Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 05:18 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 04:03 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 01:07 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 12:50 PM

As I understand it the woman was in the McDonald’s parking lot, which is private property. Thus, unless a person in authority @ the McDonald’s specifically complained to the officer that she was obstructing their drive through or something similar, what grounds did he have for hassling her? Because she was waiting in the place she normally waited for her order?

Until we hear from the officer, I guess we’ll just have to call it “over-reacting” on his part.

You may be right in your guess of the policeman overreacting.  Again, the issue is whether or not to follow a policeman’s command, and the answer is always, yes!  It is not for the offender to decide whether the police is right or wrong at the time.  You deal with it appropriately through the courts afterwards.

No, the arguement I was presenting was whether or not the officer had the right to issue the order in the first place. Unless there is an overt criminal/unlawful act occurring, the officer has no right to “command” someone do to anything on private property unless the owner of the property has requested the officer to intervene.

I don’t recall anyone but the OFFICER complaining about the woman’s behaviour, because he was sitting in line behind her. Nowhere did I see anything about McDonald’s requesting his intervention.

You are correct with this, and there is an internal affairs investigation that is ongoing, so the officer will not be heard from as of yet, nor his department.

In my opinion, this was an overzealous officer who had no right saying to this woman what he did, in order for this to have escalated to the point of an elderly woman getting arrested.

He may have not had any right legally, and it appears that he was overzealous.  However, I feel that much trouble could have been averted had she just complied.  And complained to his superiors afterwards.  In other words she suffered much, for the sake of being “right”.  (And at the time, I’m sure she didn’t know whether she was right or not.  She was simply being beligerent.)

Also, there is a thing called respect for authority.

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 05:51 PM

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 05:18 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 04:03 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 01:07 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 12:50 PM

As I understand it the woman was in the McDonald’s parking lot, which is private property. Thus, unless a person in authority @ the McDonald’s specifically complained to the officer that she was obstructing their drive through or something similar, what grounds did he have for hassling her? Because she was waiting in the place she normally waited for her order?

Until we hear from the officer, I guess we’ll just have to call it “over-reacting” on his part.

You may be right in your guess of the policeman overreacting.  Again, the issue is whether or not to follow a policeman’s command, and the answer is always, yes!  It is not for the offender to decide whether the police is right or wrong at the time.  You deal with it appropriately through the courts afterwards.

No, the arguement I was presenting was whether or not the officer had the right to issue the order in the first place. Unless there is an overt criminal/unlawful act occurring, the officer has no right to “command” someone do to anything on private property unless the owner of the property has requested the officer to intervene.

I don’t recall anyone but the OFFICER complaining about the woman’s behaviour, because he was sitting in line behind her. Nowhere did I see anything about McDonald’s requesting his intervention.

You are correct with this, and there is an internal affairs investigation that is ongoing, so the officer will not be heard from as of yet, nor his department.

In my opinion, this was an overzealous officer who had no right saying to this woman what he did, in order for this to have escalated to the point of an elderly woman getting arrested.

He may have not had any right legally, and it appears that he was overzealous.  However, I feel that much trouble could have been averted had she just complied.  And complained to his superiors afterwards.  In other words she suffered much, for the sake of being “right”.  (And at the time, I’m sure she didn’t know whether she was right or not.  She was simply being beligerent.)

Also, there is a thing called respect for authority.

And there is also a thing called respect for the elderly, and that does not include telling a woman that she has dementia, as this officer did.  She listened to what the business representative told her to do, and they are the ones that were correct, not the officer who approached her car asking for a drivers license and registration.

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 06:50 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 05:51 PM

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 05:18 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 04:03 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 01:07 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 12:50 PM

As I understand it the woman was in the McDonald’s parking lot, which is private property. Thus, unless a person in authority @ the McDonald’s specifically complained to the officer that she was obstructing their drive through or something similar, what grounds did he have for hassling her? Because she was waiting in the place she normally waited for her order?

Until we hear from the officer, I guess we’ll just have to call it “over-reacting” on his part.

You may be right in your guess of the policeman overreacting.  Again, the issue is whether or not to follow a policeman’s command, and the answer is always, yes!  It is not for the offender to decide whether the police is right or wrong at the time.  You deal with it appropriately through the courts afterwards.

No, the arguement I was presenting was whether or not the officer had the right to issue the order in the first place. Unless there is an overt criminal/unlawful act occurring, the officer has no right to “command” someone do to anything on private property unless the owner of the property has requested the officer to intervene.

I don’t recall anyone but the OFFICER complaining about the woman’s behaviour, because he was sitting in line behind her. Nowhere did I see anything about McDonald’s requesting his intervention.

You are correct with this, and there is an internal affairs investigation that is ongoing, so the officer will not be heard from as of yet, nor his department.

In my opinion, this was an overzealous officer who had no right saying to this woman what he did, in order for this to have escalated to the point of an elderly woman getting arrested.

He may have not had any right legally, and it appears that he was overzealous.  However, I feel that much trouble could have been averted had she just complied.  And complained to his superiors afterwards.  In other words she suffered much, for the sake of being “right”.  (And at the time, I’m sure she didn’t know whether she was right or not.  She was simply being beligerent.)

Also, there is a thing called respect for authority.

And there is also a thing called respect for the elderly, and that does not include telling a woman that she has dementia, as this officer did.  She listened to what the business representative told her to do, and they are the ones that were correct, not the officer who approached her car asking for a drivers license and registration.

I don’t know how else to explain it, so, whatever.

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 06:50 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 05:51 PM

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 05:18 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 04:03 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 01:07 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 12:50 PM

As I understand it the woman was in the McDonald’s parking lot, which is private property. Thus, unless a person in authority @ the McDonald’s specifically complained to the officer that she was obstructing their drive through or something similar, what grounds did he have for hassling her? Because she was waiting in the place she normally waited for her order?

Until we hear from the officer, I guess we’ll just have to call it “over-reacting” on his part.

You may be right in your guess of the policeman overreacting.  Again, the issue is whether or not to follow a policeman’s command, and the answer is always, yes!  It is not for the offender to decide whether the police is right or wrong at the time.  You deal with it appropriately through the courts afterwards.

No, the arguement I was presenting was whether or not the officer had the right to issue the order in the first place. Unless there is an overt criminal/unlawful act occurring, the officer has no right to “command” someone do to anything on private property unless the owner of the property has requested the officer to intervene.

I don’t recall anyone but the OFFICER complaining about the woman’s behaviour, because he was sitting in line behind her. Nowhere did I see anything about McDonald’s requesting his intervention.

You are correct with this, and there is an internal affairs investigation that is ongoing, so the officer will not be heard from as of yet, nor his department.

In my opinion, this was an overzealous officer who had no right saying to this woman what he did, in order for this to have escalated to the point of an elderly woman getting arrested.

He may have not had any right legally, and it appears that he was overzealous.  However, I feel that much trouble could have been averted had she just complied.  And complained to his superiors afterwards.  In other words she suffered much, for the sake of being “right”.  (And at the time, I’m sure she didn’t know whether she was right or not.  She was simply being beligerent.)

Also, there is a thing called respect for authority.

And there is also a thing called respect for the elderly, and that does not include telling a woman that she has dementia, as this officer did.  She listened to what the business representative told her to do, and they are the ones that were correct, not the officer who approached her car asking for a drivers license and registration.

A cop being in a hurry to get his triple combo deluxe has no more rights than any other citizen.

Stuka - 29 January 2008 06:54 PM

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 06:50 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 05:51 PM

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 05:18 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 04:03 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 01:07 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 12:50 PM

As I understand it the woman was in the McDonald’s parking lot, which is private property. Thus, unless a person in authority @ the McDonald’s specifically complained to the officer that she was obstructing their drive through or something similar, what grounds did he have for hassling her? Because she was waiting in the place she normally waited for her order?

Until we hear from the officer, I guess we’ll just have to call it “over-reacting” on his part.

You may be right in your guess of the policeman overreacting.  Again, the issue is whether or not to follow a policeman’s command, and the answer is always, yes!  It is not for the offender to decide whether the police is right or wrong at the time.  You deal with it appropriately through the courts afterwards.

No, the arguement I was presenting was whether or not the officer had the right to issue the order in the first place. Unless there is an overt criminal/unlawful act occurring, the officer has no right to “command” someone do to anything on private property unless the owner of the property has requested the officer to intervene.

I don’t recall anyone but the OFFICER complaining about the woman’s behaviour, because he was sitting in line behind her. Nowhere did I see anything about McDonald’s requesting his intervention.

You are correct with this, and there is an internal affairs investigation that is ongoing, so the officer will not be heard from as of yet, nor his department.

In my opinion, this was an overzealous officer who had no right saying to this woman what he did, in order for this to have escalated to the point of an elderly woman getting arrested.

He may have not had any right legally, and it appears that he was overzealous.  However, I feel that much trouble could have been averted had she just complied.  And complained to his superiors afterwards.  In other words she suffered much, for the sake of being “right”.  (And at the time, I’m sure she didn’t know whether she was right or not.  She was simply being beligerent.)

Also, there is a thing called respect for authority.

And there is also a thing called respect for the elderly, and that does not include telling a woman that she has dementia, as this officer did.  She listened to what the business representative told her to do, and they are the ones that were correct, not the officer who approached her car asking for a drivers license and registration.

A cop being in a hurry to get his triple combo deluxe has no more rights than any other citizen.

Just think of how he would have reacted if he couldn’t have gotten to the window to order his donuts!! 

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 06:54 PM

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 06:50 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 05:51 PM

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 05:18 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 04:03 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 01:07 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 12:50 PM

As I understand it the woman was in the McDonald’s parking lot, which is private property. Thus, unless a person in authority @ the McDonald’s specifically complained to the officer that she was obstructing their drive through or something similar, what grounds did he have for hassling her? Because she was waiting in the place she normally waited for her order?

Until we hear from the officer, I guess we’ll just have to call it “over-reacting” on his part.

You may be right in your guess of the policeman overreacting.  Again, the issue is whether or not to follow a policeman’s command, and the answer is always, yes!  It is not for the offender to decide whether the police is right or wrong at the time.  You deal with it appropriately through the courts afterwards.

No, the arguement I was presenting was whether or not the officer had the right to issue the order in the first place. Unless there is an overt criminal/unlawful act occurring, the officer has no right to “command” someone do to anything on private property unless the owner of the property has requested the officer to intervene.

I don’t recall anyone but the OFFICER complaining about the woman’s behaviour, because he was sitting in line behind her. Nowhere did I see anything about McDonald’s requesting his intervention.

You are correct with this, and there is an internal affairs investigation that is ongoing, so the officer will not be heard from as of yet, nor his department.

In my opinion, this was an overzealous officer who had no right saying to this woman what he did, in order for this to have escalated to the point of an elderly woman getting arrested.

He may have not had any right legally, and it appears that he was overzealous.  However, I feel that much trouble could have been averted had she just complied.  And complained to his superiors afterwards.  In other words she suffered much, for the sake of being “right”.  (And at the time, I’m sure she didn’t know whether she was right or not.  She was simply being beligerent.)

Also, there is a thing called respect for authority.

And there is also a thing called respect for the elderly, and that does not include telling a woman that she has dementia, as this officer did.  She listened to what the business representative told her to do, and they are the ones that were correct, not the officer who approached her car asking for a drivers license and registration.

I don’t know how else to explain it, so, whatever.

Elderly people have just as many, or more rights for protection than children do.  This is a Federal thing, just call the FBI and ask them.  Many people (including young law enforcement officers) do not know this, but this is in fact, fact!!  As this was explained to me, by the FBI, children have parents to look out for their best interests whereas elderly people are often times left to fend for themselves, and many times they are exploited, neglected and abused because of this.  Makes sense, if you think about it.

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 07:44 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 06:54 PM

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 06:50 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 05:51 PM

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 05:18 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 04:03 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 01:07 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 12:50 PM

As I understand it the woman was in the McDonald’s parking lot, which is private property. Thus, unless a person in authority @ the McDonald’s specifically complained to the officer that she was obstructing their drive through or something similar, what grounds did he have for hassling her? Because she was waiting in the place she normally waited for her order?

Until we hear from the officer, I guess we’ll just have to call it “over-reacting” on his part.

You may be right in your guess of the policeman overreacting.  Again, the issue is whether or not to follow a policeman’s command, and the answer is always, yes!  It is not for the offender to decide whether the police is right or wrong at the time.  You deal with it appropriately through the courts afterwards.

No, the arguement I was presenting was whether or not the officer had the right to issue the order in the first place. Unless there is an overt criminal/unlawful act occurring, the officer has no right to “command” someone do to anything on private property unless the owner of the property has requested the officer to intervene.

I don’t recall anyone but the OFFICER complaining about the woman’s behaviour, because he was sitting in line behind her. Nowhere did I see anything about McDonald’s requesting his intervention.

You are correct with this, and there is an internal affairs investigation that is ongoing, so the officer will not be heard from as of yet, nor his department.

In my opinion, this was an overzealous officer who had no right saying to this woman what he did, in order for this to have escalated to the point of an elderly woman getting arrested.

He may have not had any right legally, and it appears that he was overzealous.  However, I feel that much trouble could have been averted had she just complied.  And complained to his superiors afterwards.  In other words she suffered much, for the sake of being “right”.  (And at the time, I’m sure she didn’t know whether she was right or not.  She was simply being beligerent.)

Also, there is a thing called respect for authority.

And there is also a thing called respect for the elderly, and that does not include telling a woman that she has dementia, as this officer did.  She listened to what the business representative told her to do, and they are the ones that were correct, not the officer who approached her car asking for a drivers license and registration.

I don’t know how else to explain it, so, whatever.

Elderly people have just as many, or more rights for protection than children do.  This is a Federal thing, just call the FBI and ask them.  Many people (including young law enforcement officers) do not know this, but this is in fact, fact!!  As this was explained to me, by the FBI, children have parents to look out for their best interests whereas elderly people are often times left to fend for themselves, and many times they are exploited, neglected and abused because of this.  Makes sense, if you think about it.

This particular elderly lady seemed perfectly able to take care of herself.  I understand your point of view.  However, I don’t agree that all elderly people are helpless, abused, neglected and so on.  Just like not all children are abused, neglected etc.  And we cannot immediately assume that this was the case with this particular granny.

I’m not saying that the cop was right. But I am saying that his authority, as for all policemen, should be respected.  Most of us are not lawyers, or savvy of all the legalites of everything out there.  We have to assume that a cop knows more about the law than most people.  You cannot have people second guessing a cop, and deciding for themselves whether or not to do as a policeman requests.  If you know you’re right in a particular instance and if you want to stand your ground with a cop, then go for it.  Just be prepared to go to jail and don’t complain about it afterwards.

For me, I’ll not take that chance.  I’ll do what I’m told at the time, then go through the proper channels afterwards for the officer to be disciplined.

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 08:09 PM

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 07:44 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 06:54 PM

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 06:50 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 05:51 PM

Sporty Lady - 29 January 2008 05:18 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 04:03 PM

SubMariner - 29 January 2008 01:07 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 12:50 PM

As I understand it the woman was in the McDonald’s parking lot, which is private property. Thus, unless a person in authority @ the McDonald’s specifically complained to the officer that she was obstructing their drive through or something similar, what grounds did he have for hassling her? Because she was waiting in the place she normally waited for her order?

Until we hear from the officer, I guess we’ll just have to call it “over-reacting” on his part.

You may be right in your guess of the policeman overreacting.  Again, the issue is whether or not to follow a policeman’s command, and the answer is always, yes!  It is not for the offender to decide whether the police is right or wrong at the time.  You deal with it appropriately through the courts afterwards.

No, the arguement I was presenting was whether or not the officer had the right to issue the order in the first place. Unless there is an overt criminal/unlawful act occurring, the officer has no right to “command” someone do to anything on private property unless the owner of the property has requested the officer to intervene.

I don’t recall anyone but the OFFICER complaining about the woman’s behaviour, because he was sitting in line behind her. Nowhere did I see anything about McDonald’s requesting his intervention.

You are correct with this, and there is an internal affairs investigation that is ongoing, so the officer will not be heard from as of yet, nor his department.

In my opinion, this was an overzealous officer who had no right saying to this woman what he did, in order for this to have escalated to the point of an elderly woman getting arrested.

He may have not had any right legally, and it appears that he was overzealous.  However, I feel that much trouble could have been averted had she just complied.  And complained to his superiors afterwards.  In other words she suffered much, for the sake of being “right”.  (And at the time, I’m sure she didn’t know whether she was right or not.  She was simply being beligerent.)

Also, there is a thing called respect for authority.

And there is also a thing called respect for the elderly, and that does not include telling a woman that she has dementia, as this officer did.  She listened to what the business representative told her to do, and they are the ones that were correct, not the officer who approached her car asking for a drivers license and registration.

I don’t know how else to explain it, so, whatever.

Elderly people have just as many, or more rights for protection than children do.  This is a Federal thing, just call the FBI and ask them.  Many people (including young law enforcement officers) do not know this, but this is in fact, fact!!  As this was explained to me, by the FBI, children have parents to look out for their best interests whereas elderly people are often times left to fend for themselves, and many times they are exploited, neglected and abused because of this.  Makes sense, if you think about it.

This particular elderly lady seemed perfectly able to care of herself.  I understand your point of view.  However, I don’t agree that all elderly people are helpless, abused, neglected and so on.  Just like not all children are abused, neglected etc.  And we cannot immediately assume that this was the case with this particular granny.

I’m not saying that the cop was right. But I am saying that his authority, as for all policemen, should be respected.  Most of us are not lawyers, or savvy of all the legalites of everything out there.  We have to assume that a cop knows more about the law than most people.  You cannot have people second guessing a cop, and deciding for themselves whether or not to do as a policeman requests.  If you know you’re right in a particular instance and if you want to stand your ground with a cop, then go for it.  Just be prepared to go to jail and don’t complain about it afterwards.

For me, I’ll not take that chance.  I’ll do what I’m told at the time, then go through the proper channels afterwards for the officer to be disciplined.

The problem I see here is, if you are right, you don’t belong in jail.  This is where I have a problem, for it is up to sworn officers to use their own descrection when making arrests.  What a waste of time, and money for cops to press charges on something like this, just to have the SAO drop the charges later. 

It’s a persons right to file a complaint, and if one feels they have been wronged, I say file one.  Officers, above all citizens should know peoples rights, and not violate them.  Many don’t, and the same holds true for many citizens.  Citizens, and their rights should be protected by sworn officers, as well as the other way around, citizens should be respectful of officers.  Officers should be professionals, especially when in uniform, and to tell a citizen that they have dementia is not professional, and it pissed the old lady off.  It would me too, if I were in her shoes.

I agree completely.  People (in or out of uniform) don’t always act the way you want, or should act.

Sometimes you have to decide that you’re the one who’s going to be the bigger person and rise above it.  And that’s a very difficult thing to do sometimes.  But in the end it’s worth it.

The granny should just have chalked the police officer up to being arrogant and over zealous, then saved herself the aggravation of hassling with him and just complied.  She should have thought, no big deal, who really cares afterall.  You don’t have control over others, but you do have control over yourself. 

And I have my hands full just doing that! 

If she had done what the officer told her and reported him later it is unlikely that anything would have been done. Because she stood up for herself, the officers behavior is under scrutiny that can’t be swept under the carpet.

I can understand why she may have been upset. When you go to a fast food drive through and are asked to pull ahead and wait, it is a little annoying. When people in back of you, who ordered after you did, get their order and leave it is even more annoying. When you are waiting where you are told to wait and some A hole comes and tells you to move, you get angry.

When I am asked to pull ahead and wait I usually tell them that I prefer to wait at the window. If they insist that I move, I tell them that I will, as soon as they give me my money back!

At a regular restaurant, you get your food first and pay for it after you eat. At fast food restaurants, you are expected to pay first and wait for your food. Once you pay for the food, you don’t have to leave the window until you have what you ordered.

think - 29 January 2008 09:43 PM

If she had done what the officer told her and reported him later it is unlikely that anything would have been done. Because she stood up for herself, the officers behavior is under scrutiny that can’t be swept under the carpet.

I can understand why she may have been upset. When you go to a fast food drive through and are asked to pull ahead and wait, it is a little annoying. When people in back of you, who ordered after you did, get their order and leave it is even more annoying. When you are waiting where you are told to wait and some A hole comes and tells you to move, you get angry.

When I am asked to pull ahead and wait I usually tell them that I prefer to wait at the window. If they insist that I move, I tell them that I will, as soon as they give me my money back!

At a regular restaurant, you get your food first and pay for it after you eat. At fast food restaurants, you are expected to pay first and wait for your food. Once you pay for the food, you don’t have to leave the window until you have what you ordered.

You people are going to the wrong fast food places!  I’ve not had slow service in one or had to wait for a very long time.  Matter of fact, I’ve experienced excellent service most of the time.

I went and opened my mouth.  I’ll probably have to wait for my fries tomorrow!

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 09:50 PM

think - 29 January 2008 09:43 PM

If she had done what the officer told her and reported him later it is unlikely that anything would have been done. Because she stood up for herself, the officers behavior is under scrutiny that can’t be swept under the carpet.

I can understand why she may have been upset. When you go to a fast food drive through and are asked to pull ahead and wait, it is a little annoying. When people in back of you, who ordered after you did, get their order and leave it is even more annoying. When you are waiting where you are told to wait and some A hole comes and tells you to move, you get angry.

When I am asked to pull ahead and wait I usually tell them that I prefer to wait at the window. If they insist that I move, I tell them that I will, as soon as they give me my money back!

At a regular restaurant, you get your food first and pay for it after you eat. At fast food restaurants, you are expected to pay first and wait for your food. Once you pay for the food, you don’t have to leave the window until you have what you ordered.

You people are going to the wrong fast food places!  I’ve not had slow service in one or had to wait for a very long time.  Matter of fact, I’ve experienced excellent service most of the time.

I went and opened my mouth.  I’ll probably have to wait for my fries tomorrow!

Order Fries without salt.

Stuka - 30 January 2008 12:22 PM

MICHAELAJV - 29 January 2008 09:50 PM

think - 29 January 2008 09:43 PM

If she had done what the officer told her and reported him later it is unlikely that anything would have been done. Because she stood up for herself, the officers behavior is under scrutiny that can’t be swept under the carpet.

I can understand why she may have been upset. When you go to a fast food drive through and are asked to pull ahead and wait, it is a little annoying. When people in back of you, who ordered after you did, get their order and leave it is even more annoying. When you are waiting where you are told to wait and some A hole comes and tells you to move, you get angry.

When I am asked to pull ahead and wait I usually tell them that I prefer to wait at the window. If they insist that I move, I tell them that I will, as soon as they give me my money back!

At a regular restaurant, you get your food first and pay for it after you eat. At fast food restaurants, you are expected to pay first and wait for your food. Once you pay for the food, you don’t have to leave the window until you have what you ordered.

You people are going to the wrong fast food places!  I’ve not had slow service in one or had to wait for a very long time.  Matter of fact, I’ve experienced excellent service most of the time.

I went and opened my mouth.  I’ll probably have to wait for my fries tomorrow!

Order Fries without salt.

You’re right, it’s when you make special requests that cause delays.

The way McDonalds conducts their business is just that… “their” business.
If you don’t like pulling up and waiting… don’t go there, it’s done so often most have assigned waiting areas.

The Clearwater Police Officer Matthew Parco decided he didn’t like where Merola had parked and decided to create his own policy for McDonalds, he had no authority to do so and the courts will certainly side in Merola’s favor, however the real issue is that Officer Parco’s poor behavior is going to cost the city a lot of money and bad press.

Officer Matthew Parco needs to be disciplined and retrained!

If the Police can not afford to wait in a line like everyone else, then the Police have no business using fast food drive throughs that may restrict their mobility. They can properly park their vehicle, maybe near an exit, and then walk inside for their food.

Wild Bill Hiccup - 30 January 2008 03:34 PM

The way McDonalds conducts their business is just that… “their” business.
If you don’t like pulling up and waiting… don’t go there, it’s done so often most have assigned waiting areas.

The Clearwater Police Officer Matthew Parco decided he didn’t like where Merola had parked and decided to create his own policy for McDonalds, he had no authority to do so and the courts will certainly side in Merola’s favor, however the real issue is that Officer Parco’s poor behavior is going to cost the city a lot of money and bad press.

Officer Matthew Parco needs to be disciplined and retrained!

If the Police can not afford to wait in a line like everyone else, then the Police have no business using fast food drive throughs that may restrict their mobility. They can properly park their vehicle, maybe near an exit, and then walk inside for their food.

Absolutely!  If this officer shows no respect to an elderly woman, you can quarantee he shows no respect to most any other person when he doesn’t get his way. 

You are right, this is going to cost the taxpayers of Clearwater a lot of money, as well as the international bad press that it has already gotten.