Does the employee have a duty to get involved ?

You can't react emotionally in situations like this. Do I think it is wrong as hell to hit a women? Yes I do, but that doesn't mean I am going to get involved unless there is a threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Unless there is that threat I will wait for the police because intervening in a minor assault can only end badly for me.
 
Kleinzeit said:
Dave P said:
One used to have a moral obligation to protect those that can't protect themselves: women, children, the elderly.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is in doubt. The question is whether he exercised that moral obligation in an effective way. He did not.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think he could have stepped in, told him that was unacceptable and even called the police, but tackling the man seems unreasonable for slapping someone.
 
I said "DUTY" as in LEGAL DUTY. As far as SHOULD an individual get involved, of course.
Click to expand...

Right. It doesn't seem that this employee had any duty, in that sense, to get involved at all. Like Keltyke said,

Unless "maintain order" is in the Employee Manual, breaking up domestic fights is clearly not part of a McDonald's employee's job description.
Click to expand...

I don't think I can blame the insurance company for resisting this one. And I'm kind of mad at Fox News for trying to manipulate public opinion into a lather of fury at McDonalds to shame them into footing the hospital bill. I do hope though that McDonalds does make a substantial contribution to a private collection being taken up for him. He might have acted thoughtlessly, but he meant well, and shouldn't have his life ruined over this.

Please keep us posted, all, as the story develops. I'm still interested in hearing the shooter's story.
 
We are not vigilantes, we are not LEOs. We carry a weapon for only one reason - to defend our life or the life of a loved one. Period.
Click to expand...

What do you think being a vigilante means? Vigilantes work outside of the law. It is no more vigilanteism to defend a stranger from a threat than it is to defend a loved one from a threat, something you support.

You may choose to carry a gun only for the purpose of protecting yourself and your loved ones and that is fine as your call, but don't speak for the rest of us.
 
Does the employee have a duty to intervene? NO. In fact, my last civilian employer had a policy which was just the opposite. Bad stuff goes down and you call 911 and make note of anything they might need to know (car make/model, time of offense, etc). Definitely do not get in the middle of it.
My previous experience is that of closing with and destroying the enemy on the field of battle. I am not afraid of a fight, but here in the US--unarmed, unarmored, and with no particular authority--my ability to help others and detain or stop the bad guys is conspicuously constrained. Add that on to a non-intervention company policy and the only option you have left is to call 911 and hope for the best.

I'll let the L.E. experts wrangle this one. All chest thumping aside (if I had my CCW, I'd have lit that guy up kind of talk), most employers have a NO GUNS policy, making the CCW option moot. If my only weapon is a spatula (or a box cutter for my old job), I'm calling 911 and letting the cops sort it out.
 
involvment

the courts have held that the police are not required to respond but to KEEP THE PEACE.and many accasions have accured where people died because of lack of police reponses.I would imagine the employeewould be expected to remove trouble makers from the property to prevent damage to the business.
now how would respond if the BG had beat the woman to death while waiting the 2/3 hrs for response from police.It has happened more than once.seems tho something bad was going to happen as the BG had a gun and was willing to use it.:rolleyes:
 
I am not in the insurance industry and have no interest in that scenario at all.

Worker's comp is for people who get hurt in the normal line of duty. If a McD's employee trips in the kitchen and breaks their arm that is covered.

Hero action is not covered under workman's comp, and probably was actually against company policy. If that case is ruled in favor of the employee there'll be questions as to what the company's obligation is to employees and their patrons as well.

If an employee is killed in a robbery do they owe anything to the beneficiary of the employee? Does workman's comp? If an employee prevents a robbery by shooting a bad guy and inadvertently hits a customer by either over penetration or just a bad shot does the company or workman's comp owe the customer? That's what insurance companies are for. And unfortunately lawyers too.

Don't get me wrong, the guy was heroic and acted on more guts than a lot of people have. But that is an act of personal sacrifice that is not covered specifically under workmen's comp. If that guy had insurance and benefits he has insurance coverage that should pick up a lot of medical expenses, maybe sick time/vacation time and definitely FMLA time to secure his job.

As far as the employee having an obligation to intervene? Absolutely not. We all have job descriptions and duties spelled out pretty clearly. If we decide to act on the behalf of a patron or a friend that is a personal decision. Completely. There'll be macho guys, mall ninjas, and protector of sheeple that say differently but the reality is we owe and are obliged only what we are willing to give as individuals.
 
1. The employee was wrong to intervene. (Never get involved in a domestic dispute - employee or not).

2. The hero was right to intervene. (At an assumed risk for doing something stupid).

3. Workers comp should not have to pay med expenses.(They always look for a way out anyway).

4. The employer should step up and pay med expenses. (Great PR).

5. The hero should be commended. (A parade would be nice).

6. Too bad he didn't shoot the SOB instead of tackling him. (Then there would really be an outcry from the anti-gun idiots).


7. All fast food employees should be issued ARs. (make up for low wages).

All tongue-in-cheek of course!!
 
now how would respond if the BG had beat the woman to death while waiting the 2/3 hrs for response from police.It has happened more than once.seems tho something bad was going to happen as the BG had a gun and was willing to use it.
Click to expand...

A simple domestic abuse situation does not normally end with someone being beaten to death.

He should have called the police, waited, and monitored the situation. If it appeared that the women was in danger of serious bodily injury or death then intervening would have been appropriate. Getting slapped doesn't equate to either of those possibilities. No one said that he simply had to make a decision to not get involved and go about his day never reexamining the situation and changing his response. As the situation changes so should the response.

Getting involved should be your last resort and only when it appears that doing nothing could result in serious injury or death.
 
Again, I consider this invokes a question regarding not heroics but expectations of the people who make up our socitety.

Claims that the worker did something that's "not part of his job" fail, IMO, utterly. Workers at McD's are burger flippers, bottle washers, cashiers and floor sweepers as part of their duties. Yet, if Emilita's clothing catches on fire after contacting the grill and another employee is burned beating out the fire with his hands, Worker's Comp pays for injuries to both parties. I know this for a fact.

Nothing in the employee's duties require these heroic actions. Nothing in the employee handbook suggests an action should've been taken. There's no law that requires it. Yet Worker's Comp paid off on the claim.

The primary question is how far can or should the employee go? Did this employee overstep the limits of reasonable actions? Before you say yes...

A man who will beat his wife or a child, especially in public, deserves to be stopped by force. The application of the force should be proportionate, of course. Certainly a punch to the snoot is warranted, if nothing else to let him know such behavior has its consequences. But cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.

He has certainly comitted a crime again a person - a family member at that, but what about you? Or the others nearby? Have you and they not had their peace disturbed? If no one intervenes, what does that teach our children who witness the act? That no individuals in our society have the testicular fortitude to stand up for the weak and the oppressed?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke
Click to expand...

And what of the people like him who find no one willing to to interfere? Or even comment? Does not the silence and lack of action embolden his actions, knowing as he does it will take, at best, long minutes before police arrive? His actions are no better than the thief or robber who's actions declare their contempt by the rules we live by. And if those ordinary rules are held in contempt by him, so are all those who obey those rules. His assault on a family member is a public declaration that a person's safety is dependent upon his whim.[1]

The guiding principle here should be that the young man acted in the interest of protecting a woman[2] from abuse and physical harm. The difference, if any, between punching this loathesome male in the snotlocker and tackling him is a testament to the employee's reluctance to harm him.

Some may side with the insurance company who can find a way to weasel out of covering him for his action. But I look at their refusal as hammering another nail in the coffin of a civil society over not principle, but of greed.


[1] In previous generations it would not be unusual for nearly all the nearby men to publicly confront the man for assaulting his wife. Physical force may or may not have been used, but certainly shame and scorn were heaped upon him along with threats of the police needing a mop and bucket to get him to jail.
[2] The same can be applied to protecting a child, the eldery or disabled. These are people unable to defend themselves.
 
In most of the post it seems to be like the old saying "Let George do it" unless the shoes on the other foot, than you're looking for help in any direction. It's amazing how some people seem to think they are shadowed by an LEO when in need. :rolleyes:
 
I was a bouncer in college and usually, the sooner you can intervene the better and less violent the outcome. That said, tackling the BG wasn't the way to go about it. If I had been there, I would have stepped up, as even though women can and do push your worst buttons, most cannot stand with a man in a fight. The GG was right to react, but went about it the wrong way. Saying what would or would not have happened is mute since the GG stepped up. Most replies to this situation are assuming that it would have ended with the punch/slap. Had it escalated, there's no telling how violent it would or would not have become and how much force would have been necessary to stop it.
 
4. The employer should step up and pay med expenses. (Great PR).
Click to expand...

The owner of the franchise should come up with $300K? I highly doubt the PR would be that good. It would be nice if the employer helped, but covering everything is a bit overboard. $300K is a huge chunk of change, even for a McDonald's like this.

While it might be okay PR for a brief while if the employer came up with the cash, maybe the intended victim's family should come up with the $ instead as she was the one who was saved?


No good deed goes unpunished.
Click to expand...

The employee isn't being punished for his good deed. He simply is not receiving the benefit of help from his employer's workers comp insurance as the injury did not come as a result of doing his job. As such, he doesn't qualify for the benefit.
 
Last edited:
First: NEVER get involved in a gunfight without a gun.
ALWAYS assume a dirtbag is armed, and be ready to respond.

The days of a good old fist fight being the end of it are gone.
Anyone out of control enough to slug his girlfriend is likely to be very dangerous.

The employee does not have a duty to intervene, unless he's off duty LEO. That's what 911 is for.

As for the insurance company, they are the blight of our society. That said, Workmanscomp ALWAYS denies claims, and, you have to hire a lawyer to sue for the money. You win most of the time. A good lawyer should win this one, since, I'm sure Macs has a clause in their 'duties' that goes something like, 'any other assigned, or required tasks'. In other words, unless you are committing a crime, on company property, on the clock, you are doing your 'duties'.
 
Employee just needed to be alittle more 'streetsmart' in this situation. If he were going to get involved he should have approached things a bit different. In perps state of mind, a few 'sweet-nothings' whispered to perp surely would have caused perp to attack employee. Employee(person) has a right to defend themselves on or off job;).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top