McDonald's Cashier beats unruly customers during argument

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

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.

Here ill quote a specific part

The cashier would pause and begin again every time the women tried to get up

it was controlled by fear, he stoped, if the woman would have got up, whos to say she wouldnt have gotten the first thing in reach, she had the gaul to go over the counter after him, just for questioning a bill. OVER A STUPID FAST FOOD MEAL.

He was in the right

[Reacon]

To be honest, you just don't start fights with McDonald's employees. I can tell you that 90% of them do not enjoy their jobs, and doing something like this, they got what they deserved, in my opinion. Maybe a little too much, but I think those two women learned something.

[Ayepecks]

You claim you don't like this part of the forum but yet you still post here, the man has every right to protect himself so yes it is.

I don't like posting here when people like you make supremely silly assertions, no, but you keep responding to my posts. It's amazing how you can say it's justified even when it's clear he's breaking the law.

He wasn't protecting himself. That's the entire point. He protected himself by getting the weapon, and then he proceeded to assault someone. A logical person would have either called for help, asked the customers to call 911, or, at the worst, got the weapon, threatened them with it, and not beat the hell out of them. There's no way they would have continued to come after him if he just showed them the object. You can see the woman already trying to stop as soon as he did that.

No one is saying the women weren't in the wrong, which is what you seem incapable of grasping. That doesn't make his actions right. Keep making all the excuses for him you want, none are justified and you know it.

[articuno1au]

Thank you grand lord arbiter Ayepecks.

We shall now descend from this mount and attempt to please you with our obedient servitude to your point of view.

Just because you think he is doing the wrong thing, doesn't mean he is. Personally I believe he is acting well within his rights.

She was close enough to be a threat thus the use of the weapon.

Now all the conjecture, which is what it is, can give way to a court/jury making an assessment of his guilt. Then you will either be shown to be right or wrong.

[Ayepecks]

Thank you grand lord arbiter Ayepecks.

We shall now descend from this mount and attempt to please you with our obedient servitude to your point of view.

Just because you think he is doing the wrong thing, doesn't mean he is. Personally I believe he is acting well within his rights.

She was close enough to be a threat thus the use of the weapon.

Now all the conjecture, which is what it is, can give way to a court/jury making an assessment of his guilt. Then you will either be shown to be right or wrong.

Oh please, get a grip. He was breaking the law. Even if you don't agree with my point of view, it's clear the police and district attorney thought he wasn't acting within his rights. And it doesn't matter what you "believe", it matters what is.

How about this: all the crazy people saying he was within his right agree to never post in the Real World section again if he's proven guilty. And I will never post in here again if he's proven innocent. Sounds like a fair deal, no?

[vip]

I don't feel bad for those women at all. I more than likely would have done the same thing. If they're stupid enough to come across my counter and start beating on me, you better expect it back, and I'm going to give it worse than I got it. Don't they always teach you GIVING IS BETTER THAN RECEIVING?

[articuno1au]

Yes, and my objection is your assertion that you are some sort of deity'esque arbiter of fact from opinion.

The DA moving the case to court means that they felt there was sufficient basis to determine whether his actions were legal or not, not that they were illegal. Presumption of innocence and all those fun things.

I do also think that your "And it doesn't matter what you "believe", it matters what is." statement was exactly the point I was trying to make.. It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the jury/judge/et all think..

[neoxphuse]

I don't blame the guy, some girls come over the counter and smacks a guy who works at MacDonald's? Seriously, he probably hates his jobs and hates the customers there. He probably let out all that frustration over the time he was there dealing with idiots. I guess he had a chance when someone finally decided to cross the line.

[articuno1au]

I don't blame the guy, some girls come over the counter and smacks a guy who works at MacDonald's? Seriously, he probably hates his jobs and hates the customers there. He probably let out all that frustration over the time he was there dealing with idiots. I guess he had a chance when someone finally decided to cross the line.

The unfortunate thing is; if that's the case, he deserves to go to gaol. Sucks hey O.o

/shrug

[Tender Foot]

Oh please, get a grip. He was breaking the law. Even if you don't agree with my point of view, it's clear the police and district attorney thought he wasn't acting within his rights. And it doesn't matter what you "believe", it matters what is.

How about this: all the crazy people saying he was within his right agree to never post in the Real World section again if he's proven guilty. And I will never post in here again if he's proven innocent. Sounds like a fair deal, no?

By your post it's perfectly okay for the women to break the law assaulting the man all because he questioned the $50 bill and then go after him behind the counter? You are the one that needs to get a grip plus you are one the replied to one of my post attacking me in the first place instead of just ignoring my post and going on about your business so yes I'm going to respond to your post.

Yes, and my objection is your assertion that you are some sort of deity'esque arbiter of fact from opinion.

The DA moving the case to court means that they felt there was sufficient basis to determine whether his actions were legal or not, not that they were illegal. Presumption of innocence and all those fun things.

I do also think that your "And it doesn't matter what you "believe", it matters what is." statement was exactly the point I was trying to make.. It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the jury/judge/et all think..

Yes exactly at the end of the day

[Ayepecks]

Yes, and my objection is your assertion that you are some sort of deity'esque arbiter of fact from opinion.

The DA moving the case to court means that they felt there was sufficient basis to determine whether his actions were legal or not, not that they were illegal. Presumption of innocence and all those fun things.

I do also think that your "And it doesn't matter what you "believe", it matters what is." statement was exactly the point I was trying to make.. It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the jury/judge/et all think..

I never said nor implied I was the arbiter of opinion. You're all entitled to your opinions. And I'm entitled to think they're idiotic opinions to have, based on the law, morality, ethics, etc.

You didn't answer as to whether or not you'd accept the deal. If all of you are so strong in your assertion that his actions were justified, then obviously you'd think the courts would side with you -- especially since that's the case you're trying to imply with all your additional statements.

[eveready]

The unfortunate thing is; if that's the case, he deserves to go to gaol. Sucks hey O.o

/shrug

Considering he just got out of prison (10 years for manslaughter), yes, he is indeed going back to the can.

[ogamawab]

Mc Ds fault here

[articuno1au]

I never said nor implied I was the arbiter of opinion. You're all entitled to your opinions. And I'm entitled to think they're idiotic opinions to have, based on the law, morality, ethics, etc.

You didn't answer as to whether or not you'd accept the deal. If all of you are so strong in your assertion that his actions were justified, then obviously you'd think the courts would side with you -- especially since that's the case you're trying to imply with all your additional statements.

I agree; you asserted that you were the arbiter of fact.

I'm not stupid enough to think that I can make a serious call as to whether the American justice system will rule in a particular way. So no, I choose not to accept your offer, thank you all the same.

I make no implications nor assertions. I merely stated that your assertion of factual accuracy was offensive and absurd.

Now watch as I repeat the trick while drinking this glass of water..

[Seizure1990]

He stopped until they started to get up then started again. They should have stayed down. If they get back up, they should be considered a threat again.

It says the women were screaming for him to stop as well. Getting up is not a threat. It's a natural response to wanting to get the **** away from the guy that just beat the **** out of you, whether or not you deserved that beating aside.

[Ayepecks]

I agree; you asserted that you were the arbiter of fact.

I'm not stupid enough to think that I can make a serious call as to whether the American justice system will rule in a particular way. So no, I choose not to accept your offer, thank you all the same.

I make no implications nor assertions. I merely stated that your assertion of factual accuracy was offensive and absurd.

Now watch as I repeat the trick while drinking this glass of water..

I never said nor implied in any of my statements that I was the arbiter of fact. If you can provide a single instance where I said someone's facts were incorrect and didn't back it up, then do so. But you can't. Instead you're relying on baseless insults because you have nothing intelligent to say, which isn't the least bit surprising.

It's really not hard to say which way is the most logical way the courts will rule in most cases. This is no different. It's not arrogance, it's comprehension of the law. The only reason you're declining is because you comprehend the law just as I do, and you realize this guy doesn't have a chance in hell unless he takes a plea deal. The video evidence is proof enough of that, otherwise they wouldn't have even considered charging him with a felony.

[articuno1au]

Oh please, get a grip. He was breaking the law. <- Assertion of fact. Even if you don't agree with my point of view, it's clear the police and district attorney thought he wasn't acting within his rights. And it doesn't matter what you "believe", it matters what is.

How about this: all the crazy people saying he was within his right agree to never post in the Real World section again if he's proven guilty. And I will never post in here again if he's proven innocent. Sounds like a fair deal, no?

I never said nor implied I was the arbiter of opinion. You're all entitled to your opinions. And I'm entitled to think they're idiotic opinions to have, based on the law, morality, ethics,<- Assertion that your ethics and morals are THE ethics and morals. etc.<- Personal attack.

You didn't answer as to whether or not you'd accept the deal. If all of you are so strong in your assertion that his actions were justified, then obviously you'd think the courts would side with you -- especially since that's the case you're trying to imply with all your additional statements.<- Nonsensical statement, possibly about plankton

I never said nor implied in any of my statements that I was the arbiter of fact. <- Bald face lie.If you can provide a single instance where I said someone's facts were incorrect and didn't back it up, then do so. But you can't.<- Assertion of fact. Instead you're relying on baseless insults because you have nothing intelligent to say, which isn't the least bit surprising.<- Hypocrisy of the finest grade.

It's really not hard to say which way is the most logical way the courts will rule in most cases. <- Assertion of fact.This is no different. It's not arrogance, it's comprehension of the law.<- ... The only reason you're declining is because you comprehend the law just as I do,<- Assertion of fact. and you realize this guy doesn't have a chance in hell unless he takes a plea deal.<- Assertion of fact. The video evidence is proof enough of that, otherwise they wouldn't have even considered charging him with a felony.<- Assertion of fact.

Ok.

This amicable discussion between the two of us, like most things, will be decided by public opinion or oppressive moderation.

Either way, I am confident I have made my points as succinctly as possible.

[Biotoxic_hazard_835]

He acted in self defense, went a little overboard but asked in self defense.

[danisflying527]

Really? Because the whole him getting charged with a felony thing means his actions WEREN'T justifiable, like it or not.

I agree with you completely.

I don't think the people here understand, the man WAS within his own right to subdue the perpetrators in self defense, however once they were

unable to fight back the man had no right to continue beating them, there is a borderline for self defense, I know and I've been in situations where i have had to defend myself

from my experience with martial arts (so far) is to be taught to get out, and only attack in self defense if necessary, the man did just that when he disabled them with the first few hits

continuing to bash the women should be considered a crime as it wasn't his place to punish the women, that is why we have the law, this man didn't have the right to take punishment into his own hands.

[articuno1au]

I agree with you completely.

I don't think the people here understand, the man WAS within his own right to subdue the perpetrators in self defense, however once they were

unable to fight back the man had no right to continue beating them, there is a borderline for self defense, I know and I've been in situations where i have had to defend myself

from my experience with martial arts (so far) is to be taught to get out, and only attack in self defense if necessary, the man did just that when he disabled them with the first few hits

continuing to bash the women should be considered a crime as it wasn't his place to punish the women, that is why we have the law, this man didn't have the right to take punishment into his own hands.

I think this disagreement lies with where the line is drawn.

I think the vast majority of people understand it, just differ in what constitutes self defence.

Obviously you feel he was past the point of self defence, other people don't >.< Now we just wait and see what the courts think.

To the time machine anyone?

[Ayepecks]

Ok.

This amicable discussion between the two of us, like most things, will be decided by public opinion or oppressive moderation.

Either way, I am confident I have made my points as succinctly as possible.

Are you seriously not able to distinguish between statements of opinion and statements of fact, or are you really this dense?

Statement 1: He was breaking the law, based on the fact that he was charged and arrested for a crime, as well as common sense that he has absolutely no case.

Statement 2: It was a statement on how I'm able to think your opinions are asinine; I did not state that my morals and ethics are the only morals and ethics. That should go without saying, but apparently you need it stated. Also not a statement of fact, nor a personal attack.

Statement 3: Not a nonsensical statement. My statement was that you keep insisting that the courts have yet to rule on the matter, ignoring the fact that the district attorney felt they had enough evidence to charge him in the first place and the fact that the police arrested him. If you think you're right in regards to the law, then you should think the courts will side with you, since they uphold the law. Get it?

Statement 4: You've done nothing to show otherwise, so how is it a lie? Your statement itself is a lie.

Statement 5: I did not assert fact. I asserted my opinion that the majority of court cases are pretty clear cut. How can you not comprehend simple English? You're typing it, yet you don't seem to comprehend it.

Statement 6: You didn't. And it is a fact that I haven't. So, I guess I'm right again!

Statement 7: No hypocrisy there, unless you don't understand the meaning of the word. If you're trying to say that my responses lack intelligence, then that's still not hypocrisy. You may want to buy a dictionary.

Statement 8+: Asserting my opinion that you're too much of a wuss to admit you're wrong and the guy has no case. And they charged him with a felony, which is a fact. You clearly have a hard time deciphering between opinion and fact. Here's a little hint: you don't have to say "I believe" or "I think" for a statement to be an opinion.

It's amusing that you had to rely on the very last post I made instead of actually proving that I was making any assertions of fact, by the way. Even if you were right, you somehow now seem to believe that your statements occur well after they're made. Do you own a DeLorean with time travel capabilities or something?

[vladmphoto]

This topic has only served as a reminder as to why I try to stay out of the Real World section of Neowin as much as possible: you people scare the **** out of me. We have people who gladly admit to being racist (some of which will even go so far as to use a clearly racist word and segregate a race itself), people who think the appropriate response to a slap (a slap that appears to have done no harm whatsoever) is to get a metal object and beat the **** out of the person who slapped you, people who will blame the witnesses for not "subduing" a cashier who just brutally beat a woman instead of blaming the cashier, people who suggest that you should beat someone on the ground who you just brutally beat because that's how you make sure they know what they got...

You know what? No. I'm not even going to justify all the bull**** stupidity in this thread. I hope some of you never procreate if you think an appropriate response to a slap is to beat the **** out of someone with an iron bar.

You keep rambling on and on about how the cashier's actions are disproportionate to the ones of the women but our justice system does this all the time. How about people that go to prison for years and years, get fined hundreds of thousands of $$ and have a permanent criminal record for sharing a few downloaded songs/movies etc. Why? It is meant to teach them a lesson and to use them as scaremongering for others that may be tempted to do the same. Well that's exactly what he did here. He defended himself then he taught them a lesson. Please quit this brain-washed bull**** attitude that the government has drilled into you and many others and stop acting so stuck-up. Punishment does not always fit the crime. In fact it rarely does. A person's conviction and sentence far out-weighs their crime (unless that crime is murder / rape in which case they deserve societal isolation) in most cases just in this case you don't have the authorities approval. Please, go away and do something else.

[danisflying527]

You keep rambling on and on about how the cashier's actions are disproportionate to the ones of the women but our justice system does this all the time. How about people that go to prison for years and years, get fined hundreds of thousands of $$ and have a permanent criminal record for sharing a few downloaded songs/movies etc. Why? It is meant to teach them a lesson and to use them as scaremongering for others that may be tempted to do the same. Well that's exactly what he did here. He defended himself then he taught them a lesson. Please quit this brain-washed bull**** attitude that the government has drilled into you and many others and stop acting so stuck-up. Punishment does not always fit the crime. In fact it rarely does. A person's conviction and sentence far out-weighs their crime (unless that crime is murder / rape in which case they deserve societal isolation) in most cases just in this case you don't have the authorities approval. Please, go away and do something else.

Well you see it wasn't within his rights to teach them a lesson, that should be up to the law, regardless of your opinion on its reliability. Defending himself whatever it takes is his legal right, but he doesn't have legal clearance to deliver consequences.

[articuno1au]

Are you seriously not able to distinguish between statements of opinion and statements of fact, or are you really this dense?

Statement 1: He was breaking the law, based on the fact that he was charged and arrested for a crime, as well as common sense that he has absolutely no case.

Statement 2: It was a statement on how I'm able to think your opinions are asinine; I did not state that my morals and ethics are the only morals and ethics. That should go without saying, but apparently you need it stated. Also not a statement of fact, nor a personal attack.

Statement 3: Not a nonsensical statement. My statement was that you keep insisting that the courts have yet to rule on the matter, ignoring the fact that the district attorney felt they had enough evidence to charge him in the first place and the fact that the police arrested him. If you think you're right in regards to the law, then you should think the courts will side with you, since they uphold the law. Get it?

Statement 4: You've done nothing to show otherwise, so how is it a lie? Your statement itself is a lie.

Statement 5: I did not assert fact. I asserted my opinion that the majority of court cases are pretty clear cut. How can you not comprehend simple English? You're typing it, yet you don't seem to comprehend it.

Statement 6: You didn't. And it is a fact that I haven't. So, I guess I'm right again!

Statement 7: No hypocrisy there, unless you don't understand the meaning of the word. If you're trying to say that my responses lack intelligence, then that's still not hypocrisy. You may want to buy a dictionary.

Statement 8+: Asserting my opinion that you're too much of a wuss to admit you're wrong and the guy has no case. And they charged him with a felony, which is a fact. You clearly have a hard time deciphering between opinion and fact. Here's a little hint: you don't have to say "I believe" or "I think" for a statement to be an opinion.

It's amusing that you had to rely on the very last post I made instead of actually proving that I was making any assertions of fact, by the way. Even if you were right, you somehow now seem to believe that your statements occur well after they're made. Do you own a DeLorean with time travel capabilities or something?

Will the personal attacks never end? :o

1. Being arrested does not mean he was breaking the law. It means the police believe he was. Once the courts rule that he was breaking the law, THEN, and ONLY THEN is he in a state of having broken the law.

2. Indeed, you did not state your ethics were the only ethics and so is true of your morals. You spoke as though they were. The difference may appear subtle but is significant. What's more, saying my opinions are asinine is almost the definition of a personal attack when you blanket it like that.

3. Refer to point 1.

4. ... is the appropriate response I believe.

5. Ignorance begets arrogance.. Clearly I was wrong and you were in the right.. As arbitrated by yourself.

6. I'm starting to notice a pattern here..

.. so on and so forth ad nauseum..

I'm out. I'm clearly not getting through to you, and short of having someone actually arbitrate, this is going nowhere fast.

I would like to say, on my way out the door, that it was a pleasure to be insulted by you so thoroughly. You are a gentleman of the purest class and astounding wit.

A gentleman and a scholar.

Well you see it wasn't within his rights to teach them a lesson, that should be up to the law, regardless of your opinion on its reliability. Defending himself whatever it takes is his legal right, but he doesn't have legal clearance to deliver consequences.

+1 in theory if not wording :p

[vladmphoto]

Well you see it wasn't within his rights to teach them a lesson, that should be up to the law, regardless of your opinion on its reliability. Defending himself whatever it takes is his legal right, but he doesn't have legal clearance to deliver consequences.

Of course this wasn't "within his rights." I know as much. I am not arguing whether the law allows this or not, obviously it does not. I am merely arguing the moral and ethical implications. The law is never moral nor is it ethical. It remains neutral in that sense. It is written to be very black and white and what I am saying is that this situation is not black and white.