Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-174 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)
161 posted on 04/22/2011 7:34:43 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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...


165 posted on 04/22/2011 9:02:45 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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?


166 posted on 04/22/2011 9:39:10 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Kink, link...close enough ;)


167 posted on 04/22/2011 9:40:00 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: outpostinmass2

The police say it was a woman that was beaten


168 posted on 04/22/2011 11:16:04 PM PDT by airedale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

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.


169 posted on 04/22/2011 11:18:41 PM PDT by airedale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: airedale

So much for a FAILED POLICY!

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


170 posted on 04/23/2011 4:30:03 AM PDT by greenhornet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: greenhornet68

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

http://bit.ly/ifELAP


171 posted on 04/23/2011 4:41:35 AM PDT by greenhornet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

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


172 posted on 04/23/2011 5:16:18 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

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.


173 posted on 04/23/2011 12:08:34 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

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.


174 posted on 04/23/2011 12:43:34 PM PDT by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-174 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson