Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:02 pm
Kracus wrote: I can also say from experience that all kinds of idiots that walk in to restaurants because I walk into restaurants once in a while.
Quake3World
Your world is waiting...
https://quake3world.com/forum/
Dad Accused Of Chuck E. Cheese Salad Theft Zapped By Police
Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:04 pm
yup.Dr.Gibbs2 wrote:I work in a store and deal with people like that all the time. They're so full of themselves and they just love to be victims. I can just hear his thoughts now. "I paid and I'm an American and I don't have to show you my reciept if I don't want to! HA! You can't accuse me of stealing anything you worthless minimum-wage lowlife! I'm better than you! It's all about the PRINCIPLE!"
Here's a novel idea... show your stupid reciept and get over it. If you can't act like an adult, you get zapped. Honestly, he had it coming. What is so wrong with showing a reciept? What kind of an example is this man setting for his children?
And for God's sake, if you don't listen to the minimum-wage lowlife, at least listen to the cops. I would have laughed if I were there. What a complete and utter moron.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:36 pm
Most places yeah, but buffet is usually paid in advance here. You get your drink at the same time. I think both sides acted badly. The guy should have either shown the receipt or paid, the cops should have shown more restraint in dealing with him. I mean hell, a tazer in a family restaurant? that's a bit too much.Kracus wrote:Maybe where you're from... Around here I've always paid before I leave.R00k wrote:No, at a lot of all-you-can-eat restaurants, you pay to get access to the buffet.Kracus wrote:Well you don't get a receipt at a restaurant until you pay for your meal... AFTER YOUR DONE morons.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:37 pm
next time pay for the damn salad geoff, you cheap ass hick.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:55 pm
Why is everybody here arguing about who it is that's lying -- something that's completely impossible for any of us to know?
"I worked at a restaurant, and I can tell you that mother fucker's lying right now!"
"I got kicked out of a restaurant once for not paying my bill, and I payed my bill! That manager was full of fucking shit!"
It's like a god damned Jerry Springer episode in here. :icon27:
"I worked at a restaurant, and I can tell you that mother fucker's lying right now!"
"I got kicked out of a restaurant once for not paying my bill, and I payed my bill! That manager was full of fucking shit!"
It's like a god damned Jerry Springer episode in here. :icon27:
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:59 pm
liar
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:00 am
*BREAKS CHAIR OVER PUFF'S HEAD*
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:05 am
I took no sides.R00k wrote:Why is everybody here arguing about who it is that's lying -- something that's completely impossible for any of us to know?
"I worked at a restaurant, and I can tell you that mother fucker's lying right now!"
"I got kicked out of a restaurant once for not paying my bill, and I payed my bill! That manager was full of fucking shit!"
It's like a god damned Jerry Springer episode in here. :icon27:
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:13 am
Pussy.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:29 am
Why? Because I saw both sides were at fault? :icon26:Kracus wrote:Pussy.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:09 am
I'm not defending the conduct of the police. My point was that had the man cooperated (the fact that he didn't is plainly stated in the story) none of this would've happened. Period.
The conduct of the police is a different point which is impossible for me or anyone else to argue unless you were there.
The reason for my little dramatization was to point out how ridiculous it is to think that the police just tazed the guy out of the blue, like the lady was implying.
I do think the use of a tazer should be reserved for extreme situations, and since there were two cops, they should've easily been able to neutralize the guy.
The conduct of the police is a different point which is impossible for me or anyone else to argue unless you were there.
The reason for my little dramatization was to point out how ridiculous it is to think that the police just tazed the guy out of the blue, like the lady was implying.
I do think the use of a tazer should be reserved for extreme situations, and since there were two cops, they should've easily been able to neutralize the guy.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:20 am
So, to clarify... Without being there, you can analyze whether the man was cooperating or not.
At the same time, you can't say whether the police used excessive force or not, but you can say that they used a tazer on him, even though they could have handled him without a tazer.
At the same time, you can't say whether the police used excessive force or not, but you can say that they used a tazer on him, even though they could have handled him without a tazer.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:21 am
Not even, I sympathize with the cops, if I had a tazer I'd rather use it instead of trying to wrestle some idgit to the ground, 2 against one or not. The fact if you're a cop you don't know what kind of diseases these people can be carrying and it's pretty easy to get it if you have to forcefully tackle a guy and cuff him so yeah, taze the mofo.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:23 am
And forget the fact that that's part of their job description, and the fact that there have been a lot of deaths by "non-lethal" tazers?
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:29 am
Well don't put yourself in a situation where you're gonna get tazed! 
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:35 am
Damn Kracus, you just solved the world's problems!!!!
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:40 am
No the cops did, with a tazer.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:44 am
"Police talked to the Chuck E. Cheese manager, who told them that a customer had refused to show proof that he had paid for food."R00k wrote:So, to clarify... Without being there, you can analyze whether the man was cooperating or not.
Nope, I can't tell from the story how big the guy was or how belligerent he was being.R00k wrote:At the same time, you can't say whether the police used excessive force or not,
Everyone seems to agree that a tazer was used. I think that the two cops could've restrained the man without it.R00k wrote:but you can say that they used a tazer on him, even though they could have handled him without a tazer."
Based on the above, I'm leaning towards a case of self-righteous indignation on the part of the man and probably some misconduct on the part of the officers. The fact that the man wasn't cooperating is pretty clear, in my opinion. Whether or not the two officers acted appropriately is not as clear, and would be pure speculation on my part.
Aside of all that, I think it's three assholes making other people's lives more complicated than they need to be.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:05 am
That's reasonable.
I don't think it's ridiculous to believe the cops might have tazered him without needing to, because recent history has showed us it's very possible. I'm not asserting that's what happened though.
In my opinion, the guy was in the wrong obviously, by not handing over his receipt when he was asked to. Maybe he threw it away right after he got it -- I've done that hundreds of times myself -- but being belligerent and refusing to cooperate is obviously not the way to handle the situation, even if he was poor and proud and couldn't afford to pay for 3 meals a second time.
But it's also my opinion that cops are trained to handle unruly people -- that is exactly their specialty and exactly what they're paid to do. I believe that if two of them can't handle one indignant man in a dignified manner in front of paying customers in a public restaurant, then they should not be police officers -- just like the two cops who got beat up by a 70 year old lady with a walking cane a little while back.
But the case is going to be sidetracked and turned around due to excessive media sensationalism. Pressure will be put on them from above, and since it's highly publicized their jobs will be in the balance, and if they did do something wrong, they will be forced to lie about the whole situation in order to keep their positions. The issue will be muddled further, and no real justice is likely to come from it.
And it's not the paper's fault for covering the story, it's the people's fault who obsess over things that do not affect them in any way, except to satisfy their desire for sensational entertainment at other people's expense.
The only reason this story should be of interest to anyone who isn't involved, is if it sets some sort of precedent that would affect them, or in other words, if the cops were found to have acted inappropriately.
That's obviously just my opinion, but that's why the thread was so interesting to me.
I don't think it's ridiculous to believe the cops might have tazered him without needing to, because recent history has showed us it's very possible. I'm not asserting that's what happened though.
In my opinion, the guy was in the wrong obviously, by not handing over his receipt when he was asked to. Maybe he threw it away right after he got it -- I've done that hundreds of times myself -- but being belligerent and refusing to cooperate is obviously not the way to handle the situation, even if he was poor and proud and couldn't afford to pay for 3 meals a second time.
But it's also my opinion that cops are trained to handle unruly people -- that is exactly their specialty and exactly what they're paid to do. I believe that if two of them can't handle one indignant man in a dignified manner in front of paying customers in a public restaurant, then they should not be police officers -- just like the two cops who got beat up by a 70 year old lady with a walking cane a little while back.
But the case is going to be sidetracked and turned around due to excessive media sensationalism. Pressure will be put on them from above, and since it's highly publicized their jobs will be in the balance, and if they did do something wrong, they will be forced to lie about the whole situation in order to keep their positions. The issue will be muddled further, and no real justice is likely to come from it.
And it's not the paper's fault for covering the story, it's the people's fault who obsess over things that do not affect them in any way, except to satisfy their desire for sensational entertainment at other people's expense.
The only reason this story should be of interest to anyone who isn't involved, is if it sets some sort of precedent that would affect them, or in other words, if the cops were found to have acted inappropriately.
That's obviously just my opinion, but that's why the thread was so interesting to me.