The Latest from McDonald's

www.aboutmcdonalds.com ^ | 4/22/11

[tanknetter]

Doesn’t matter. It is certainly a “franchise” store now. Regardless, if this store benefited from corporate advertising, sales of corporate product, access to new employees (via their new Obama ‘hire-fest’), argument could be made they fostered the culture...

The whole franchise vs company store element of this discussion is irrelevant except in the most strict of legal senses*. McDonalds, corporate, has a significant stake in HOW its franchises are run. Just like every other franchise operation. It's the reason why franchise corporate organizations employ things like mystery shoppers, spot inspections and the like to ensure that their franchisees are operating within the boundaries of corporate policies.

McDonalds, corporate, needs to be getting itself out front on this. They should be visibly preparing to launch their own investigation of the matter (but which can't interfere with the police one), promising to revoke the franchise should the franchisee be found negligent. They should be promising to insist that the attackers are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Finally, and this hasn't been mentioned yet I think, they should also be promising to seek civil redress to the fullest extent of the law against the attackers, regardless of what happens on the criminal side of the situation (like what Ron Goldman's father did to OJ after the acquittal)

(* the strict legal sense being that if the franchisee is found to have been in direct violation of corporate policy in some way, the corporate organization could - under some circumstances - avoid some legal responsibility. However, if the franchisee were following corporate policy, or there wasn't a corporate policy on such a scenario, corporate could still be held liable I think)

[ctdonath2]

“Police are required to keep the peace.”

No, they are not. Supreme Court verdict.

[ctdonath2]

Question is: who will stand up for/with me in the subsequent courtroom fight? First and dominant reaction on this thread is “sue the franchise owner who wasn’t there! Ruin him! Tear the store down!”

[GOPJ]

As soon as the chick landed on the floor and they kept the beating going, THAT IS attempted murder!

Good point.

[Frank_2001]

“The left wanted to boycott Chick Filet for supporting the sanctity of marriage, so are we to just turn a blind eye to this violence at McDonalds?”

The left hate McDonalds as well, but for very different reasons...In any case, that PR ass-covering bullshiite turns my stomach whatever the source...

[Norm Lenhart]

So then what exactly is their purpose in life? Not that I doubt the SC can be that stupid, because God knows they can, but do you have a kink to the decision?

[Norm Lenhart]

Kink, link...close enough ;)

[airedale]

The police say it was a woman that was beaten

[airedale]

The media is now reporting that she was a transgendered woman per the LGBT community. That definitely will put this into the hate crime bucket. If she’d just been a white woman there was a good chance they wouldn’t.

[greenhornet68]

So much for a FAILED POLICY!

http://www.america.gov/media/pdf/ejs/0209.pdf#popup

[greenhornet68]

Another tragedy caused by a failed policy and a failure of our government to protect its citizens!

http://bit.ly/ifELAP

[ctdonath2]

http://www.google.com/search?q=supreme+court+no+duty+to+protect

[Norm Lenhart]

Aside from that being the most twisted application of reasoning I have seen in some time, that particular case was about child custody and restraining orders, not keeping the peace.

Never the less, the supremes should hang their robes in shame with a decision like that.

[cubreporter]

This is such Godless and soulless behavior. But then again they wouldn’t be doing this kind of thing if they had God and a soul.