McDonald's Employee Attacks Customer; Self Defense?

I understand it was self-defense but goodness gracious.

It's all fun and games until someone's skull is fractured.

 

Derp on the two women. Being disrespectful and jumping over the counter to threaten someone just because you think you can get away with it is pretty ****ing stupid, in my opinion. Unless he had done something to warrant that, they were the instigators.

Now, regarding if it was self-defense. I believe it was. They started it, they got beaten down. They should have stayed where they were and interacted like normal human beings instead of going ghetto up in there for no good reason. Idiots.

However, like most of you said, he should have at least stopped once they were down. The fact that he kept beating them is when I went from, "DUMBASSES." to, "...Oh."
Especially when you consider they tried to crawl away/escape and he kept beating them. And he looked like he was beating them pretty hard.

If when they jumped over the counter, they came at him with a weapon; that's another story, again. He could have just been fearful that they'd try to get back up and stab him/shoot him in the face so he kept going.

The details are fuzzy but I think they're both at fault. Him for not stopping, them for attacking him to begin with.
​

 

The man is justified up until they are no longer a danger to him. :/ Both parties deserve punishment, though.

 

That's exactly where I drew the line. They're making an effort to get away from him, and he kept going. That's when I saw it go more from "self defense" to "'let's see you even try to pull that stunt again" to I'm not quite sure what. Insanity, anger issues, I don't know.

I am starting to lean towards both at fault. Them for starting the whole deal, him for not drawing the line.

I'd also like to know, did anyone even try to call the cops when they first jumped the counter?

 

Personally, I agree with this. If he felt genuinely threatened -- and I think many people would considering what they were doing -- it's understandable that he reacted strongly. However once they were on the ground and pleading for help, continuing to hurt them really is unnecessary. They were no longer a threat at all, and the extent of their injuries is pretty severe. If I'm not mistaken, according to the law self defense is only justified until the threat is removed.

Thus... I do think both parties should be punished. The women for provoking/threatening the employee, and the employee for going beyond self defense.

 

well, they got punished by getting sent to the hospital and he was arrested. Either way, I guess we'll just see if anything plays out from this.

 

Both are at fault; the angry woman struck him first, and him slapping them back was fully justified self-defense, I think we all agree to that. And when they crossed the counter he did have reason to believe they would continue, but once they were on the ground he should have stopped. I think he really just got carried away... if they pulled a weapon it's a different story, but regardless of "anger issues" or anything like that, he still assaulted them and should be punished. It is his duty to keep his anger in check, just as it was the women's duty to keep their tempers in check and not scream at the McDonald's employee. :l

Being beaten is not a proper form of punishment. The employee is just as much in the wrong as they are, and they too should receive whatever punishment that the law outlines for assault and (arguably) passing over the counter--and not in the form of being beaten.

 

I am kinda on both sides.
I mean,while it was bad for those woman to get beaten...they did start it.
And the man....I mean,sure,self defense is good and stuff...
But I'm the only one allowed to go mental and whack people with a metal rod.
He went too far,is what I mean.

So yesh...
Moral of the story,dont do drugs kids.

 

*gives Daxa chocolate* *avoids home improvement stores*

@Aqua

Yeah to go along with what Misty said, it's not up to the employee to decide their punishment. Did they probably deserve to be baped upside the head for being iditos? Yes, but that's for the court to deiced and the guy went way farther than simply baping them. After they're down for the count the beating should have stopped.

 

So, this guy has apparently gone to jail before for comitting murder.

Source. | Another site.

I'm not sure this is true, but I read the same information on a third site that I can't find right now.

If that is true, I think we all agree he has issues and he probably would have killed them if he had kept going. He spent time in prision, so when those girls attacked him, his mentality was probably the way that it would be in there. In prision, **** like that happens and you have to FIGHT. I mean, there are no 'what-if's, or 'they're down now so it's okay's.

I'm not justifying his behavior at all, but that might give more insight...

Edit: I'm beginning to blame McDonalds. Lol.
​

 

whatever. I'm just going with my little karma theory. I don't believe in it, but I still say something should have happened. They just got the wrong end of the sti-*shot**shot**shot*

 

Essentially this. Punishment I do not know about, but compensation is definitely in order.

The fact is that they did get beaten. Are you saying that they should incur losses on top of that?

I'll kill you, you'll be at the wrong end then. It will be fun display of power for me, and karma will play it's hand while I'm at it. You have annoyed people enough.

Might makes right, eh?

 

I'm not saying that it's good that they got sent to the hospital. I'm just saying something was bound to happen when they went after the guy. And are you sure I haven't just annoyed you? Aren't you just assuming for people again? Ok, I'm not even going there.

Either way, this happened, and we can't do anything about it. I say we just see what happens.

 

I was using you as an example, and if I were going to kill you it would be because you annoyed me personally anyway.

It sounds like you are saying that you do not believe in proportionality. In which case killing you for annoying me would be quite alright, since you annoyed me first.

We can decide what to do now. That is what this thread is about; who was in the wrong and who was in the right, or what went wrong and what went right. If you have nothing to add other than 'we can't change the past', then why are you posting at all?

 

umm, Proportionality?
And, unless you want to take this case to the court or something, you really can't do anything about it. And why am I posting? Because I'm putting down how I feel about this, and my opinion on the topic.

 

I think so. Imagine if someone robbed a store, but then twisted their ankle or something like that on the way out. Should they just be let off because they have already 'incurred losses'?

 

Proportionality is the concept of an equal or proportional opposite reaction to any action made against you. An eye for an eye is a simplification of this principle.

That is different because the loss was monetary and the store has not made a recovery. How do you plan to recover the loss made by stepping over the counter and threatening someone?

 

apparently they recovered the loss by getting a fractured skull, broken arm, as well as a laceration(still don't know how to say that word)
And that proportionality sounds like equivalent exchange

 

No, because even if they could recover the loss by causing a loss, the loss 'recovered' was not proportional to the actual loss that they brought upon the employee. He owes them and not the other way around if the losses are paid in violence.

Similar, but this is an ethical and moral concept. The money that I take back for a theft must be proportional to the amount taken from me. And so on. I cannot kill you or beat you half to death simply because you stepped on my lawn after I told you not to according to proportionality.

 

umm, no, that would be called going overboard. And didn't I already say that I agree he went a bit overboard in this?