Caramel Frappe said:
.. No charges? Spite that the girl started it and went a bit 'crazy' behind the counter to stir up a mess, he should be charged since he pounded her face brutally over and over with a metal rod (which of course, in any other case that would be automatic jail time where I live.) Honestly if he gets off this easily, who knows what he'll do next. If someone talks smack toward him, he'll probably whip out another beating or repeat the habit.
I mean, he already killed a student at a high school.. and went way overboard on the job beating that lady senselessly. I could be wrong, but this may encourage his violent behavior. What were the people thinking letting him off without any charges or least some restriction? (As in, let off the job or suspended..)
Ether way, I hope the girl recovers but learns her lesson to not get rational because you never know how people will react. Just to throw out there, if someone acts up then does that give me the right to brutally inflict them to my liking? (Hope this never happens, but I am stating this because the rules are clear that you're not suppose to harm a human being to such a degree unless it's self defense.)
I imagine hope that he gets some kind of help to deal with his problems so he doesn't do something like this again, or any kind of violence again. Unfortunately, could and should build no bridges. All I know (from this article) is that no legal charges are being put against him. He's probably been fired/reassigned from McDonalds and probably has to attend some kind of course. But that is just guessing with nothing to support it.
Nouw said:
Wow really? I'm disappointed at the verdict. What he did wasn't justified after the first few hits, she was already on the damn ground and probably wasn't going to get back up again. Note how I say after the first few hits. No one should have gotten hurt via violence but the first few hits wouldn't have done much.[sub]Not sure, if someone miraculously knows please tell me.[/sub]
Yes she started it but she was mildly damaging public property and not hurting someone. She didn't jump over with any weapons and I doubt she could take on any of the people behind the counter. She could have just been asked to leave after the first few hits and forced to pay a fine. The damage to the restaurant wasn't permanent and not even serious. What she did was unacceptable but violence was not the answer. You could justify the first few hits but after that, it definitely wasn't.
Ah, this position. I saw it several times in the other two threads.
Here are some questions for you:
After which hit did it start becoming wrong? Hit number 4 or number 5?
Do you know how much damage he could do with that metal rod?
If you were in his position, would you know what those girls have on them when they chase you to the prep area? Maybe one has a knife? A gun? Maybe nothing?
I have trouble answering these questions, but your argument assumes several answers to them and I don't know how they can.
I am not saying your position is wrong--there is no right or wrong position on this topic really--I just want to get more detail about it so I can understand it better.
isometry said:
I'm glad the guy isn't facing criminal charges, what those women did was very serious and wrong, I have zero tolerance for what they did. Even if they had been shot I wouldn't feel sorry for them, the entire incident is their fault, they are the ones who chose violence.
I don't feel sorry for them after the first 2-3 hits, but when it is clear they are down for the count and he keeps hitting them, then I question his position. That you think they should have died from this incident is remarkably callous and stupid.
