Not The Onion

22244 readers

1202 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

384

Tim Hortons employee won’t face criminal charges in death of customer (www.ctvnews.ca)

submitted 3 days ago by VetOfTheSeas@discuss.online to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

162 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Tl;dr: 75-yo old woman attacks the employees over a sandwich, rips hair from one of them, put that hair in her purse, calls the police and dies.

At that point, two other employees intervened, and as they were pulled apart, a “chunk of hair” was pulled from the shift lead’s head, “leaving a raw area.”

Once separated, the employees got behind the counter and Grayson sat down, taking a phone call. She was seen picking up the shift lead’s hair and putting it in her bag, police said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I hate the death of empathy

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Should we not have empathy for the children she assaulted? There is no evidence that she had a psychotic episode, there's plenty of evidence that she violently assaulted a young woman for doing their job.

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I thought there was evidence it was psychosis, sorry

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

I don't doubt someone probably made that claim and popularized it for their own reasons, but anytime someone makes a similar claim about mental health and assault I am always dubious.

People having a mental health crisis are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of violence than perpetrating it.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And even if it was psychosis, this just makes it a tragedy, not the fault of the employees she assaulted. Whether you're out of your mind or not, if you attack people, they have a right to defend themselves.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

People having a mental health crisis rarely physically attack random people, rather they are typically more likely to be the victims of abuse.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can calm down the performative social justice stuff. While what you say is true, it is irrelevant to this discussion. We're not discussing whether someone experiencing a mental health crisis might hypothetically attack someone. We're talking about whether someone who did attack someone did so because of a mental health crisis. The attack is not in dispute. Their moral and legal culpability is.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

You can calm down the performative social justice stuff. While what you say is true, it is irrelevant to this discussion

Lol, facts are performative?

We're talking about whether someone who did attack someone did so because of a mental health crisis. The attack is not in dispute.

And the fact that people experiencing mental health crises aren't likely to be randomly violent isn't relevant?

Their moral and legal culpability is.

Intent almost always influences legal culpability.