• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Is This a Crime Where You Can Blame The Victim?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Read the whole article. Can't believe how many times the creep got away with this before someone finally made any kind of arrest.
 
The man on the phone asked her if there was someone she trusted and she mentioned her fiance. He told her to call the fiance over to watch the girl and the fiance came. The manager then left and the fiance was left alone with the employee. The man on the phone convinced him to carry out the sexual acts.

That's what i meant. Of course, i didn't put it as clearly as you did. :)
 
How did the caller escape liability? Impersonating the police is supposed to be a felony. Need some cliff notes here.
Supposedly not enough proof.

fb59f011-d455-4a5d-8901-167c17d4f4e6.grid-6x2.jpg


That's the fucker.

That's what i meant. Of course, i didn't put it as clearly as you did. :)
Ah right haha. I thought you meant the man on the phone was her fiance :p
 
Already made. Not sure about that. Probably not.


That question was for jorma. I just messed up the quoting :lol

It's just unbelievably disturbing.

If anyone is lazy and wants to know what happened to everyone:

The caller = acquitted of all charges

The manager = placed on probation for 1 year and fired from McDonalds. She won $1.1 million from McDonalds

The manager's fiance = 5 years in prison (from 2006) for strip-searching and sexually abusing the girl. Never married the manager

The victim = underwent therapy to address post-traumatic stress disorder depression related to her abuse, including prescription anti-depressants. She abandoned her plans to attend the University of Louisville, where she had anticipated declaring pre-med. In an interview with ABC News she said that, after her abuse, she "felt dirty" and had difficulty making and maintaining friendships because she wouldn't "allow anyone to get too close to her." She won $6.1 million from McDonalds

More

I'm not sure what the question was, but i'm firm - in my eyes the primary culprits are the people who actually did these things, not some dude on a telephone. Yes, there is a special place in hell for him too, but...

...the manager won 1.1 million from mcd, and her husband got five years? Instead of both of them getting jail? Yeah this rubs me the wrong fucking way. I'm raging hard now.
I don't give a shit about fucking Milgram effects, you don't get to blame some voice on a fucking telephone when you did this shit to someone else.

And in regards to the caller getting aquitted it seems like it was due to lack of evidence? Can't really find any fault with that even if they "knew" it was him.
 
I tend to not believe anything that's conveyed by phone. My mortgage company called me about a late payment and I laughed and told them to pound sand because I thought they were someone else just trying to get me to refinance. They had been sold to another company and I didn't recognize the name and my payments are on a direct-debit schedule, which they had also changed. Oops.

Did she sue the McDonald's? I certainly would have. I also would quit before I subjected myself to a nude strip search from my boss.
 
I uh... holy shit.

This takes prank calling to a whole other level.

I can't accept that the fiancee and the caller where not in it together... I mean come on.
 
I remember seeing this on 20/20 years ago. They showed actual video footage from the security camera. It was disgusting.
 
I tend to not believe anything that's conveyed by phone. My mortgage company called me about a late payment and I laughed and told them to pound sand because I thought they were someone else just trying to get me to refinance. They had been sold to another company and I didn't recognize the name and my payments are on a direct-debit schedule, which they had also changed. Oops.

Did she sue the McDonald's? I certainly would have. I also would quit before I subjected myself to a nude strip search from my boss.

yes, she did

the video of it all is available online too
 
I wasn't at the trial, obviously, but reading the story, they could have easily found guilt. He's a suspect in multiple similar instances, and evidence of that should have been admissible to prove identity. I wonder if that evidence wasn't allowed, or if this was just a bad jury.
 
Would definitely blame the sheeple responsible for carrying out the search - "I was only doing my job" wasn't an excuse in Nazi Germany or Abu Graib and it's not an excuse now. It's not victim-blaming, they're perpetrators in their own right. They're more responsible for this action than the prankster, by far.

Wasn't this scenario adapted into an awful SVU episode starring Robin Williams as some sort of anarchist?
 
The manager only getting probation and WINNING 1.1 million dollars makes me angry. If you watch the videos and read the article, she comes off as a complete bitch and straight up lies to the interviewer multiple times. And who does she blame the incident on? Fucking McDonalds.

I'm sorry, but the manager and boyfriend are the most at blame here.
 
Read the article. I could somewhat understand why the people were going along with the caller up until I found out the finance had sodomized the girl. How on earth do you make something like that seem part of a 'police' search?
 
Read the article. I could somewhat understand why the people were going along with the caller up until I found out the finance had sodomized the girl. How on earth do you make something like that seem part of a 'police' search?

Commons sense rules. If they have even the most basic level of intelligence - and since she was a manager I'm assuming she does - red flags should have started flying the second the caller ordered them to perform a strip search. They were more concerned with the very minute chance of getting in trouble than the well-being of their employee.
 
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/331892

"Well, it's not so hard to see. A kid looking for a father and didn't have his own -- and they won't be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping, but not having intercourse or anything like that. It's an understandable thing, and you know where you find it, among other clergy or important people; you look at teachers, attorneys, judges, social workers."

Well there you go, kids are the seducers, and priests are the powerless ones
 
Read the article. I could somewhat understand why the people were going along with the caller up until I found out the finance had sodomized the girl. How on earth do you make something like that seem part of a 'police' search?

Yeah i had noticed that too, having read that entire article. Even if we are led to believe they went along with the strip search, I have no idea how anyone could justify the sodomy. He didn't even work at micdonalds, so he can't use that as an excuse. To have the 9th grade drop out handyman tell them that no this is wrong, after 4 hours is just absurd.
 
Nah, I would say both the manager and the employee are victims, one of a worse ituation than the other, but both were manipulated in ways that are hard to resist unless you know about them.

Bump that noise. The manager is a victim of fraud at worst. The employee is the victim of sexual assault and that was committed by the manager and her fiancee, the person on the phone was an accessory. Just following orders has never and should never be a justification for these kinds of acts.
 
I'm pretty sure the manager admitted he did realize something was off after awhile. That's part of why he got in trouble. My memory is hazy though since this happened almost a decade ago and I'm too lazy to read wikipedia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom