[VIDEO] McDonald's Worker serves justice and beats the shit out of irate customers that slaps, then
515 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TheHydra;32792858]did this turn into dragon ball z or something what the fuck is this[/QUOTE]
Yup. But seriously, if you act dumb you can troll people without getting banned. That's exactly what he's doing here. He keeps pretending to take the moral high ground simply to get a reaction.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Dumb reports / Threadshitting" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32792848]Or he's just learned a new method of trolling which isn't seen as bannable (This thread as reference)[/QUOTE]
Disagreeing with the majority is trolling?
[editline]15th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32792869]Yup. But seriously, if you act dumb you can troll people without getting banned. That's exactly what he's doing here. He keeps pretending to take the moral high ground simply to get a reaction.[/QUOTE]
You should report my posts then. Backseat moderating is bannable :o)
Remember, report [i]all[/i] of the posts you consider bannable!
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32792873]
You should report my posts then. Backseat moderating is bannable :o)[/QUOTE]
I have, and pretty ironic statement.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32792881]I have, and pretty ironic statement.[/QUOTE]
Irony, [i]The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.[/i]
Nah
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32792873]Disagreeing with the majority is trolling?
[editline]15th October 2011[/editline]
You should report my posts then. [B]Backseat moderating is bannable :o)[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Fail?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32792844]He. Told them. To. Stay. The fuck. Down.
How is that hard to get ? Trying to get up 10 times in a row when someone tells you clearly to STAY THE FUCK DOWN is a bit more than trying to get up once because of "natural instinct".[/QUOTE]
One of them tries to get up once in the video and is promptly hit twice on the head. After that the camera pans and you can't tell if they get up again but judging by the response of his co-workers he hits them a few more times.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32792881]I have, and pretty ironic statement.[/QUOTE]
get back on topic or ill report you.....
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32792887]Irony, [i]The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.[/i]
Nah[/QUOTE]
Aren't you the one who blamed personal attacks like a page earlier ?
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;32792888]fail?[/QUOTE]
Just a friendly tip for a friend so my new friend doesn't get banned! :o)
[editline]15th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32792903]Aren't you the one who blamed personal attacks like a page earlier ?[/QUOTE]
I thought we were debating the definition of the word irony
[QUOTE=Starpluck;32792850]Not all. Lawsuits aren't solely based on quantity of said action. Other factors are taken into account before determining a judgement, because in this case, he can easily argue they attempted to make a move 10 times (by trying to get up to advance him)[/QUOTE]
True, unfortunately we don't know the history of the cashier this event could have acted as a trigger to something else going on in his life etc which is why he arguably went over the top. All things I'm sure the defence will take into account.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32792905]Just a friendly tip for a friend so my new friend doesn't get banned! :o)[/QUOTE]
god dammit zeke why do you always have to take the moral high ground FUCK
[QUOTE=TheHydra;32792920]god dammit zeke why do you always have to take the moral high ground FUCK[/QUOTE]
it's my trolling master plan
[editline]15th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=cdbx90;32792914]True, unfortunately we don't know the history of the cashier this event could have acted as a trigger to something else going on in his life etc which is why he arguably went over the top. All things I'm sure the defence will take into account.[/QUOTE]
Another thing the courts will need is the McDonalds security tapes that show the event from other angles, because going just by this cell phone video it really doesn't look good for the guy. Maybe they'll reveal that the lady was reaching into her coat or something, I'd totally go back on everything I've said in here if that was the case.
How about the fucktons of eye witnesses ?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32792930]it's my trolling master plan
[editline]15th October 2011[/editline]
Another thing the courts will need is the McDonalds security tapes that show the event from other angles, because going just by this cell phone video it really doesn't look good for the guy.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I thought you were legitimately stupid. Oh wait...
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32792940]How about the fucktons of eye witnesses ?[/QUOTE]
Eye witnesses that had pretty much the same view as the cell phone camera you mean?
Or the eye witness that was desperately yelling at the man to stop?
Still doesn't help his case, the courts will want more video angles.
[editline]15th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;32792942]Oh, I thought you were legitimately stupid. Oh wait...[/QUOTE]
Now now friend, flaming isn't called for! :o)
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32792957]Eye witnesses that had pretty much the same view as the cell phone camera you mean?
Or the eye witness that was desperately yelling at the man to stop?
Still doesn't help his case, the courts will want more video angles.
[/QUOTE]
The customers + the stupid blonde bitch + the other employees ?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32792968]The customers + the stupid blonde bitch + the other employees ?[/QUOTE]
The courts won't want eyewitness accounts from anyone who has a vested interest in the outcome of the case or any other bias, namely the other staff.
The kitchen will be FULL of cameras. They'll get all the evidence they need from those to make a reasonable judgement.
I don't see why everyone's defending the cashier. He's just as guilty as the trespasser. If you hit someone that lies on the floor it isn't a question about self defense anymore it's a question about over-violence.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32792968]The customers + the stupid blonde bitch + the other employees ?[/QUOTE]
the employees who saw it all from behind equipment/the guy with the rod, plus the one employee who kept trying to make him stop.
it really, really doesn't look that good for his case.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32792957]Eye witnesses that had pretty much the same view as the cell phone camera you mean?
Or the eye witness that was desperately yelling at the man to stop?
Still doesn't help his case, the courts will want more video angles.
[editline]15th October 2011[/editline]
Now now friend, flaming isn't called for! :o)[/QUOTE]
Now my friend, contradicting your master isn't called for! Obey. >:o)
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32792848]Or he's just learned a new method of trolling which isn't seen as bannable (This thread as reference)[/QUOTE]
I think you should stop, mate.
Okay, let's do something completely different. [url=http://selfdefenses.com/forcespray/SD-law.html]New York State self-defense laws:[/url] (Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.)
[release]
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) [b]He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use [highlight]deadly physical force.[/b][/highlight] Even in such case, however, [b]the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating[/b]; [i]except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or[/i]
(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 reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
(c) He 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.[/release]
This man will need to prove two things.
1. The woman was about to use [b]deadly[/b] physical force.
2. He could not have retreated instead.
Alternatively, he could attempt to prove that a metal rod isn't possibly deadly. (Not feasible, since he caused a cracked skull with it)
If you think he was in the right, you need to prove these as well.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32793026]Okay, let's do something completely different. [url=http://selfdefenses.com/forcespray/SD-law.html]New York State self-defense laws:[/url] (Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.)
[release]
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use [b][highlight]deadly physical force.[/b][/highlight] Even in such case, however, [b]the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating[/b]; [i]except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or[/i]
(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 reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
(c) He 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.[/release]
This man will need to prove two things.
1. The woman was about to use [b]deadly[/b] physical force.
2. He could not have retreated instead.
If you think he was in the right, you need to prove these as well.[/QUOTE]He was not using deadly force.
1) The woman was standing in an area filled with objects which when used as a weapon, would be a deadly force.
2) If he retreated he would have put his fellow employees at risk as the women could have used said objects to attack other employees.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;32793037]He was not using deadly force.[/QUOTE]
Yes he was. One of the injuries he caused could have been fatal, this option of defense isn't available to him anymore.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32793043]Yes he was.[/QUOTE]
Yeah so instead of grabbing one of the meat cleavers, he picked the [b]deadly pole[/b]!
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32793043]Yes he was.[/QUOTE]Then by your definition, you can apply that to [I]any[/I] weapon. Be it a police baton, or taser. As they can yield deadly results in rare cases.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32793026]Okay, let's do something completely different. [url=http://selfdefenses.com/forcespray/SD-law.html]New York State self-defense laws:[/url] (Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.)
[release]
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use [b][highlight]deadly physical force.[/b][/highlight] Even in such case, however, [b]the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating[/b]; [i]except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or[/i]
(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 reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
(c) He 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.[/release]
This man will need to prove two things.
1. The woman was about to use [b]deadly[/b] physical force.
2. He could not have retreated instead.
If you think he was in the right, you need to prove these as well.[/QUOTE]
1. He [I]probably[/I] reasonably believed the women were going to use deadly force as they jumped the counter with intent to hurt.
2. The restaurant could be considered his dwelling as he works there for many hours per day, and was obviously not the initial aggressor. Or, If he retreated he would have put his fellow employees at risk as the women could have used said objects to attack other employees.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32793040]1) The woman was standing in an area filled with objects which when used as a weapon, would be a deadly force.
2) If he retreated he would have put his fellow employees at risk as the women could have used said objects to attack other employees.[/QUOTE]
1. the presence of potential deadly weapons in the area =! attempted deadly force
2. that wouldn't make it self defense, though.
Also:
(c) He 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.
By jumping over the counter you could argue that burglary may have been one of their intentions.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;32793064]1. the presence of potential deadly weapons in the area =! attempted deadly force
2. that wouldn't make it self defense, though.[/QUOTE]
Defending coworkers falls under both health and safety, and self defence.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.