I understand why the McDonald's employees didn't act affirmatively to interfere. U.S. Tort law dictates that employers set policies instructing their employees to do just that, because they could otherwise end up on the hook for a lot of $$$ if, for example, a rescue attempt goes wrong. The same is true for the other individuals, but they have "not-as-good" reasons because they are only responsible to themselves.

 

But telling the girls when the police were coming seems rather uncool to me.

I understand why the McDonald's employees didn't act affirmatively to interfere. U.S. Tort law dictates that employers set policies instructing their employees to do just that, because they could otherwise end up on the hook for a lot of $$$ if, for example, a rescue attempt goes wrong. The same is true for the other individuals, but they have "not-as-good" reasons because they are only responsible to themselves.

 

But telling the girls when the police were coming seems rather uncool to me.

 

 

Please, do you think any of those uneducated f***ers know the first thing about the law?

 

As a human being your first reaction would be to stop that if you had any heart in you. It's instinctive, unless you're a coldhearted piece of sh*t. It doesn't matter what loophole in the law might incriminate you or the company you work for.

I understand why the McDonald's employees didn't act affirmatively to interfere. U.S. Tort law dictates that employers set policies instructing their employees to do just that, because they could otherwise end up on the hook for a lot of $$ if, for example, a rescue attempt goes wrong. The same is true for the other individuals, but they have "not-as-good" reasons because they are only responsible to themselves.

 

But telling the girls when the police were coming seems rather uncool to me.

 

 

Please, do you think any of those uneducated f***ers know the first thing about the law?

 

As a human being your first reaction would be to stop that if you had any heart in you. It's instinctive, unless you're a coldhearted piece of sh*t. It doesn't matter what loophole in the law might incriminate you or the company you work for.

 

I fully expect that in a McDonalds, especially in a rough neighborhood, that the manager would order his employees to not get involved with customer spats.

This wasn't customer spats. It was a double-team ass beating.

 

And it's just that... rough neighborhood bulls***. It'll always be rough until these people realize that they don't want that kinda crap around there. It's not hard whatsoever to restrain somebody like that. I don't care what my manager told me to do (and the manager was the only one not laughing and trying to stop the fight other than a little old lady).

 

No mercy. No pity. No sorrow. No remorse. No compassion. No regards for one another. Something's not right here. It's got nothing to do with one's job. It being a rough neighborhood. It being a large corporation like McDonalds. They were laughing. They only wanted the girls to leave to help save them. They enjoyed seething this. Don't give me the BS notion that they didn't get involved because they didn't want to suffer potential repercussions. They didn't get involved because they're all sick, heartless people.

 

The man who videotaped it was also an employee. And he's been fired. And you can see from his Facebook comments that it is most definitely a hate crime. He pronounced that, indefinitely.

Ahhh, the social sciences. Taking something completely obvious, slapping a fancy name on it, and teaching college courses about it. :lol

 

 

What's worse is that Sociology is my second major and our sociology honor society club shirt literally reads, "Painfully elaborating the obvious in a society near you...". Ugh thanks. That makes my degree seem really useful.

We don't know right now, it's an unfounded assumption right now. More details need to be learned. Ever heard of stupidity? that could be why everyone watched and warned the girls.

 

 

Of course.

*looks at the username*

 

of course

 

or actually of course?

 

There's plenty of evidence to support the fact that they watched because they enjoyed it/hated the girl because of who she is. Hence the laughing, the lack of involvement, and the facebook post from the video taker.

I wasnt agreeing with him.

I should rephrase: "I CAN ENVISION A REASON why the McDonald's employees WOULDN'T act affirmatively to interfere."

I didn't intend to claim knowledge of their motivations in this case.

No you're not agreeing with me, because the facts right now don't support the agenda.

 

You're making an assuption that the perpetrators attacked the woman because she's tansgendered, as far as I know there's no evidence to back it up, I'm not saying that's not what happened...there's just nothing to back it up right now and premature charges just make people look bad...

 

*looks at the username*

 

of course

 

or actually of course?

 

There's plenty of evidence to support the fact that they watched because they enjoyed it/hated the girl because of who she is. Hence the laughing, the lack of involvement, and the facebook post from the video taker.

 

 

What evidence is that?

They were laughing. They only wanted the girls to leave to help save them. They enjoyed seething this. Don't give me the BS notion that they didn't get involved because they didn't want to suffer potential repercussions. They didn't get involved because they're all sick, heartless people.

 

The man who videotaped it was also an employee. And he's been fired. And you can see from his Facebook comments that it is most definitely a hate crime. He pronounced that, indefinitely.

 

 

No you're not agreeing with me, because the facts right now don't support the agenda.

 

You're making an assuption that the perpetrators attacked the woman because she's tansgendered, as far as I know there's no evidence to back it up, I'm not saying that's not what happened...there's just nothing to back it up right now and premature charges just make people look bad...

 

 

*looks at the username*

 

of course

 

or actually of course?

 

There's plenty of evidence to support the fact that they watched because they enjoyed it/hated the girl because of who she is. Hence the laughing, the lack of involvement, and the facebook post from the video taker.

 

 

What evidence is that?

 

Are you blind?

All that proves is that there was hatred involved (which is kinda obvious when you see the beating) but there is no evidence that hatred was fueled by her status as a transgendered woman right now. Why can't you admit that?

You're an idiot on a mission to try and not sound like an idiot. But you're making it worse for yourself. The writing is on the wall.

You're an idiot on a mission to try and not sound like an idiot. But you're making it worse for yourself. The writing is on the wall.

 

Get it? A wall?? Like, a Facebook wall!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA

You're an idiot on a mission to try and not sound like an idiot. But you're making it worse for yourself. The writing is on the wall.

 

If that's your proof for a hate crime against the transgendered then you're in trouble in a court of law. All I see is a person pissed that a person he assumes is only a cross dresser is using the ladies bathroom. Why can't you just admit there's nothing to substantiate a hate crime right now? I promise it doesn't hurt to be fair and let the investigation play out before judging.

 

Again I'm not saying it's not a hate crime period, I just saying there's no proof right now, and I hate it when people automatically assume "hate crime" when a person belonging to a group protected by hate crime laws is attacked.

Who gives a sh*t about whether that's insufficient evidence for a court of law? It doesn't have to be within certain legal categories to be a hate crime in the sense that we are referring to it.

 

By the way, wouldn't it be preferable for the righteous heteros if a cross-dressing man, clearly gay/attracted to men, goes to the women's bathroom, rather than the men's bathroom, where he could "want to stare," for lack of a better phrase?

Who gives a sh*t about whether that's insufficient evidence for a court of law? It doesn't have to be within certain legal categories to be a hate crime in the sense that we are referring to it.

 

By the way, wouldn't it be preferable for the righteous heteros if a cross-dressing man, clearly gay/attracted to men, goes to the women's bathroom, rather than the men's bathroom, where he could "want to stare," for lack of a better phrase?

 

 

Where else is hate crime used but a court of law? That phrase is a f***ing joke inside a court of law, let alone outside of it.

 

The reason for deliberately hurting someone shouldn't factor into the punishment.

Who gives a sh*t about whether that's insufficient evidence for a court of law? It doesn't have to be within certain legal categories to be a hate crime in the sense that we are referring to it.

 

By the way, wouldn't it be preferable for the righteous heteros if a cross-dressing man, clearly gay/attracted to men, goes to the women's bathroom, rather than the men's bathroom, where he could "want to stare," for lack of a better phrase?

 

 

Where else is hate crime used but a court of law? That phrase is a f***ing joke inside a court of law, let alone outside of it.

 

The reason for deliberately hurting someone shouldn't factor into the punishment.

 

Whether or not I agree with your post, it nevertheless doesn't conflict with mine. It's commonly used to describe any crime motivated by the race, religion, sexuality, etc., of the (especially minority) victim, which is what I'm referring to, regardless of whether or not it fits into some Congressional category.

Who gives a sh*t about whether that's insufficient evidence for a court of law? It doesn't have to be within certain legal categories to be a hate crime in the sense that we are referring to it.

 

By the way, wouldn't it be preferable for the righteous heteros if a cross-dressing man, clearly gay/attracted to men, goes to the women's bathroom, rather than the men's bathroom, where he could "want to stare," for lack of a better phrase?

 

 

Where else is hate crime used but a court of law? That phrase is a f***ing joke inside a court of law, let alone outside of it.

 

The reason for deliberately hurting someone shouldn't factor into the punishment.

 

Whether or not I agree with your post, it nevertheless doesn't conflict with mine. It's commonly used to describe any crime motivated by the race, religion, sexuality, etc., of the (especially minority) victim, which is what I'm referring to, regardless of whether or not it fits into some Congressional category.

 

 

I'd say that most people don't use the phrase hate crime if they're not referring to it in the legal sense. In fact, the word 'crime' alone has a legal connotation to it. If we were solely discussing whether or not the motivation was the woman/man/whatever's sexuality , then I don't think we'd be using the phrase hate crime.

What would you have people call it then, assuming the attack was motivated by the individual's sexuality?

What would you have people call it then, assuming the attack was motivated by the individual's sexuality?

 

 

An attack? We're discussing the attack, not the legal implications of it and thus words like crime shouldn't be used - unless, of course, you want to get into that but Raysfan dipped into it and was shut down.

What would you have people call it then, assuming the attack was motivated by the individual's sexuality?

 

 

An attack? We're discussing the attack, not the legal implications of it and thus words like crime shouldn't be used - unless, of course, you want to get into that.

 

An attack on someone for reasons of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference is known both within the context of the court and outside as a hate crime.

 

Would calling it a "hate attack" satisfy you?

What would you have people call it then, assuming the attack was motivated by the individual's sexuality?

 

 

An attack? We're discussing the attack, not the legal implications of it and thus words like crime shouldn't be used - unless, of course, you want to get into that.

 

An attack on someone for reasons of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference is known both within the context of the court and outside as a hate crime.

 

Would calling it a "hate attack" satisfy you?

 

This whole topic has been discussing the attack, and the moment someone brought in the thought that this may be difficult to prove as a hate crime in a court of law, someone replied with something like 'well we're not talking about it in that sense.' That's the only sense you talk about it in. The term 'hate crime' is more legal jargon than anything.

 

I don't care what you call it, so be my guest. I'm just saying that you can't use the phrase and then tell someone who brings up the legal system and how this may not be provable as a hate crime in a court of law that you aren't referring to it in a legal sense, when that's a legal term more than anything. Maybe it isn't a hate crime. Maybe it's just an attack. For example, if a man were to have gone into the women's bathroom and been attacked by those women, it couldn't possibly be a hate crime. You don't know what they were thinking; you know what they did and all you can prove is that the tranny was attacked - unless I'm missing some [real] evidence or this group goes around McDonald's and beats up trannies in bathrooms for fun on the weekends.

 

But sure, hate attack sounds just as catchy.

I glad someone else can see my point, regardless of whether they agree with it...

I think you guys are getting unnecessarily caught up in semantics.

 

Yes, it's known as a hate crime in court. However that phrase has become popularized outside of the context of the courtroom.

 

Would referring to it as "an allegation of a hate crime" be more appropriate? Is it really necessary to get bogged down in this kind of nit picking over a phrase that clearly has both a legal context and a popular usage?