Video: McDonald's Cashier Beats Customers With Metal Rod (world, best, against)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good discussion. We don't even know if the last 2 hits made contact at this point, although they likely did.....just too many unknowns at this point.
One correction, she MAY have brain damage claim is solely coming from her mother, docs say prognosis is unclear. If you have more up to date or specific info please share.
The last 2 hits shown on camera when the gal was getting back up I'm going to still give him a pass on.
Any word on the gals $50 bill or if they were carrying knives etc? The latter would have a major impact on the case.
P.S. I think with all the flash mobs and other random violence in society people in general have VERY low tolerance for criminals instigating violence right now. Also, we all have friends that know how to fight and those that don't. Those 2 gals were no strangers to mixing it up, they were coming to get him and with his background I think he identified that right away. They weren't standing back jawing and he charged them. He retreated and they came over and around the counter to get him.
Unsure on the brain damage actually, we'll see what the doctors say. The counterfeit $50 bill issue may be a really critical aspect of this case. Because if they can prove that it was counterfeit, it might open up NY Castle doctrine to favor Mcintosh, i.e., they were attempting to rob the place.
It almost looked like from the video, http://youtu.be/sdXdYHzdIeY at :07 seconds, the black guy in the leather jacket passes the female aggressor something (appears to be money) and at the same time puts something back in his pocket (possibly the counterfeit $50 bill?) ... did anyone else catch that?
The reason I ask this is again because it may help Rayon use the Castle Doctrine laws for NY... other than that, he will have a hard time proving that he fell into any circumstance that allowed this force (except at the bottom in bold).
New York New York's justification statute dates from 1968 and allows deadly force to be used in a number of circumstances. Under Penal Law § 35.15, in general, deadly force may be used as necessary to defend against unlawful deadly force used by another. Retreat is required when one knows it can be done with complete personal safety to innocent parties. Even then, no retreat is required when a person is in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor, or is defending against kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery, or is preventing arson or is terminating a burglary or attempted burglary of an occupied building as allowed by Penal Law § 35.20.
§ 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless: (a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or (b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. 2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is: (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or (b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or (c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.
§ 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary 1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises. Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson. 2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three. 3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.
Number 2. under § 35.20 is the only instance that could apply to him...the women were charged with trespassing, but the law might look at the use of the metal rod in an aggressive manner, as deadly physical force, beyond what was necessary. I respect the fact that at least he was working and a jury should sympathize with that over the girls... which did look like they were out to cause trouble. Either way the more I think about this, the more I'm leaning to favoring McIntosh. He was working, trying to make a living and may have been technically trying to prevent a robbery. We'll see as more details emerge.
Unsure on the brain damage actually, we'll see what the doctors say. The counterfeit $50 bill issue may be a really critical aspect of this case. Because if they can prove that it was counterfeit, it might open up NY Castle doctrine to favor Mcintosh, i.e., they were attempting to rob the place.
It almost looked like from the video, McDonalds Incident - YouTube at :07 seconds, the black guy in the leather jacket passes the female aggressor something (appears to be money) and at the same time puts something back in his pocket (possibly the counterfeit $50 bill?) ... did anyone else catch that?
The reason I ask this is again because it may help Rayon use the Castle Doctrine laws for NY... other than that, he will have a hard time proving that he fell into any circumstance that allowed this force (except at the bottom in bold).
New York New York's justification statute dates from 1968 and allows deadly force to be used in a number of circumstances. Under Penal Law § 35.15, in general, deadly force may be used as necessary to defend against unlawful deadly force used by another. Retreat is required when one knows it can be done with complete personal safety to innocent parties. Even then, no retreat is required when a person is in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor, or is defending against kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery, or is preventing arson or is terminating a burglary or attempted burglary of an occupied building as allowed by Penal Law § 35.20.
§ 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless: (a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or (b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. 2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is: (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or (b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or (c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.
§ 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary 1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises. Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson. 2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three. 3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.
Number 2. under § 35.20 is the only instance that could apply to him...the women were charged with trespassing, but the law might look at the use of the metal rod in an aggressive manner, as deadly physical force, beyond what was necessary. I respect the fact that at least he was working and a jury should sympathize with that over the girls... which did look like they were out to cause trouble. Either way the more I think about this, the more I'm leaning to favoring McIntosh. He was working, trying to make a living and may have been technically trying to prevent a robbery. We'll see as more details emerge.
Thanks, I missed that part.
Again, excellent discussion.....this is rare on this specific forum.
I think that if there was at least another male WITH the two women and the guy saw that.....he HAS to be wondering when the additional people are going to rush him, shoot him in addition to the 2 women. This would also support his use of force on any of the gals still trying to get up as he would have seen the group of 3+ together. The worker definitely seems to be alert to the potential of more attackers in the video.
I find it HIGHLY suspicious that the guy in the leather jacket appears to flee the scene or at least didn't come to their aid.
What do you mean? i thought it was clear, I would like to know what started the confrontation in the first place, I looked for more info but never found any. Usually these things start over the stipidest reason like being shorted on the nuggets of fries or whatever.
one more time, it started because the cashier in question was testing a $50 bill to see if it was counterfeit, and the women got upset about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammbriggs
i'm so sick and tired of people saying that we should run. you start running and it never ends. at some point you have to take a stand. these women act in this manner because of people running away. if everyone stood up and decided they weren't going to take this abuse, there would be a lot less of it!
whenever i see people behaving in that manner, or if my kids misbehave, i warn them that one day they will come across someone who won't accept their behaviour and there will be hell to pay! these women run around bullying people doing their job. it is quite obvious that this isn't the first time they've done such a thing. doubt they'll be doing it again!
tried to rep you but couldnt. well said
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
1) Yes I remember R. King, I went to the trouble of reading your posts and making comments based upon the law and what can actually be seen in the video. In your haste you brushed right past the point about how since he isn't a trained LEO he shouldn't be held to that standard since he doesn't have pepper spray, cuffs or years of training.
2) You COMPLETELY dodged the point that you were earlier claiming he beat them when they were incapacitated and I went to the trouble of breaking down the video. You could at least acknowledge that someone is taking the time to rationally discuss the situation.
3) I agree another guy tried to step in, but they weren't coming after him and you can tell the first guy was still quite freaked out by the assault. Again, he did not just jump on them and administer 10-20 blows on a clearly inert target. AT MOST out of around a dozen hits ONLY the last 2 are POSSIBLY directed at a defenseless individual.
Basically, it's easier to have a clear head when you aren't the one that has already been struck and chased...or are sitting at your computer with a cup of coffee.
Tell me specifically which blows you feel were over the line?
also well said.
in the end if i were on the guys jury and i saw that video, there is no way i would convict him of anything. at some point in time we have to stop coddling criminals like these two women that attacked the cashier. until that time comes though, we are going to have criminals constantly thinking that they can do what they want with little regard of the consequences of their actions. if instead of giving such criminals a slap on the wrist with a couple of years in prison, we stick them away for 10-20 years hard labor, they might think twice before participating in such actions.
Not so. This will be most likely be used in his case and says a lot about character.
Only cowards pull guns in a fight and beat people when they're already down.
This is not saying that the women shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent as well. They're getting off easy with menacing charges (well maybe not the brute with the fractured skull)...but it should be assault or some other felony. In fact, if he had just knocked them out and went across the street to the officer, he would be free right now.
I'll tell ya what. If someone were to break in my home, while I was in it........... they're dead. I don't care if they give themselves up. I don't care if they beg for mercy. They're dead.
I'm not going to allow my family to live in a house where someone who might be angry that I got them arrested can come back for revenge. If I have to plant a weapon on their body, they're done.
As far as this happening to me working in a retail situation? I would do the same. "Stay down" means "stay down". Either stop moving, and put your hands behind your head, or I'm gonna split it open. I'm not going to give someone an inch that just tried to commit a crime against me. They get two choices. Stop moving, or die.
...but the security video would've magically disappeared too.
I hope the ex-con gets a medal from the mayor. Because ya know what? What if they reached in the registers while they were back there, and took cash?
I'll tell ya what. The poor bastard would've been blamed for being in on it, if he didn't take action. There was no winning move for this guy. The closest thing to it was protecting himself, which he did well.
because it has been mentioned several times in this thread that the incident started with the cashier checking the authenticity of the $50 bill he was given.
because it has been mentioned several times in this thread that the incident started with the cashier checking the authenticity of the $50 bill he was given.
Was my original quote to you? or was I responding to another Jerks post?
he did the right thing. they wouldnt stay down. they could have razor blade slashed him up, how was he supposed to know. why were they jumping the counter? if he hadnt done that, he'd probably be in the hospital.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
