Skip to comments.
The Latest from McDonald's
www.aboutmcdonalds.com ^
| 4/22/11
Posted on 04/22/2011 12:34:43 PM PDT by Wilderness Conservative
We are shocked by the video from a Baltimore franchised restaurant showing an assault. This incident is unacceptable, disturbing and troubling. McDonald’s strives to be a safe, welcoming environment for everyone who visits. Nothing is more important to us than the safety of customers and employees in our restaurants. We are working with the franchisee and the local authorities to investigate this matter.
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Maryland
KEYWORDS: 365black; attack; beating; holderspeople; maryland; mcdonalds; mdconalds; statement
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-174 last
To: Gaffer
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)
To: Norm Lenhart
“Police are required to keep the peace.”
No, they are not. Supreme Court verdict.
162
posted on
04/22/2011 8:29:02 PM PDT
by
ctdonath2
(Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
To: Jack Black
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!”
163
posted on
04/22/2011 8:32:27 PM PDT
by
ctdonath2
(Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
To: devistate one four
As soon as the chick landed on the floor and they kept the beating going, THAT IS attempted murder! Good point.
164
posted on
04/22/2011 8:35:38 PM PDT
by
GOPJ
(Understanding the Koran: http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/05/terrifying-brilliance-of-islam.html)
To: FrankR
“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...
To: ctdonath2
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?
To: Norm Lenhart
Kink, link...close enough ;)
To: outpostinmass2
The police say it was a woman that was beaten
To: outpostinmass2
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.
To: airedale
To: greenhornet68
Another tragedy caused by a failed policy and a failure of our government to protect its citizens!
http://bit.ly/ifELAP
To: Norm Lenhart
172
posted on
04/23/2011 5:16:18 AM PDT
by
ctdonath2
(Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
To: ctdonath2
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.
To: RabidBartender
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-174 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson