|
Author
|
Topic: McDonald's employee gets 6.1 million dlrs for strip search hoax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536
|
posted 08 October 2007 09:03 AM
peacenik2: quote:
WTF...bliter, did you even read the article....geez!
Certainly did - also yesterday, ironically, sitting in MacDonald's. clersal: quote:
For a million bucks, hell it is worth the pneumonia!
I was thinking of ability rather than desire. New York at 25 below, and those cutting winds.... even with Viagra assist, I think it not in government alone that a necessary upstanding member might be lacking.
From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Free_Radical
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12633
|
posted 08 October 2007 09:07 AM
quote:
Originally posted by I AM WOMAN:
I think that's way too much money. McDonalds should have been made to make a donation to charity.
Why should a random charity have a greater claim to this money than the individual who suffered very real harm and mental distress at the hands of a McDonald's manager?Besides, the law doesn't work like that. If it were a criminal case, McDonald's could be fined. But it wasn't. In tort law there is no justification for awarding damages to a third party (like your charity). quote:
Originally posted by bliter:
I'm glad the employee won, but the award seems so excessively high that one might be justified in wondering whether a portion of it will end up in some offshore, numbered account.
Why should it matter to you what they do with what is now their money?[ 08 October 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]
From: In between . . . | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370
|
posted 08 October 2007 09:33 AM
quote:
I was thinking of ability rather than desire. New York at 25 below, and those cutting winds.... even with Viagra assist, I think it not in government alone that a necessary upstanding member might be lacking.
A warmed up furry condom would do the trick. I'm not talking about desire but 6.1 million!  [ 08 October 2007: Message edited by: clersal ]
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536
|
posted 08 October 2007 09:35 AM
Free_Radical: quote:
quote:
Originally posted by bliter:
I'm glad the employee won, but the award seems so excessively high that one might be justified in wondering whether a portion of it will end up in some offshore, numbered account.Why should it matter to you what they do with what is now their money?
Well, the cost of my MacDonald's coffee has just been increased. More importantly, my reference was not to a numbered account of the employee. Of course, the the award is wholly the employee's - whether it would have been $1 million or $20 million. If such awards were made against a city in which you were a taxpayer, and you felt the award unjustified, I imagine you might be of a different view.
From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536
|
posted 08 October 2007 01:05 PM
clersal: quote:
McDonalds is awful. Everything tastes plastic and it is expensive.
Can't say I agree totally. Always use my own (better-tasting) mug and save the company close to a thousand paper cups per year. The management have added more nutritious items, including wholewheat. I just wish one could get the fish and other burgers on wholewheat or rye. With coupons and reduced coffee prices for seniors quite a few use the restaurants as drop-in centres to socialize. Mine is one of the nicer MacDonald's, with very pleasant staff. As far as a portion of that award going to charity, MacDonald's does do quite a bit of charitable work, particularly with children.
Alternatively, a greater investment in quality control might have been part of the award - with accountability attached, of course. I did recently feel compelled to inform one of servers that the dregs from two carafes do not a coffee make.
From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529
|
posted 08 October 2007 08:19 PM
This story seems so bizarre that I'm not fully convinced it's not a hoax itself. The manager who detained her for over 3 hours and told her to strip was also awarded $1.1 million. The manager who called in her non-employee boyfriend to guard (and later sexually abuse) the naked detainee. Like, who is this stupid? McDonald's employees, apparently. McDonald's employees in the new security-fearing America, I suppose. And the hoaxster, a prison guard in real life, gets off because of a "lack of evidence". Maybe he bought the calling card that was used, maybe he didn't, but you can't prove that it was he who used it. What??
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 08 October 2007 08:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
This story seems so bizarre that I'm not fully convinced it's not a hoax itself. The manager who detained her for over 3 hours and told her to strip was also awarded $1.1 million. The manager who called in her non-employee boyfriend to guard (and later sexually abuse) the naked detainee. Like, who is this stupid? McDonald's employees, apparently. McDonald's employees in the new security-fearing America, I suppose. And the hoaxster, a prison guard in real life, gets off because of a "lack of evidence". Maybe he bought the calling card that was used, maybe he didn't, but you can't prove that it was he who used it.
The McD manager got $1.1 million??? I hadn't heard that. What on earth for??? The abused girl should have gotten something. But, the manager??? The McD manager's (former) fiance is now in prison serving a five-year sentence (with no parole). It's all incredibly bizarre, but it's true. With telephone skills like that, the hoaxter making the calls (there were about seventy instances of this nationally) would have made a killer telemarketer!
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 09 October 2007 01:55 AM
Whoa. This is a really weird story. Some of the reactions in this thread are even more weird.First of all, like Sven, I wonder how on earth the manager would have gotten any money at all out of this. Secondly, what the hell is up with this "give it to charity" stuff? It wasn't a charity that was wronged, it was the woman who was sexually assaulted! Thirdly, what does a numbered account or whether or not you'd have sex for money have to do with the topic of this thread? I find it pretty offensive to compare a sexual assault victim who has sued her employer for not protecting her from such a traumatic ordeal to someone who would CONSENSUALLY have sex for money.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529
|
posted 09 October 2007 07:09 AM
Not what I was suggesting at all. I think it's pretty clear that who they nabbed is the creep.The link provided in the OP was not overly informative. If you search the story, as I did, trying to find out whether it was a joke or not, you will get more detailed information. I read the abc news story on it. And yes, I was a little surprised at the joking going on in this thread. I think it was because people did not read the full story. [ 09 October 2007: Message edited by: jas ]
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 09 October 2007 10:37 AM
Six million dollars is a bit over-the-top. I think what made that amount sound reasonable to the jury was the fact that she was asking for $200 million, which is so obviously absurd that it made $6 million sound reasonable. Good tactic by her attorney.ETA: If I had been on the jury, I would have awarded her $1.667 million (after the lawyer's cut of the award, that would have left her with about $1 million). And the McD manager? She should simply have been fired and received nothing. I still think that the fact that she received $1.1 million is far more bizarre than the $6 million given to the person actually violated. [ 09 October 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 09 October 2007 11:59 AM
It is a standard Republican talking point that lawyers take lawsuits because of the rich prize at the end.But often the reality is that the lawyer has to fund the entire case with the eventual win entirely uncertain. Here, we have a company whose manager was convicted in criminal court of unlawful confinement....akin to kidnapping. Then, the employee who is confined is sexually abused for FOUR HOURS. Nice company. It sounds to me like the company ought to pay a big penalty. Too bad it's up to the private lawyer to fulfill this societal function.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 09 October 2007 02:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Here, we have a company whose manager was convicted in criminal court of unlawful confinement....akin to kidnapping. Then, the employee who is confined is sexually abused for FOUR HOURS. Nice company. It sounds to me like the company ought to pay a big penalty. Too bad it's up to the private lawyer to fulfill this societal function.
The store manager was convicted of misdemeanor unlawful imprisonment, was given probation, and received $1.1 million!!! It was the store manager's fiancé who was convicted of unlawful felony confinement and sexual assault and is now serving five years in prison.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
