Is starts just like this…with loaded, presumptive language that casts females as weak victims-in-waiting and men as perps:
A cashier at a McDonald’s on West Fourth Street in Manhattan was captured on video savagely beating two female customers with a metal rod on Oct. 13, 2011.
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) – A McDonald’s cashier jailed for beating two irate customers with a metal rod says he was only trying to defend himself.
Rayon McIntosh was arrested Oct. 13 after a wild fight inside a McDonald’s in the Greenwich Village neighborhood in Manhattan. Video recorded by a customer showed two furious women vaulting a counter to attack McIntosh after some sort of dispute. McIntosh grabbed a metal bar and fought back with savage force, continuing to deliver crushing blows even after the women were incapacitated on the floor. McIntosh, 31, was arrested and charged with two counts of felony assault and criminal possession of a weapon while the two women were charged with menacing,
disorderly conduct and trespassing.
Note the tone and diction of the headline and first line of the story. “Cashier who beat customers claims self defense” and “Cashier…savagely beat…two female customers with a metal rod”. If you didn’t read any further you might conclude that this fellow started whaling on two (don’t forget female…ergo the beat-down was extra-special bad) customers for no reason whatsoever, and is cravenly using the legal refuge of the violent
scoundrel: the claim of self-defense.
Only those who bother to read further discover that these two female customers initiated the entire episode by vaulting over the counter and attacking a McDonald’s cashier, after which he proceeded to strike them with a metal rod. Even then the loaded language continued: “grabbed a metal bar and fought back with savage force”, “deliver crushing blows”, etc.
Now perhaps I’m reading into this a little bit, but it sure seems as though the article, the way it is worded, goes out of its way to paint the cashier as the aggressor and the two women as victims, despite their aggressive and threatening behavior (key mitigating facts we do not discover until later).
Now I’ll grant you that one’s right to self-defense stops as soon as your assailants lack the ability to continue the attack, and this fellow apparently, allegedly, kept whacking away after his two attackers fell to the ground, but as a commenter to the article pointed out, that legal precept has been shown to be a bit flexible as there are many cases where police officers continue to use force after the subject is down *cough* Rodney King *cough*, are not effectively resisting, and are let off the hook. Perhaps his actions–allegedly continuing to swing away–after they allegedly fell to the floor and posed no further threat, explains the disparity in charges.
As for me, despite this fellow’s prior criminal record which at this moment appears to have no bearing on the present case, these two females had it coming to them. If more hood rats of either sex had their offers of violence matched with equal and/or greater violence, I daresay there would be less of it, for they would suffer the consequences of their breaches of the peace.
It is also interesting to consider how the pass our society grants to female violence only leads them inexorably to greater violence…and this time their violence was met with equal violence by a male mentally and physically prepared to dispense it.
Last, I hope this case goes to a jury trial. For if the comments to this article are representative of the attitude of McIntosh’s peers, he’ll walk.
About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti.