McDonald's incident (video)(fight)

Originally Posted by JonJon

The law allows you to use deadly force to stop a threat, not kill someone. Sometimes, a side effect in the use of deadly force causes death, but not always.

Never shoot to kill unless you are hunting. You shoot to stop a threat. Big difference

I hear you, hopefully I'm never put into a situation like that.

Originally Posted by kuksul08

Something I heard from a police detective... He said you have every right to kill someone if they come into your home and you "fear for your life", and that you should not just wound them because they may come back and sue you afterward. I've heard about stories like this. I would think that if I'm going as far as to SHOOT someone, it had better count.

When I was about 12 years old, I remember a cop friend of the family telling my father & I this statement almost exactly word for word.

Woman beat with pipe by McDonald's cashier faces permanent brain damage, mother claims
A young woman bludgeoned by an ex-con McDonald's cashier during an argument could have permanent brain damage, her angry mother said Monday.

Denise Darbeau, 24, has been hospitalized since Thursday's violent clash in Greenwich Village, and her prognosis is unclear.

"She has memory loss. She's been heavily sedated. The doctors say it's too early to tell," said Darbeau's mother, who declined to give her name.

Mickey D's employee Rayon McIntosh, 31, used a metal bat to beat Darbeau and pal Rachel Edwards after they jumped behind the counter during a dispute over a $50 bill.

McIntosh is on parole after serving 10 years for manslaughter for shooting and killing a 17-year-old classmate in 2000.

Darbeau's mother said her daughter was unarmed and didn't deserve the beating, some of which occurred while she was helpless on the floor.

"Our concern is the background checks they do at McDonald's," the mother said of McIntosh's employment.

"I believe in second chances. But maybe they should not put people with violent backgrounds dealing with customers."

McDonald's could not be reached for immediate comment on its policies.

McIntosh is being held on an assault charge. Darbeau and Edwards were charged with menacing, criminal trespass and disorderly conduct.

"My daughter is just your average 24-year-old," her mother said. "She's fun-loving and full of life. We just want our daughter back the way she was.

"We don't know if she will recover. We are just praying for her."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_c...#ixzz1b6G6wy8h

Originally Posted by stapler12345

Woman beat with pipe by McDonald's cashier faces permanent brain damage, mother claims
A young woman bludgeoned by an ex-con McDonald's cashier during an argument could have permanent brain damage, her angry mother said Monday.

Denise Darbeau, 24, has been hospitalized since Thursday's violent clash in Greenwich Village, and her prognosis is unclear.

"She has memory loss. She's been heavily sedated. The doctors say it's too early to tell," said Darbeau's mother, who declined to give her name.

Mickey D's employee Rayon McIntosh, 31, used a metal bat to beat Darbeau and pal Rachel Edwards after they jumped behind the counter during a dispute over a $50 bill.

McIntosh is on parole after serving 10 years for manslaughter for shooting and killing a 17-year-old classmate in 2000.

Darbeau's mother said her daughter was unarmed and didn't deserve the beating, some of which occurred while she was helpless on the floor.

"Our concern is the background checks they do at McDonald's," the mother said of McIntosh's employment.

"I believe in second chances. But maybe they should not put people with violent backgrounds dealing with customers."

McDonald's could not be reached for immediate comment on its policies.

McIntosh is being held on an assault charge. Darbeau and Edwards were charged with menacing, criminal trespass and disorderly conduct.

"My daughter is just your average 24-year-old," her mother said. "She's fun-loving and full of life. We just want our daughter back the way she was.

"We don't know if she will recover. We are just praying for her."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_c...#ixzz1b6G6wy8h

Damn. They will try to suck money from mcdonalds for sure.

Originally Posted by stapler12345

"My daughter is just your average 24-year-old," her mother said. "She's fun-loving and full of life. We just want our daughter back the way she was.

No... your daughter is a ruthless, immature thug that got beat because she attacked someone. Perhaps if you raised her right and didn't pretend her actions/lifestyle was acceptable, she would've been raised better.
But that is really impossible to ask of you, since you are simply continuing the family circle as will she with her kids.

Originally Posted by JonJon

No... your daughter is a ruthless, immature thug that got beat because she attacked someone. Perhaps if you raised her right and didn't pretend her actions/lifestyle was acceptable, she would've been raised better.
But that is really impossible to ask of you, since you are simply continuing the family circle as will she with her kids.

Originally Posted by JRos

Watch the last few seconds for lol.

Originally Posted by JRos

Lol look at this kids family. I wouldn't go so far as to say he deserved it, but he had it coming sooner or later. I feel sorry for people being raised in these kinds of families. Watch the last few seconds for lol.

He was a good boy... he was just on his way home from piano lessons and stopped for a drink and snack. He wasn't "aint no trying to not rob nobody".
He was simply showing the cashier how to properly react to a real robbery by flashing his gun in his face. Since he got shot, he never did make it to his physics class that afternoon, which he was taking accelerated courses on to get into college 3 years early.

He was a good boy, a REALLY good boy so now we wants to get PAID!

Originally Posted by stapler12345

"My daughter is just your average 24-year-old," her mother said. "She's fun-loving and full of life. We just want our daughter back the way she was.

She forgot to mention that her daughter is ghetto, rude, disrespectful, violent, un-ladylike, trouble maker, a b!tch,...etc...etc.

Smh, if she only knew. These parents need to realize that their kids are not angels.

Originally Posted by kuksul08

Something I heard from a police detective... He said you have every right to kill someone if they come into your home and you "fear for your life", and that you should not just wound them because they may come back and sue you afterward. I've heard about stories like this. I would think that if I'm going as far as to SHOOT someone, it had better count.

Fvck that... I'd shoot to kill just to avoid a lawsuit.

Mother fvcker comes into my house to rob me and possibly harm/kill one of my family members... gets shot in the knee and becomes permanently disabled... sues me and then lives rich? Fvck that sh1t.

"Aim for the head when you see him, go get him *****"



My word over his... a lot easier when his words are six feet deep.

Originally Posted by stapler12345

Woman beat with pipe by McDonald's cashier faces permanent brain damage, mother claims
A young woman bludgeoned by an ex-con McDonald's cashier during an argument could have permanent brain damage, her angry mother said Monday.

Denise Darbeau, 24, has been hospitalized since Thursday's violent clash in Greenwich Village, and her prognosis is unclear.

"She has memory loss. She's been heavily sedated. The doctors say it's too early to tell," said Darbeau's mother, who declined to give her name.

Mickey D's employee Rayon McIntosh, 31, used a metal bat to beat Darbeau and pal Rachel Edwards after they jumped behind the counter during a dispute over a $50 bill.

McIntosh is on parole after serving 10 years for manslaughter for shooting and killing a 17-year-old classmate in 2000.

Darbeau's mother said her daughter was unarmed and didn't deserve the beating, some of which occurred while she was helpless on the floor.

"Our concern is the background checks they do at McDonald's," the mother said of McIntosh's employment.

"I believe in second chances. But maybe they should not put people with violent backgrounds dealing with customers."

McDonald's could not be reached for immediate comment on its policies.

McIntosh is being held on an assault charge. Darbeau and Edwards were charged with menacing, criminal trespass and disorderly conduct.

"My daughter is just your average 24-year-old," her mother said. "She's fun-loving and full of life. We just want our daughter back the way she was.

"We don't know if she will recover. We are just praying for her."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_c...#ixzz1b6G6wy8h

It's like some of these parents don't want to take responsibility for their children being thugged out hooligans... TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR KIDS, FVCK! Your daughter wasn't fun loving when she was slapping the cashier around and asked him to step up. Well, he stepped up as your daughter asked, and she got her ass handed to her. As sad as it sounds, Im happy she's in the state she's in, one less indigent in the community.

I have a dream... that black people... and white people... can cause incidents like this at McDonald's without others assuming they are instantly colored.

Originally Posted by DME46

Fvck that... I'd shoot to kill just to avoid a lawsuit.

I'd say "You need a better Castle Doctrine", but you're from NJ... you have a TON more work to do before you ever get close to that

PA:

§ 8340.2. Civil immunity for use of force.
28
(a) General rule.--An actor who uses force:
29
(1) in self-protection as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 505
30
(relating to use of force in self-protection);

1
(2) in the protection of other persons as provided in 18
2
Pa.C.S. § 506 (relating to use of force for the protection of
3
other persons);
4
(3) for the protection of property as provided in 18
5
Pa.C.S. § 507 (relating to use of force for the protection of
6
property); is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil
15
liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which
16
were caused by the acts or omissions of the actor as a result of
17
the use of force.
18
(b) Attorney fees and costs.--If the actor who satisfies the
19
requirements of subsection (a) prevails in a civil action
20
initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the actor,
21
the court shall award reasonable expenses to the actor.
22
Reasonable expenses shall include, but not be limited to,
23
attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and compensation
24
for loss of income.

Originally Posted by JonJon

I'd say "You need a better Castle Doctrine", but you're from NJ... you have a TON more work to do before you ever get close to that

That's why I'm shooting to kill. His word over mine. His word is sh1t if he's dead.

Just gotta make sure the bullets not in his back, and cops find his body inside my house.

Originally Posted by DME46

Fvck that... I'd shoot to kill just to avoid a lawsuit.

Mother fvcker comes into my house to rob me and possibly harm/kill one of my family members... gets shot in the knee and becomes permanently disabled... sues me and then lives rich? Fvck that sh1t.

I see you are very gangster. It just so happens I'm rather gangster myself.

Dead men don't sue, but their families sure as hell can. And dont think they won't have all the dead guy's kids sitting in the front row, crying their eyes out for the jury's benefit.

I'm not saying that a hard-core, pipe-hitting OG like you shouldn't feel completely at liberty to pop a cap in a fellow, but doing it for financial reasons may not make the most sense.

Originally Posted by JonJon

§ 8340.2. Civil immunity for use of force.
28
(a) General rule.--An actor who uses force:
29
(1) in self-protection as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 505
30
(relating to use of force in self-protection);

1
(2) in the protection of other persons as provided in 18
2
Pa.C.S. § 506 (relating to use of force for the protection of
3
other persons);
4
(3) for the protection of property as provided in 18
5
Pa.C.S. § 507 (relating to use of force for the protection of
6
property); is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil15
liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which
16
were caused by the acts or omissions of the actor as a result of
17
the use of force.
18
(b) Attorney fees and costs.--If the actor who satisfies the
19
requirements of subsection (a) prevails in a civil action
20
initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the actor,
21
the court shall award reasonable expenses to the actor.
22
Reasonable expenses shall include, but not be limited to,
23
attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and compensation
24
for loss of income.

So you're immune, but only if you win.

I'm glad this raises the stakes for the perpetrator if he loses the lawsuit, but it's my impression that in most of these cases, it's not really the individual's assets they're after in the lawsuit. They usually sue the homeowners insurance or the company that sold the gun or whatever, cuz they're the ones with the deep pockets.

And those companies face a business decision to either settle out of court for $X00,000, or spend $Y00,000 to go to trial and possibly win or maybe lose and have to pay $Z,000,000 in addition to the $Y00,000.

I don't want to take away anyone's ability to hold people and companies accountable for their actions and redress grievances, but I wish there was a way to review and dismiss the ridiculous ones without having it cost the defendants anything. Maybe that would discourage some of these frivolous lawsuits that cost us all money.

shall be immune from civil liability

Innocence is assumed. The only way a person would not "satisfies the requirements of subsection (a)" is if they used deadly force incorrectly.
If it was used legally, that person has civil immunity and not only can't they be subjected to a payout or lawsuit penalty, they ALSO get reimbursed for ALL legal fees.

If you don't meet the requirements of subsection (A).... you have bigger problems than $$$

If you use deadly force correctly... you CAN'T be subjected to a loss of anything by civil lawsuit

i bust a cap in dem asses

Originally Posted by DME46

ill bust a nut in his ass

Originally Posted by JonJon

The law allows you to use deadly force to stop a threat, not kill someone. Sometimes, a side effect in the use of deadly force causes death, but not always.

Never shoot to kill unless you are hunting. You shoot to stop a threat. Big difference

Semantics. There is only ONE way to be sure a home invader is no longer a threat. This isn't the movies where you kick someone to make sure they are incapacitated. A conscious person is still a threat. It doesn't take much energy to pull out a small revolver and fire off a few rounds.

If I get into a fight, I don't stop until I KNOW you are not getting back up again. "Stopping a threat" is a stupid legal term that makes no practical sense. What if that chick was reaching into her coat pocket for something like a gun after the first hit? If I was that guy, I would have done EXACTLY the same thing. If you jump the counter, you are a direct threat, and I will defend myself, and will defend myself to the point where I feel safe, ie, you have two broken arms can no longer long have a SHRED of possibility of inflicting harm to me.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Semantics. There is only ONE way to be sure a home invader is no longer a threat. This isn't the movies where you kick someone to make sure they are incapacitated. A conscious person is still a threat. It doesn't take much energy to pull out a small revolver and fire off a few rounds.

If I get into a fight, I don't stop until I KNOW you are not getting back up again. "Stopping a threat" is a stupid legal term that makes no practical sense. What if that chick was reaching into her coat pocket for something like a gun after the first hit? If I was that guy, I would have done EXACTLY the same thing. If you jump the counter, you are a direct threat, and I will defend myself, and will defend myself to the point where I feel safe, ie, you have two broken arms can no longer long have a SHRED of possibility of inflicting harm to me.

Disagree with pretty much all of the above.

The use of "deadly force" is not a license to kill. It is legally allowed to be used to stop an active threat, not kill someone or preemptively stop them from becoming a threat. Show me a citation of law from any state in this country that says you can. You use it to stop a threat, not prevent one.

A prosecutor would tear you apart in his sleep and a jury would never side with you.

Just saying.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

If I get into a fight, I don't stop until I KNOW you are not getting back up again.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-phar...rticle/3571542

Someone else recently had the same opinion as you... how did that work out?
First shots were self-defense, the last ones were murder

Originally Posted by JonJon

Disagree with pretty much all of the above.

The use of "deadly force" is not a license to kill. It is legally allowed to be used to stop an active threat, not kill someone or preemptively stop them from becoming a threat. Show me a citation of law from any state in this country that says you can. You use it to stop a threat, not prevent one.

A prosecutor would tear you apart in his sleep and a jury would never side with you.

Just saying.

Ok here: Citation- You can.

Originally Posted by JonJon

A prosecuter would tear you apart in his sleep and a jury would never side with you.

Just saying.

Again, simple vocabulary....what do ALL the self defense courses teach you (firearms)....shoot center mass. Where are all the vital organs? Center mass. By shooting, you are AUTOMATICALLY shooting to kill. Sure, you don't tell the cops, "I tried to drop the fool" but just the fact that you shot someone center mass means you were "shooting to kill." Sure, we can call it shooting to kill, shooting to stop the threat, shooting to defend your life, whatever, but the outcome

a)Does not depend on you. If you hit something in the right spot, the guy is dead.
b)If he survives, it was not because you "didn't want to kill him."

Furthermore, in our excellent justice system (note the sarcasm) you and I BOTH know you would have a MUCH more difficult time to defending yourself if the bad guy was left alive...just sayin.

However, we digress. This isn't a home invasion thread, so I won't hijack, but the sad part of this story is, is that Im usually not pro ex cons, but it seems like this one (he was charged with manslaughter, not murder, big difference) was out of jail, and got himself a job, only to be screwed by two thug skanks that jumped the counter in a private establishment and physically threatened an employee. Hell, if he wasn't an ex con, he would have a great lawsuit against Mcdonalds.