McDonalds employee defends himself

[Bugfatty300]

What was the rod made of?

Something hard enough to fracture a human skull and break bones apparently. Which I'm sure counts as deadly force. That's a reasonable response to being slapped?

We can't see the woman on the floor so we don't know what she was or wasn't doing.

Well lets go by what we can see...

36 seconds: He is hitting the woman on the right while she has her back turned to him apparently severely regretting having followed him there.

40-41 Seconds: When he is striking the woman on the left he actually has to walk up a bit to get another swing which says to me that she is crawling away from him.

46 Seconds: You can clearly see the woman holding her arm up in a defensive posture when he strikes her. (I guess this is the one that broke her arm.)

Sorry but that's enough for me to say this wasn't really self-defense.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Sorry but that's enough for me to say this wasn't really self-defense.

Indeed. It is diffficult to believe that so many are apparently so fearful of physical violence from two drunk and diminutive women that they think it is necessary for a much larger man to repeatedly strike them with a deadly weapon 10 times to protect himself from harm.

And regarding $50 bills:

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing says the average life of a $50 bill in circulation is 55 months before it is replaced due to wear. Approximately 6% of all notes printed in 2009 were $50 bills.[1] They are delivered by Federal Reserve Banks in brown straps.

Compared to $20s:

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing says the average circulation life of a $20 bill is 25 months (2 years) before it is replaced due to wear.[2] Approximately 11% of all notes printed in 2009 were $20 bills.[3] Twenty-dollar bills are delivered by Federal Reserve Banks in violet straps.

I guess most of the $50 bills are in places like NYC and Florida grocery store registers.

 

[7ronin]

My comments were based on my experience laboring in the criminal justice system for several years. We may think we know what happened from watching the video but we don't really. We don't have very many facts and we certainly don't have any of the forensic evidence. Was the force used deadly force; and if it was, was the use of that force justified or unjustified? Those are the central questions and given the circumstances here I think they can only be answered by a jury after seeing and hearing all the facts that we can't.

 

[GinandTonic]

Whether the bill is counterfeit or not is irrelevant.

Imo, it was excessive force around the part of when the other employees tried to stop him. I would have had no problem, if he had fractured their skull or even killed them in the initial defence or grabbed a knife instead of a metal rod. At that point in time, he didn't know whether they had weapons or not and has a legit reason to fear for his safety. But, once you have them pretty much subdued and you keep striking someone, that is excessive.

This.

 

[JohnRM]

I am curious why Forma thinks fifties are common, there is a reason ATMs almost universally make you withdraw in multiples of 20.

I only know of one ATM around here that doesn't allow you to withdraw in multiples of 10.

 

[Silurian]

Something hard enough to fracture a human skull and break bones apparently. Which I'm sure counts as deadly force. That's a reasonable response to being slapped?



Well lets go by what we can see...

36 seconds: He is hitting the woman on the right while she has her back turned to him apparently severely regretting having followed him there.

40-41 Seconds: When he is striking the woman on the left he actually has to walk up a bit to get another swing which says to me that she is crawling away from him.

46 Seconds: You can clearly see the woman holding her arm up in a defensive posture when he strikes her. (I guess this is the one that broke her arm.)

Sorry but that's enough for me to say this wasn't really self-defense.

Ten seconds to regain his composure enough to stop hitting them after being abused, slapped and chased.
If someone is attacked and they gain the upper hand how quickly do you expect them to calm down.

 

[GinandTonic]

It's the same rules we've all known since the playground - when someone goes down it's time to stop, bar perhaps a last dig to make sure they stay down.

 

[luiz]

Ten seconds to regain his composure enough to stop hitting them after being abused, slapped and chased.
If someone is attacked and they gain the upper hand how quickly do you expect them to calm down.

Exactly. Thinking it through calmly it certainly appears (appears, because we don't know exactly what happened) that the guy used excessive force when he continued to beat the women (and I too only know they were women because of the text, from the video they appear to be manly beasts).

But anyone who has ever been physically assaulted knows that it is a very mentally stressing situation, to say the least, and you can't be expected to fully reflect on your actions on the heat of the moment.

I'd hate to know that this guy got any punishment for this. A basic rule is that if you don't want to get beaten or even killed, don't assault people. Don't jump over counters and chase people.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The guy is a little too enthusiastic in continuing to beat the women.

But can't take any side in this. They're all morons. They should all be taken out of the gene pool.

 

[Yeekim]

It's the same rules we've all known since the playground - when someone goes down it's time to stop, bar perhaps a last dig to make sure they stay down.

This.
The guy clearly overreacted and shouldn't get off cleanly.
Being slapped and chased into kitchen is an ameliorating condition, not a complete absolution.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well at least this thread taught me a new word

 

[Captain Carnage]

You assault someone, you deserve whatever you get.

 

[GinandTonic]

You assault someone, you deserve whatever you get.

Really?

This does seem to be the crux of the debate. Clearly there are limits, few people would say that slapping someone is grounds for, say, kidnapping a person and torturing them slowly to death over a period of months. A hyperbolic example of course, but the point is that even a victim has to act within the constraints of justifiable self defence and proportionate force.

Now in jumping over the counter to pursue the victim the attacker clearly brought justification for a kicking on themselves. I'm all for the law erring on the side of the victim being taken, but that does not go so far is to continue to beat on someone on the ground for thirty seconds. His colleague even tried to calm him down.

 

[.Shane.]

He said common, compared to the twenty they might as well be non existent. Especially if you include credit. In any case, the idea that they should not be checked for counterfeiting is absurd when many shops check twenties.

Every single eatery that I can think of has signs stating they don't take larger than a $20. Many of them will even check a $20 to make sure its not counterfit.

 

[Yeekim]

Really?

This does seem to be the crux of the debate. Clearly there are limits, few people would say that slapping someone is grounds for, say, kidnapping a person and torturing them slowly to death over a period of months. A hyperbolic example of course, but the point is that even a victim has to act within the constraints of justifiable self defence and proportionate force.

I wanted to bring the exact same example but couldn't be bothered.

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

Every single eatery that I can think of has signs stating they don't take larger than a $20. Many of them will even check a $20 to make sure its not counterfit.

Usually it's because of smaller registers in an age of debit/credit. A place that used to keep $250 in the drawer no only keeps about $100. They can't make change for larger bills.

I've lived in eight states in the US and never got anything higher than a $20 out of one.

Casino ATMs will dish out hundreds. When I quit the casino after college, the slots were being changed over for a ticketed payout (instead of dropping coins). It could have made a change in the way money is moved around the floor, but I doubt it.

At that point in time, he didn't know whether they had weapons or not and has a legit reason to fear for his safety.

In most states, even castle doctrine state, does the atmosphere of imminent danger need to be obvious? We do have one inmate who is serving a manslaughter sentence because of the question of imminent fear of safety. Apparently (at the time, laws have changed), since the intruder was unarmed, deadly force was not legal. So should one assumed someone is armed or unarmed? And would that have made a difference in whether or not the incident was excessive?

 

[.Shane.]

Usually it's because of smaller registers in an age of debit/credit. A place that used to keep $250 in the drawer no only keeps about $100. They can't make change for larger bills.

I think its a combination of both. Back when I used to work retail, they very definitely worried about counterfeit. We were required to check $50s and $100s, but not $20s or smaller.

Casino ATMs will dish out hundreds. When I quit the casino after college, the slots were being changed over for a ticketed payout (instead of dropping coins). It could have made a change in the way money is moved around the floor, but I doubt it.
lol, I think you'd agree casino's are a significant deviation from the norm.

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

lol, I think you'd agree casino's are a significant deviation from the norm.

Very much so, but the gaming industry is still classified as retail.

I think its a combination of both. Back when I used to work retail, they very definitely worried about counterfeit. We were required to check $50s and $100s, but not $20s or smaller.

The reason to check is obvious. But aren't twenties getting counterfeited more often nowadays?

 

[Dirichlet]

Heh, in the EU paying with fifties is never a problem. With the possible exception of a bakery or a grocer. Do you really have that large a counterfeit problem?

 

[Akka]

It's all about disproportionate force. You can't nearly kill someone for slapping you in the face and acting aggressively towards you, especially when you can simply run away.

What's with this crap that if someone is attacked, he should flee ?

The original idea about emphasizing fleeing was to remove the "coward" stigma from fleeing, and saying "protecting your life is okay, you should not call someone a coward when he's just taking the safest course for him".
Somehow it was distorted into a ******** concept of "you should flee, because if you don't you're responsible, even if you're actually the victim". That's completely idiotic, defending yourself is the most basic right anyone have.

Proportion, sure, but when people jumps on you with agressive intent, you gain the right to consider they are actually dangerous. A slap is one thing, an assault is another, and judging in hindsight is just self-righteous garbage.