McHero arrested after McDonald's beatdown

Originally Posted by Apple ][

I'm sure that some of you may have already seen or heard about a video of an incident that took place inside a NYC McDonald's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdXdY...layer_embedded

This is easily the most hilarious video that I've seen all month, and that's why I bothered to make a thread about it. It's even better than some of those videos of the Occupy Wall Street crowd getting taught a lesson.

It is clear that the two hoodrats got what they deserved and it was wrong to arrest the McDonald's employee. He has also been fired from his job. The guy is basically a hero and he was defending himself and his place of business from two vicious thugs who slapped him in the face and proceeded to jump over the counter in a threatening manner.

This McDonald's worker was previously convicted of a crime and he had served his time. Unlike unproductive losers such as those protesters on Wall Street for example, this guy was working hard for very low pay at a McDonald's and trying to improve his life.

In come these two disgusting hoodrats and they assault the guy, and the two potty mouthed whores basically got what they deserved. We shall see how the case goes, but I can easily tell right from wrong, and this McDonald's worker should have all charges dropped against him. He did not instigate the incident, and self defense should never be a crime.

SImply put, the guy is a McHero and he's being wronged. He also has the support of many people, judging by most of the comments that I've read various places online. And that really annoying and pathetic white woman towards the end who's screaming and shouting? Somebody should have shoved a sock into her mouth to get her to shut up.

Originally Posted by tonton

There's a point after which self defense becomes assault. I suppose this man must have crossed that line to have been arrested.

The punks should have been arrested for trespassing, assault and causing a public nuisance. It's the job of the police to make that arrest.

Originally Posted by tonton

There's a point after which self defense becomes assault. I suppose this man must have crossed that line to have been arrested.

The punks should have been arrested for trespassing, assault and causing a public nuisance. It's the job of the police to make that arrest.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

So arrest is proof of guilt?

Originally Posted by tonton

Who said anything about guilt? Read the title of the thread, and read what I wrote. Was guilt ever discussed?

Originally Posted by tonton

There's a point after which self defense becomes assault. I suppose this man must have crossed that line to have been arrested.

The punks should have been arrested for trespassing, assault and causing a public nuisance. It's the job of the police to make that arrest.

Originally Posted by tonton

There's a point after which self defense becomes assault. I suppose this man must have crossed that line to have been arrested.

The punks should have been arrested for trespassing, assault and causing a public nuisance. It's the job of the police to make that arrest.

Originally Posted by bsenka

McHero absolutely did the right thing.

These people were crazy enough to jump the counter to come after him, and it was a two on one attack. There's no way to know if they were armed or how far they would go at that point, the threat has to be neutralized. He only hit them when they tried to get up. When they stayed down, he stopped.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

From the video it seems that he gave an extra whack to two that was not needed for self defense. Having said that I give the benefit of the doubt to the person being attacked and defending themselves.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I wonder how it is people are expected to be so meditative in the midst of being attacked. This is a straight up fight or flight situation. He tried flight and they came around the counter and so he fought.

Exactly.

DITTO.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

Your own words. His arrest is proof that he crossed a line i.e. committed a crime.

Originally Posted by tonton

If you're involved in a physical altercation, whether it was self-defense or not, you can expect to be arrested. The police can then decide whether there is evidence to charge you with a crime. Then the courts properly assess your guilt or innocence. This is our system, and it's the best system in the world.

Why do all of you hate America so much?

My point is that no one here is saying he is guilty. The closest opinion to that was expressed by SDW.

But you guys seem to be implying that he shouldn't have been arrested at all. Which would absolutely be unamerican. We do not support vigilante justice in a civilized society.

Originally Posted by trumptman

People are merely saying he did the right thing.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I wonder how it is people are expected to be so meditative in the midst of being attacked. This is a straight up fight or flight situation. He tried flight and they came around the counter and so he fought.



Exactly.



DITTO.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

He tried "flight" right after she slapped him or when he ran for his weapon?

Originally Posted by tonton

Yes, it was a weapon. No one is making it sound like anything it wasn't. Whether Mrs. Green was killed with the candlestick or the revolver, she was still killed with a weapon.

And what you guys don't get is that you can't determine this man's guilt or innocence based on whether the punks deserved it or not. What they deserved was to be put in lockup for a couple of days, not to be bashed with a metal stick, beyond what was justifiable self-defense, which is what the courts must determine, not whether the punks deserved a beating.

Does anyone know if they had any permanent injury? Let's say they recieved permanent brain damage or lost sight in one eye. Do they deserve that? Do you care?

Originally Posted by trumptman

No I do not care if the people trying to harm someone were themselves harmed, even badly by the person they were attempting to badly harm. I feel 100% free to judge them based off the video I saw. If you're their defense attorney you can excuse me from the jury if you want but for now I'm entitled to my own view on the matter.

The claim for self-defense rests on provocation and this man has a full justification here. He had a clear fear for his life or at a minimum, fear of serious injury. The two women were completely out of control and attacked him because he had to inspect a $50 bill. There is no way to attempt to rationally measure a counter-attack because that would involve knowing their rationales and amount of force they intended to apply and there was nothing reasonable or even understandable about their actions. They were acting like drunk bullies and for nothing more than needing a bill verified they assaulted him and jumped over the counter with the intent of doing much more and instead were beat down. Fear and anger are part of the response to being victimized which is what this man had done to him. If it were a woman getting a a few extra licks in on the guy that attempted rape would you even question it?

Originally Posted by Apple ][

He was outnumbered two to one, and if you look closely at the video, you can see them attempting to get up a few times. That means that they were still a threat, and he was right to subdue them using whatever means he had available. They could have had weapons, such as a gun or knife. It is wise not to take any chances when criminals attack you.

When somebody is driving a car at 100 MPH, they can't just simply stop. It takes some time for the car to come to a complete stop. I think that the same concept applies to the McDonald's employee.

Originally Posted by tonton

Fortunately, our legal system is neither based on assumption, nor on retribution. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case for foreign policy.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

They were both lying on the floor. His co-worker had to stop him. And if they had weapons, they wouldn't have been able to get them out without getting whacked again. Please.

So you acknowledge that part of his actions were motivated by rage? I thought he only had "the right to subdue?"

Originally Posted by trumptman

I cited the legal arguments. Ignoring them and claiming retribution doesn't change those arguments.



Of course part of his actions were motivated by raqge. He's not some trained cop. He's not beholden to some professional standard of minimum force.

Originally Posted by tonton

Your legal arguments are sound, but there's no way you can pass judgment without seeing what happened behind the counter, or at a minimum hearing more testimony About what happened from those who did. You seem to be skipping that step. Like I said, thank God our legal system doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I have no doubt that on the jury, that video would be the primary and deciding piece of evidence.

Originally Posted by Apple ][

Perhaps, but I believe that it is better to be safe than sorry when dealing with those sorts of people.

Adrenaline played a part in it I would guess.

The rage of the two thug girls is what sparked the self defense actions of tMcHero.

As I have previously written, the last couple of blows were perhaps excessive, but everything else was warranted and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the innocent person defending themselves and not the brutal and vicious attackers.

Originally Posted by tonton

That's a pretty dumb assumption. There is almost certainly CCTV footage that shows more, as well as testimony of the witnesses. You have a very simplistic and naive way of judging things.

Originally Posted by Apple ][

I have never had the pleasure, or misfortune of ever having to do jury duty, but this is one case where I wouldn't mind being on the jury.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

Oh and I think the blonde lady needed at least one whack. What a banshie she is.

Originally Posted by tonton

There's a point after which self defense becomes assault. I suppose this man must have crossed that line to have been arrested.

Originally Posted by hmm

That is just so presumptuous. The guy looks like he snapped there, and he happened to be significantly stronger than the two women. You don't even know if their injuries were due to the last couple hits or simply because he's fairly strong. I think you may be underestimating this here.

Anyone know if the women were charged as well? Regardless of how badly they were injured that does still constitute assault on their part. The whole situation is just bad anyway.