Woman beaten inside her car at McDonald's drive thru

[RoyGBiv]

...I'm really surprised at the number of folks here who think she did no wrong by correcting strangers in public when she wasn't in a position of authority to do so...that's arrogant and confrontational to do...we shouldn't go round trying to enforce ANY law, even littering(which, by the way, occurred on private property...a civil matter, not a crime, unless the McD's reported it...)unless we have in our pocket or pinned on our shirt the proper answer to the obvious question: "Who are YOU to tell ME what to do?" which you can reasonably expect the "perp" to ask you...if you seriously think you're going to accomplish a positive change by berating a litterbug...go for it...I'm going to go call a broker and invest in Band-Aid stock...
...those of you who think she did well...I hope you don't ever talk yourselves INTO a situation where you have to use your gun...you may find that the cops, the DA, the judge, and the jury had mothers like mine...who taught their children to MYOB...instead of going round telling folks what to do...

It's an interesting discussion that's evolved here.... and I'm solidly on the fence philosophically. In reality, I am less likely to mind someone else's business when carrying. It's just a fact. "An armed society is a polite society" definitely applies.

The flip side of that is.... Poorly acting people... from Presidents to the homeless... being allowed to continue acting poorly, contribute to the downward spiral of society. When I was a kid, if I did something wrong a mile away on the other side of the neighborhood, my parents knew about it before I could ride my bike home and confess. Nowadays, that neighbor who helped me stay on the straight and narrow by calling my parents would be too afraid to call my parents for fear that I might beat them with a bat the next time I saw them.

Is this our destiny as a society? Are we destined to continue devolving into a morass of minimum-effort, go to heck if you don't like it, shut your mouth or I'll punch your lights out individuals?

Let's all be honest and acknowledge that "more laws and more enforcement" cannot fix this de-evolution. ("War on Drugs", anyone?). The fabric of our society is torn, our honor is leaking out like sand through a sieve (on the aggregate, not individually).

Yes..... That lady at the drive through would be better off having kept her mouth shut. Our society sees her as the one who was wrong, for trying to lift up another person who did not want to be lifted up.

Sad...

[VMI77]

...I'm really surprised at the number of folks here who think she did no wrong by correcting strangers in public when she wasn't in a position of authority to do so...that's arrogant and confrontational to do...we shouldn't go round trying to enforce ANY law, even littering(which, by the way, occurred on private property...a civil matter, not a crime, unless the McD's reported it...)unless we have in our pocket or pinned on our shirt the proper answer to the obvious question: "Who are YOU to tell ME what to do?" which you can reasonably expect the "perp" to ask you...if you seriously think you're going to accomplish a positive change by berating a litterbug...go for it...I'm going to go call a broker and invest in Band-Aid stock...
...those of you who think she did well...I hope you don't ever talk yourselves INTO a situation where you have to use your gun...you may find that the cops, the DA, the judge, and the jury had mothers like mine...who taught their children to MYOB...instead of going round telling folks what to do...

I don't think she did "wrong," and I don't think you really do either....she made have made a mistake....but doing "wrong" to me suggests an act that is unethical or immoral, some unacceptable infringement on the rights of others. Someone may tell me my music is too loud, to watch my language, or it's rude to wear a hat in the building, etc, and I may resent it and think they're busybodies that need to mind their own business....I might even say so in response, but such remarks are not provocation....which the courts have traditionally referred to as "fighting words," and they are not justification for me to throw objects or punches.

I agree that there is a certain amount of arrogance in attempting to correct some stranger in public and the natural response is to think "who are YOU to tell me what to do," but I also think someone who merely calls out some for littering, foul language, or whatever, should be able to make their comment without fearing a beat down. I don't have a right to act however I want in public and be free from criticism, and in fact, I think people acting out in public should expect criticism, instead of those calling them out expecting a beat down. As irritating as it may be to get called out for misbehaving in public, it's a much healthier society where that is the expectation, and beat downs for it are not tolerated.

However, I realize that our society has long passed that healthy point and is in descent, so personally, I would keep my mouth shut.

[Valor]

Two people assaulting one person who is trapped in their car...no I don't think the defense would find that a challenge. Just because a person makes the (slightly foolish--but not illegal) statement of "thats not cool" does not mean they are ready to fight it out. They are commenting, perhaps not wisely, but certainly not illegally. And they do not lose their right to self defense because they talked with someone who then beat them up.

After investigating the incident, a witness came forth stating the assaulted woman initially provoked the assailants by calling them "low life scum and it was not cool." From this story, we have only heard one side. Regardless, any attack less than aggravated will be an increasingly challenging fight for the defense. The use of mace or a tazer is a more acceptable form of defense in this case. At the end of the day, it is your life and if you truly are in fear of your life and need to use a gun it better be justified in the eyes of the judicial system and jurors. In court there are 4 truths; Defense presentation, Prosecutor presentation, what really happened and what the jury believes.

but that she could not have legally defended herself because she had said something completely legal to them. This very much bothers me. It is part of the reason that people think they can beat someone up with no consequence. The attitude that you were there and these people did something criminal, so it is your fault. That I find really infuriating.[/

She can legally defend herself from the attack. But it is not easy convincing the court that a gun had to be used from a punch in the face and bit on the finger and the assailants did not have a deadly weapon. There are consequences. Being one’s own judge and jury can be costly.

[Keith B]

Two people assaulting one person who is trapped in their car...no I don't think the defense would find that a challenge. Just because a person makes the (slightly foolish--but not illegal) statement of "thats not cool" does not mean they are ready to fight it out. They are commenting, perhaps not wisely, but certainly not illegally. And they do not lose their right to self defense because they talked with someone who then beat them up.

After investigating the incident, a witness came forth stating the assaulted woman initially provoked the assailants by calling them "low life scum and it was not cool." From this story, we have only heard one side. Regardless, any attack less than aggravated will be an increasingly challenging fight for the defense. The use of mace or a tazer is a more acceptable form of defense in this case. At the end of the day, it is your life and if you truly are in fear of your life and need to use a gun it better be justified in the eyes of the judicial system and jurors. In court there are 4 truths; Defense presentation, Prosecutor presentation, what really happened and what the jury believes.

but that she could not have legally defended herself because she had said something completely legal to them. This very much bothers me. It is part of the reason that people think they can beat someone up with no consequence. The attitude that you were there and these people did something criminal, so it is your fault. That I find really infuriating.[/

She can legally defend herself from the attack. But it is not easy convincing the court that a gun had to be used from a punch in the face and bit on the finger and the assailants did not have a deadly weapon. There are consequences. Being one’s own judge and jury can be costly.

Actually, in this case, while she may have verbally made a comment and called them a name, that does not consittue provocation and justification for them to assault her. It may have been dumb, but was not illegal and the BG'sescalated it way beyond words.

As for her level of justification, there is a disparity of force here. She is female, older and there was one of her and four of them. I feel she had every right to believe her life was in danger and use any means to stop the attack.

[Kawabuggy]

Also, had she drawn a weapon for defense, she could have always stated "disparity of force" as there were 3 active parties assaulting her in various forms/stages.

I think we all missed the boat on this one.. A person who has eaten at the same McD's, every day for FIVE years.. Well, she is probably obese, and has a cholesterol level hovering somewhere around Jupiter. Her blood pressure is probably just as far off the charts as her bad cholesterol. To say that littering set this woman off does not surprise me. Anything could have set this person off. Hypertension, on-set heart disease, high blood pressure, pre-diabetic, or diabetic??? If the combatants in the car ahead of her did not kill her, just leave it to the food. It will take a little longer, but she has 5 years under her Santa Claus sized belt already.

You guys are always saying to be aware of your surroundings, and don't go where you know there is a higher likely hood of crime to occur. That's why I avoid McD's. They hire felons to serve felons (and the rest of you who choose to eat there). They should re-name the place McThugalds. Stupid food for not much smarter people. This is of course my personal opinion only. If I have offended you, relax, I'm just a no-body posting on the internet. Don't come and try to beat me down okay?

[speedsix]

The OP asked whether the victim would have been in the shoes of Zimmerman provided she "defended" herself using a pistol and killing the BG. In this case, probably so. It is challenging for the defense to argue you feared for your life when you did not have a problem initially confronting the eventual attackers. When you are concealed carrying, mind your business. Unless, true aggravated assaults/robberies are happening to you or in your presence.

Not saying "the common man" should be afraid, be wise.

Two people assaulting one person who is trapped in their car...no I don't think the defense would find that a challenge. Just because a person makes the (slightly foolish--but not illegal) statement of "thats not cool" does not mean they are ready to fight it out. They are commenting, perhaps not wisely, but certainly not illegally. And they do not lose their right to self defense because they talked with someone who then beat them up.


Speedsix--you keep writing about how you have to "deal with situations" because someone talks to a lowlife and they respond violently. You signed up to be a police officer. I would hazard a guess that you are going to have to "deal" with these people whether or not someone says "thats not cool" to them or not. If they attack on so slight a provocation as I would expect my four year old to be able to walk away from then the police (You) are going to have to "deal" with them sooner or later. One of these days someone is going to look at them wrong or ask "Can I help you?" and they are going to try and beat that persons' brains out. This is more of a case of person X was there when the two low lifes (really three) went nuts and so they are to blame

Is it wise to tell people "that is not cool"--no not really. Is it provocative to the point that you caused the beating and thus cannot legally defend yourself--absolutely not. I try to MYOB and teach my kids to do so as well (to a point--if someone is beating a child or a woman up and serious injuries are occurring I am going to have to stop it--I have to look in the mirror in the morning too!). What bothers me is not saying that this person is unwise (she was mildly silly in my view to think that this would have any impact on the people), but that she could not have legally defended herself because she had said something completely legal to them. This very much bothers me. It is part of the reason that people think they can beat someone up with no consequence. The attitude that you were there and these people did something criminal, so it is your fault. That I find really infuriating.

...your first paragraph tells me that you understand the mindset of the lowlifes...they are truly going to be lowlifes...sometime, somewhere...and the police will have to deal with them...they're like a hand grenade...

...your second paragraph tells me that you know she didn't use her best judgement in making a comment...and that you're not teaching your kids wrong...you're not playing with the pin...

...I don't know where you get that anyone is saying "...that she could not have legally defended herself because she had said something completely legal to them.I don't see where anyone's hinting that they have "...the attitude that you were there and these people did something criminal, so it is your fault." You're reading into our posts things we didn't say at all... I'll let Valor deal with what he said, but what I said doesn't deal with any legal or illegal judgement...I said she was wrong for opening her mouth to correct a stranger who was already exhibiting antisocial behavior when she had neither need (it wasn't hurting her) or authority (she didn't even work there) to do so...she should have either reported it to the management, police, or Don't Mess With Texas...or even written a letter to the editor of the local paper...but when she let out her self-righteous squawk so that they'd be sure to hear it...SHE PULLED THE PIN...


...the reason she got beat up was that she pulled the pin on the grenade that she should have just left alone...therefore causing them to blow then and there...like grenades are likely to do...she fits the verse that says: "He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears." it wasn't her business...she chose foolishly to make it her business...any reasonable person will see that she caused the incident that ended up with their criminal violence landing on HER...by opening her big mouth...what I said had nothing to do with illegal/legal, nor did I justify their crime in any way...I just said that she invited herself to be a victim...or words to that effect...


...I'm not a cop anymore...but I wasn't crying because I had to deal with anything...just using my personal experiences while a cop to stress that peoples' big mouths often start a lot of trouble...like hers did...makes about as much sense as throwing rocks at a beehive...bees sting...that's what they do when upset...only stupid people set out to upset them...it fits...

[speedsix]

...I'm really surprised at the number of folks here who think she did no wrong by correcting strangers in public when she wasn't in a position of authority to do so...that's arrogant and confrontational to do...we shouldn't go round trying to enforce ANY law, even littering(which, by the way, occurred on private property...a civil matter, not a crime, unless the McD's reported it...)unless we have in our pocket or pinned on our shirt the proper answer to the obvious question: "Who are YOU to tell ME what to do?" which you can reasonably expect the "perp" to ask you...if you seriously think you're going to accomplish a positive change by berating a litterbug...go for it...I'm going to go call a broker and invest in Band-Aid stock...
...those of you who think she did well...I hope you don't ever talk yourselves INTO a situation where you have to use your gun...you may find that the cops, the DA, the judge, and the jury had mothers like mine...who taught their children to MYOB...instead of going round telling folks what to do...

I don't think she did "wrong," and I don't think you really do either....she made have made a mistake....but doing "wrong" to me suggests an act that is unethical or immoral, some unacceptable infringement on the rights of others. Someone may tell me my music is too loud, to watch my language, or it's rude to wear a hat in the building, etc, and I may resent it and think they're busybodies that need to mind their own business....I might even say so in response, but such remarks are not provocation....which the courts have traditionally referred to as "fighting words," and they are not justification for me to throw objects or punches.

I agree that there is a certain amount of arrogance in attempting to correct some stranger in public and the natural response is to think "who are YOU to tell me what to do," but I also think someone who merely calls out some for littering, foul language, or whatever, should be able to make their comment without fearing a beat down. I don't have a right to act however I want in public and be free from criticism, and in fact, I think people acting out in public should expect criticism, instead of those calling them out expecting a beat down. As irritating as it may be to get called out for misbehaving in public, it's a much healthier society where that is the expectation, and beat downs for it are not tolerated.

However, I realize that our society has long passed that healthy point and is in descent, so personally, I would keep my mouth shut.

...since you quote my post, "wrong", according to Websters, covers justice, law, morality AND covers not suitable or appropriate...and I said nothing about "justification" for any acts of the criminals...she did a stupid, wrong thing by running her mouth...to those predisposed to be criminal...as she could have expected since they were behaving in an antisocial manner in public already...I said nothing to lead you to believe that I think "she had it coming" as fair treatment...she kicked the growling dog...and got bit...that doesn't in any way excuse the bite...but she volunteered to be in an incident that would not have taken place but for her mouth running...


...I was raised in the 50s and early 60s...Mama taught us to behave and not to litter anywhere...and not to talk back to any grown person who saw fit to correct us...those days are LOOOOOOOOOONG gone...these weren't children...the litterbugs showed their lack of proper upbringing...and she who became the victim showed her lack of common sense...anyone who pays attention to the news reports these days should be able to realize it's better to act through the proper authorities to express any "social outrage"...it's much safer than to start trouble...as she did...as I originally said, I'll bet, given a do-over, she'd have kept her mouth shut...

[speedsix]

Two people assaulting one person who is trapped in their car...no I don't think the defense would find that a challenge. Just because a person makes the (slightly foolish--but not illegal) statement of "thats not cool" does not mean they are ready to fight it out. They are commenting, perhaps not wisely, but certainly not illegally. And they do not lose their right to self defense because they talked with someone who then beat them up.

After investigating the incident, a witness came forth stating the assaulted woman initially provoked the assailants by calling them "low life scum and it was not cool." From this story, we have only heard one side. Regardless, any attack less than aggravated will be an increasingly challenging fight for the defense. The use of mace or a tazer is a more acceptable form of defense in this case. At the end of the day, it is your life and if you truly are in fear of your life and need to use a gun it better be justified in the eyes of the judicial system and jurors. In court there are 4 truths; Defense presentation, Prosecutor presentation, what really happened and what the jury believes.

but that she could not have legally defended herself because she had said something completely legal to them. This very much bothers me. It is part of the reason that people think they can beat someone up with no consequence. The attitude that you were there and these people did something criminal, so it is your fault. That I find really infuriating.[/

She can legally defend herself from the attack. But it is not easy convincing the court that a gun had to be used from a punch in the face and bit on the finger and the assailants did not have a deadly weapon. There are consequences. Being one’s own judge and jury can be costly.

Actually, in this case, while she may have verbally made a comment and called them a name, that does not consittue provocation and justification for them to assault her. It may have been dumb, but was not illegal and the BG'sescalated it way beyond words.

As for her level of justification, there is a disparity of force here. She is female, older and there was one of her and four of them. I feel she had every right to believe her life was in danger and use any means to stop the attack.

...where do we see that the witness came forth and told more of what she said? if true, that shows her motive wasn't peaceful and trying to "uplift" anyone, but being confrontational and inflammatory...

...the OP's link said there were two women fighting with her...not four...the man only threw a drink at her...and she sounds more like mid-20s than older...no doubt she feared for her life once the attack started...no doubt two against one is a disparity of force...

...she mentioned she'd been coming there for five years without any trouble...now she didn't feel safe...she could have come there for another five years if she'd kept her tongue...calling someone who proves to be violent "low life scum" would tend to make you want to eat lunch somewhere they might not show up...

[ScooterSissy]

...I'm really surprised at the number of folks here who think she did no wrong by correcting strangers in public when she wasn't in a position of authority to do so...that's arrogant and confrontational to do...we shouldn't go round trying to enforce ANY law, even littering(which, by the way, occurred on private property...a civil matter, not a crime, unless the McD's reported it...)unless we have in our pocket or pinned on our shirt the proper answer to the obvious question: "Who are YOU to tell ME what to do?" which you can reasonably expect the "perp" to ask you...

Her authority to speak is the US Constitution, but I do agree with you a little - she should be fully prepared for the person to answer "who are YOU to tell ME what to do?". That would have been a perfectly acceptable response.

Unfortunately, that's not how they responded.

[mamabearCali]

awwww..now the 1950's were not so long ago. That would be the same generation as my parents. My kids are being taught not to litter (it's rude and makes a mess!) and to speak respectfully and they are being raised in the 2010's I guess. It is not the generation, but the parents that make the difference.

[speedsix]

awwww..now the 1950's were not so long ago. That would be the same generation as my parents. My kids are being taught not to litter (it's rude and makes a mess!) and to speak respectfully and they are being raised in the 2010's I guess. It is not the generation, but the parents that make the difference.

...so were my 5 kids taught not to litter...two of them are in their 30s, three are in late teens and early 20s...and they were also taught not to pop off to strangers in public or other kids in school...and never got jumped on and beat up by some thug who didn't appreciate the sermon...
...truly the thugs like those at McD's needed some parenting...but not from her....

[ScooterSissy]

...
...I was raised in the 50s and early 60s...Mama taught us to behave and not to litter anywhere...and not to talk back to any grown person who saw fit to correct us...those days are LOOOOOOOOOONG gone...these weren't children...the litterbugs showed their lack of proper upbringing...and she who became the victim showed her lack of common sense...anyone who pays attention to the news reports these days should be able to realize it's better to act through the proper authorities to express any "social outrage"...it's much safer than to start trouble...as she did...as I originally said, I'll bet, given a do-over, she'd have kept her mouth shut...

And why are those days "LOOOOOOOOOONG gone"? Because we let them go by. We don't have the courage that our predecessors had. We prefer to "play it safe" and live in a pig-sty.

Are those days gone forever though? Now, I don't think so. It takes people willing to do something about it to bring them back. Now, this lady contributed to the problem rather than trying to help it (and actually, I sort of figured she did). Turns out she didn't simply correct them, she verbally attacked them. That still doesn't deserve what she got, but let's pretend this all went down differently. Let's pretend she did do it politely, and was armed. Of course, she would have had to do this knowing she had to follow through:

Lady (on witnessing the people dumping their trash) That's really not cool. There's a trash can over there
Thugs Mind your own business lady
Lady I feel it is my business, but it's really no big deal for ether of us, you can just drop your trash in the trash can, or the rest of us can just wade through it and try to ignore it until someone else cleans up after you.
Thugs You really should have minded your own business lady, now we're going to have teach you how to...
LadySee this in my hand, it's a weapon, and I really don't want to have to use it, but there are three of you and one of me, and I'm not going to fight you over some trash. So, you can leave, or you can wait here, but either way I'm calling 911 and reporting an assault. What you shouldn't do is come any closer before the police get here.

Now, I don't know, she might have ended up getting shot herself (but I doubt it), but if the folks trashing didn't advance on her, next time they decided to dump trash out their window, they might think a second time. If they did advance on her as described, next time they would have to ask themselves if the person they're trying to bully might also be armed. That's how things eventually change.

Personally, I likely wouldn't have bothered in a McD parking lot. If I did "bother", it would more likely be by simplying picking up the trash in front of them, and throwing it away (some folks are still not so totally lost that they'd miss the hint). I will say though, I've had a number of times I've pulled up next to people and let them know that whey they toss their light cig butt out the window, it can hit folks like me on their bikes (I caught a lit one full in the face once with no helmet on, I still wonder what might have happened if I'd had an open faced hemet on to catch it). I've also been known to tell folks to lay off the language in front of children. Some have complied, some have mouthed off and continued on. In only one case have I have ever had anyone threaten to get physical (tossed beer bottle that hit my leg after bouncing on the street at 45 mph). As soon as they understood I was as willing as they were, they backed off. I still don't feel it was "stupid", or even "wrong".

Yeah, we've come a long way from those days, but it's only because we as a society, have decided it's someone else's job, and the folks whose job it is are way too busy and/or unconcerned.

[mamabearCali]

...truly the thugs like those at McD's needed some parenting...but not from her....

Too little too late. Neighbor parenting works when the child is 7 and throws his Popsicle wrapper on the and is told by a neighbor "pick that up please and put it in the trash." Not so much when the little cupcakes grow up. Perhaps as Scooter Says pointedly picking it up might make a point to those with soft hearts that just weren't thinking. But these obviously were not the type to have soft hearts.


As a side note--this is why I avoid McDonalds, Burger King and Wendys. If I am forced to eat fast food by my schedule I go to Chick-fil-a. Nice staff, clean restaurant, fast and friendly service, have never met a lowlife there. Now don't tell the thugs this, but for a family of 6 the cost is the same for all three.

[speedsix]

...a more likely outcome for a scenario like the one you purpose, is that the three of them call the cops and say: " This crazy white woman pulled a gun on us after yelling at us 'cause we accidentally dropped some trash...she said she'd shoot us if we didn't pick it up..."

...a lot of folks these days have no moral guidelines at all...say or do what they think will get them by...our being willing to "teach" doesn't suggest that "they" will have any willingness to learn...

[speedsix]

...truly the thugs like those at McD's needed some parenting...but not from her....

Too little too late. Neighbor parenting works when the child is 7 and throws his Popsicle wrapper on the and is told by a neighbor "pick that up please and put it in the trash." Not so much when the little cupcakes grow up. Perhaps as Scooter Says pointedly picking it up might make a point to those with soft hearts that just weren't thinking. But these obviously were not the type to have soft hearts.


As a side note--this is why I avoid McDonalds, Burger King and Wendys. If I am forced to eat fast food by my schedule I go to Chick-fil-a. Nice staff, clean restaurant, fast and friendly service, have never met a lowlife there. Now don't tell the thugs this, but for a family of 6 the cost is the same for all three.

...so the cows' strategy is working on you well...