about males hitting females, regardless of the situation from a legal standpoint?
Really? There wouldn't be some hubbub about males hitting females, regardless of the situation from a legal standpoint?
Assault and battery is not gender specific. It's just frowned upon if a man hits a woman. Complete moral issue, no legal rule against it. You won't get in trouble for the simple fact they're a woman and you're a man, but for physically harming anyone is what you'll get in trouble for. And if you get some feminist judge you may be screwed for the ruling just based on her moral standpoints.
Have you talked to any cops that respond to family disturbances lately?
I have.
Violent women using weapons and hospitalizing men afraid to hit women is a real-world problem.
So, here's my opinion of the translation to your expression moral issue:
1. The judge is an Oprah-lover - you're guilty.
2. The judge has been beaten black and blue by a woman - you're innocent.
I never said this moral issue wasn't a problem. I know many women who are in the false sense that because they're a woman they won't be hit back.
My friend was in that situation with an abusive woman, she would wail on him relentlessly. One time he decides to push her out the way so he can leave the house since she was blocking the way, he was arrested and convicted of domestic abuse because the girl lied. Guess what kind of judge he got.
I'm not supporting the whole, "never ever hit a woman". I will refrain from hitting a woman as long as I can, but if a woman would come at me with a knife, they're getting a fist to the face in a heart beat.
In a nutshell, it's wrong for anyone to hit anyone regardless of gender. Just because you're a woman doesn't give you special rights.
*edit for your edit* It appears we're on the same point on this subject.
Assault and battery is not gender specific. It's just frowned upon if a man hits a woman. Complete moral issue, no legal rule against it. You won't get in trouble for the simple fact they're a woman and you're a man, but for physically harming anyone is what you'll get in trouble for. And if you get some feminist judge you may be screwed for the ruling just based on her moral standpoints.
Welll... if she truly were "feminist," she would be all for equality, right? So she should still be able to make an objective ruling based simply on the fact that violence is violence, regardless or gender.
I've never been in a situation where I had to decide whether to hit a woman before, but if I were to play a scenario in my mind where it wasn't life-or-death, I still think I'd be screwed if I had some chick in my face, pushing and shoving me.
Welll... if she truly were "feminist," she would be all for equality, right? So she should still be able to make an objective ruling based simply on the fact that violence is violence, regardless or gender.
Seems reasonable. I dated a judge, she was cool. But - judges are people, with their own foibles, too.
Quote:
I've never been in a situation where I had to decide whether to hit a woman before, but if I were to play a scenario in my mind where it wasn't life-or-death, I still think I'd be screwed if I had some chick in my face, pushing and shoving me.
If a woman is in your face, pushing and shoving then it's the same as a man - hitting them in the face is an escalation, not a measured defense.
First I wouldn't know you and we wouldn't be having a convorsation in the first place. So your point is mute.
Now I say on to you you intervene and hurt one of the attackers. He now file assault charges on you and you are sitting in jail wondering what just happened. You post bond and think the worse is over. Then you are served for his medical bills due to you assaulting him. You now have pay them and your criminal case comes up for assault. All this because you decided to play the good Samaritan.
Assuming that the jury feels the same way. And then there is the inevitable appeal that might discard the verdict arrived at by the previous legal adventure. No guarantee there will be a successful suit or that a jury will find my guilty, anyway. No guarantee that I will be arrested or charged in the first place, either. We only know what will happen when it happens and no guarantees either way.
So if I get involved, I am screwed. If I stand by and do nothing, I am perhaps also sued and I must live with a death I might have prevented.
Or perhaps I am sued by a father or mother for not getting involved. These days, that kind of suit might be allowed. Legally I am likely not required to get involved, but then there is civil court.
We live in a time where violence is less and less tolerated and I think many people are simply fed up with the wrong charges and silly law suits that support the bastard/basterdess over the decent man that just tried to help.
Seems reasonable. I dated a judge, she was cool. But - judges are people, with their own foibles, too.
If a woman is in your face, pushing and shoving then it's the same as a man - hitting them in the face is an escalation, not a measured defense.
Take some aikido (not violent defense) classes.
What am I missing?
You're missing the fact that aikido isn't really known to be "realistic."
I'm not saying hit someone in the face because they're in your face. I'm saying it's pretty certain the person is going to hit you, just giving you a prologue to the ass kicking with some words and shoves.
I know there's a distinction between self-defense and "escalating" the fight/situation. But if a white person slapping a black person is quick to be labeled a hate crime, gender's an even bigger, more general issue. People will bring it up in court. That line that divides self-defense from making matters worse is almost non-existant when it comes to a man defending himself.
You're missing the fact that aikido isn't really known to be "realistic."
I used to teach it, but it's not for everyone I guess. I know a lot of cops who find it quite realistic.
Quote:
I'm not saying hit someone in the face because they're in your face.
Really? OK, I misunderstood your early statement, sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coonster
I've never been in a situation where I had to decide whether to hit a woman before, but if I were to play a scenario in my mind where it wasn't life-or-death, I still think I'd be screwed if I had some chick in my face, pushing and shoving me.
SO apparently it was a guy dressed like a woman, who was in the womens restroom. That in and of itself does not deserve a beating like that....but then he faked the seizure. Seems this guy had a few screws loose.
This is the society we live in....bathrooms will need to become unisex or we'll need more for trans-genders and gays. This beating is a product of our political correctness.
Either way the cops should have been called and no beat down was justified.
this is horrible and very sad!!!
