Transgendered Woman Beat Up In McDonald's; Employees Do Nothing

Recommended Videos

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
Kerra said:
CM156 said:
CM156 said:
Kortney said:
Azaraxzealot said:
Ehhhhh. Shoosh.

If you were to walk down the street tomorrow night and see a man being beaten to death and lying in the street - yet you keep on walking, you would be charged with serious offenses due to failure to act and negligence. Sorry. Same deal if this girl was seriously hurt. But she wasn't, so yeah, you wouldn't be charged in this particular incident - but your view of "I don't have to do anything" is completely wrong.

But yes, your faultless logic of "If it ain't in the constitution, I ain't have ta follow it!" is awesome. Keep trying to defend it, doesn't matter what you say, it's still illegal to not uphold your duty of care.
Again, how do you owe a random stranger a "duty of care"? I'm not saying its right, but I saw someone being beat up, I have to intervine, even if it puts my life in danger?
Argh! Why are you all coming out of the woodwork haha.

It's the law. Don't ask me why. I'm not God, I don't know why! It just is! It isn't a moral debate - it is just reality! You have a duty of care to everyone you pass when you walk down the street. If you don't do anything when something serious is happening you are charged as a criminal. Stop quoting me. It falls under negligence or carelessness. In this particular case, no, you wouldn't be charged for it (because no serious, permanent harm was done). But to suggest you have no responsibility with events like these is ridiculous and more importantly it is down right WRONG. INCORRECT. NOT TRUE. THE OPPOSITE OF REALITY. Thank you!.

I'm way too tired for this! :p
Perhaps we are dealing with different laws. From my understanding of law, in the Untied States, I don't owe a random stranger a duty of care. Case in point: my father is a doctor. If he passes someone choking on the ground, he is not obligated to do anything. He walks away, says nothing, then nothing can happen to him. If he becomes involved, he becomes liable. I would blame our "sue happy" culture in the USA for the reasons people are hesitant to become involved.
A good point, i can understand why people would be hesitant to help when our legal system allows something like a car crash victim to sue their rescuer because they later became paralysed.

Its a very very flawed system that puts financial gain above what is right
Correct, and "good samaritan" laws only protect professionals. I am ashamed of my intended job some times (lawyer) for what we have done.
 

Woem

New member
May 28, 2009
2,878
0
0
DaphneRose said:
I'm not so sure this is a hate crime, as one of the article states, but it is definitely a depressing and violent act that should have been stopped, not recorded.

I'm glad someone intervened. I think we're slowly becoming a society of spectators, who allow our morals to take the backseat, when it doesn't directly involve us. Acts of bravery like Vicki Thomas, I believe, should be emulated and stories like this should be shared.
It could be that it's not a hate crime, but this is rage-worthy:

McDonald?s employee to good Samaritan: ?You do know that?s not a woman?
 

Kerra

New member
Apr 30, 2011
39
0
0
CM156 said:
Kerra said:
CM156 said:
CM156 said:
Kortney said:
Azaraxzealot said:
Ehhhhh. Shoosh.

If you were to walk down the street tomorrow night and see a man being beaten to death and lying in the street - yet you keep on walking, you would be charged with serious offenses due to failure to act and negligence. Sorry. Same deal if this girl was seriously hurt. But she wasn't, so yeah, you wouldn't be charged in this particular incident - but your view of "I don't have to do anything" is completely wrong.

But yes, your faultless logic of "If it ain't in the constitution, I ain't have ta follow it!" is awesome. Keep trying to defend it, doesn't matter what you say, it's still illegal to not uphold your duty of care.
Again, how do you owe a random stranger a "duty of care"? I'm not saying its right, but I saw someone being beat up, I have to intervine, even if it puts my life in danger?
Argh! Why are you all coming out of the woodwork haha.

It's the law. Don't ask me why. I'm not God, I don't know why! It just is! It isn't a moral debate - it is just reality! You have a duty of care to everyone you pass when you walk down the street. If you don't do anything when something serious is happening you are charged as a criminal. Stop quoting me. It falls under negligence or carelessness. In this particular case, no, you wouldn't be charged for it (because no serious, permanent harm was done). But to suggest you have no responsibility with events like these is ridiculous and more importantly it is down right WRONG. INCORRECT. NOT TRUE. THE OPPOSITE OF REALITY. Thank you!.

I'm way too tired for this! :p
Perhaps we are dealing with different laws. From my understanding of law, in the Untied States, I don't owe a random stranger a duty of care. Case in point: my father is a doctor. If he passes someone choking on the ground, he is not obligated to do anything. He walks away, says nothing, then nothing can happen to him. If he becomes involved, he becomes liable. I would blame our "sue happy" culture in the USA for the reasons people are hesitant to become involved.
A good point, i can understand why people would be hesitant to help when our legal system allows something like a car crash victim to sue their rescuer because they later became paralysed.

Its a very very flawed system that puts financial gain above what is right
Correct, and "good samaritan" laws only protect professionals. I am ashamed of my intended job some times (lawyer) for what we have done.
Indeed, there are some truly disgusting 'human beings' with no sense of morals or ethics that have called themselves lawyers and done some absolutely horrible things that i couldn't imagine how any human being could live with themselves after doing.

The best thing you can do is be better than them, make sure that criminals are punished and dont twist and distort the legal system to let horrible people walk away scott free just to make a quick dollar
 

MrSnugglesworth

Into the Wild Green Snuggle
Jan 15, 2009
3,232
0
0
ThongBonerstorm said:
what were the employee's to do? you know that when you get hired they tell you if you get involved in any confrontation, no matter the reason, you're fired on the spot. they can't take the risk of someone getting hurt. so if the kids (probably) valued their jobs there was nothing they could do.
I would give up my job in a heartbeat to save someone from that. You'd have to be dead on the inside to just sit and watch.

It makes me sick to think anyone like you even exists. It's people like you who let things like this continue to happen, just standing by and watching.
 

Drake Barrow

New member
Jan 10, 2010
107
0
0
Haven't read all 7+ pages here, but has anyone commented on the fact that, depending on who responds to a call, law enforcement might actually arrest or press charges against a Good Samaritan?

Make no mistake, I'm behind intervening. I don't want to be the one to turn away.
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
Kerra said:
CM156 said:
Kerra said:
CM156 said:
CM156 said:
Kortney said:
Azaraxzealot said:
Ehhhhh. Shoosh.

If you were to walk down the street tomorrow night and see a man being beaten to death and lying in the street - yet you keep on walking, you would be charged with serious offenses due to failure to act and negligence. Sorry. Same deal if this girl was seriously hurt. But she wasn't, so yeah, you wouldn't be charged in this particular incident - but your view of "I don't have to do anything" is completely wrong.

But yes, your faultless logic of "If it ain't in the constitution, I ain't have ta follow it!" is awesome. Keep trying to defend it, doesn't matter what you say, it's still illegal to not uphold your duty of care.
Again, how do you owe a random stranger a "duty of care"? I'm not saying its right, but I saw someone being beat up, I have to intervine, even if it puts my life in danger?
Argh! Why are you all coming out of the woodwork haha.

It's the law. Don't ask me why. I'm not God, I don't know why! It just is! It isn't a moral debate - it is just reality! You have a duty of care to everyone you pass when you walk down the street. If you don't do anything when something serious is happening you are charged as a criminal. Stop quoting me. It falls under negligence or carelessness. In this particular case, no, you wouldn't be charged for it (because no serious, permanent harm was done). But to suggest you have no responsibility with events like these is ridiculous and more importantly it is down right WRONG. INCORRECT. NOT TRUE. THE OPPOSITE OF REALITY. Thank you!.

I'm way too tired for this! :p
Perhaps we are dealing with different laws. From my understanding of law, in the Untied States, I don't owe a random stranger a duty of care. Case in point: my father is a doctor. If he passes someone choking on the ground, he is not obligated to do anything. He walks away, says nothing, then nothing can happen to him. If he becomes involved, he becomes liable. I would blame our "sue happy" culture in the USA for the reasons people are hesitant to become involved.
A good point, i can understand why people would be hesitant to help when our legal system allows something like a car crash victim to sue their rescuer because they later became paralysed.

Its a very very flawed system that puts financial gain above what is right
Correct, and "good samaritan" laws only protect professionals. I am ashamed of my intended job some times (lawyer) for what we have done.
Indeed, there are some truly disgusting 'human beings' with no sense of morals or ethics that have called themselves lawyers and done some absolutely horrible things that i couldn't imagine how any human being could live with themselves after doing.

The best thing you can do is be better than them, make sure that criminals are punished and dont twist and distort the legal system to let horrible people walk away scott free just to make a quick dollar
I've seen enough of the evils of the world to want justice delt to those who so richly deserve it. Besides, twisting the law is Lawful Evil, and I'm Lawful Good.

OT: I think there is something we can ALL agree on. The girls who attacked this woman should be in deep trouble.
 

TornadoFive

New member
Mar 9, 2011
340
0
0
Longsight said:
TornadoFive said:
I know it's been said here already, but the employees did what they should have done. Employees CANNOT get involved in stuff like this. I know it sounds really heartless and cold, but there's a serious risk of you going to court if you get involved. It's the managers responsibility intervene in these situations. If the guy filming was trying to get evidence so they could be caught later, then thats a totally different story than just wanting something to show off to his mates.

But the guy who made the comment about her not being a woman? That's a whole 'nother story.
Except that they CAN get involved if they want to. Company policy does not define who you are; and at the end of the day, you're going to look back at that situation and feel really quite shitty for not doing anything to help. Worried you'll get fired for it? If you intervene you'll be a local (possibly national) hero - if you don't you'll still be another drone working at McDonalds. I know which I'd prefer to be. The same people who freeze and worry about company policy when it happens to them are just as ready to express disgust at people for doing the same elsewhere, and glorify those who step up and take a couple of knocks for someone else's sake.

Fear of litigation doesn't stop you being human, and you only get one shot at life to prove what you're worth.
Oh, no doubt. If one of them HAD stepped in and everything had gone really well, they'd be a hero. But if something had gone wrong, maybe if someone else got hurt in the fray, the employee would be held responsible and probably fired. And in these times, no-one should blame the employees for wanting to make sure they kept a job, even if it IS one of the worst jobs in the world.

The situation where the employees had to choose should never have arisen. The manager should have taken charge of the whole thing. He/She is the one that is responsible for these incidents.
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
CM156 said:
Kortney said:
It's the law. Don't ask me why. I'm not God, I don't know why! It just is! It isn't a moral debate - it is just reality! You have a duty of care to everyone you pass when you walk down the street. If you don't do anything when something serious is happening you are charged as a criminal. Stop quoting me. It falls under negligence or carelessness. In this particular case, no, you wouldn't be charged for it (because no serious, permanent harm was done). But to suggest you have no responsibility with events like these is ridiculous and more importantly it is down right WRONG. INCORRECT. NOT TRUE. THE OPPOSITE OF REALITY. Thank you!.
Perhaps we are dealing with different laws. From my understanding of law, in the Untied States, I don't owe a random stranger a duty of care. Case in point: my father is a doctor. If he passes someone choking on the ground, he is not obligated to do anything. He walks away, says nothing, then nothing can happen to him. If he becomes involved, he becomes liable. I would blame our "sue happy" culture in the USA for the reasons people are hesitant to become involved.
Kortney is correct. If you are walking down the street, and you see someone getting beaten to death, you are Legally obligated to help in the United States. The same thing applies to someone getting shot, stabbed, robbed, or any other crime-in-progress. People don't always obey this law, but that's because it's very easy to just walk away and not be reported.

Help = calling the police, by the way, so IF the McDonald's employees called the police, then technically they fulfilled their duty. Technically.

The manager making offensive comments is a whole other issue, and if true that manager should be fired.

Edit: And actually, yes, your father the Doctor IS legally obligated to help. However, doing so opens him up to Civil litigation. Which is bullshit, but people sue for insanely stupid reasons these days.

If a doctor just walks away, he has technically committed a crime. However, it would be pretty much impossible to prove it unless you caught him doing so on camera.
 

WorldCritic

New member
Apr 13, 2009
3,021
0
0
Damn, I'm glad that nothing like that has ever happened where I work, but if it did I probably wouldn't just stand there. Also that guy with the camera was really annoying. Glad he was fired.
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
CM156 said:
Kortney said:
It's the law. Don't ask me why. I'm not God, I don't know why! It just is! It isn't a moral debate - it is just reality! You have a duty of care to everyone you pass when you walk down the street. If you don't do anything when something serious is happening you are charged as a criminal. Stop quoting me. It falls under negligence or carelessness. In this particular case, no, you wouldn't be charged for it (because no serious, permanent harm was done). But to suggest you have no responsibility with events like these is ridiculous and more importantly it is down right WRONG. INCORRECT. NOT TRUE. THE OPPOSITE OF REALITY. Thank you!.
Perhaps we are dealing with different laws. From my understanding of law, in the Untied States, I don't owe a random stranger a duty of care. Case in point: my father is a doctor. If he passes someone choking on the ground, he is not obligated to do anything. He walks away, says nothing, then nothing can happen to him. If he becomes involved, he becomes liable. I would blame our "sue happy" culture in the USA for the reasons people are hesitant to become involved.
Kortney is correct. If you are walking down the street, and you see someone getting beaten to death, you are Legally obligated to help in the United States. The same thing applies to someone getting shot, stabbed, robbed, or any other crime-in-progress. People don't always obey this law, but that's because it's very easy to just walk away and not be reported.

Help = calling the police, by the way, so IF the McDonald's employees called the police, then technically they fulfilled their duty. Technically.

The manager making offensive comments is a whole other issue, and if true that manager should be fired.
Ah, I see. Well, I was wrong then. Silly me.

I misunderstood. I though that by "help" you ment become physicaly involved. Thanks for correcting me then.
 

Kerra

New member
Apr 30, 2011
39
0
0
CM156 said:
Kerra said:
CM156 said:
Kerra said:
CM156 said:
CM156 said:
Kortney said:
Azaraxzealot said:
Ehhhhh. Shoosh.

If you were to walk down the street tomorrow night and see a man being beaten to death and lying in the street - yet you keep on walking, you would be charged with serious offenses due to failure to act and negligence. Sorry. Same deal if this girl was seriously hurt. But she wasn't, so yeah, you wouldn't be charged in this particular incident - but your view of "I don't have to do anything" is completely wrong.

But yes, your faultless logic of "If it ain't in the constitution, I ain't have ta follow it!" is awesome. Keep trying to defend it, doesn't matter what you say, it's still illegal to not uphold your duty of care.
Again, how do you owe a random stranger a "duty of care"? I'm not saying its right, but I saw someone being beat up, I have to intervine, even if it puts my life in danger?
Argh! Why are you all coming out of the woodwork haha.

It's the law. Don't ask me why. I'm not God, I don't know why! It just is! It isn't a moral debate - it is just reality! You have a duty of care to everyone you pass when you walk down the street. If you don't do anything when something serious is happening you are charged as a criminal. Stop quoting me. It falls under negligence or carelessness. In this particular case, no, you wouldn't be charged for it (because no serious, permanent harm was done). But to suggest you have no responsibility with events like these is ridiculous and more importantly it is down right WRONG. INCORRECT. NOT TRUE. THE OPPOSITE OF REALITY. Thank you!.

I'm way too tired for this! :p
Perhaps we are dealing with different laws. From my understanding of law, in the Untied States, I don't owe a random stranger a duty of care. Case in point: my father is a doctor. If he passes someone choking on the ground, he is not obligated to do anything. He walks away, says nothing, then nothing can happen to him. If he becomes involved, he becomes liable. I would blame our "sue happy" culture in the USA for the reasons people are hesitant to become involved.
A good point, i can understand why people would be hesitant to help when our legal system allows something like a car crash victim to sue their rescuer because they later became paralysed.

Its a very very flawed system that puts financial gain above what is right
Correct, and "good samaritan" laws only protect professionals. I am ashamed of my intended job some times (lawyer) for what we have done.
Indeed, there are some truly disgusting 'human beings' with no sense of morals or ethics that have called themselves lawyers and done some absolutely horrible things that i couldn't imagine how any human being could live with themselves after doing.

The best thing you can do is be better than them, make sure that criminals are punished and dont twist and distort the legal system to let horrible people walk away scott free just to make a quick dollar
I've seen enough of the evils of the world to want justice delt to those who so richly deserve it.

OT: I think there is something we can ALL agree on. The girls who attacked this woman should be in deep trouble.
Very true, no matter what the justification or what reaction the staff and other customers had or what the woman may or may not have done to provoke them, they still committed a violent crime and should be punished to the full extent of the law
 

Xigageshi

New member
Jul 14, 2007
14
0
0
The awfulness of this thing has already been expressed and stated in many better ways than I could so I won't add more than just hoping that the attackers get the snot beat out of them in very long prison sentences.

I did want to note though, that a lot of the facts in that story about kitty genovese have been pretty thoroughly debunked, which is even briefly mentioned in the wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese
-the line followed by citation five

plenty of the neighbors witnessed the first attack, in fact there were apparently more than a few calls to the police, they just didn't respond very quickly, possibly because she survived the initial attack, walked away in fact. the guy returned and killed her in an entry-way around the corner, which the neighbors who's false-inaction was called into question could not possibly have seen anyway.

Just wanted to say this because I think it's important to know the actual facts of a thing.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Sir John the Net Knight said:
Therumancer said:
If you opt to express an extreme lifestyle, that's your right, but you should be ready to accept the consequences of that choice. If a transgender person doesn't want to risk that, then they can suffer in silence just like anyone else with an extreme position who doesn't want to deal with the repercussions. It's all about choices.

While unfair to some, understand we're dealing with very small groups of people overall, who wind up being diametrically opposed to the majority and their comfort zone or what they believe in. These people have the right to dress how they want, and speak their minds, but shouldn't be entitled to any special consideration when they piss people off by doing so.
Suffering in silence. I would suggest you not make such demands of people unless you know what it's like to suffer in silence. Do you know how many people out there suffer in silence? No, of course not. Because they're afraid to be who they are or even suggest what they feel inside for fear of persecution. But I can say this. Many people who suffer in silence, often are left with only one exit to their pain.

Suicide.

And please don't act like every person in a minority group actively attempts to piss off everyone who isn't a minority. Some people would very much like to be accepted and continue their lives as who they want to be without such rejection. You know how the LGBT community has cut itself off from any kind of religion? Do you think everyone who falls in that spectrum wants to cut themselves off from their religion?

Think about it.

I never said every person in a minority group tries to piss people off. I just said that they need to be ready to accept the consequences of their actions, and not expect them to be excused because they are part of a minority group.

In a case like the one we're discussing, this is only viewed as an incident of note because of the "victim" being a transgender. If it had been an actual girl, this would just be another "cat fight" over a guy. If someone had said "ignore, that girl is a skank whose getting what she deserves" instead of commenting on the person being a transvestite just as offensively, again it wouldn't be noteworthy.

One thing "extreme" minority groups have to understand is that by being minority groups their behavior IS abnormal to society, and makes people uncomfortable. Thus it takes less for them to antagonize other people. As such, they need to be careful. People will TOLERATE them, nobody is going to toss someone in jail for cross dressing, but that doesn't mean that they are going to embrace the behavior when someone brings it up into their face. You might not have a problem with the very existance of a transvestite, but when one comes up and makes a pass at you, and does not go away when your not interested, that's no longer a matter of tolerance since they are bringing it to you.

Your also looking at a situation where teling minority groups in many cases to "suffer in silence" is a lot more fair by the numbers, then telling the majority of people who disapprove of the behavior that they have to suffer in silence, as it affects a lot more people. Lesser of two evils so to speak.

Don't misunderstand this though, I'm not saying that people should be prevented from crossdressing, and it's not against the law. They should just be aware of how it affects people and take responsibility for their choices.

What's more for all protests to the contrary, people who are transgenders and such have existed for a very long time despite their tiny numbers. They have survived LONG before political correctness, and even exist in societies that aren't even remotely as tolerant as the US. The big differance is that in the US we have this "political correctness" thing and let people get a lot of attention by making the right kind of noise. What's more, if your loud enough it lets you get away with things being a minority that nobody else would be able to.

In short, you have a transgender who was obnoxious, got into a fight, and someone tried to break it up despite most people on the scene apparently thinking it was deserved. This wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for the screaming about political correctness. Being a transgender in no way gives the person a pass in annoying people. You make moves on someone's boyfriend or girlfriend, and you risk getting into a fight.
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
CM156 said:
Ah, I see. Well, I was wrong then. Silly me.

I misunderstood. I though that by "help" you ment become physicaly involved. Thanks for correcting me then.
It would be a little unreasonable for the law to require an unarmed individual to attempt to go up against, say, armed gunmen. Pulling out a cell phone and calling the police (while hiding) is all the help generally required.

In the above example, the Doctor could choose to help by calling the paramedics if he was worried about being sued.
 

Brawndo

New member
Jun 29, 2010
2,165
0
0
Interesting how that article talks about the old white lady who intervened and calls her a Good Samaritan, but says absolutely nothing about the black employee in blue who pulled off the attackers multiple times.
 

ramboondiea

New member
Oct 11, 2010
1,055
0
0
Kortney said:
Doctor Glocktor said:
Kortney said:
Doctor Glocktor said:
Kortney said:
It's kind of upsetting to me looking at all the people on this site who are defending the staff for not doing anything. But, I guess that's the world we live in now. These days, being an employee of McDonalds is as much as a reason as you need to let someone be degraded and assaulted in public.
The nerve of those people, wanting to keep their only means of making money.
Yes, because calling the police and/or trying to stop the fight would have automatically resulted in them being fired?

You really believe this? You think this is company policy? Really?

I can't believe the amount of people who have fallen for that awful excuse.
Calling the police is required, and was done.

Stepping in the physically stop the fight is guaranteed termination on the spot.

Some people need money more then gratitude. This is the real world, not a fantasy land where everyone can be a vigilante. Not only if you physically step in to stop the fight, you can sued by the attacker for inciting.
I never said anything about physically stepping in. You are jumping way to the other extreme.

CM156 said:
Kortney said:
Azaraxzealot said:
Ehhhhh. Shoosh.

If you were to walk down the street tomorrow night and see a man being beaten to death and lying in the street - yet you keep on walking, you would be charged with serious offenses due to failure to act and negligence. Sorry. Same deal if this girl was seriously hurt. But she wasn't, so yeah, you wouldn't be charged in this particular incident - but your view of "I don't have to do anything" is completely wrong.

But yes, your faultless logic of "If it ain't in the constitution, I ain't have ta follow it!" is awesome. Keep trying to defend it, doesn't matter what you say, it's still illegal to not uphold your duty of care.
Again, how do you owe a random stranger a "duty of care"? I'm not saying its right, but I saw someone being beat up, I have to intervine, even if it puts my life in danger?
Argh! Why are you all coming out of the woodwork haha.

It's the law. Don't ask me why. I'm not God, I don't know why! It just is! It isn't a moral debate - it is just reality! You have a duty of care to everyone you pass when you walk down the street. If you don't do anything when something serious is happening you are charged as a criminal. Stop quoting me. It falls under negligence or carelessness. In this particular case, no, you wouldn't be charged for it (because no serious, permanent harm was done). But to suggest you have no responsibility with events like these is ridiculous and more importantly it is down right WRONG. INCORRECT. NOT TRUE. THE OPPOSITE OF REALITY. Thank you!.

I'm way too tired for this! :p
actually the law concerning a duty to act differs greatly round the world. an example is Britain and france. in Britain you do not owe a duty to any random stranger in the street, you dont eve owe a duty to someone you see being assaulted as a a duty will not be imposed where acting would endanger the the one intervening. that is unless a duty is imposed through the likes of a special relationship or you yourself caused the dangerous situation. now in france you have a duty to care imposed to help someone even a stranger, solong as helping poses no serious danger unless you had the duty imposed through your career.
now as i am no expect on American law i cant say for certain, but as i understand it, America is far closer to the former then the latter