[Moogs]

...and let 'em know why.

Recently in a town near where I live, a Burger King manager was stabbed and strangled to death by a former employee. The long and short of it was he knew the manager, got her to let him in to talk about a job, then stabbed and strangled her to death so she couldn't witness the robbery of the whopping $1000 in the safe.

The worst part is, the son of bitch had been convicted on 4 counts of murder and other sexual assault violations, and only had his conviction overturned (wherein he had confessed among other things) because some dumbass appellate judge decided [the arresting officers didn't have probable cause when he was first arrested]. ?!!? And naturally no one who worked with him knew this. (My legal system rant will have to wait, but nice to know nobody in our court system has enough common sense to apply context to a 4 count murder case in which the accused willingly confessed, after having been arrested for other violent crimes.)

So why, you ask, did Burger King allow a person with this type of serious criminal record work for their store? Because they only do background checks on managers. You read that right. GEE, that makes a lot of fucking sense. Let's do background checks on the people more likely to be educated or have some sort of legitimate work history, and not do them on people most likely to be scraping by for whatever job they can find. You know people like... ex-cons who can't get a job anywhere else (because those places DO background checks).

Because Burger King Corporate wanted to cut corners and save money by not doing the checks to uncover potential employees with violent records, a husband and his children now have no wife and no mother... and at this time of year to add insult to emotional trauma. Hell you could boycott them for the quality of their food alone, but this is a disgrace.

The more people who write in and rip them a new asshole for this, the more of a PR disaster it becomes, the more likely they'll change their policy. And the husband has just hired a high profile lawyer, I'm sure with that specific intent in mind and some nice negligence suits. I hope he makes a mint. This is what you'd call a lawsuit that will be both legitimate and constructive in the damages it may recover. I'm sure there's some nice loophole congress made for giant companies so they can't get sued out of business, but I'd love it if they got a tobacco-like damage award against them. That would be wonderful.

[World Leader Pretend]

That's awful

[alcimedes]

Um, yeah that's sad and all, but when was the last time you think WalMart, Target, McDonalds or anyone else ran a real background check on some $6 an hour employee?

To top that off, if his convictions were overturned, there's nothing a normal background check would have found anyway.

Sad story, but I'm not seeing BK being evil here. (and I don't think I've eaten at one in years, food is nasty.)

[Moogs]

WLP: Beyond awful. This guy has no business even being out in the world, let alone working in restaurant. This guy's case was built for the death penalty if you want my opinion. I won't even go into the details of the original crime, committed in 1982, except to say this is one of those guys who has no ability to reason and no remorse for anything he does.

Do you know why he decided to rob the Burger King? Not because he couldn't pay rent, or buy food or some other survival reason. Because he'd gone to the mall recently and bought too much "stuff", and couldn't pay it all off. Now I understand there's all sorts of broken links in this chain, but the most recent part of it could've been avoided by someone from Burger King corporate taking 10 minutes filling out a background request for this guy, and taking 2 minutes to read it when it came back.

I used to drive by this place every day on the way to work. I've gone in there once or twice in the morning to get a breakfast sandwich... and for all I know with this asshole serving it up. How many people bring their kids into this restaurant (where they have one of those playland areas btw)? How many crimes of opportunity could this guy have committed because some executive fuck-wad at Burger King didn't think it made financial sense to do background checks on all employees?

[Moogs]

alc: I'm sure a reputable background check service would've had his arrest record and record of the case, even if overturned. You can't pick your nose anymore without it being on some database somewhere, legal or not. There's no question some indication of that case would've been on it, and at a minimum an indication of his other violent offenses, of which there are several lesser (i.e. not murder) cases AFAIK.

As for Walmart or the rest, fuck them too, if they don't do it. That doesn't make it right. How many BILLIONS of dollars do these assholes take in every year, and they can't do a little civil service by making sure their employees aren't convicted felons or otherwise have arrest records for violent offenses? Jesus... I'm sorry I can't let it go that easy.

[alcimedes]

Sorry, but I think the problem falls on our prison system and judicial system.

If prison is supposed to rehabilitate you, and when you're out you've served your time, then they should be able to get hired. It's a fast food job, not taking care of children or the elderly.

He shouldn't have been walking the streets, but the fact that he was means our justice system fucked up at some point.

[Majost]

Regardless, I don't think it warrants a boycotting.

Okay, so an ex-con is flipping my burgers. Damn, that sucks. Where would you rather they work? I mean, the poor chaps need jobs. Sure, they have gone to jail; sure they may be more prone to a repeat offense -- but they could just as easily repeat that offense as a patron instead of as an employee.

I don't know, but it seems rather ridiculous to point the blame at corporate HQ for this one.

[danielsza]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Sad story, but I'm not seeing BK being evil here. (and I don't think I've eaten at one in years, food is nasty.)

Originally Posted by Moogs As for Walmart or the rest, fuck them too, if they don't do it. That doesn't make it right. How many BILLIONS of dollars do these assholes take in every year, and they can't do a little civil service by making sure their employees aren't convicted felons or otherwise have arrest records for violent offenses? Jesus... I'm sorry I can't let it go that easy.

I'm going to have to agree with alcimedes, BK did nothing wrong. While the story is sad, I believe doing background checks on everyone is not a good idea. Of course some jobs should require a background check, but not all jobs.

I know in Canada, if your job requires a police background check, you pay for it out of your own pocket. I believe it costs $30.00. And if your just starting a job chances are you don't have the extra $30.00 for the background check, let alone being with out work for weeks (it can take up to 3 months in some cases.) until you get your clearance.

I see this the same way I see mandatory drug testing, in most cases it's an invasion of privacy. And I don't believe in using drugs. But things like false-positives do happen. And the same thing with the employers who are starting to do credit checks.

Are there problems with the legal system, both in criminal and family law (but that's another story for another day). But if people are not in prison they should be able to find work, and maybe just maybe start over. Sure not everyone will... hell most won't, but even if a few do then they should have that chance. But if they can't get work then, they'll have no choice but to go back to their old ways.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Sorry, but I think the problem falls on our prison system and judicial system. If prison is supposed to rehabilitate you, and when you're out you've served your time, then they should be able to get hired. It's a fast food job, not taking care of children or the elderly. He shouldn't have been walking the streets, but the fact that he was means our justice system fucked up at some point.

Yes, the justice system fucked up by letting him out at all.

No, the prison system isn't designed to rehabilitate squat, that's a nice cozy fiction. It *should*, but it doesn't, and never will, the way it's set up now.

Given that, background checks are only common sense in my book. If high recidivity rate crimes such as molestation, rape or I dunno... multiple murders come up, then maybe, just *maybe* that person would be considered a risky hire.

Do people deserve second chances? Absolutely.

Does everyone deserve a fifth, seventh, or sixteenth? Nope.

[Majost]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Given that, background checks are only common sense in my book. If high recidivity rate crimes such as molestation, rape or I dunno... multiple murders come up, then maybe, just *maybe* that person would be considered a risky hire. Do people deserve second chances? Absolutely. Does everyone deserve a fifth, seventh, or sixteenth? Nope.

Okay, so this person was given a second/third/fourth/whatever chance by the court system for whatever reason. You're saying that there's no way *anyone* should hire them? I mean, clearly, there aren't many professions left for them... but is it that crucial that they're barred from flipping burgers, too? By not allowing them any job, you're essentially giving up and waiting for them to commit their next crime so they can be sent to prison forever. And surely, without any job, their next crime will happen sooner rather than later. At least with a job, they have some sort of means to survive in public.

Sure, it may not be the smartest thing to let the ex-con handle the cash from a business standpoint, but point is, they're already out in public. They're already free. They already have the freedom to kill/rape/molest whomever they so choose. Hell, this guy may be just as likely to kill the manager for declining him a job as he is to kill him for terminating his job.

[GladToBeHere]

Um... the school systems are far worse. If you want to find child predators, for instance, go where the kids are.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Majost Okay, so this person was given a second/third/fourth/whatever chance by the court system for whatever reason. You're saying that there's no way *anyone* should hire them? I mean, clearly, there aren't many professions left for them... but is it that crucial that they're barred from flipping burgers, too? By not allowing them any job, you're essentially giving up and waiting for them to commit their next crime so they can be sent to prison forever. And surely, without any job, their next crime will happen sooner rather than later. At least with a job, they have some sort of means to survive in public. Sure, it may not be the smartest thing to let the ex-con handle the cash from a business standpoint, but point is, they're already out in public. They're already free. They already have the freedom to kill/rape/molest whomever they so choose. Hell, this guy may be just as likely to kill the manager for declining him a job as he is to kill him for terminating his job.

Don't you think the company has a *wee* bit of responsibility to keep the other employees at least a modicm of safe? "Yes, we know he's been in prison for murder, and got out on a technicality, but I'm sorry, you have to work with him. Or you could quit."

Sure, that seems fair.

Companies have a responsibility to provide a safe work environment from frickin' everything under the sun *except* coworkers, I guess.

If a company decides not to do the background check, that's literally their business... but it should be known to all employees choosing to work there that they don't. In this episode of If I Ran The World, all companies would have to do such checks by default, and if not, inform any applying employees that that do not do such checks. Let the employees decide if they want to work in such an environment.

Also, a company can of course do the background check and decide to hire someone anyway (where did I ever say they shouldn't ever be given a job for god's sake?) - but then the company assumes responsibility for that employee's actions in the workplace towards coworkers. If the employer chooses to inject a harmful element into the workplace and expose other workers to it, be it chemical, physical, or human, they should be accountable, IMO.

Of course, most of this would be moot if we had a judicial system that worked, and a penal system that gave a damn about rehabilitating and retraining, but since that's about as likely to happen as Carol posting those pics we keep asking for... *shrug*

[Majost]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Don't you think the company has a *wee* bit of responsibility to keep the other employees at least a modicm of safe? "Yes, we know he's been in prison for murder, and got out on a technicality, but I'm sorry, you have to work with him. Or you could quit." Sure, that seems fair. Companies have a responsibility to provide a safe work environment from frickin' everything under the sun *except* coworkers, I guess. If a company decides not to do the background check, that's literally their business... but it should be known to all employees choosing to work there that they don't. In this episode of If I Ran The World, all companies would have to do such checks by default, and if not, inform any applying employees that that do not do such checks. Let the employees decide if they want to work in such an environment. Also, a company can of course do the background check and decide to hire someone anyway (where did I ever say they shouldn't ever be given a job for god's sake?) - but then the company assumes responsibility for that employee's actions in the workplace towards coworkers. If the employer chooses to inject a harmful element into the workplace and expose other workers to it, be it chemical, physical, or human, they should be accountable, IMO.

Ah, sure, duh. I clearly wasn't thinking (I've been long on work and short on sleep). Well said. I now completely agree with you. Do the damn checks, and let folks know. I wonder if this could become an OSHA issue, requiring checks?

Of course, in this case, it was a manager who became the victim -- someone who most certainly knew they didn't do background checks. But, if she would have known about his past record, she may have been a bit more hesitant to let him in after hours like that.

Originally Posted by Kickaha Of course, most of this would be moot if we had a judicial system that worked, and a penal system that gave a damn about rehabilitating and retraining, but since that's about as likely to happen as Carol posting those pics we keep asking for... *shrug*

[Shades of Blue]

I agree that Burger King had almost no responsibility in this situation. There are situations where you expect to have background checks done; working at a Burger King (Wal Mart, McDonald's, whatever) isn't one of them. Managers are in a position of responsibility, which is why they have a background check done on them (you wouldn't want a convicted embezzler to be running your restaurant and counting the money in the safe).

If the guy was so evil that he shouldn't have any sort of job, then he should have been in prison. And the fact that he wasn't, wasn't Burger King's fault.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Of course, most of this would be moot if we had a judicial system that worked, and a penal system that gave a damn about rehabilitating and retraining, but since that's about as likely to happen as Carol posting those pics we keep asking for... *shrug*

Well, church-based programs like InnerChange keep getting ruled unconstitutional, which doesn't help matters.
Repairing someone soul is hardly a task for our modern bureaucracy.

I have to agree that BK doesn't carry a lot of fault here. What's the difference between what happened here and the nutcase killing the manager and robbing the place in anger after he's automatically turned down for the job?

The fault lies with the justice system.
It's a shame those truly responsible will likely not be held to account in this life.

[Majost]

On a different note, it will be interesting to see if the husband gets anywhere with his lawsuit. My guess is that it's against corporate policy to let anyone in after business hours. Add to that the fact that the murderer is a *former* employee, and I'm guessing he'll have a rough go at it in court.

I would imagine BK will use those two things to deny responsibility for what happened.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by Shades of Blue I agree that Burger King had almost no responsibility in this situation. There are situations where you expect to have background checks done; working at a Burger King (Wal Mart, McDonald's, whatever) isn't one of them. Managers are in a position of responsibility, which is why they have a background check done on them (you wouldn't want a convicted embezzler to be running your restaurant and counting the money in the safe). If the guy was so evil that he shouldn't have any sort of job, then he should have been in prison. And the fact that he wasn't, wasn't Burger King's fault.

I wholeheartedly agree. While this is incredibly sad, we can't hold BK at fault.

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Yes, the justice system fucked up by letting him out at all. No, the prison system isn't designed to rehabilitate squat, that's a nice cozy fiction. It *should*, but it doesn't, and never will, the way it's set up now.

I agree with this, and like I said, multiple broken links in the chain.

Given that, background checks are only common sense in my book. If high recidivity rate crimes such as molestation, rape or I dunno... multiple murders come up, then maybe, just *maybe* that person would be considered a risky hire.

DING DING DING! Winner by TKO, Kick.

Companies have a responsibility to provide a safe work environment from frickin' everything under the sun *except* coworkers, I guess.

Not to mention a responsibility to customers. Gee I'd like a little piece of mind too. If I'm coming to your store to buy something or your restaurant to eat something, I'd like to do so in the knowledge that one of your employees isn't likely to attack me or start stalking me if I say something that happens to piss them off, for example. You don't hire loose canons, and the only way to know that is to do a background check.

[Moogs]

As for what a convicted murderer, rapist or other violent ex-con can do for a living:

a) some convicted murderers and rapists should *never* get out IMO, depending on the specifics of the crimes they've committed. There are some individuals who you know -based on what they've done, why and how often- that they will never play by the rules the rest of society plays by, no matter how much time they do or how many counseling sessions they have. Those people need to die in prison. Have your conjugal visits and whatever, but you're not getting out, period.

b) For the rest maybe some of the money we all spend on the prison system should be audited and re-allocated. Maybe the prisons ought to have a secondary role: supervised employment after the fact (for violent cases). Quite honestly part of paying their dues should be more than sitting in a cell. It should be working for x number of years after, in a supervised environment (by a separate branch of law enforcement that doesn't currently exist); social counseling during and after prison; help getting further education in everything from basic math to basic finances (i.e. managing your money and your dwelling, keeping good credit, etc), to computer skills... anything that individual needs to survive without infringing on someone else's survival.

Some way of easing the integration back into society so it isn't complete lock-down to complete freedom in a week or less. Quite honestly, the detention system should know [ahead of time] where these people are going to live, and evaluate that location for that person. In some cases, so should the rest of us know where these people end up. The same way neighborhoods are notified if a known pedophile moves into town. IOW a condition of their "paying dues and re-acquiring freedom" ought to be that they agree in principle and contractually, to let the proper authorities know where they're living (so they can be helped /visited for one, when they're not showing up for their work, re-education, etc), and that they have to follow the plan for re-integration. They don't get to just go off on their own and do it their way, like this asshole did.

The whole mindset of "what is payment to society" needs to change to not only doing time, but showing the community that you can play by the rules and that you want to play by the rules. And it should be a case of months at a minimum and maybe a couple years for some cases, before they "get to do it their way" and not have the man looking over their shoulder / making sure they're playing by the rules. Sure some of these people will end up committing more violent crimes later on; that's just the human condition. But many more who otherwise might've committed more crimes, won't. And that's what we're after.

Going full circle, this particular guy, falls into "category A" very easily, based on the original crimes he was convicted of. He never should've seen the light of day after 1982, except in the yard.

[Banana]

I don't know if this still holds, but here it is... few years ago, a friend who was majoring in Criminal Justice told me that US is very oxymoronic in how it handles felons. Not only US usually is hard on nonviolent crimes (e.g. selling pot get you several years in the clinker) but it also dooms any felons to a life of perpetual unemployment or working under the table because nobody would hire a felon anywhere.

I don't know how other countries handle felons after they've done the jail time, but according to my friend, they usually make a goal of re-integrating felons back into society whereas US just simply push them out of the jail at end of the term and let them fend for themselves until they get re-arrested.

I don't know the hell what that appellate judge was thinking, but it could be a plausible reason why he didn't make a felon out of this guy.

One thing I'm not very clear on though... Did he commit the earlier crime murdering/sexually assaulting four people at a time or four separate times? It sounds like it's former which would have meant the BK murder was his "second chance", not "third/fourth/fifth chance"... Not that I would want to give him second chance with four counts in single case anyway..

[Moogs]

My understanding is that he had multiple lesser violent offenses, and that he admitted to committing the murder of four individuals -one of whom was a young boy who he raped- in the same criminal act, in 1982. The reason the appellate court let him go was after he had been convicted, it was determined the original cops or detectives who found this guy and decided he needed to go in for questioning, didn't have probable cause.

Truly, it makes your head spin. It's like if a guy blows up a gas station and kills 12 people, but no one sees it.... then on a hunch the cops go to a guy's apartment and forcibly arrest him when he doesn't cooperate, who ends up confessing, goes to court, gets convicted based on the evidence and confession, and then someone says "No no, this isn't right. The cops had no reason to question this guy / his home was improperly searched; let him go free." It's fucking ridiculous. This judge is sitting there doing his high and mighty strict interpretation of the books, and let's a guy who clearly committed the crime, go free.

It's one thing if a guy is arrested without probable cause, never confesses, scant evidence is found, but he gets convicted, and THEN the court let's him go free for the same reasons. This guy was clearly the guy, and they let him go anyway. It's like our legal system allows no room for common sense and/or doesn't encourage the bench to use it in extreme cases like this.

[Banana]

Wait, wait, wait.

If that was in an appellate court, that was a entirely different ballpark. If I understand it right, you don't go to Appeal Court and tell you're innocent of those charges they found you guilty of in lower court. Rather, you go there and tell that they did not follow the due process in examining your case in the lower court and because of that, the trial was invalid.

Originally Posted by Wiki on Appeal Court Generally speaking the appellate court examines the record of evidence presented in the trial court and the law that the lower court applied and decides whether that decision was legally sound or not. The appellate court will typically be deferential to the lower court's findings of fact (such as whether a defendant committed a particular act), unless clearly erroneous, and so will focus on the court's application of the law to those facts (such as whether the act found by the court to have occurred fits a legal definition at issue). If the appellate court finds no defect, it "affirms" the judgment. If the appellate court does find a legal defect in the decision "below" (i.e., in the lower court), it may "modify" the ruling to correct the defect, or it may nullify ("reverse" or "vacate") the whole decision or any part of it. It may in addition send the case back ("remand" or "remit") to the lower court for further proceedings to remedy the defect.

Linkage

Therefore, it was not a judge being stupid but rather focusing on the question of whether there was a due process; his hands is tied wrt question of whether the guy is guilty and deserves a good ass-whupping or not. It also implies that the lower court did in fact find him guilty.

Though, I wonder why the appellate judge couldn't have at least "remit" the case back to lower court...

[autodata]

Originally Posted by Moogs Truly, it makes your head spin. It's like if a guy blows up a gas station and kills 12 people, but no one sees it.... then on a hunch the cops go to a guy's apartment and forcibly arrest him when he doesn't cooperate, who ends up confessing, goes to court, gets convicted based on the evidence and confession, and then someone says "No no, this isn't right. The cops had no reason to question this guy / his home was improperly searched; let him go free." It's fucking ridiculous.

from the trib:

Several detectives worked the case with Switski, including Ralph Vucko. A 2001 Tribune investigation, "Cops and Confessions," found that Vucko played a role in several homicide cases in which an illegal arrest prompted courts to throw out a suspect's confession. At least five defendants in cases in which Vucko was involved, the Tribune found, had charges against them dropped. At least three others were convicted in spite of an illegal arrest, either because judges allowed the confession anyway or because of other evidence.

and from cops and confessions

Substituting interrogation for thorough investigation, police in Chicago and Cook County have repeatedly closed murder cases with dubious confessions that imprison the innocent while killers go free. In the first investigation of its kind, the Tribune examined thousands of murder cases filed in Cook County since 1991 and found at least 247 where police obtained incriminating statements that were thrown out by the courts as tainted or failed to secure a conviction. ... Police have obtained confessions from men who, according to records, were in jail when the crime occurred. They have obtained confessions refuted by DNA evidence. They have obtained confessions that contradicted the facts of the crime.

Originally Posted by Banana Though, I wonder why the appellate judge couldn't have at least "remit" the case back to lower court...

That's basically what happened, but prosecutors didn't feel they had enough evidence to win.

[Banana]

Looks like Autodata is right on the nail:

In 1986 the Illinois Appellate Court determined that police detectives had arrested Ealy without probable cause and illegally searched his home. The judges ruled that evidence found in the search--including pieces of cloth that matched those used to strangle the victims--could not be cited in retrying him. The court also threw out Ealy's confession after finding that detectives held him for 18 hours and denied him food, water and access to a bathroom before he signed the statement. Without the critical evidence, prosecutors decided another trial would be futile. Questionable police work has on many occasions prompted the courts to release prisoners, some of whom were proved to be completely innocent. In this case, though, the appellate court pointed out that there was enough evidence to conclude Ealy had committed the murders, but the violation of his rights by police required them to throw out his conviction anyway.

Goes to show that there's always two sides to a story. I wouldn't be too surprised if the suspect was in fact guilty of the whole fiasco, but I would say the blame rests firmly with police who probably were a bit too overenthuistantic in their job. It's not pretty when court has to throw out a obivous case because it was badly mishandled.

And also:

Brian Telander, a former prosecutor who tried the original murder case, said the appellate ruling was flawed. And he said he had always feared Ealy might be violent in the future.

I find it interesting that it's the appeal court that is the scapegoat when they should be take a hard look at the police department....

[CoolToddHunter]

Originally Posted by Moogs The whole mindset of "what is payment to society" needs to change to not only doing time, but showing the community that you can play by the rules and that you want to play by the rules. And it should be a case of months at a minimum and maybe a couple years for some cases, before they "get to do it their way" and not have the man looking over their shoulder / making sure they're playing by the rules. Sure some of these people will end up committing more violent crimes later on; that's just the human condition. But many more who otherwise might've committed more crimes, won't. And that's what we're after.

This is an interesting thought, and I agree that we need to change our mindset. I think criminals who want to change should demonstrate their willingness by making some sacrifices. That's not too much to ask, and a truly penitent person would do it.

[PKIDelirium]

This ain't BK's fault, it's the dumbass that let him out. The way I see it, as said above, if you're out of jail, you've done your time and should be able to get a job. Maybe not SOME positions depending on the nature of your offense, but fast food?

Absolutely NOT a reason for a boycott. BK really didn't do anything wrong.

[zippy]

Originally Posted by Moogs Not to mention a responsibility to customers. Gee I'd like a little piece of mind too. If I'm coming to your store to buy something or your restaurant to eat something, I'd like to do so in the knowledge that one of your employees isn't likely to attack me or start stalking me if I say something that happens to piss them off, for example. You don't hire loose canons, and the only way to know that is to do a background check.

So let's say they did do a background check, but still decided to hire him. How are you any safer? Do you want him to wear some kind of sign or something that says "Warning, I might arbitrarily attack and kill you?" Should BK post a list of all of it's employees backgrounds on the front door for your benefit? Or do you just not want any business you ever go to ever hire someone who could possibly be dangerous? In that case, just stay home, you'll be much safer.

It's too bad this guy wasn't in prison for life, or on death row if he really was guilty - that I agree with. But it sounds like that was due to shoddy police work, and I for one am thankful that there are laws that even our "legal defendees" have to follow.

As for mandatory Background checks, I don't think that would ever work. I imagine it would cost millions a year, and fill up our over-burdened legal system with even junk. Just think about the employee turnover rate at places like McDonalds, BK, etc..

[Yonzie]

Background checks are common sense? WTF?!?
Maybe you live in some 3rd-world country where it's expected that people are criminals, but in my part of the world it's still rare to be asked for police records...
I know why too. It's collective corporate ass-covering. The ridiculous thing over there on the other side of the atlantic is that the family of the deceased could quite possibly sue BK and get hundreds of millions.
Since when is it BK's fault that an employee gets stabbed and killed in a robbery? Maybe they should just hire their own private army to make sure nothing bad goes on.
And dear god please make sure some gang member isn't gunned down by rival gang members in BK's parking lot BECAUSE THAT's BK's FAULT AS WELL and it'll cost them millions in settlement fees to the poor family of the gang member...

[Bryson]

Whenever I see: "Boycott company X because a bad thing happened", my bullshit detector goes off the scale.

It's terrible, sure, but it's nothing to do with how Burger King managed the situation.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Um, yeah that's sad and all, but when was the last time you think WalMart, Target, McDonalds or anyone else ran a real background check on some $6 an hour employee? To top that off, if his convictions were overturned, there's nothing a normal background check would have found anyway. Sad story, but I'm not seeing BK being evil here. (and I don't think I've eaten at one in years, food is nasty.)

Every time they hire one. I am sure they don't pay some company a lot to do it, but I am sure they do something for the sake of their liability insurance.