Ryster Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Wonder what the argument was about. being charged for extra ketchup? You didn't get past the 4th line of the article then I gather ;-) CNN affiliate WCBS said the altercation began when the cashier questioned a $50 bill the women gave him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Topham Hatt Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Rayon McIntosh working at McDonalds :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davelough Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Why do they continuously use the word restaurant when the incident occurred in a McDonalds? From Wikipedia, but none the less.... A restaurant prepares and serves food and drink to customers in return for money. Meals are generally served and eaten on premises, but many restaurants also offer take-out and food delivery services. Restaurants vary greatly in appearance and offerings, including a wide variety of the main chef's cuisines and service models. Restaurants range from unpretentious lunching or dining places catering to people working nearby, with simple food served in simple settings at low prices, to expensive establishments serving refined food and wines in a formal setting. In the former case, customers usually wear casual clothing. In the latter case, depending on culture and local traditions, customers might wear semi-casual, semi-formal, or even in rare cases formal wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breach Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 They should promote him to handling McDonalds' corporate PR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 From Wikipedia, but none the less.... A restaurant prepares and serves food and drink to customers in return for money. Meals are generally served and eaten on premises, but many restaurants also offer take-out and food delivery services. Restaurants vary greatly in appearance and offerings, including a wide variety of the main chef's cuisines and service models. Restaurants range from unpretentious lunching or dining places catering to people working nearby, with simple food served in simple settings at low prices, to expensive establishments serving refined food and wines in a formal setting. In the former case, customers usually wear casual clothing. In the latter case, depending on culture and local traditions, customers might wear semi-casual, semi-formal, or even in rare cases formal wear. What's food and drink got to do with McDonalds? :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flam1ngFir3ball Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 No excuse for that type of violence. However people have no respect for others when it comes to food and retail establishments and people do crack eventually when treated like &%$# for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Yeah, I bet they did have counterfeit cash. While I think both parties are at fault, I'm more sympathetic toward the cashier. He had been assaulted verbally and physically and then the two were about to jump him. His sympathetic nervous system was on overdrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjoswald Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 A friend of mine has worked in the restaurant business his whole life. He once said to me, "Never **** with the people that prepare your food". Loudmouthed customers like these annoy the hell out of me, so I'm glad they got what's coming to them. Yelling and arguing is one thing, but to reach over the counter, run around the counter, and run back into the prep area is crossing the line. I don't think he should've pummeled them with a metal rod, but I would've definitely fattened their lip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davo Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Unfortunately had he not started beating them, he would have been the one who was attacked and possibly killed from a 2-on-1 attack. It was excessive but all I have to say is that he taught them both a hard lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Soon as they crossed that counter they'd have been dog food. A smart prosecutor will not even bother filing charges - jury acquittal in 5 minutes. Go after those who started the mess. BTW: sure would be interesting if the $50 were bogus. Call the Feds :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
articuno1au Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 The rod he is using looks like a heating element scoop. It's a stainless steel rod about 7.5mm thick which is used to lift the heating elements from the vat. It's a nasty piece of steel. I think he was defending himself, however they did come at him, and he had no way of determining their intent. I think there's a limit, but yeah :\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 He only did what plenty of people working in retail would love to do. soniqstylz 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macrosslover Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 I support this man fully. I'm at a loss why he's charged with a felony and the women are charged with a misdemeanor. I somehow think if the sexes were reversed and it was 2 men jumping the counter on 1 woman and she did the exact chain of events, she wouldn't have been charged. Either way, beat their rear end for doing this stupid stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfbane Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 IMO, justice has already been served, no need to charge anyone with anything. Also, doesn't the Castle doctrine apply here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Castle does, but the prosecutor is making the case of overkill. Ex: guy attacks you with his fists. In the fight you KO him. You're fine to this point, but if instead you continue beat his helpless skull to a bloody pulp it's a criminal act. Because of the womens continued pursuit this one is different; there's more one, increasing the threat, and they obviously started it while possibly in the commission of a Federal crime - passing counterfeit money. Time for some prosecutorial discretion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seizure1990 Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 If the women had died as a result, would the general reaction be different? I wonder. Because it could have easily gone that way too. He had the right to self defense, but more then surpassed just that. It sounds like he was angry, and was just hitting them even after they were no longer a threat. Plus, hitting the head is a definite kill zone. They were both idiots, and both should be prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerowen Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Seems like most everybody here agrees, he was in the right and should keep his job. He questioned them on what appeared to be a bogus $50 bill, and then when they came across the counter, he eliminated the threat. Adrenaline is a bitch, maybe next time they'll think twice before assaulting somebody for doing their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Reid Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Well, the fact is that they are the ones who started the fight and came after him, he just happend to be the one who finished it. Whats he supposed to do, just allow them to attack him? No, nobody would allow that to happen to themselves. If they had not attacked him none of this would have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladmphoto Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 There's a difference between self defense and assaulting someone. After you've successfully defended yourself and they are in no condition to even remotely attack you, you've lost your argument. Seems everyone got what they deserved in terms of criminal charges, however -- it's not like the women are getting off free. No, first you defend yourself then when your attacker(s) is/are down you then teach them a lesson they won't soon forget. You cannot convict someone that got caught up in the moment. They literally jumped at him, two fat women, no telling what they could have done to him and he tried to run but they came after him. He then defends himself and because of the adrenaline he gets in a couple more hits. Can you really draw such a definite line between defence and assault? It is possible that fear got the best of him and he stopped once the adrenaline stopped flowing. Nothing about this situation is black and white, there are many shades of grey. People that deserve it should be taught a lesson, not wait for the police that always get there too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 No, first you defend yourself then when your attacker(s) is/are down you then teach them a lesson they won't soon forget. You cannot convict someone that got caught up in the moment. They literally jumped at him, two fat women, no telling what they could have done to him and he tried to run but they came after him. He then defends himself and because of the adrenaline he gets in a couple more hits. Can you really draw such a definite line between defence and assault? It is possible that fear got the best of him and he stopped once the adrenaline stopped flowing. Nothing about this situation is black and white, there are many shades of grey. People that deserve it should be taught a lesson, not wait for the police that always get there too late. Uh, no. You don't "teach them a lesson." That's a supremely stupid sentiment. And, yes, you absolutely can convict someone who gets "caught up in the moment." Want me to cite countless convictions that have done so? All this "caught up in the moment" stuff is complete and utter bull**** and you know it. PEOPLE WERE SCREAMING FOR HIM TO STOP. Are you seriously that dense? You're probably one of those crazy people who think you have the God-given right to shoot anyone who puts a toe on your property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rohdekill Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 So they started beating him, he runs to the back, they start to follow, then tables turn and all of a sudden its " stop stop call the cops "Edit - scratch that, he runs to the back because they jump the counter. And he only started hitting them again when they tried to get back up, sounds like a self defence thing... As he didnt get the " weapon " in the back till they started jumping the counter trying to beat him more, and he started hitting them after pause thinking they were going to start again There's a huge difference between self-defense and pulverizing someone. Self defense means you take ONLY the (reasonable) necessary action to protect oneself from imminent harm. One hit with the crowbar should have been sufficient to defend yourself and thwart off the attack. Had they continued toward him still, then another. But to stand over someone and hit once they are on the ground (and only trying to get up) is no longer self-defense - you're no longer being threatened. You've just committed assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfbane Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Uh, no. You don't "teach them a lesson." That's a supremely stupid sentiment. And, yes, you absolutely can convict someone who gets "caught up in the moment." Want me to cite countless convictions that have done so? All this "caught up in the moment" stuff is complete and utter bull**** and you know it. PEOPLE WERE SCREAMING FOR HIM TO STOP. Are you seriously that dense? You're probably one of those crazy people who think you have the God-given right to shoot anyone who puts a toe on your property. Well, I just had to delete my reply, because I just watched the video again and it's ****ed up. The guy hits them both a few times (justified). Then he stops for a second, someone tries to talk to him, then he suddenly hits one of them again (unjustifiable, unless she was trying to hit him with something or get something from her bag) Then he stops again, his coworker says something to him again and tries to grab his arm, some fat woman waddles up yelling "stop", then he hits the other one again. WTF??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekun Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Rayon McIntosh did time in prison for manslaughter. Im sure prison had something to do with the way he reacted. In prison backing off is a sign of weakness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladmphoto Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Uh, no. You don't "teach them a lesson." That's a supremely stupid sentiment. And, yes, you absolutely can convict someone who gets "caught up in the moment." Want me to cite countless convictions that have done so? All this "caught up in the moment" stuff is complete and utter bull**** and you know it. PEOPLE WERE SCREAMING FOR HIM TO STOP. Are you seriously that dense? You're probably one of those crazy people who think you have the God-given right to shoot anyone who puts a toe on your property. No I am not one of those "crazy" people. I don't think anybody has the right to shoot somebody else. However, I do believe that some people need to be put in their place because parenting clearly failed them and they aren't mature enough to realize it themselves. People learn from their mistakes and I am sure those scars they will have for the rest of their lives will remind them to not overreact, keep their hands to themselves and to never assault another human being. You are like the principal of the school where a kid is bullied everyday and isn't allowed to put a stop to the torture because "violence is wrong" and so the violence continues until something happens to the poor kid. Violence is very wrong, true, but sometimes necessary. In this case, those animals needed to be put in their cage. I am glad they are in the hospital with (hopefully) life-long scars because it is solely due to their uncontrollable and questionable behaviour and karma got them back. You can agree or disagree with this but in the end it doesn't matter since most people have no spine and go with everything that "Uncle Sam" tells them. EDIT: Okay, yes, I too watched the vid again and it does seem like he has enough time to consciously stop his actions but keeps going and going. At that point, yes, he has gone too far and is acting out of rage at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 I am glad they are in the hospital with (hopefully) life-long scars because it is solely due to their uncontrollable and questionable behaviour and karma got them back. I'm just going to quote this right here in case anyone was even considering responding to you. <snipped> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts