Boycott McDonalds

[controller1]

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the suspect is the son of the franchise owner.

It's not a franchise. It is corporate-owned.

 

[RX8]

It's not a franchise. It is corporate-owned.

Yes, it appears you are correct. The corporate entity is McDonald's Restaurants of Florida, Inc. The President of that entity is listed as Gregg Ereio. Gregg is also listed as Director of Operations for McDonald's USA, LLC which is a subsidiary of McDonalds Corporation.

Being a corporate owned restaurant makes it all the more bizarre as to why McDonalds would risk a blow-up of bad publicity over something like this.

 

[easyrider]

I doubt that any boycott over this matter would significantly hurt McDonalds. I'm certain McDonalds has some of the best legal advice in the world so if they are not showing it is likely because of the expert paid for advice they received.

Bill

 

[R1964]

I've been boycotting them for years there food sucks my eight years old doesn't even like them.

 

[jabberwocky]

It should maybe be pointed out that prosecutors in Florida don’t exactly have the best reputation for dealing with video evidence. Just sayin’.

 

[amycurl]

Oh, Florida....

 

[CanuckTravlr]

Prosecutors in Florida may not all have stellar reputations, and McDonald's may have some top-notch law firms working for them, but if that is the case, why has McDonald's not put forward their "legal" arguments to the court, when they have had over six months to do so? Something seems fishy to me.

If there is some compelling reason for not providing evidence to help prosecute the accused, why has it not been produced by now? On the surface they look like a bunch of idiots. If McDonald's has such "good" legal and PR teams, and no doubt that they do, then why have they not gotten ahead of this potential PR issue and been more forthcoming?

Until they do, I will certainly not be giving them a pass in a case that seems to be about an elderly, female customer being attacked and her car stolen by some apparent low-life.

 

[DeniseM]

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the suspect is the son of the franchise owner.

You know he's already been arrested, right?

 

[RX8]

You know he's already been arrested, right?

Yes, I did read that. I was thinking that the franchise owner may have been withholding a key piece of evidence to help the son escape conviction. Of course, we now know this restaurant is owned by corporate McDonalds. To me the son of the franchisee story seems more plausible than corporate McDonalds making a decision to ignore a subpoena for key evidence that could help convict a criminal that viciously attacked their 84 year old customer.

 

[jabberwocky]

The assault on this elderly woman is horrific. The accused has been arrested and charged. There is obviously already enough evidence for conviction, so it is not clear what the video will add, or if it would even be admissible. We don’t even know if the attacker can be identified in the video. Many of these security videos are extremely poor quality.

If there is probative value to the video, then the prosecutors should have no trouble agreeing not to release the video publicly, unless it is used in court (in which case it would be public record unless sealed). Most likely the plan is to release the video to do a “trial-by-media” with the hopes of forcing a plea-bargain. This is a common tactic. Try Googling “New England Patriots and prosecutor video evidence”.

MCD likely wants to avoid negative publicity of being associated with the assault. It may have backfired in this case, but I don’t think it’s illegitimate to defend ones legal rights or reputation - even if they are not popular.

 

[CanuckTravlr]

The assault on this elderly woman is horrific. The accused has been arrested and charged. There is obviously already enough evidence for conviction, so it is not clear what the video will add, or if it would even be admissible. We don’t even know if the attacker can be identified in the video. Many of these security videos are extremely poor quality.

If there is probative value to the video, then the prosecutors should have no trouble agreeing not to release the video publicly, unless it is used in court (in which case it would be public record unless sealed). Most likely the plan is to release the video to do a “trial-by-media” with the hopes of forcing a plea-bargain. This is a common tactic. Try Googling “New England Patriots and prosecutor video evidence”.

MCD likely wants to avoid negative publicity of being associated with the assault. It may have backfired in this case, but I don’t think it’s illegitimate to defend ones legal rights or reputation - even if they are not popular.

Really???? Can you provide some evidence in this case for your suggestion of the "trial by media" accusation, and that this is a "common" tactic? Or is that just a personal bias? I'm a little surprised, because I normally find your comments more balanced, but since when is video-taped evidence in the commission of a criminal offence in a public place not legitimately subject to subpoena?

Perhaps, for the record, you can also state where you got your law degree, allowing you to come to the conclusion that there is already sufficient evidence for conviction and therefore there is no need for the video tape? In watching the story, it seemed to indicate that the police officer was able to recognize the accused from the video, which led to his arrest and charges. Without the video, that link may be difficult to back up in court. Just suggesting!

 

[Talent312]

... then the prosecutors should have no trouble agreeing not to...

I take issue with McD trying to impose any conditions on its release.
Prosecutors have no need to do so. The quality doesn't matter, either.
Even if only for investigation, prosecutors have a right to subpoena it.
.

 

[jabberwocky]

Really???? Can you provide some evidence in this case for your suggestion of the "trial by media" accusation, and that this is a "common" tactic? Or is that just a personal bias? I'm a little surprised, because I normally find your comments more balanced, but since when is video-taped evidence in the commission of a criminal offence in a public place not legitimately subject to subpoena?

Perhaps, for the record, you can also state where you got your law degree, allowing you to come to the conclusion that there is already sufficient evidence for conviction and therefore there is no need for the video tape? In watching the story, it seemed to indicate that the police officer was able to recognize the accused from the video, which led to his arrest and charges. Without the video, that link may be difficult to back up in court. Just suggesting!

For the record, I don't have a law degree (although I've taken several post-secondary and graduate law courses). I am not claiming to be a lawyer and if you look at my history of posting here, I refrain from giving legal advice and usually recommend consulting a lawyer if someone does ask.

That said, my experience as an expert witness in court has given me significant exposure to evidentiary rules and standards - and I interact with legal teams at work on a regular basis. I'm not going to say too much more about that since I'm involved in a current case (these are all non-criminal commercial/tax cases). But I don't appreciate being called biased - if anything one of my key rules is fairness. Sometimes this means supporting the rules and rights of litigants even when you don't agree with their actions.

In this case, prosecutors are correct to subpoena whatever video exists. The party receiving the subpoena also has the legal right to challenge the subpoena to ensure it isn't overly broad and sticks to facts that are relevant to the case. For example, let's say I captured a vehicle accident incidentally while making a video on my cell phone. Am I then compelled to turn over all videos and pictures on my phone to authorities? In this case, I would fight against a subpoena requiring all data on the phone (who knows what embarrassing photos there are there), but would gladly hand over the portion of the video that was relevant for the investigation.

The intent of my post was to caution against jumping to conclusions that there was a nefarious motive on the part of McDonald's in wanting to limit distribution (i.e., that they are protecting the son of a franchise owner). Particularly since no one on this site has seen the video, and there is no reported information that it provides additional conclusive evidence. At the end of the day, McDonald's will follow the law and the ruling of the court.

As to the "trial by media", I probably should not have stated that since it is my personal opinion. I believe it is a well-founded opinion, but obviously, it touched a sensitive nerve here, so I won't argue the point.

 

[Makai Guy]

The intent of my post was to caution against jumping to conclusions

In many online posts, here and elsewhere, jumping to conclusions has been elevated to the status of an Olympic event.

 

[CanuckTravlr]

No one jumping to conclusions here. I agree that McDonald's lawyers have the right to challenge the subpoena in court. Unfortunately they appear to have chosen instead to ignore the subpoena for over six months!! That is what resulted in the court order. I get tired of people, and especially corporations, hiding behind highly paid legal teams. They could just as easily choose to just do what would appear to most people to be "the right thing". If not, they could at least make their position or reasoning clear, especially in a case as apparently egregious as this one. So far I have seen no indication from McDonald's as to any important reason for them to have not cooperated with the criminal justice system.

@jabberwocky Did you watch the full report? It indicated that the video did in fact potentially provide conclusive evidence. I don't know if it showed the actual incident in full, but the officer who viewed the video was able to identify who the accused individual was from the video. It would appear the accused was "known" and that led to his quick arrest. So the video could very well be crucial to making that connection. My main concern is why is McDonald's being so obtuse and silent on this? If they have an argument to make, why have they not made a public statement? Without it, their attitude appears callous at best.

 

[jabberwocky]

No one jumping to conclusions here. I agree that McDonald's lawyers have the right to challenge the subpoena in court. Unfortunately they appear to have chosen instead to ignore the subpoena for over six months!!

Please keep in mind that the court systems largely shut down in March, except for urgent cases, and are slowly starting to clear out the backlog. If they are challenging a subpoena it is likely not a high priority item for the courts. Six months under the current circumstances is not unexpected.

I was scheduled to testify in court in May, but that case was put on indefinite hold in April. The legal team in that case is in a holding pattern and I haven’t been given a new date. We are likely looking at the new year now (and this is a case where the original actions occurred over 9 years ago). Granted this is in Canada, but I imagine they are facing the same court delays south of the border.

 

[pedro47]

Why are we wanting to boycott McDonald's when this is only one McDonald's that is having court problems. Plus, we do not know the whole true story from both sides of this case. IMHO.

 

[Bunk]

I don't have a position on the call for a boycott. But I am interested in what happened here.
So I just did a google search and here's what I found:

These schmucks lost that part of the video containing the camera angle that shows the face of the perp.
Uncertain whether that is the only part of the video that is missing.
How could that happen? How do you lose part of a video. All they had to do was copy the video between Time A and Time B.

I copied the article and pasted it below. Didn't copy the comments.

https://www.local10.com/news/local/...eo-now-gone-in-hialeah-armed-carjacking-case/

According to the article: The state said the video was supoenaed back in March and that the store’s manager, a security officer and McDonald’s attorney knew prosecutors wanted the specific angle because it showed Reyes' face. They were told it would be preserved.

According to McDonalds: “McDonald’s is working diligently to aid the State Attorney’s Office in their investigation. We have provided multiple angles of surveillance footage that document the day’s events and include various visuals of the perpetuator, including those of his face. It was recently brought to our attention that one of the video angles requested by the State Attorney’s Office was inadvertently missed. Unfortunately, our surveillance footage is only available in the system for a limited time and the missing angle is no longer available. We have spoken to the State Attorney’s Office about this and have offered to help in any way. McDonald’s has not destroyed any video and continues to cooperate with the State Attorney’s Office on this case.”

 

[Tia]

Something is very wrong with what happened to the video , suspicious

 

[Talent312]

With security cameras, video segments are usually overwritten within a few weeks.
The failure to preserve video often results more from negligence than chicanery.

-----------------------------
As has been reported over the years. NBC + CBS failed to preserve video of their
broadcasts of Super Bowl I (which both broadcast). They reused their videotapes.
Only one privately made copy is known to exist. Source: A WSJ article (Jan. 2020).







.

 

[davidvel]

Why didn't cops video the video with their camera phone to "preserve" the evidence that they were using to arrest someone? They do it all the time on live PD (or used to).

 

[WVBaker]

With security cameras, video segments are usually overwritten within a few weeks.
The failure to preserve video often results more from negligence than chicanery.

-----------------------------
As has been reported over the years. NBC + CBS failed to preserve video of their
broadcasts of Super Bowl I (which both broadcast) becuz they reused their tapes.
Only one privately made copy is known to exist. Source: A WSJ article (Jan. 2020).

You're correct. With the knowledge that this video does or may be evidence in this or any other litigation, the last thing McDonalds and/or one their employees wants to do is tamper with or destroy evidence. Courts and persecutors tend to frown on that behavior.