Actually we don't know if they are layin there, crawling, trying to get up, basically we have no idea what they are doing at this point.
Poll
too far or justified
| too far | 52% | 52% - 25 | ||||
| justified | 47% | 47% - 23 | ||||
| Total: 48 | ||||||
still doesnt justify hitting again unless they had some sorta weapon
Meh. Hollis has it right. The women tried to pull some stupid shit, and paid the price for it, I've got no sympathy for them.
I have no sympathy for them.
I cannot judge the man's actions without knowing what the women were doing.
I cannot judge the man's actions without knowing what the women were doing.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
I voted that his jailing was justified
I demand a recount
I demand a recount
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
False.RTHKI wrote:
still doesnt justify hitting again unless they had some sorta weapon
SOOOOOO false.
This is EXACTLY right. If the kid had been trained, then training would have been taking over.HollisHurlbut wrote:
Let's consult our handy-dandy use of force model. The two women were certainly not compliant, found on the bottom in the blue section.
Passive resistance (the green blob) involves simple non-compliance in which the subject isn't doing anything to resist but still doesn't comply. This does not describe the women in the video.
Active resistance involves subjects who don't comply and are engaging in non-violent actions (like walking or pulling away) that are non-compliant. These actions are found in the yellow portion of the spectrum and are met with chemical irritant sprays and pressure point stimulation. These women were not being actively resistant.
These women were being assaultive, the region in the orange. Assaultive action is met with tazers or strikes with the hands and feet or baton (a long, thin piece of metal).
Given their assaultive behavior, I, as a reasonable officer, would continue the defensive tactics until they no longer were threatening assaultive behavior. He was fully justified in using the rod to defend himself from their assault.
As to what happened behind the counter, not one of us is competent to defend or criticize because we cannot see the women. If they were just laying there, he was out of line. If they were continuing to move toward him, he was still justified in his defensive tactics. The fact that someone has a fractured skull is not indicative of their compliance. He is also not a doctor and cannot diagnose a fractured skull.
If he were a cop, the facts of the video could exonerate him. Since he's not a cop, we shouldn't be holding him to the same standard as a cop. He's not trained where to strike, and he's not trained on the use of force model. I'd tell him to be carfeul when and where he strikes and let him go with an 'attaboy.
Dispute me, I dare you.
If he had been trained and then went off his training, he should be held accountable. (The dangers of taking martial arts).
McDonald's doesn't offer security or martial arts training. The kid went into fight or flight, and I am sure he redded out into pure rage on the adrenaline rush.
I don't think it is right to keep hitting someone on the ground... BUT this kid wasn't thinking "I'm going to teach these bitches a lesson and kill them both!!!!" He was thinking "AAAARRRRRRRRRRRR&%$#^$#^$#^$#^$#^#^$#^$#^#^$#^$#RRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"
My final verdict: Don't start none, won't be none.
I honestly think your rights to not get your ass beat down into a bloody pulp end as soon as you start violence with someone else. If more violent people got beat to death when they started fights, guess what? Less fights would get started. (Either by fear of consequences, or common sense, or culling of the herd...)
And let's not all overlook the important thing here: What kind of bat-shit crazy person jumps the counter at McDonald's and attacks another human being because she can't get her damn french fries? I would be afraid of that person too. If he had just flat out killed them both before they hit the ground, he would be in less trouble than beating them while they are down. That is ridiculous.
The 'kid' is actually an ex-con who was sent to jail for assault in the past.HITNRUNXX wrote:
This is EXACTLY right. If the kid had been trained, then training would have been taking over.HollisHurlbut wrote:
Let's consult our handy-dandy use of force model. The two women were certainly not compliant, found on the bottom in the blue section.
Passive resistance (the green blob) involves simple non-compliance in which the subject isn't doing anything to resist but still doesn't comply. This does not describe the women in the video.
Active resistance involves subjects who don't comply and are engaging in non-violent actions (like walking or pulling away) that are non-compliant. These actions are found in the yellow portion of the spectrum and are met with chemical irritant sprays and pressure point stimulation. These women were not being actively resistant.
These women were being assaultive, the region in the orange. Assaultive action is met with tazers or strikes with the hands and feet or baton (a long, thin piece of metal).
Given their assaultive behavior, I, as a reasonable officer, would continue the defensive tactics until they no longer were threatening assaultive behavior. He was fully justified in using the rod to defend himself from their assault.
As to what happened behind the counter, not one of us is competent to defend or criticize because we cannot see the women. If they were just laying there, he was out of line. If they were continuing to move toward him, he was still justified in his defensive tactics. The fact that someone has a fractured skull is not indicative of their compliance. He is also not a doctor and cannot diagnose a fractured skull.
If he were a cop, the facts of the video could exonerate him. Since he's not a cop, we shouldn't be holding him to the same standard as a cop. He's not trained where to strike, and he's not trained on the use of force model. I'd tell him to be carfeul when and where he strikes and let him go with an 'attaboy.
Dispute me, I dare you.
If he had been trained and then went off his training, he should be held accountable. (The dangers of taking martial arts).
McDonald's doesn't offer security or martial arts training. The kid went into fight or flight, and I am sure he redded out into pure rage on the adrenaline rush.
I don't think it is right to keep hitting someone on the ground... BUT this kid wasn't thinking "I'm going to teach these bitches a lesson and kill them both!!!!" He was thinking "AAAARRRRRRRRRRRR&%$#^$#^$#^$#^$#^#^$#^$#^#^$#^$#RRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"
My final verdict: Don't start none, won't be none.
I honestly think your rights to not get your ass beat down into a bloody pulp end as soon as you start violence with someone else. If more violent people got beat to death when they started fights, guess what? Less fights would get started. (Either by fear of consequences, or common sense, or culling of the herd...)
And let's not all overlook the important thing here: What kind of bat-shit crazy person jumps the counter at McDonald's and attacks another human being because she can't get her damn french fries? I would be afraid of that person too. If he had just flat out killed them both before they hit the ground, he would be in less trouble than beating them while they are down. That is ridiculous.
Last edited by Jay (2011-10-27 08:05:32)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And he gets a second chance at life (and a second chance to whip some ass) because no one beat his head into the ground with a metal bar when he assaulted them in the past. See? My method still works. Now those beeyotches should go to jail for assault and then they will be ex-cons, and then they can pay it forward when someone attacks them.
Convict mentor program.
Convict mentor program.
Ex-cons are not allowed to defend themselves now? This clockwork orange up in here?
Excessive force, all day every day.
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2011120 … ed-be-freeRayon McIntosh — the Greenwich Village McDonald's cook who was cleared Friday evening of felony assault charges for beating two unruly female customers — said he was overjoyed to be free after spending nearly seven weeks in jail and plans to sue the fast food eatery for not keeping him safe.
"I'm just glad to be home," McIntosh, 31, told DNAinfo after being released from Rikers Island Friday night. "I feel elated, I feel splendid."
In the first in-depth interview since his release, McIntosh — who garnered an outpouring of support after DNAinfo's "On the Inside" broke the news of the shocking videotaped Oct. 13 incident — said that he and other employees had told managers and franchise owners of the West 3rd Street McDonald's for months that they needed to hire more security.
Good for him.
If everyone in McDonald's would have had a gun this wouldn't have happened at all.
No less than 5
They can't be rugers either, they're shit.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6563|Graz, Austria
And horses and bayonets outside as a deterrent.
Generally speaking, beating people who are lying defenseless on the ground is bad.
BUT, we've no idea what they were trying to do while on the ground. Its still possible to injure someone who is standing over you, and we don't know what they were doing once they were behind the counter. They could have been trying to bite him, they could have been trying to injure his nuts, they could have had a weapon, we just don't know.
Jumping the counter and attacking a cashier because they refused to accept a counterfeit $50 bill isn't what a mentally stable person would do. If they're willing to do that over fake money, who knows what they might have done in a kitchen full of potential weapons, given half a chance.
BUT, we've no idea what they were trying to do while on the ground. Its still possible to injure someone who is standing over you, and we don't know what they were doing once they were behind the counter. They could have been trying to bite him, they could have been trying to injure his nuts, they could have had a weapon, we just don't know.
Jumping the counter and attacking a cashier because they refused to accept a counterfeit $50 bill isn't what a mentally stable person would do. If they're willing to do that over fake money, who knows what they might have done in a kitchen full of potential weapons, given half a chance.
He's suing mcds? murrica.
Maybe if they're Ruger bayonets.globefish23 wrote:
And horses and bayonets outside as a deterrent.
Are the women being investigated for counterfeiting offenses?
Good for the employee, glad he got off
