Pixiq

1. They want to play dirty ok…
In Civil Court-
a. sue the employee for Battery
b. sue Dunkin Donuts as well

…although he was in private property not public property where there are no constitutional rights for free speech … his conduct does not justify the battery upon him so i would strongly suggest if these Dunkin Gang Members wanna play rough he should play rough too and take them to court… pics vs battery – he has the upper hand…

Criminal
-State vs. him…
they will probably have to drop those nazi charges of Felony against him…
-he will probably have to fight that disorderly conduct one…

I don’t mean to impugn your friend, Carlos, but who brings a non service animal inside a food service establishment? Isn’t that a health code violation? It’s not exactly Petco.

This is how Dunkin’ Donuts treats their customers?

Pinandpuller,

I think Dunkin Donuts is a health code violation with or without a puppy being cradled in someone’s arms inside the lobby.

Your friend failed to tell you the whole truth which was recorded on camera.

Restaurants only allow service animals. When he walked in, the employees told him he couldn’t have the animal in there and asked him to leave. He ignored, taunting them (again, all recorded on the store’s security cameras) and began taking pictures of the employees.
NO employees authorized him to take pictures. On the contrary, both employees asked him repeatedly to stop, telling him they did not give him permission. The manager even explained that it was a private establishment and did not authorize any picture taking and advised that if he continued, the police would be called because he was harassing the business and it’s workers.
He continued taking pictures and taunting them. In the video, which is why he is being charged with disorderly conduct, it appears he was instigating them and even looks as though he threw something at her first.

And the manager, is my father; hence the info about the video.

They say there are three sides to every story and in this one, the video feed captured the truth.
Your friend was not in a public place but rather a private establishment and was repeatedly asked to leave and stop photographing. He refused and egged them on.

The employees and the establishment have rights as well.

Accepting all of that as true,
The employee still attacked a customer and may be liable in a civil court for battery.

Wow. Small world.

If you provide the video, I’ll be happy to post it.

But regardless if he was taunting them. Regardless if he did take their photo without their permission. Regardless if he did walk in with the dog.

That doesn’t give the employee the right to toss water on him.

With all said and done, she is still liable for an assault on a customer.

As representative for Dunkin Donuts she knew better than to do that.

Ricky:

I don’t necessarily disagree but at what point is a person responsible for the repercussions of their own actions?

Maybe the person lost there cool but if you antagonize someone repeatedly and they warn you that if you continue they’re going to retaliate, don’t you foot the blame too?
If you call someone names and laugh at them and they smack you, didn’t you get what you deserve?
While it may apply both ways here, I believe the saying is ‘if you can’t do the time, then don’t do the crime.’
I’ll tell you this, DD will fight it every step of the way using that video as proof.

If the video shows them tossing water on the customer, then it’s not going to help them much.

All they had to do was call the cops and let them deal with it.

Enhager,

This is the real Miami Social. Or should I say, the real Miami Antisocial.

We are a tense city. Everybody has their finger on the trigger, whether it is a shutter button or a bucket of water.

This is why I leave my guns at home.

Jim’s comments: Direct testimony (albeit not under oath)

MCM’s comments: Hearsay, with the same oath qualifier.

In the TV courtroom, testimony is admissable, and hearsay is not, save in extreme circumstances.

Unless and until the mysterious tape comes to light, the balance favors Jim, IMO. I’ve got nothing against MCM, I just know what she’s laying out is hearsay.

Just as a general comment, I wouldn’t call someone who’d summarily fire an employee the first time they arrived 5 minutes late “no-nonsense”, because a policy like that is nonsensical. It essentially states that your employment will only last until something beyond your control makes you late for work, and has nothing to do with those who are habitually tardy.

I’d /never/ work for someone that rigid, uncaring, and unreasonable. I did that once, and saw a co-worker fired for obeying a manager’s orders to do something that policy stated was a firing offense (nothing illegal, just a policy). It still seemed the better way to go to they guy, because disobeying a manager was also a firable offense. That owner prided himself as being a “no-nonsense” guy, too.

Jim wins, unless and until the tape becomes public, and proves him wrong.

Where’s the tape?!?!?!

this pictures is HARASSMENT PERSONAL… not is freedom of the press..

I’m surprised Johnny Law has time to come here and make smart remarks. I thought he was too busy on his own site moderating out comments that make him look too bad.

I think that the girl should be reprimanded for not setting out the wet floor sign after throwing the cup.

This Jim is an asshole. Jesus Christ even though I support YOU, and have sent a few bucks your way sometimes we (us photographers) are a*holes!! Stop being a jerk with the freakin’ cameras!! Regardless of your “rights” sometimes it doesn’t pay to cause a problem as many of us that will come after you are screwed. Jesus Christ! I hope his 8k camera was screwed. What dumbass.

And on another note he was shooting on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Just an FYI. This is in no way what you were arrested for doing. If he had been asked to stop taking photos, he should have stopped. If he had been asked to leave the establishment, he should have left. Again, what an asshole!

fuckstick,
jim was never asked/told to stop taking pics, jim was told by one of the employees to stop taking pics of her! which jim did…
secondly,
jim was never asked/told to leave the property!
now what?
(btw, jim IS an asshole!)

“fuckstick,
jim was never asked/told to stop taking pics, jim was told by one of the employees to stop taking pics of her! which jim did…
secondly,
jim was never asked/told to leave the property!
now what?
(btw, jim IS an asshole!)”

Why is Jim referring to himself in the third person? Is this Bob Dole talking about Jim?

And it’s going to be pretty ironic when the employee is going to depend on a video to prove that she had the right to defend herself from being photographed unwillingly.

If they have the right to film the customer, how can they deny the customer the right to photograph them?

so i think i figured it out…the girl was from thailand, and was merely celebrating the New Year with her own little “Songkran” festival

Um, he DID take a photo of her even though she asked not to be – and POSTED IT ON THE NET! Foreground or background is irrelevant.

after much thought, i can understand why this disgusting heinous illegal immigrant wouldnt want her picture taken…my bad

and the bull dog reveals his dumb card. …o wait..he’s been showing it for awhile now.

Why would anyone snap pictures in a private place/establishment of employees without asking permission is beyond me…i see two DD employees in the picture (now which is the one that didn’t want to be photographed? lol)

and btw stop eating donuts…it shows…

bc they were on a memory card…nice try

the puppy is cute but its not a service animal and shouldnt have been in the store.

Regardless of the legal issues, after reading this I conclude that Jim is a self absorbed ass. Unfortunately, that is not a crime.

They can deny the customer anything they want, it’s private property. As long as all whites, blacks, asians, native north americans and hispanics are told no dogs equally, they can ask anyone to leave for non service animals.
No one force this guy, his girl and their dog into Dunkin Donuts,and anyone who lives in North America knows to expect cameras.

post the tape!

For the record, Bulldog is the man in question.

your employees are liars! we’ll see what a judge thinks about assault! we’ll see what a judge thinks about an $8000 camera that doesnt work due to water damage…

Shoot Carlos, no offense but if I can get that video, I’m posting it on my own blog and attaching the definition of Karma to it.

And Ripster, if he threw something at her first, then it’s self-defense…in addition to loitering, trespassing, harassment and anything else DD corporate will probably throw at him.

My dad is a no-nonsense type of guy and fires people who are 5 minutes late on their first incident. He wouldn’t put up with someone being disrespectful to a customer- because his job is on the line too if shit like that happens. Who do you think has to hear it from the suits? Not her.

I have to tell people to keep their non-service animals out of the place I work, and we don’t even sell food. Bringing a puppy into a place that sells food is actually pretty dumb.

OTOH, someone could be strolling out with thousands of dollars worth of stuff without paying, and I’m not to lay a finger on them. I suspect Dunkin Donuts has a similar policy re: tossing fluids on customers.

But seriously: TEN cop cars in minutes? HOW IS THE DONUT PROTECTION JOKE NOT ALREADY MADE?

I’m disappointed in all of you.

Bark bark bulldog… the cops saw the video which is why you are being charged + they checked your camera there and there was nothing wrong with it then.

Who’s the liar now?

and btw, the dog has nothing to do with anything…the dog was in the store last night and no one said a thing…once asked to leave with the dog, the dog left…

the sgt saw the video and squashed the charge! i didnt know it was DD’s policy to throw water at customers that have cameras?

AND nothing was ever thrown at the girl behind the counter…AND no one ever checked the camera before we left…your employees are merely lying to save their jobs…AND we didnt even get an apology from mr manager!

AND the manager wouldnt replace the melted ice cream we just spent nine bucks on…

He’s not going to apologize, nor are they. I called to ask him what REALLY happened when I read this because it sounded sensational and NOTHING like the way they treat people at his location. He’s fought corporate on a bunch of community issues because he says the customers are their life-line and not the company’s rules.

I don’t know you but I do know my father and he doesn’t lie- especially not for something recorded on camera. He also did not ask anyone to confiscate your camera which makes me lean towards you being the liar or Carlos misinterpreting the facts based on your acquaintance and what I’m sure was a bit of embellishing thanks to emotion.

Like I said before, you have to responsible for your actions. If she did throw a cup of water at you, then she needs to be accountable. He wouldn’t tell me because I told him I was going to respond to the post with their side so people could figure it out on their own instead of just believing a sensationalized story. He did say the video makes it look like you threw something at her but I haven’t seen it. Rest assured that after this post and the insulting comments aimed at the staff, if I had a video that refuted your side, I would LOOOOOOOOOVE to post it.

What’s true is that she repeatedly asked you to stop and you retorted something nasty to her- something you (or Carlos) failed to mention. You tried to make it seem as though you took her picture and she threw water at you for no reason when you know that’s not how it happened.
It sure takes a big man to antagonize a young girl just trying to do her job, doesn’t it? You left her in tears. Some man. It should take an even bigger man to look at his own actions and say ‘shit, I asked for it and got what I deserved.’ This is Miami afterall, bulldog- in some neighborhoods, you would’ve been shot for ‘trying’ someone and no one would be the wiser as to how it happened.

If I started insulting you on here based on your appearance from Carlos’ pictures, then I’d be opening Pandora’s box for the same treatment. In essence, that’s what you did. Sometimes, you get EXACTLY what you deserve whether it’s right, legal or not. Like I said, karma.

post the tape!!!

Show the video, I don’t believe a word anyone says until the video gets posted and if Magic City Mama is not willing to provide a link to the video then she is full of crap, perhaps nothing more than a troll. She more than likely voted for that socialist idiot Obama as well, even more reason not to trust her word.

What the fuck does Obama have to do with any of this?

As far as I know, neither Jim nor Magic City Mama voted for Obama.

But I sure as hell did, so what of it?

I think we should all let emotions cool off because in the end we are all allies in the fight for liberties…

however, time will tell who is right…
we are not disputing the right to film in a private domain because there is no right. however, what is troubling is the initial fear and threats of the police of imposing a bogus felony (which they knew had no weight) and their over reaction… this is a horrible deep reflection… by the state.
Civilly, the civil war between private individuals is another matter we can all fight on and be emotional on but in the end, even if the bulldog was barking too loudly he has a legitimate and valid claim that has to be addressed. Yes, employees have rights but it is not a crime to make someone cry, it might be improper morally but it is not a crime, what is a crime is battery. Just my opinions which are basically meaningless but interesting since this blog reaches thousands of people…perhaps my voice may be a voice from one of the many in the vox populi…however, i hope this all ends well because remember we are all fighting the bigger enemy and they want us divided.

I’m hardly a troll and Carlos can tell you that.

Like I said, I haven’t seen the video and do you really think that I would be allowed to post the security feed from a corporate entity involved in a legal issue just because the boss is my daddy?

Get real folks. You ask me to post it because you know there is no way I can.

I already said that if she threw a party sized cup of WATER at you a la Dorothy and the wicked Witch, then she should be held accountable.

Calling someone names is not illegal- unless you happened to call her something associated with race or nationality which could then be deemed a hate crime. I don’t know- I wasn’t there and i certainly hope that’s not what put her over the edge. But I still say, if you ‘tried’ her and she lost her cool and ‘tried’ you back; you got what you deserved.
You may have just lucked out, Bulldog, that she was working for DD at the time which might entitle you to some sort of compensation although if I were DD legal, I would fight it with trespassing, harassment and loitering counterclaims given how many times you were asked AND told to leave.

Incidentally, Jeff- I did not vote for Obama and I’m sure Carlos remembers the heated arguments regarding that topic at my former job. I’m actually keeping my son home from school next Tuesday so the Obamaessiah can’t corrupt his young mind with his propaganda.

As for Carlos, or anyone else who voted for him, like Bulldog proved tonight- you get what you deserve…but yeah, not related to the topic AT ALL.

So repeated alleged antagonizing by taking someone’s picture… is punishable by an $8,000 fine, to be carried out by a donut pusher?

If he allegedly threw something at her, why would she return fire with WATER, for heaven’s sake? What sort of sense does that make?

How does one throw something at someone while taking pictures anyhow? did he stop taking pictures and then grab something that happened to be nearby and throw it?

I know for a fact if i ever did anything that involved me damaging $8,000 worth of anything, that i’d be held civilly liable, if not criminally.

Especially if the reason i damaged the property was because someone was taking my picture.

@MMM: “Calling someone names is not illegal- unless you happened to call her something associated with race or nationality which could then be deemed a hate crime.”

er… no. what are you basing this on? Hate crime involves doing something to someone that is illegal BECAUSE of their race religion creed sexual orientation. And if it were illegal (under hate crime statutes no less – those get you the death penalty, or Life In Prison) – i think he would have been charged with that crime first and foremost.

I think this is all Fidel Castro’s Fault.

Yates v. United States, Brandenburg v. Ohio

Supreme Court roundly rejects the notion that hate speech can be a crime unless there is imminent threat of “clear and present danger” or “imminent lawless action”

So saying “someone should do something about these damn dutch people, drown them or something” isn’t hate speech. But getting a crowd riled up and inciting them to cause harm from a position of hatred towards a group of people IS hate speech.

Hate speech is not a “hate crime” – it’s more on par with “Inciting a riot” or “conspiracy” charges.

MCM keeps mentioning loitering, trespassing, and harassment — are DD’s customers considered loiterers and trespassers when they walk into the store? Funny. Her assertion that the water-thrower acted in “self-defense” is hilarious.

Ten cop cars — odd that there were that many “crime” fighters and drug warriors available for such a thing. Shouldn’t they at least be harassing people with their little click-it or ticket games?

Janie: They heard “Photographer is causing a problem” and they thought “Carlos Miller! let’s GIT ‘M!”

:-p