The girl had been attacked by pit bulls and was severely scarred. The grandmother was bringing her home from the hospital.
kid has plenty of troubles from the attack.
that bites.
My gut reaction is to not believe this story. The link does not provide any evidence to contradict this initial gut reaction. First question: should there not be be videotape evidence to corroborate this story?
Which part of it don’t you believe? What do you think there should be videotape evidence for, and why?
Not everyone’s first instinct is to whip out the camcorder app. I agree, there is a tinge of the Wendy’s chili finger hoax there.
ASSUMING it’s true… Day-old dog mauling scars might be a little offputting in a restaurant setting, I get that. If anyone should have left it wasn’t the toddler who just got mauled by a dog.
It may well be a hoax. But if it’s true, it’s despicable.
Belief or disbelief aside, there might be security cams that could verify if they were even there, if they ordered anything, were served, etc.
I can easily see some boneheaded counter-jockey doing something as crassly insensitive as this. I recently overheard some teenagers at a local mall’s food court going on about some other kid in a wheel chair, with some sort of developmental issues, or debilitating illness, about how “gross” he was, how " 'tarded" he was, and that people like him shouldn’t be allowed out in public.
Not all of them grow out of that.
If the incident happened at a KFC, pretty much everything in the store would be under video surveillance. The videotape could at least show that there was some sort of interaction - it may not be conclusive, but at least it would show something. Or it could show nothing, it could also prove that the event did not happen.
I do not believe that the girl was asked to leave by a KFC employee. Sure, such a thing could happen, but it seems highly, highly improbable to me. KFC is doing an investigation, so I would wait to see what they find. Also, the article mentions no witnesses.
The reason they would lie is for financial gain, some people think that it is very easy to sue large companies and that they will settle out of court easily to avoid publicity. I am not saying it is easy to sue a place like KFC and win, I am saying many people believe it is.
The family is, it would seem, eager to publicize the event and has their begging bowl out and in plain view.
I wouldn’t say that there is enough evidence to really determine anything yet, so my stance is really that I don’t feel certain, but I think the odds are against the event happening.
If it’s true, that beautiful little girl is learning some lessons about humanity way too early.
If it’s a hoax, she’s got the beginnings of a Borg costume for next Halloween.
What lesson is she learning? Is it that certain individuals people are cold and collous or is it that when something like this is reported to have happened tens of thousands of people will come to offer financial and emotional support for someone who is innocent and suffering?
But KFC won’t release the security tape unless it clears their name or its required by the court. In this case, the absence of KFC (or its franchisee) releasing the tape is actually somewhat supportive of “it happened.”
Hmm, interesting - it would seem that if there was clear video evidence against the event that it would be released to the public, but there may be other reasons to delay the release of the tape. I’m not a lawyer by any means, I can’t come up with all the possible scenarios. Without knowing anything else, I would agree with you that the absence of releasing the tape is supportive of “it happened.”
If the tape “clears their name” - by showing the family never visited the store, then what, exactly, can the store release?
By the same token - if the girl was seated in a part of the restaurant that wasn’t comprehensively covered, or the coverage is inconclusive, what can be released?
I disagree - this sort of thing goes on far more often than the able-bodied/non-scarred would believe. That doesn’t mean it happened, and I’m glad it’s being investigated, but it doesn’t strike me as “highly, highly improbable”.
Also, most bigots are self-aware enough to avoid blatant prejudice in front of witnesses. I could see an employee speaking in a soft voice to ask the girl to leave.
Anyhow - without more information impossible to say for sure.
What’s odd about this is that, to me at least, she doesn’t really look all that scary. I simply can’t see an adult complaining about her. MAYBE some kids got scared and their parents complained, but even if that’s the case, that’s still no reason to eject her.
I’m dubious. “You’re going to have to leave, her face is disrupting other customers” sounds made up to me. Who says that?
Emma Duke, Disabled Toddler, Asked To Leave Panera Bread For ‘Squeaky’ Orthopedic Shoes
Intellectually disabled group allegedly asked to leave McDonald’s
Disabled woman asked to leave Ann Taylor store because of guide dog
Restaurant Fined for Telling Disabled Kids to Leave
Guelph eatery denies diners turned away because of their disabilities
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/17/guelph-eatery-denies-diners-turned-away-because-of-their-disabilities
Sounds like a crock to me, too. Next thing we know, we’ll hear that
-
If it was true, then it was because the kid was oozing pus or blood, or something similar, or doing something gross or
-
The manager had hit on mom before, and mom rejected him, and was looking for an excuse to kick mom out of his store or
-
Mom was stinking up the place, and she’s saying it was because of the child.
Most people ARE,amazingly, as mature as us, and understand ugly/scarred kids’ afflictions. WTF would go to a manager and complain about an ugly kid??
Doesn’t pass the smell test.
No it isn’t.
Rather, it is only supportive if you want it to be supportive.
Kind of like the 5th amendment. There are all kinds of legal questions that may need to be considered also, as well as the fact that KFC may not want to be jerked around every time some dork makes up something.
He said “somewhat supportive,” not “absolute proof.” Between the two options, it is more likely that the lack of video supports the complainant’s story. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other reasons that would make that moot.