Link (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/14/shock-video-savage-attack-at-manhattan-mcdonalds/)
QuoteNEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — A fight over an order at a Manhattan McDonald's leads to complete chaos and it was all caught on tape.
The video contains images and audio of a graphic nature.
Sources tell CBS 2's Chris Wragge the stunning incident featured a cashier with a criminal past violently beating two female customers after they appear to provoke him by slapping him and then hopping the counter.
It was a horrific scene to watch. The cashier disappears into the back of the fast-food restaurant on West Fourth Street in Greenwich Village before returning with a metal rod he then used viciously on the two customers.
The gruesome act of violence early Thursday morning escalated after the customers argued and yelled obscenities at the cashier when he questioned a $50 bill they gave him.
One of the female customers then slapped the cashier. A woman is then seen jumping over the counter, while the other woman goes behind the register. They are then savagely attacked.
Other customers watched in horror as other McDonald's workers tried unsuccessfully to stop the violence.
One female customer had a fractured skull that required surgery and a broken arm. The other has a deep laceration.
Rayon McIntosh, 31, was arrested and charged with two counts of felony assault and criminal possession of a weapon. McIntosh served more than a decade in prison after shooting and killing a high school classmate in 2000. He was being held on $40,000 bail.
The female customers were reportedly charged with menacing, disorderly conduct and trespassing.
Please stay with CBSNewYork.com for more on this developing story.
Please offer your thoughts in the comments section below.
Eh, the dude's a convicted killer and probably took the beating a few swings too far; however at the end of the day I think bitches mostly got what they deserved. I've seen this shit too many times, mouthy inner city "types" that act like they can shit on anyone. You slap a dude at his place of work then jump over the counter and come at him, he's 100% justified in coming back at you.
I will say, if the situation was reversed and two dudes jumped the counter on a black woman, and she shot and killed both of them I don't think there would be any charges. In this case the guy will probably go to prison because he came back to beat them a few times after the situation seemed diffused. What's really unfortunate is these two welfare mommas have hit a gravy train and will probably sue McDonald's for $50 billion and settle for $500,000 or something each.
What I find really shitty is the tone of the news article. It's almost written as though slapping a cashier then jumping a counter to come at him are essentially neutral acts, while the cashier's act was a violent and unprovoked assault that happened for no reason at all.
Sounds like they had it coming. While I'm not terribly insenced by the thought of putting a convicted murderer back in prison, I don't think it would be fair to throw the book at him.
:lol:
That's right near my apt. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2011, 10:16:58 AM
:lol:
That's right near my apt. :blush:
You live in Greenwich Village? That's like two PATH stations away from me. :x
Quote from: DGuller on October 15, 2011, 10:30:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2011, 10:16:58 AM
:lol:
That's right near my apt. :blush:
You live in Greenwich Village? That's like two PATH stations away from me. :x
OMG, gay Languish meetup!
That video was gold. Dumb bitches, bet you didn't expect dude coming at you with a steel rod to the face.
Bitches were trying to rob the place. They got what they deserved.
When I worked fast food, my view was that if anyone ever came over the counter at me, I was going to plant them. Never had to actually do it, but I would have if the situation had even arisen.
Didn't actually see any other employees trying to stop the dude in the video.
One employee did lovingly put his hand on the guy doing the beating, near the end.
I never felt compelled to attack the cashier at any fast food restaurant. Even when they screwed up my order or decided to play pranks on me.
I have wanted to.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 15, 2011, 04:26:38 PM
I never felt compelled to attack the cashier at any fast food restaurant. Even when they screwed up my order or decided to play pranks on me.
Maybe now you will be able to face those demons.
Looks like self-defense to me. :)
"That's when they were attacked." :lol:
All joking aside, how was that one woman not charged with assault and battery herself? Slapping someone = criminal battery.
So I guess the good news is that a job just opened up in NYC?
Give that guy a medal. :D
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2011, 09:59:41 PM
All joking aside, how was that one woman not charged with assault and battery herself? Slapping someone = criminal battery.
So I guess the good news is that a job just opened up in NYC?
I dunno. The guy's response was excessive, but he was attacked by two people. I am reminded of a video that Seedy posted where two black chicks beat the shit out some McDonald's employee then fled he/she went into some kind of epileptic fit.
I gotta say that I tend to think that "blacks" in the US are just a typical underclass and it has nothing to do with race but... stuff like this just doesn't happen in Poland, and we are in theory less developed.
Thing is, you could make a viable argument for actually being in fear of death or serious bodily harm when two assailants attack you, regardless of gender. He'd have been way better off not being caught on camera hitting them with the equivalent of a tactical baton (or maybe it was, that'd be pretty great if they were McD's standard issue :lol: ) in discrete phases where it seemed likely that his attackers were sufficiently neutralized and he was no longer in danger. Even then, in an adrenal situation like that, it's very difficult not to reasonably believe that your attacker's ability to even still move presents a threat. (There's also the fact that the counter occludes the shot. So, obviously, she was getting up or still making verbal threats or hitting his leg or something. :) )
We don't get into enough fights in this country these days--most of our fight experiences are playground scuffles where risk of serious harm is minimized, but anyone who's ever been in a fight or violent confrontation as an adult knows that another adult can kill you. I know this from a couple of experiences. One, well, was me almost killing a guy. The more recent was intervening in a CDV situation that, where the other male participant was 100% likely to be armed with a knife (even if he was too much of a pussy to push it into me; fucking coward). Basically, what I'm saying is that a threat situation is never truly ended until the other person is physically neutralized, and standard-issue civilians should not have to deal with our bullshit self-defense laws, because "proportionality" is the easiest way to lose a fight. An aggressor is always likely to escalate.
Say, does NYC have a duty of retreat in your place of business? SC statutorily decreed there isn't. But, as Occupy Wall Street has shown us, NY hates humans.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 05:27:47 AM
But, as Occupy Wall Street has shown us, NY hates humans.
It's true - NY has prevented the protests from occurring.
I just realized something, too. My lawyer on the "almost killing a guy" was a pretty shitty counselor. I actually have no idea why the "victim" never sued me, but if he had, the plea deal I accepted (because I couldn't really afford trial rates, even though I had an excellent SD/defense of others case) would have led to an open and shut case of liability in a civil trial. :(
What an asshole. SC had just adopted the modern estoppel rule a year before. It should have been fresh in his dumbass mind when he was representing me. He never. Even. Mentioned. It.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2011, 05:34:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 05:27:47 AM
But, as Occupy Wall Street has shown us, NY hates humans.
It's true - NY has prevented the protests from occurring.
They've surely stopped some quantity of protest from occurring.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 05:40:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2011, 05:34:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 05:27:47 AM
But, as Occupy Wall Street has shown us, NY hates humans.
It's true - NY has prevented the protests from occurring.
They've surely stopped some quantity of protest from occurring.
That's kind of a meaningless statement. Unless you allow all quantity of protest to occur than you hate humans? What about the residents who don't want protesters in their way?
And what's with all this camping out?
I was being a little facetious with the "hate humans" remark, you know. :P
What's the deal with airline peanuts?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 05:27:47 AM
Thing is, you could make a viable argument for actually being in fear of death or serious bodily harm when two assailants attack you, regardless of gender. He'd have been way better off not being caught on camera hitting them with the equivalent of a tactical baton (or maybe it was, that'd be pretty great if they were McD's standard issue :lol: ) in discrete phases where it seemed likely that his attackers were sufficiently neutralized and he was no longer in danger. Even then, in an adrenal situation like that, it's very difficult not to reasonably believe that your attacker's ability to even still move presents a threat. (There's also the fact that the counter occludes the shot. So, obviously, she was getting up or still making verbal threats or hitting his leg or something. :) )
We don't get into enough fights in this country these days--most of our fight experiences are playground scuffles where risk of serious harm is minimized, but anyone who's ever been in a fight or violent confrontation as an adult knows that another adult can kill you. I know this from a couple of experiences. One, well, was me almost killing a guy. The more recent was intervening in a CDV situation that, where the other male participant was 100% likely to be armed with a knife (even if he was too much of a pussy to push it into me; fucking coward). Basically, what I'm saying is that a threat situation is never truly ended until the other person is physically neutralized, and standard-issue civilians should not have to deal with our bullshit self-defense laws, because "proportionality" is the easiest way to lose a fight. An aggressor is always likely to escalate.
Say, does NYC have a duty of retreat in your place of business? SC statutorily decreed there isn't. But, as Occupy Wall Street has shown us, NY hates humans.
Generally, in places like NYC, you do have a duty to retreat. If retreat is impossible, then you must do everything reasonable to cooperate and assist in your execution.
:lol:
Bernhard Goetz is my hero.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:09:59 AM
What's the deal with airline peanuts?
Outdated? Do many airlines even give out peanuts once the peanut allergy lobby dug in? :(
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2011, 08:37:11 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 06:09:59 AM
What's the deal with airline peanuts?
Outdated? Do many airlines even give out peanuts once the peanut allergy lobby dug in? :(
:( Nope. It's pretzels and Biscoff cookies everywhere I go.
I didn't get any free food this past trip... not even on the longest leg of the flights (Phoenix -> Charlotte). :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2011, 06:21:49 AM
I didn't get any free food this past trip... not even on the longest leg of the flights (Phoenix -> Charlotte). :mad:
Love America, hate American airline companies.
Quote from: Warspite on October 17, 2011, 08:27:10 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2011, 06:21:49 AM
I didn't get any free food this past trip... not even on the longest leg of the flights (Phoenix -> Charlotte). :mad:
Love America, hate American airline companies.
American consumers have nobody but themselves to blame when it comes to airline service.
We buy airline tickets by going online, using a price comparison engine, and buying the cheapest possible seat. Since that is how 95% of the tickets are sold, the airlines are forced to cut their costs to the bare minimum in order to compete on price only, since price only is all we make decisions on...
If you want food, legroom, and better than surly service, pay double for business class.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2011, 05:39:03 AM
I just realized something, too. My lawyer on the "almost killing a guy" was a pretty shitty counselor. I actually have no idea why the "victim" never sued me, but if he had, the plea deal I accepted (because I couldn't really afford trial rates, even though I had an excellent SD/defense of others case) would have led to an open and shut case of liability in a civil trial. :(
What an asshole. SC had just adopted the modern estoppel rule a year before. It should have been fresh in his dumbass mind when he was representing me. He never. Even. Mentioned. It.
Ideo, this is where it becomes obvious you've gone to law school, but never practised.
Civil suits arising from criminal convictions are exceedingly rare. That is because collecting on a civil judgment is very difficult unless there is a guaranteed source of money to go after (i.e. insurance). Look at your own situation - what good would suing you be? You're judgment-proof at this point.
I've never, ever had a criminal defence lawyer express any concern over possible civil liability EXCEPT when it comes to motor vehicle accidents - and that is because there is an insurance company to pay any judgment.
Your lawyer might as well talked about the risk of being struck by lightning on your way to the courthouse.
At the time I was actually very far from judgment proof.
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 08:54:00 AM
Quote from: Warspite on October 17, 2011, 08:27:10 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2011, 06:21:49 AM
I didn't get any free food this past trip... not even on the longest leg of the flights (Phoenix -> Charlotte). :mad:
Love America, hate American airline companies.
American consumers have nobody but themselves to blame when it comes to airline service.
We buy airline tickets by going online, using a price comparison engine, and buying the cheapest possible seat. Since that is how 95% of the tickets are sold, the airlines are forced to cut their costs to the bare minimum in order to compete on price only, since price only is all we make decisions on...
If you want food, legroom, and better than surly service, pay double for business class.
Do you have proof that Americans are the only people that do that?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 08:58:25 AM
At the time I was actually very far from judgment proof.
Two house plants and a 1995 dodge neon hardly count as being worthwhile assets to pursue.
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 08:54:00 AM
Quote from: Warspite on October 17, 2011, 08:27:10 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2011, 06:21:49 AM
I didn't get any free food this past trip... not even on the longest leg of the flights (Phoenix -> Charlotte). :mad:
Love America, hate American airline companies.
American consumers have nobody but themselves to blame when it comes to airline service.
We buy airline tickets by going online, using a price comparison engine, and buying the cheapest possible seat. Since that is how 95% of the tickets are sold, the airlines are forced to cut their costs to the bare minimum in order to compete on price only, since price only is all we make decisions on...
If you want food, legroom, and better than surly service, pay double for business class.
True, but I have noticed that with Ryan Air and EasyJet, you may not get many extra but I've always had a pleasant time flying with them. The service is reasonable; you won't get handed two small bottles of champagne for swapping seats with a pregnant lady (as I once did on a BA flight), but I've always found the European budget airlines to have courteous staff. When I once flew American Airlines (or one of the other carriers, can't remember), the staff were outright hostile to me. :huh:
This surprised me, because I always associate American businesses with very good service.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2011, 08:58:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 08:54:00 AM
Quote from: Warspite on October 17, 2011, 08:27:10 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2011, 06:21:49 AM
I didn't get any free food this past trip... not even on the longest leg of the flights (Phoenix -> Charlotte). :mad:
Love America, hate American airline companies.
American consumers have nobody but themselves to blame when it comes to airline service.
We buy airline tickets by going online, using a price comparison engine, and buying the cheapest possible seat. Since that is how 95% of the tickets are sold, the airlines are forced to cut their costs to the bare minimum in order to compete on price only, since price only is all we make decisions on...
If you want food, legroom, and better than surly service, pay double for business class.
Do you have proof that Americans are the only people that do that?
No - why would I want any?
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 08:59:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 08:58:25 AM
At the time I was actually very far from judgment proof.
Two house plants and a 1995 dodge neon hardly count as being worthwhile assets to pursue.
Yeah, I misspoke in that statement earlier, "couldn't afford" should actually read more like "did not feel it worthwhile with the case against me at the time." I could have easily covered actual economic damages in cash, assuming a reasonably normal ER stay for a broken nose (around $3000). Actual non-economic damages are of course very hard to estimate. I don't think punitive damages would have been in the off.
And, yeah, okay, he wasn't inept. It's still a very near-run thing whether that plea deal was a good choice, though. On one hand, the actual incident really did involve self-defense (you need not wait till the first blow has landed, and this guy had actually beaten the shit out of me twice beforehand in prior years; my apprehension was entirely reasonable). On the other, there were some completely bogus charges involving assault with a deadly weapon (said I tried to hit him with my car), which is serious felony territory, and the associated charges were unsympathetic and entirely true. On the minus side, I do have a violent misdemeanor on my record for-evah.
In any event, practical experience notwithstanding, I would have advised a client of possible civil ramifications, explained what judgment-proof meant and determined if I was, in fact, so protected. Wouldn't you?
Quote from: Warspite on October 17, 2011, 09:03:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 08:54:00 AM
Quote from: Warspite on October 17, 2011, 08:27:10 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2011, 06:21:49 AM
I didn't get any free food this past trip... not even on the longest leg of the flights (Phoenix -> Charlotte). :mad:
Love America, hate American airline companies.
American consumers have nobody but themselves to blame when it comes to airline service.
We buy airline tickets by going online, using a price comparison engine, and buying the cheapest possible seat. Since that is how 95% of the tickets are sold, the airlines are forced to cut their costs to the bare minimum in order to compete on price only, since price only is all we make decisions on...
If you want food, legroom, and better than surly service, pay double for business class.
True, but I have noticed that with Ryan Air and EasyJet, you may not get many extra but I've always had a pleasant time flying with them. The service is reasonable; you won't get handed two small bottles of champagne for swapping seats with a pregnant lady (as I once did on a BA flight), but I've always found the European budget airlines to have courteous staff. When I once flew American Airlines (or one of the other carriers, can't remember), the staff were outright hostile to me. :huh:
This surprised me, because I always associate American businesses with very good service.
Well, actually in my experience flying in the states, the airline attendants in the air have always been very courteous, they just don't give you much of anything anymore. Which is fine, for the most part. I had act all surly to me on my last flight, but to be fair I was kind of clueless and they had to tell me three times to turn my phone off and put my tray up before take off because I had headphones on and wasn't paying attention.
The thing that annoys me is that they aren't going to give you any food, and you can't really bring any through security anymore, and who wants to pay $9 for a crappy sandwich to take on the plane from the terminal?
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 09:05:11 AM
No - why would I want any?
Because your analysis would be irrelevant if, for instance, Europeans were also always looking for a bargain and yet don't suffer the same abuses that American carriers heap on their customers.
Oh, I see that Arky just spoke to what I was asking.
Quote from: Warspite on October 17, 2011, 09:03:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 08:54:00 AM
Quote from: Warspite on October 17, 2011, 08:27:10 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2011, 06:21:49 AM
I didn't get any free food this past trip... not even on the longest leg of the flights (Phoenix -> Charlotte). :mad:
Love America, hate American airline companies.
American consumers have nobody but themselves to blame when it comes to airline service.
We buy airline tickets by going online, using a price comparison engine, and buying the cheapest possible seat. Since that is how 95% of the tickets are sold, the airlines are forced to cut their costs to the bare minimum in order to compete on price only, since price only is all we make decisions on...
If you want food, legroom, and better than surly service, pay double for business class.
True, but I have noticed that with Ryan Air and EasyJet, you may not get many extra but I've always had a pleasant time flying with them. The service is reasonable; you won't get handed two small bottles of champagne for swapping seats with a pregnant lady (as I once did on a BA flight), but I've always found the European budget airlines to have courteous staff. When I once flew American Airlines (or one of the other carriers, can't remember), the staff were outright hostile to me. :huh:
This surprised me, because I always associate American businesses with very good service.
You've been lucky then. Ryanair must be one of the most hated companies in the UK. I'd never fly with them after numerous shitty experiences.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 09:06:03 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 08:59:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 08:58:25 AM
At the time I was actually very far from judgment proof.
Two house plants and a 1995 dodge neon hardly count as being worthwhile assets to pursue.
Yeah, I misspoke in that statement earlier, "couldn't afford" should actually read more like "did not feel it worthwhile with the case against me at the time." I could have easily covered actual economic damages in cash, assuming a reasonably normal ER stay for a broken nose (around $3000). Actual non-economic damages are of course very hard to estimate. I don't think punitive damages would have been in the off.
And, yeah, okay, he wasn't inept. It's still a very near-run thing whether that plea deal was a good choice, though. On one hand, the actual incident really did involve self-defense (you need not wait till the first blow has landed, and this guy had actually beaten the shit out of me twice beforehand in prior years; my apprehension was entirely reasonable). On the other, there were some completely bogus charges involving assault with a deadly weapon (said I tried to hit him with my car), which is serious felony territory, and the associated charges were unsympathetic and entirely true. On the minus side, I do have a violent misdemeanor on my record for-evah.
In any event, practical experience notwithstanding, I would have advised a client of possible civil ramifications, explained what judgment-proof meant and determined if I was, in fact, so protected. Wouldn't you?
It is absolutely not worth it to sue for $3000.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2011, 09:08:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 09:05:11 AM
No - why would I want any?
Because your analysis would be irrelevant if, for instance, Europeans were also always looking for a bargain and yet don't suffer the same abuses that American carriers heap on their customers.
Oh, I see that Arky just spoke to what I was asking.
So you are saying that it is not blindingly obvious that if customers make decisions based solely on price, businesses will focus their attention on giving them the best possible price at the expense of other incentives, and you need "proof" before you will believe such crazy things?
Frankly, if you don't believe me, I don't really care.
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 09:17:46 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 09:06:03 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 08:59:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 08:58:25 AM
At the time I was actually very far from judgment proof.
Two house plants and a 1995 dodge neon hardly count as being worthwhile assets to pursue.
Yeah, I misspoke in that statement earlier, "couldn't afford" should actually read more like "did not feel it worthwhile with the case against me at the time." I could have easily covered actual economic damages in cash, assuming a reasonably normal ER stay for a broken nose (around $3000). Actual non-economic damages are of course very hard to estimate. I don't think punitive damages would have been in the off.
And, yeah, okay, he wasn't inept. It's still a very near-run thing whether that plea deal was a good choice, though. On one hand, the actual incident really did involve self-defense (you need not wait till the first blow has landed, and this guy had actually beaten the shit out of me twice beforehand in prior years; my apprehension was entirely reasonable). On the other, there were some completely bogus charges involving assault with a deadly weapon (said I tried to hit him with my car), which is serious felony territory, and the associated charges were unsympathetic and entirely true. On the minus side, I do have a violent misdemeanor on my record for-evah.
In any event, practical experience notwithstanding, I would have advised a client of possible civil ramifications, explained what judgment-proof meant and determined if I was, in fact, so protected. Wouldn't you?
It is absolutely not worth it to sue for $3000.
I dunno. If you had to conduct a fact-intensive trial, no. With the issue precluded, it sounds not entirely unreasonable. But you could be right.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 09:52:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 09:17:46 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 09:06:03 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 08:59:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 08:58:25 AM
At the time I was actually very far from judgment proof.
Two house plants and a 1995 dodge neon hardly count as being worthwhile assets to pursue.
Yeah, I misspoke in that statement earlier, "couldn't afford" should actually read more like "did not feel it worthwhile with the case against me at the time." I could have easily covered actual economic damages in cash, assuming a reasonably normal ER stay for a broken nose (around $3000). Actual non-economic damages are of course very hard to estimate. I don't think punitive damages would have been in the off.
And, yeah, okay, he wasn't inept. It's still a very near-run thing whether that plea deal was a good choice, though. On one hand, the actual incident really did involve self-defense (you need not wait till the first blow has landed, and this guy had actually beaten the shit out of me twice beforehand in prior years; my apprehension was entirely reasonable). On the other, there were some completely bogus charges involving assault with a deadly weapon (said I tried to hit him with my car), which is serious felony territory, and the associated charges were unsympathetic and entirely true. On the minus side, I do have a violent misdemeanor on my record for-evah.
In any event, practical experience notwithstanding, I would have advised a client of possible civil ramifications, explained what judgment-proof meant and determined if I was, in fact, so protected. Wouldn't you?
It is absolutely not worth it to sue for $3000.
I dunno. If you had to conduct a fact-intensive trial, no. With the issue precluded, it sounds not entirely unreasonable. But you could be right.
I should clarify that it is absoltely not worth it to hire a lawyer to sue for $3000. If you think you can go through small claims by yourself, then great.
But even if liability is not an issue, assessing quantum can still be extremely expensive.
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 08:56:50 AM
Your lawyer might as well talked about the risk of being struck by lightning on your way to the courthouse.
While no means common, a lawyer coming out of a court house is sixteen times more likely to be struck by lighting then a normal person.
I didn't notice many spotlights outside the courthouse where I had jury duty last week. Maybe you don't if you aren't a lawyer.
No idea how it is in Canada but small claims is basically just to make you feel better and serves little practical purpose.
I played that game once a long time ago with a deadbeat that owed me money. Clearly documented etc etc (we were renting the starter home we moved out of many years ago, and tenants skipped out on last month's rent.) At the end of the day what you get is a judgment against someone and no help whatsoever in collecting, the court system will not aid or assist in any way.
So you can try to get a wage garnishment, but a lot of the people who do this kind of thing are only intermittently employed, unfortunately. You can try to get certain assets seized, but that's also a lengthy process and many, many assets are protected from such action due to various local laws designed to keep people from being rendered totally destitute over a civil judgment.
And if the deadbeat is smart, he/she/it will empty their bank accounts(if they have any) before the court date so that they can't be garnished.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 17, 2011, 10:38:32 AM
While no means common, a lawyer coming out of a court house is sixteen times more likely to be struck by lighting then a normal person.
:lol:
Quote
One female customer had a fractured skull that required surgery and a broken arm.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury ... did this women "deserve a break today"?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 17, 2011, 11:18:26 AM
No idea how it is in Canada but small claims is basically just to make you feel better and serves little practical purpose.
I played that game once a long time ago with a deadbeat that owed me money. Clearly documented etc etc (we were renting the starter home we moved out of many years ago, and tenants skipped out on last month's rent.) At the end of the day what you get is a judgment against someone and no help whatsoever in collecting, the court system will not aid or assist in any way.
So you can try to get a wage garnishment, but a lot of the people who do this kind of thing are only intermittently employed, unfortunately. You can try to get certain assets seized, but that's also a lengthy process and many, many assets are protected from such action due to various local laws designed to keep people from being rendered totally destitute over a civil judgment.
I cut my teeth as a litigator in small claims court. It was actually a very valuable experience, and yes I even managed to win clients some money.
But of course the key is to early on assess whether the defendant had potential assets to go after. This is why I was telling Ideo he had essentially zero risk of being sued.
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 09:19:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2011, 09:08:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 09:05:11 AM
No - why would I want any?
Because your analysis would be irrelevant if, for instance, Europeans were also always looking for a bargain and yet don't suffer the same abuses that American carriers heap on their customers.
Oh, I see that Arky just spoke to what I was asking.
So you are saying that it is not blindingly obvious that if customers make decisions based solely on price, businesses will focus their attention on giving them the best possible price at the expense of other incentives, and you need "proof" before you will believe such crazy things?
Frankly, if you don't believe me, I don't really care.
I think it would fail as an explanation if you have two markets (US and EU) where consumers are focused on price and yet one market puts up with a lot more crap from their airlines across the board.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2011, 01:59:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 09:19:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2011, 09:08:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 09:05:11 AM
No - why would I want any?
Because your analysis would be irrelevant if, for instance, Europeans were also always looking for a bargain and yet don't suffer the same abuses that American carriers heap on their customers.
Oh, I see that Arky just spoke to what I was asking.
So you are saying that it is not blindingly obvious that if customers make decisions based solely on price, businesses will focus their attention on giving them the best possible price at the expense of other incentives, and you need "proof" before you will believe such crazy things?
Frankly, if you don't believe me, I don't really care.
I think it would fail as an explanation if you have two markets (US and EU) where consumers are focused on price and yet one market puts up with a lot more crap from their airlines across the board.
I stated American simply because that is what I have experience with. If you have more knowledge about how in Europe the consumers all focus on price, and yet their airlines ignore that and give them great service instead, please share it with us.
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 03:04:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2011, 01:59:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 09:19:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2011, 09:08:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 09:05:11 AM
No - why would I want any?
Because your analysis would be irrelevant if, for instance, Europeans were also always looking for a bargain and yet don't suffer the same abuses that American carriers heap on their customers.
Oh, I see that Arky just spoke to what I was asking.
So you are saying that it is not blindingly obvious that if customers make decisions based solely on price, businesses will focus their attention on giving them the best possible price at the expense of other incentives, and you need "proof" before you will believe such crazy things?
Frankly, if you don't believe me, I don't really care.
I think it would fail as an explanation if you have two markets (US and EU) where consumers are focused on price and yet one market puts up with a lot more crap from their airlines across the board.
I stated American simply because that is what I have experience with. If you have more knowledge about how in Europe the consumers all focus on price, and yet their airlines ignore that and give them great service instead, please share it with us.
Quote from: Warspite on October 17, 2011, 09:03:33 AM
True, but I have noticed that with Ryan Air and EasyJet, you may not get many extra but I've always had a pleasant time flying with them. The service is reasonable; you won't get handed two small bottles of champagne for swapping seats with a pregnant lady (as I once did on a BA flight), but I've always found the European budget airlines to have courteous staff. When I once flew American Airlines (or one of the other carriers, can't remember), the staff were outright hostile to me. :huh:
This surprised me, because I always associate American businesses with very good service.
That said - I won't ask you any questions anymore.
Oh, Warspite is Arkestra. That's good.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2011, 03:12:44 PM
Oh, Warspite is Arkestra. That's good.
At least that is the impression I'm under. :D
Quote from: Berkut on October 17, 2011, 09:19:39 AM
So you are saying that it is not blindingly obvious that if customers make decisions based solely on price, businesses will focus their attention on giving them the best possible price at the expense of other incentives, and you need "proof" before you will believe such crazy things?
Frankly, if you don't believe me, I don't really care.
I think you are speaking past each other.
You are arguing that American airlines uniquely don't give "food, legroom, and better than surly service" because Americans shop for tickets based on price only. Garbo is questioning whether the surly service is just a function of the price-shopping for tickets, and asking if European airlines (those whose customers also buy based purely on price) also have surly service.
My experience has been that the only airlines with uniformly surly cabin staff is BA, so I am not convinced that this is an American problem. I am not claiming, though, that all BA crews are as bad as the two I have encountered in recent years.
No, I am saying that American airlines do this, not that it is necessarily unique to American airlines. I said American simply because 90% of my experience with airlines has been American. I doubt that it is unique, simply because of the basic concepts involved are not likely to change outside the US, but I don't really know what other variables may come into play outside the US.
And the "surly service" is largely over-played. My experience with the friendliness of airline personel has been largely positive compared to other service industries. And that is not surprising in such a competitive environment. People grumble and whine about not having legroom and snacks, but they will actually avoid airlines where they are treated like crap, simply because they can. While there aren't really any choices anymore in the US when it comes to the desire to get more space and amenities without spending a LOT more money.
I did notice on my last trip that JetBlue had reserved "more legroom" seating that also allowed you to board early, in return for a $20 bump in the price of the ticket. Attempt to increase margins via incremental increase in comfort, rather than the unaffordable (for most people) difference of business/first class. I wonder how that is working for them...
My guess is that union legacy (combined with the legacy of heavy regulation) in the airlines has more to do with the level of service than country of origin. Most of the big airlines in US originate from the time when unions had a blank check given by the airlines, and airlines had a blank check given by the government regulation. That kind of destructive legacy is extremely hard to root out.
Quote from: Berkut on October 18, 2011, 09:25:59 AM
I did notice on my last trip that JetBlue had reserved "more legroom" seating that also allowed you to board early, in return for a $20 bump in the price of the ticket. Attempt to increase margins via incremental increase in comfort, rather than the unaffordable (for most people) difference of business/first class. I wonder how that is working for them...
I regularly pay more for seating in an exit row, for the legroom. Costs more but at 6' it is worth it to me - I get very uncomfortable in regular seating on transatlantic flights.
It's a good compromise between paying something like twice as much for a bump up in seating class, and being painfully cramped.
Quote from: Berkut on October 18, 2011, 09:25:59 AM
People grumble and whine about not having legroom and snacks, but they will actually avoid airlines where they are treated like crap, simply because they can.
Can they, though? Maybe you have a choice if you fly from New York to Chicago, but I imagine that for most routes, logistical consideration limit your choice quite drastically. When I had to fly from Newark to Vegas, the choice was between Continental and, nothing else, actually. Only Continental had a flight that was in any way practical between those two points.
So yeah he's going for self-defense.