McDonalds, Now Serving Justice

Aargh!! Stop saying "should've stopped when the threat was over!!"

Insipid, and frankly stupid comments like that show the writer is being judgmental when they don't have all the facts!!!

Unless your X-ray eyes can see through the counter, you have no right to say that. You have no ******* clue what the real assailants were up to behind the counter.

Unless you know the REAL victim's physical limitations, you have no right to say that.

Unless you have more information than anyone else reading the same thread, watching the same video, and reading the same linked articles, you are in no place to render judgment as to when the threat was "over."

Anyone who disagrees is a flaming hypocrite if they profess to believe in a right of self-defense.

And yes, I do know of which I speak - I've prosecuted, refused to prosecute, and defended the accused in SD situations like this, and had to go through the same points with cops, families, perpetrators, and juries until it finally sank in and they were able to see things objectively.

I thought the crowd on this board would be a little more mentally acute, but some are proving me wrong.

DCR said:

Insipid, and frankly stupid comments like that show the writer is being judgmental when they don't have all the facts!!!

Unless your X-ray eyes can see through the counter, you have no right to say that. You have no ******* clue what the real assailants were up to behind the counter.

Unless you know the REAL victim's physical limitations, you have no right to say that.

Unless you have more information than anyone else reading the same thread, watching the same video, and reading the same linked articles, you are in no place to render judgment as to when the threat was "over."

Anyone who disagrees is a flaming hypocrite if they profess to believe in a right of self-defense.

And yes, I do know of which I speak - I've prosecuted, refused to prosecute, and defended the accused in SD situations like this, and had to go through the same points with cops, families, perpetrators, and juries until it finally sank in and they were able to see things objectively.

I thought the crowd on this board would be a little more mentally acute, but some are proving me wrong.

Click to expand...

Gee, councilor you have a unique style.

Several posters have said that all of the facts were not available and suggesting that excessive force can have bad repercussions is not a violation of OCDO rules and they DO have the right to say that here.

One thing I've noticed about attorneys is that on any given day, in any court room, 50% do not deliver the winning argument.

You may indeed be a paragon of virtue, but that gives you not the right to insult/attack others by innuendo on OCDO.

Mr. G. Shot is completely correct of course. Still, I do admit to a good deal of satisfaction when I saw the first swing of the rod. I'm very glad the aggressor did not further harm any of the employees.

Grapeshot said:

No one should be assaulted because you don't want to hear them. Even the suggestion of such illegal acts are in violation of the spirit of OCDO rules.

"Had it coming" - really are we judge and jury after seeing one poor quality video? That he chose to defend himself is no license to continue after the threat is over.

Perhaps the man trying to stop him in the video is a manager. Maybe they fired him for taking this beyond simple defense......we don't know.

While the Social Forum is for all things not related to OC or guns, the rules and general good conduct still apply. Haven't had occassion to edit much nor lock a thread in this sub-forum but there is always a first time for everything.

We are supposed to be the purveyors of facts and level headed responses. Emotion outbursts (like some of these) reduce us beyond the desired standard. Please take heed.

Click to expand...

Again, no one is suggesting illegal acts of violence. How are you to determine that the threat was over when he kept swinging??? How do we know that these people didn't appear to be pulling out a knife or a gun? All we see is they moved a bit more after going down and when they did the person on the defense continued to "stop" them. Perhaps he felt they were going for a gun and he couldn't out run a bullet so he had to stop them from drawing. We don't know. All we know is HE WAS ATTACKED and attempted to retreat. We know when chased after retreating he defending himself and the attackers went down. Now we watched the attackers get the raw end of the stick and we are glad that justice seemed to be served (from what we see on film). Now they're people saying STOP VIOLATING THE RULES AND SUGGESTING BREAKING THE LAW HE KEPT GOING AFTER THE THREAT WAS OVER < You don't know this, we can't see behind the counter. For all we know the lady was pulling a knife out. All we know is he was attacked and defended himself.

Grapeshot said:

All other things aside, I saw what might very well be considered excessive use of force by the employee. :uhoh:

Click to expand...

Agreed. It might have been excessive use of force. We do not know if the moment the two punks went down if they laid there peaceably and begged forgiveness, or if they were telling him that the moment they got up his ass was dead. However, if the video it does seem like he stopped for a moment once or twice, as though threatening with more of the same if they did not stop. I can assume that they indicated more harm to his person if he stopped and that is why he continued to hit them some more, but that is just conjecture. At this time, the only things we CAN be clear about is that the woman smacked the cashier, the cashier struck back with a metal spatula in a slapping motion then walked off to get the metal rod as backup. The male and woman jumped over the counter to engage with the man physically which any reasonable person would assume, since if they only wished to yell at him and call him names they could have done that on their side of the counter. Being confronted with superior numbers, the cashier defended himself with a non-lethal weapon, striking numerous blows, stopping for a moment wherein the male perp tried to grab at the cashier and the cashier struck one or both of them some more. The cashier stopped again for a moment before resuming.

The bolded part is where excessive force may have occured, but since we do not know what was being said behind the counter or what their demeanors were, it is conjecture until the other cashiers speak up.

Verd said:

The bolded part is where excessive force may have occured, but since we do not know what was being said behind the counter or what their demeanors were, it is conjecture until the other cashiers speak up.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm trying to say.

And being that he was the victim, for now I will take the side that he was not the aggressor and his actions were in self defense. He didn't just jump over the counter and say "hey i'm gunna beat some people down." People came into his space, attacked him, and they got beat down. They were not the victims from what I can see.

Schlitz said:

That's what I'm trying to say.

And being that he was the victim, for now I will take the side that he was not the aggressor and his actions were in self defense. He didn't just jump over the counter and say "hey i'm gunna beat some people down." People came into his space, attacked him, and they got beat down. They were not the victims from what I can see.

Click to expand...

Yeah, took too long in responding, didn't see your post until after I posted mine.

And agreed.

The guy that grabbed his arm is not a manager. The manager was standing there just watching.

I couldn't hear what the employee said, so I can't say anything about his firing. I can say this, most large corporations like this have an absolute zero tolerance policy for violence, this includes clear cases of self defense. These policies ought to be criminal. It is ridiculous that the law demands tight restrictions on anything that can even remotely be considered racist or sexist on the job, but does not protect the right to self defense on the job even in it's most basic forms.

In any event, no rush to judgment here.

Expect that more detail will be available when the trials begin, the first of which is scheduled to start Oct 18th. Motions, postponements and rescheduling will probably set that date back some though. This will be interesting to see played out and to have many of the gaps in our information filled.

its really hard to know or see what really happened. too many people yelling. screaming to hear who the original aggressor was. cant tell if the couple was angry about an order, or if it was a long running feud between the two men. either way mistakes were made. and 2 people realized what pain can be. will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Cashier savagely beat two women customers.

This made the headlines this morning Down Under, where we are all about armed self defence being illegal? Cheers, Haz.
*****************************************************************************************

""You can't go into a person's workplace and attack them," Rayon McIntosh Sr., 54, told the Post. "Let's be real now - this was self-defence."

Click to expand...

.


Rayan McIntosh on how to turn a quarter-pounder into a double-whopper.

A NEW York City McDonald's cashier savagely beat two women customers with a metal rod after they jumped the counter


Read more:

<http://www.news.com.au/world/mcdonalds-cashier-rayan-mcintosh-sacked-after-fracturing-womans-skull-with-metal-rod/story-e6frfkyi-1226168084183>

Wasn't one of those women a man?

if only he were around at this mc donalds

Jack House said:

Wasn't one of those women a man?

Click to expand...

Headline TWO WOMEN?

McDonald's cashier fight caught on video - News.com.au www.news.com.au/world/mcdonalds-cashier-rayan-mcintosh-sacked-...
A NEW York City McDonald's cashier savagely beat two women customers with a metal rod after they jumped the counter - a disturbing bashing ...

People often talk about shooting to stop a threat. Well, if he told these people (and even if he didn't), who chased after him, to stay down and they kept trying to get back up, wouldn't him hitting them again simply be him trying to stop the threat? After all, they had already attacked him, what's to say that after they were up that they wouldn't try again?

Personally I'll reserve full judgement until I have all the facts about what happened behind the counter that we can't see/hear (and chances are we likely won't ever have all those facts). But from what I can see, the man does what he needs to stop the threat. The biggest issue is each time he hits them after pausing, but without knowing what they were doing I can't say it wasn't justified. And if they were trying to get up I would say he was most likely in the right as them attempting to get up means he hasn't stopped the threat.

Aknazer said:

People often talk about shooting to stop a threat. Well, if he told these people (and even if he didn't), who chased after him, to stay down and they kept trying to get back up, wouldn't him hitting them again simply be him trying to stop the threat? After all, they had already attacked him, what's to say that after they were up that they wouldn't try again?

Personally I'll reserve full judgement until I have all the facts about what happened behind the counter that we can't see/hear (and chances are we likely won't ever have all those facts). But from what I can see, the man does what he needs to stop the threat. The biggest issue is each time he hits them after pausing, but without knowing what they were doing I can't say it wasn't justified. And if they were trying to get up I would say he was most likely in the right as them attempting to get up means he hasn't stopped the threat.

Click to expand...

Deadly force may be justified to protect life and body from death or serious harm/injury - not "to stop a threat" absent the other qualifiers.

Can't say what went on out of our view. Did he escalate the level of force beyond what might be justified? Maybe McDs can provide behind the counter video. It has been reported that one woman suffered a broken arm and severe face lacerations - for what a slap, or in response to a greater level of threat?

One thing is sure, right or wrong it will cost him a lot of money to defend against this.

Grapeshot said:

Deadly force may be justified to protect life and body from death or serious harm/injury - not "to stop a threat" absent the other qualifiers.

Click to expand...

That is a given about deadly force and other qualifiers. The point is that when using deadly force you don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stop (killing is just often a side effect of using a deadly weapon to stop a threat). Once the threat has stopped you stop shooting; likewise if the threat hasn't stopped then you likely should keep shooting. And if we apply that line of thinking to this situation then if the threat hasn't stopped (aka they keep trying to get up which could be taken as continuing to try and attack him) then it would be reasonable for him to hit them while trying to get up.

Pretty sure that the broken arm was a result in her chasing the man after he attempted to flee.

In my opinion morally, he did nothing wrong. From the video it looks like he started swinging again because the assailants attempted to get back up. How many of you would let your assailant get up after you've defended yourself but before the police arrive?

Grapeshot said:

Deadly force may be justified to protect life and body from death or serious harm/injury - not "to stop a threat" absent the other qualifiers.

Click to expand...

Isn't that what the threat is? A threat to life/body or serious harm/injury? You continue till you stop the threat?

Schlitz said:

Isn't that what the threat is? A threat to life/body or serious harm/injury? You continue till you stop the threat?

Click to expand...

Nope, not hardly.

Threaten to slap (assault) or actually slap (assault & battery), constitute neither.