McDonald's Beatdown Update

Charges have been dropped against the man in this video.

"Charges have been dropped against a McDonald’s employee who beat two customers with a metal rod.

Video of the October 13 assault shows Rachel Edwards and Denise Darbeau climbing over the counter to get at Rayon McIntosh, 31.

McIntosh claimed self-defense, even though video shows him hitting the women while they were on the floor at the Greenwich Village restaurant.

A grand jury voted not to indict him. It is still weighing trespassing charges against the two women, one of whom suffered a fractured skull."
http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/151849/panel-weighs-trespassing-charges-against-women-beaten-in-manhattan-mcdonald-s

Pleasantly surprised by the outcome and believe justice has been served. The female attackers overstepped the mark and one cannot fault an individual for going to any lengths to protect himself.

Should have chose to throwdown at a Burger King…then they could of had it their way in court…

That’s bizarre that they couldnt even get an INDICTMENT.

Jury nullification at its finest or a disinterested prosecutor. Strange either way.

[quote]fizzyduck wrote:
one cannot fault an individual for going to any lengths to protect himself.[/quote]

Um. Yes you can. Well that is if you follow the law of every state in the US.

As a statement, that’s simply wrong.

As an opinion, that’s fucking retarded.

Im not getting into any debates though so say whatever you want.

At your very core every Human wants to feel a degree of safety At Home and At Work. This will always be in the minds of the Masses. Lawyer, Judge, Jury.

That is why this verdict is of no surprise to me.

I’ll let the rest of you debate the legality of it.

am i the only one who wanted the fat white blond bitch screaming her head off to get the metal rod treatment too?

stupid cunt, she was not screaming for shit to STOP! when those two bitches were attacking the dude.

[quote]four60 wrote:
At your very core every Human wants to feel a degree of safety At Home and At Work. This will always be in the minds of the Masses. Lawyer, Judge, Jury.

That is why this verdict is of no surprise to me.

I’ll let the rest of you debate the legality of it.[/quote]

well said.

Soooooooooooooooo… is he getting his job back?

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Soooooooooooooooo… is he getting his job back?[/quote]

The Screaming lady got his Job.
If you buy your kid anything but a Happy Meal she jumps over the counter and Screams “someone help, call the police, WE MUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN”

[quote]four60 wrote:
At your very core every Human wants to feel a degree of safety At Home and At Work. This will always be in the minds of the Masses. Lawyer, Judge, Jury.

That is why this verdict is of no surprise to me.

I’ll let the rest of you debate the legality of it.[/quote]

Not a verdict.

Grand jury said there wasnt enough evidence to even go to trial. Bizarre.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
At your very core every Human wants to feel a degree of safety At Home and At Work. This will always be in the minds of the Masses. Lawyer, Judge, Jury.

That is why this verdict is of no surprise to me.

I’ll let the rest of you debate the legality of it.[/quote]

Not a verdict.

Grand jury said there wasnt enough evidence to even go to trial. Bizarre.
[/quote]

Why Bizarre?

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
At your very core every Human wants to feel a degree of safety At Home and At Work. This will always be in the minds of the Masses. Lawyer, Judge, Jury.

That is why this verdict is of no surprise to me.

I’ll let the rest of you debate the legality of it.[/quote]

Not a verdict.

Grand jury said there wasnt enough evidence to even go to trial. Bizarre.
[/quote]

Why Bizarre?
[/quote]

You don’t find it bizarre there’s a video of the whole incident and the reason for no trial was a lack of sufficient evidence?

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

Im not getting into any debates though so say whatever you want.
[/quote]

Protein is bad for you.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]fizzyduck wrote:
one cannot fault an individual for going to any lengths to protect himself.[/quote]

Um. Yes you can. Well that is if you follow the law of every state in the US.

As a statement, that’s simply wrong.

As an opinion, that’s fucking retarded.

Im not getting into any debates though so say whatever you want. [/quote]

I can understand what you are saying, but in this instance we will have to agree to disagree. This is not a case of a man who loses it in an arguement and then overeacts and attacks. This is a case of a man who was abused, assualted, threatened and then was encountered by two individuals attempting to attack him further.

This case has provoked a great deal of controversy, but most of it comes down to the fact that it involves two women. One has to wonder if you would be making those comments if women were not involved. No is my answer.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
At your very core every Human wants to feel a degree of safety At Home and At Work. This will always be in the minds of the Masses. Lawyer, Judge, Jury.

That is why this verdict is of no surprise to me.

I’ll let the rest of you debate the legality of it.[/quote]

Not a verdict.

Grand jury said there wasnt enough evidence to even go to trial. Bizarre.
[/quote]

Why Bizarre?
[/quote]

You don’t find it bizarre there’s a video of the whole incident and the reason for no trial was a lack of sufficient evidence?[/quote]

What did we see?

Yelling, they jump he ran got cornered picked up something hit. The other things are out of view.

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
At your very core every Human wants to feel a degree of safety At Home and At Work. This will always be in the minds of the Masses. Lawyer, Judge, Jury.

That is why this verdict is of no surprise to me.

I’ll let the rest of you debate the legality of it.[/quote]

Not a verdict.

Grand jury said there wasnt enough evidence to even go to trial. Bizarre.
[/quote]

Why Bizarre?
[/quote]

You don’t find it bizarre there’s a video of the whole incident and the reason for no trial was a lack of sufficient evidence?[/quote]

What did we see?

Yelling, they jump he ran got cornered picked up something hit. The other things are out of view.

[/quote]

Sure, and that’s why I could see him coming out on top in a trial.

But what we did see wasn’t enough to even warrant a trial?

Multiple lashes caught on tape.

Him hitting them while they’re on the ground with his coworkers trying to get him to stop with the “victims” out of view.

Good. Self defense and fully justified.

Any one who doesn’t agree with me is a retard and I’m not getting into any debates. (I like that one Bonez, hope you don’t mind if I steal it.)

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Soooooooooooooooo… is he getting his job back?[/quote]

Yup. And he also got promoted from register to door security. Go ahead, try to throw the tray away with the rest of the garbage.

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Soooooooooooooooo… is he getting his job back?[/quote]

Yup. And he also got promoted from register to door security. Go ahead, try to throw the tray away with the rest of the garbage.[/quote]

Hahahaha

On the one hand I’m glad that this happened… But on the other hand, I don’t even want to know how that precedent is going to be abused in the future…

Still, justice won out over the law for once. Interesting.