Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ugh. Don't mess with people's food. It is such a chicken gak way of getting one over on someone.

Hope this officer and his wife get a good settlement.

Cuda, please link to a news article about that KFC event, if you can. It sounds like it's been a bit exaggerated in the retelling, and I would like to confirm that the officer in question did indeed have arms like tree trunks, and a shock of hair red as the fires of hell.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I once made a Curry with three Scotch Bonnet.

I won't be doing that again. Ever.

We once made snickerdoodles using red pepper instead of cinnamon. Really shouldn't have scarfed the first couple down like I did.

We always check labels now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The big dubious claim for me is the appendicitis.

But you'll never find any physician that would tell a court "yes, there is no way on earth this food had anything to do with his appendicitis". So any medical person will always tell you "yeah, it could have been related". And in a civil suit that will be enough.

I don't know that corporate should be on the hook for anything there, but that's the cost of doing business I guess.

It could also be related in another way. When my wife had unendurable abdominal pain, we went to the ER and a doctor said it was appendicitis. So he took out her appendix. Then, afterwards, he had a strange conversation with us about how removing her appendix was absolutely the right thing to do, and necessary, but she should go to a gynecologist ASAP. Turns out the pain had nothing to do with her appendix, but we can never prove she didn't have appendicitis.

If the officer went to the ER with abdominal pain caused by the poisoning, and the ER surgeon went all snippy-snippy, then one can blame the poisoning for the 'appendicitis' even if the poison doesn't actually affect the appendix.

Well, appendicitis can be caused by any number of issues. Basically, anything that blocks the lumen of the appendix sufficiently will do it, whether it be fecal matter (fecaloma), swelling from parasites, irritation, or even a tumorous growth.

So, in your wife's case, the appendicitis may not have caused the pain, but the source of the pain may have triggered or exacerbated conditions leading to the appendicitis, depending on what that diagnosis was. (Or they could be entirely unrelated and the doctor went with the most likely solution, didn't risk the potentially fatal rupture, and subsequently figured out it was something else.)

That is why we have experts testify about such things and then let the judge or jury decide causation.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't know that corporate should be on the hook for anything there, but that's the cost of doing business I guess.

I definitely agree... with the latter. I'm not sure what argument you can make that corporate should be off the hook other than one that is far too libertarian for my tastes

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't know that corporate should be on the hook for anything there, but that's the cost of doing business I guess.

I definitely agree... with the latter. I'm not sure what argument you can make that corporate should be off the hook other than one that is far too libertarian for my tastes

To be fair to Taco Bell Corporate (which, I find...extremely difficult), it wasnt like this was a policy of theirs, they have rules and regulations in place that make it clear that stuff like this isnt cool, etc. This was dumb people doing dumb stuff that they knew was dumb, at a very low level, in a way that no corporation can prevent entirely if people insist on doing dumb things.

That said, anything that hastens the death of Taco Bell is fine by me.

Also, to reiterate...one should never eat at Taco Bell, just on general principle.

I don't know what your problem is with Taco Bell. It has some of the finest cat tacos around.

 Vaktathi wrote:


Also, to reiterate...one should never eat at Taco Bell, just on general principle.

It's cheaper than a trip to the drug store for times I need to help myself "go".

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:
What are the odds that six months from now this story will be reduced to 'cop sues over spicy meal' and added to every list of bad lawsuits on the internet? Somehow those lists will just happen to exclude the bit where cologne was added to the meal, and it forced the guy to have a month off work?

It's just like that lady suing over a hot coffee though...

the ironic thing is, the results of the coffee lady will make it harder for the cop to get anything for his pain and suffering. the tort reforms that took place after coffee lady makes it harder to sue companies, and in some states set's a maximum value that can be awarded.

If he tries to sue taco bell and not the employees, and the judge rules it's not taco bells fault, the cop could end up paying for not only his legal fees, but the legal fees of taco bell as well.

Sure there was cologne in the meal by the time it got to the lab, but how do we know the cop didn't add it?

 d-usa wrote:

I don't know that corporate should be on the hook for anything there, but that's the cost of doing business I guess.

That's how things work, legally. If you are on the company's time and in the company's uniform, you are a representative of the company. That means the company suffers for the stupidity of it's least intelligent workers. It is their responsibility to hire better workers. If Taco Bell can't hire the kinds of people who won't dump gak in the customers' food, then they must pay the consequences of their lax hiring practices.

Besides, if you sue two mooks who work at Taco Bell (as opposed to the much more wealthy company they work for), how much money do you think you'll manage to get?

Back when I was a teenager working at a pizza place a co-worker and I thought it'd be a fun gag to switch the tobacco in one of our co-workers cigarettes with crushed red pepper. Turns out that was a really bad idea as with just one puff the smoke caused some pretty severe burns to his throat and landed him in the ER as his throat seized up and he almost stopped breathing. It was incredibly serious situation but we hadn't meant at any harm and thought it'd be a fun way to joke around.

You never know what people are allergic to and what something can do when it's ingested in a concentrated form. It might be harmless in small quantities but there's potential for things to go horribly wrong when it's an overload of something. In a different incident one of my friends ended up in the ER and almost died due to salt poisoning, at a frat party somebody bet him $5 he couldn't down a shot glass of salt followed by one of vegetable oil. The people cheering him on just thought it'd be gross and maybe he'd get sick but had no idea it could have killed him. For $5 he ended up in the ER almost died and had a bill of close to $4k.

It's bad enough these kids added peppers to his food, but cologne isn't something that's edible and grounds for an intentional poisoning charge. I think they kids were probably just being dumb kids but that doesn't mean they are incapable of inflicting serious or even fatal damage while messing around.

Those jerks working at Taco Bell that did this to the guy should get plenty of criminal charges, including poisoning, attempted murder, and assaulting an officer (not sure about that one as it may only cover someone actually trying to physically hit the officer). After crap like this towards a man who is only trying to protect the innocent citizens of his community, I say throw the book at 'em. Make them an example of those who attack police.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Those jerks working at Taco Bell that did this to the guy should get plenty of criminal charges, including poisoning, attempted murder, and assaulting an officer (not sure about that one as it may only cover someone actually trying to physically hit the officer). After crap like this towards a man who is only trying to protect the innocent citizens of his community, I say throw the book at 'em. Make them an example of those who attack police.

Throwing on too many excessive charges (like attempted murder) is a good way to whiff a prosecution and see someone walk for throwing on some extra hot sauce, and too much "make an example of those who attack police" has had a long sad story of its own downsides as well. Agents of the state getting extra special protection has a rather strong habit of ending up being abused quickly and repeatedly.

 kronk wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Also, to reiterate...one should never eat at Taco Bell, just on general principle.

It's cheaper than a trip to the drug store for times I need to help myself "go".

I mean, I can see that, but do you really need the vomiting too?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Cuda, please link to a news article about that KFC event, if you can. It sounds like it's been a bit exaggerated in the retelling, and I would like to confirm that the officer in question did indeed have arms like tree trunks, and a shock of hair red as the fires of hell.

.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25680569/#.WOXfR-Q2zcc

I couldn't find the original story, but this comes close. I used to have the original story posted on my corkboard by my employee's schedule for about 6 months as a warning to never let that kind of thing happen in my store.

The things that my linked story is missing was that the manager was also not fired, but was transferred to a different location. The person that became a witness for the cop was suspiciously let go.

Getting fired from KFC is more like a promotion than a punishment.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Cuda, please link to a news article about that KFC event, if you can. It sounds like it's been a bit exaggerated in the retelling, and I would like to confirm that the officer in question did indeed have arms like tree trunks, and a shock of hair red as the fires of hell.

.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25680569/#.WOXfR-Q2zcc

I couldn't find the original story, but this comes close. I used to have the original story posted on my corkboard by my employee's schedule for about 6 months as a warning to never let that kind of thing happen in my store.

The things that my linked story is missing was that the manager was also not fired, but was transferred to a different location. The person that became a witness for the cop was suspiciously let go.

Wow. I just didn't believe such a large company would handle the situation so badly, but I stand corrected. Thank you.

When I was in college there was a local Taco Bell that was shut down because they caught someone gaking in the refried beans. It'd been going on for a while and nobody noticed.

I don't eat things that are indistinguishable from poop.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
When I was in college there was a local Taco Bell that was shut down because they caught someone gaking in the refried beans. It'd been going on for a while and nobody noticed.

I don't eat things that are indistinguishable from poop.

So...Taco Bell as a general rule then

See. I love taco bell and love their breakfest
Is there a reason that Fast Food places do thisvto cops. Could it be that they are often staffed by people who the cops target

If you mean low life drug using scum? Yeah, fast food is their usual refuge of legitimate work.

I guess times have changed. When I worked fast food jobs, the policies at each place was to give cops free chow or at least a hefty discount to encourage them to respond quickly if we called.

 djones520 wrote:
If you mean low life drug using scum? Yeah, fast food is their usual refuge of legitimate work.

That and low end retail. So yeah, police generally tend to be rolling the dice when they're going to fast food in uniform. The number of incidents that occur between police and employees at this type of businesses aren't really surprising actually. I'm surprised there arent more than we hear about.

 CptJake wrote:
I guess times have changed. When I worked fast food jobs, the policies at each place was to give cops free chow or at least a hefty discount to encourage them to respond quickly if we called.

This. Of course thats les of an issue in family owned restaurants. And olf course the robbery specials like IHOP. In Houston IHOPs seem especially targetted.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:
What are the odds that six months from now this story will be reduced to 'cop sues over spicy meal' and added to every list of bad lawsuits on the internet? Somehow those lists will just happen to exclude the bit where cologne was added to the meal, and it forced the guy to have a month off work?

It's just like that lady suing over a hot coffee though...

the ironic thing is, the results of the coffee lady will make it harder for the cop to get anything for his pain and suffering. the tort reforms that took place after coffee lady makes it harder to sue companies, and in some states set's a maximum value that can be awarded.

If he tries to sue taco bell and not the employees, and the judge rules it's not taco bells fault, the cop could end up paying for not only his legal fees, but the legal fees of taco bell as well.

Sure there was cologne in the meal by the time it got to the lab, but how do we know the cop didn't add it?

There was cologne put into the food. That's straight up poisoning. This isn't negligence or malfunction. It's an act of malice. Cop deserves every penny he gets from them.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I guess times have changed. When I worked fast food jobs, the policies at each place was to give cops free chow or at least a hefty discount to encourage them to respond quickly if we called.

This. Of course thats les of an issue in family owned restaurants. And olf course the robbery specials like IHOP. In Houston IHOPs seem especially targetted.

IHOPS in north Harris were targeted by a group of young robbers early this year, but I wouldn't say they seem particularly targeted.
You'd be surprised how often dollar stores get robbed. And, of course, convenience stores.

You are correct. I meant they seem to get picked on more in the restaurant world, or at least more publicized.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Cuda, please link to a news article about that KFC event, if you can. It sounds like it's been a bit exaggerated in the retelling, and I would like to confirm that the officer in question did indeed have arms like tree trunks, and a shock of hair red as the fires of hell.

.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25680569/#.WOXfR-Q2zcc

I couldn't find the original story, but this comes close. I used to have the original story posted on my corkboard by my employee's schedule for about 6 months as a warning to never let that kind of thing happen in my store.

The things that my linked story is missing was that the manager was also not fired, but was transferred to a different location. The person that became a witness for the cop was suspiciously let go.

Wow. I just didn't believe such a large company would handle the situation so badly, but I stand corrected. Thank you.

Something that might make you extra excited, is knowing that KFC and Taco Bell are the same company.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:
What are the odds that six months from now this story will be reduced to 'cop sues over spicy meal' and added to every list of bad lawsuits on the internet? Somehow those lists will just happen to exclude the bit where cologne was added to the meal, and it forced the guy to have a month off work?

It's just like that lady suing over a hot coffee though...

the ironic thing is, the results of the coffee lady will make it harder for the cop to get anything for his pain and suffering. the tort reforms that took place after coffee lady makes it harder to sue companies, and in some states set's a maximum value that can be awarded.

If he tries to sue taco bell and not the employees, and the judge rules it's not taco bells fault, the cop could end up paying for not only his legal fees, but the legal fees of taco bell as well.

Sure there was cologne in the meal by the time it got to the lab, but how do we know the cop didn't add it?

There was cologne put into the food. That's straight up poisoning. This isn't negligence or malfunction. It's an act of malice. Cop deserves every penny he gets from them.

Again though, he has to prove they did it, beyond a shadow of a doubt. As the food was in his possession alone from when he received it until the lab, who's to say he didn't poison it himself hoping for some big payday.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Again though, he has to prove they did it, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, he doesn't have to, his lawyer does in the civil case (if there is one).

In the criminal case (if there is one), the DA has to, not the police man.

Furthermore, one of the morons admitted to it, according to the original article, unless I read that part wrong. (Too lazy to read again).

Edit: "In an interview, one Taco Bell worker allegedly admitted that straight chipotle, instead of quesadilla sauce, was put on the sandwich."

So he allegedly admitted to some tampering, but not necessarily the cologne.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Again though, he has to prove they did it, beyond a shadow of a doubt. As the food was in his possession alone from when he received it until the lab, who's to say he didn't poison it himself hoping for some big payday.

As kronk touched on, in a civil case you don't actually need to prove it. It comes down to a balance of probabilities, who we are more likely to believe. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is for criminal trials only.

The other part of this is that it is one of those things where who you are matters a lot, even if we don't like to admit it. If this was an unemployed, recovering meth addict, then we'd probably believe it pretty likely that he's running a scam and tampered with the food to give himself a big payday. But a cop coming home from work, not many people would find it that believable that he'd tamper with the food. Not saying a cop would never do something like that, but balance of probabilities says that's a lot less likely than some teenagers screwing with his food.

If I recall correctly,the cop was actually coming home from charity work.