Criminal Justice

Cop Congratulates Self on Restraint, Tries to Arrest KFC Employee

|

don't fry me, bro

So an Arizona cop, on leave following a head injury from a motorcycle accident, recently had some trouble with his order at KFC. They were out of the chicken he wanted, and followed store policy by offering him an alternative and a voucher instead of a refund.

Here's police Lt. Michael Graham's summary of what happened next:

"The thing that I'm proud of: I didn't lose my temper. I didn't raise my voice. This isn't worth it," he says.

But if this is what not losing your temper looks like, I've been doing it all wrong. The manager's version:

"He told me, 'Look, fat a–, I don't want to talk. Just give me my money or I'm taking you to jail. Do you know who I am?'" [KFC worker] Tavi Padilla told other Williams police officers via a written statement….

"He told me that he was the police lieutenant and told me I had to give him his money back. I said that whether he's the president of the United States or just a regular person, I can't give him his money back," [19-year-old manager Corey] Fritsinger said….

"He asked me how old I was and said he was going to take me to jail personally," he said. "He said, 'I'm putting you in the back of my car.'"

By Graham's own account, he later referred to some lower-ranking officers who showed up on the scene as "lazy fucks." And records from police dispatch have Graham calling in with this: "I've got a problem with the manager. I'm going to take him for fraudulent activity, so I need a car."

To their immense credit, the Williams, Arizona, police department seems to have done the right thing here—suspending the officer immediately, going to his house with a warrant to retrieve his badge and gun, conducting a disciplinary hearing promptly, and then firing him.

More Reason on KFC here. More Reason on angry cops here.

Via Cold Mud.

NEXT: I Guess it Depends on the Meaning of the Word "Soros"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Kudos to Mr. Fritsinger for standing up to the cop, at the very least.

    1. I don’t want a large Farva. I want a liter of cola!

      1. I want to know what the fuck the point of this post is. So there’s a crazy cop in Arizona. He got snarky, and got suspended. So what?

        1. it’s unusual and rare. it’s a counterpoint to the typical Balko nutcracker where the story ends with the predictible, “paid leave”.

          1. It’s a Bizarro World tale of love, disappointment, and chicken.

            1. They can have my chicken when they pry it from my cold greasy fingers.

          1. He should be thrown in jail. Government power is violent power, and the overextension of it should be seen as a violent assault.

    2. Apparently he hasn’t completely recovered from his head injury. What an idiot.

      Kudos to the police force for firing his ass.

  2. I support the cop in this matter. If they were unable to provide the product requested, they should have given him a full refund. Otherwise they’re basically stealing his money.

    1. Great minds think alike.

      Like the snowball fight thread, this will be a good test of whether my libertarian friends follow their principles when doing so means foregoing the opportunity to hate on cops.

      1. Just want to point out I was writing the same thing at the same time.

      2. But you don’t to arrest people over some wings.

        1. don’t ^get to

        2. Arrest him over “taking his money”.
          WTF? Cops get paid vacations and promotions for violating people’s rights and this poor fuck gets FIRED, for hassling some asshole chicken joint manager?

          1. Government officials should ALL be fired for “hassling”. First offense, no warnings.

            1. I want the cops “hassling” tool-carrying non-motorists in a parking lot.

      3. You’re kidding, right?

        This guy could have easily brought this to a peaceful resolution or called his cop buddies to have them explain the law to the KFC people, but apparently his first response to their offer was to spew vitriol and threaten arrest.

        Yes, they should have given him his money and told him not to come back. (And I’d be surprised if he didn’t get it back when the cops came.) But he was the aggressor in this situation and nothing they did excuses his behavior.

        The cop is so unsupportable in this situation that his department shit-canned him. Fine, you’re not on KFC’s side. Me, neither. But how can you support the cop?

        1. The story doesn’t make sense. If they had told him they didn’t have his chicken when he ordered, then why did he give them money? Did he change his mind later? Something doesn’t add up.

          If they already took his cash, then he took the chicken, then probably came back and demanded a refund. That’s probably why they didn’t refund the money. Hell, he probably ate some of the chicken.

          If they didn’t offer vouchers and such, people would order a bucket of chicken, eat half of it, come back and say they wanted extra crispy not this normal crap, get their money back, then rinse and repeat.

          Saw a family that pulled that scam at a Taco Gringo I worked at.

          1. From the story, it sounds like they took his money, discovered that they didn’t have the kind of chicken he wanted, and then refused to give him back the money.

            If he just came back after eating the chicken and said they gave him the wrong kind, it wouldn’t make any difference whether they were out of a certain kind of chicken or not.

        2. The story doesn’t make sense. If they had told him they didn’t have his chicken when he ordered, then why did he give them money? Did he change his mind later? Something doesn’t add up.

          If they already took his cash, then he took the chicken, then probably came back and demanded a refund. That’s probably why they didn’t refund the money. Hell, he probably ate some of the chicken.

          If they didn’t offer vouchers and such, people would order a bucket of chicken, eat half of it, come back and say they wanted extra crispy not this normal crap, get their money back, then rinse and repeat.

          Saw a family that pulled that scam at a Taco Gringo I worked at.

      4. What does the snowball thread have to do with it?

      5. Using the force of the state in a private agreement > than not getin’ your 9.99 back for a bucket o’ wings.

        Just like drawing a gun > than a snowball, every

        1. Owned… by mousepad and big hands…

          every day of the week.

          Both reactions are far and above what any normal person would do. Since normal person is often the test used for such things. So are we to treat these people different because they are cops?

    2. Yeah — I’d be pissed, too.

    3. If they took his money and didn’t have what he ordered they “refund” immediately and with apology. No “alternatives and vouchers”. Fuck he should have said the KFC manager made a furtive move or something and taken his fucking head off.

    4. The KFC policy is wrong. But its good that the cop was fired for being a violent, obnoxious fuck. His behavior was unacceptable.

      1. I’ll go with this answer.

    5. Yeah!! I wish everybody who KFC tried to rip off like that could be a cop! The cop was just playing out the fantasy I think we’d’ve all had in that situation.

      How can it happen that someone over a counter takes your money, is out of the item you asked for, and the establishment doesn’t give your money back? It’s not like their product just didn’t come up to spec or something, they were goddamned out of it! No harm done to them by giving the money back.

    6. Provided that he arrested them for stealing, I kind of agree.

    7. Threating to throw someone in jail over ten bucks is fairly extreme.

      Additionally this is a contract dispute, a civil matter, not a criminal one.

      There is no evidence that the manager or employers wanted to steal his money as they were trying to reach accord and satisfaction by following their internal standard procedures.

    8. I would have supported him if he wasn’t such a jerk. And blame the company. The manager was just doing what he was told by upper management.

    9. Right – but the 19 year old clerk was just doing what they were told.

      1. That’s what the Nazi’s said.

  3. Obviously the cop was acting like an asshole, but that KFC “store policy” strikes me as garbage. The customer gives the store money in return for a specific product. That’s a legal contract, Mr Graham. If the restaurant fails to deliver the product the customer ordered, they are in breach and have to give back the money at the very least. They can’t say, oh well you have to buy something else from us. I don’t care what their store policy is.

    1. The store policy is probably to offer/push the substitution and voucher. For 99% of customers, the difference between a breast and a thigh is negligable.

      For the petulant 1% the manager has a key to override the register and issue a manual refund.

      Whipping out the “Do you know who I am?” is 100% grounds for digging in your heels and saying “there’s nothing I can do.”

      1. For 99% of customers, the difference between a breast and a thigh is negligable

        Whoa! Big difference between a breast and a thigh. The thigh is the worst piece, and everyone knows the breast is the best. It’s worth 3 thighs, 2 legs or 5 wings. Yes, I’ve thought about this way too much.

        1. RACIST
          What’s the dark meat worth? 3/5 as much?

          1. The chicken or the staff?

            1. +1, but oooooh. I don’t need edgy comedy on HBO as long as I have Hit & Run comments!

          2. 1/5 as much since Obama

        2. No way. Ninety-five percent of KCBS BBQ competition turn-ins are thighs. It’s the best piece.

          1. The best part of poultry be it stock or game is the thigh. A true chef can make magic with thighs.

            1. “Making magic with thighs” is now going to be stuck in my head, and for the wrong reason

              1. I’ve known some magical thighs!!

            2. “The best part of poultry be it stock or game is the thigh. A true chef can make magic with thighs.”

              No homo?

          2. This is the best point made in a thread of really excellent points.

            The thigh is easily the best piece of chicken and its not even close.

            That said, for some bizarre reason breast is a much more expensive piece of chicken. So the commenter above isn’t totally off the mark.

            Bottom line: KFC sucks and the cop was an asshole.

            In full disclosure: I’m a Popeye’s guy.

            3 piece spicy dark with red beans and rice.

        3. I fucking hate breasts in comparison to thighs.

          It makes it easy on chicken nights in my household. My wife gets all that dry, flavorless breast meat while I get the juicy goodness of thighs.

      2. Whipping out the “Do you know who I am?” is 100% grounds for digging in your heels and saying “there’s nothing I can do.”

        I understand that’s a tempting reaction, but it’s an illegal one. You can’t take someone’s money for a product, and then refuse to give them the product or their money back, no matter how much of an asshole they are.

  4. Golf clap for the cops.

    1. Though that policy is shit. Matches up with their food though.

  5. Do you know who I am?'” “He told me that he was the police lieutenant…”

    Apparently not anymore fuckhead.

    But I have to say, I don’t get the original problem. If you go into a KFC and say “give me a number 2” and they say “we’re out of that”, there’s no money changing hands. If they ring it up and then say they’re out of it, they should give you your money back. I want the fucking wings, not a voucher.

  6. So a Arizona cop

    Come on. Really?

    1. It’s pronounced Harizona.

      1. Now say Cool Whip.

        1. Cool Hwip 🙂

          1. You’re eating hair!

      2. Oh, come on! There’s not even an ‘h’ in that word!

        1. The ‘H’ in hone is silent.

  7. I said that whether he’s the president of the United States or just a regular person, I can’t give him his money back,” [19-year-old manager Corey] Fritsinger said….

    Yeah, fast food outlets sure do train their managers well. Cop angle aside, fact is that arguing with a customer like that is going to cost more money than you save with such a policy. Not to mention the fact that it’s pretty clear KFC was legally in the wrong here.

    1. Many places offer store credit instead of refunds, don’t they?

      I think it’s a dumb policy, and will continue my habit of only going to Chick-Fil-A and Bojangles, but I don’t think it’s necessarily legally wrong.

      Anyway, good for the police department for holding the lieutenant accountable.

      1. Many places offer store credit when the customer changes his mind after having received an item and decides he doesn’t want it after all. I’ve never heard of a store taking a customer’s money and then saying “Tough shit; we can’t give you what you bought, so we’ll give you something that you may not want but that *we* judge to be equally desirable.”

  8. I’m on the cop’s side here too.

    If I stood outside right now with a sign that said “Chicken $5” and took a bunch of people’s money and then handed them IOU’s and ran away, BULL FUCKING SHIT the police would call it a civil matter and not arrest me. I would ABSO FUCKING LUTELY be arrested.

    But since KFC has a nice building it’s a civil matter? Bulllllllllllllllshit.

    If you don’t have the chicken, don’t take the order. If you fuck up and take the order, give the guy his money back.

    Because it’s KFC, I can tell you what happened here. [I never have gone to one myself, but I know someone who owns a couple of franchises.] To save waste, they only cook a set amount of chicken at the beginning of the dinner shift. If they sell out, they don’t make any more and just give out vouchers. But they keep selling until they’re out. So they enter into each evening shift knowing they’re going to fuck someone, but not caring because they want to minimize discards. So I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

    1. that explains it. The one time I’ve gone to KFC I went to the drive through and they said they were out of chicken. How weird I thought.

  9. Holy shit. The police actually did the right thing for once. No indefinite suspensions with pay. No blue wall of silence. Just…actual justice. I think I’ll take my net up on the roof and try to catch a flying pig since weird shit is happening today.

    1. Right, but since they did that the ONE TIME the cop was actually right, their record of always doing the unjust thing remains intact.

      This poor motherfucker made the mistake of being right. If he had shot some six year old for smiling wrong or something he’d still be on the force.

      1. No, Fluffy, the cop was wrong. He has a remedy-he can take KFC to small claims court.

        His actions are utterly unacceptable in a free, civilized society. Just because you wear one of Caesar’s clown costumes does not give you the right to threaten employees of a retail fast food outlet with arrest because they, consistent with their employer’s policy, offer you either an alternative or a voucher when your selection is not available.

        The cop’s problem solving skills are primordial. Just like the vast majority of his brethern.

        1. That is absolute bullshit.

          As I said below, if I walk into a KFC, take whatever the fuck I want, and walk out without paying, I’ll be arrested.

          Since KFC has posted prices, the money the cop gave them is the equivalent of one of their meals. Therefore, if I would be arrested for walking in and stealing one of their meals, they should be arrested for taking his money. The two items are of equal value and the offense is therefore the same.

          If I walk into WalMart and take a plasma TV and walk out, while yelling, “Take me to small claims court!” no one will listen and I will be arrested. If you think KFC should be treated differently, then you are saying that some citizens should be abased before other citizens. Some citizens who steal $10 worth of chicken deserve to be arrested, but people who steal $10 by offering to sell chicken should not be – just because they’re “special” people with a nice building and a sign. I would have expected better from you of all people – usually you’re enough of a reductivist to recognize that all citizens have to be treated the same.

          1. Fluffy

            I am not a lawyer (thank gawd) so I don’t know if you have a case that KFC committed a criminal offense or not. If so, then yeah, the (on duty) cops should be called in. If not, and maybe it should be, then change the law. Seems hard to tell who to arrest when the folks involved are following store and corporate policy, though I realize that shouldn’t protect any corporate policy. Like I say, IANAL.

            Nevertheless, it seems like the cop’s actions were out of line, regardless. If an off duty cop witnesses a crime, he should follow protocol for that, whatever that is. “Do you know who I am?” is not likely part of that!

            Think: two wrongs don’t make a right, a plague on both their houses, and whatever other cliches may apply, but whatever’s wrong about the KFC policy doesn’t justify the cop’s behavior.

            Kudos to the department that fired him!

          2. No, Fluffy, I am not saying that KFC should be treated any differently.

            Your Walmart analogy is inapt. KFC’s actions were not the equivalent of you walking into Walmart and taking the plasma TV. A customer of a retail store who walks in and takes merchandise without paying for the same is just not the same thing as a food retailer offering a customer either an alternative or a voucher when the orderd item is not available. The food retailer is offering something of value. In your hypothetical, you are not offering Walmart anything of value.

            1. So if I go onto an auto lot, and negotiate to buy a new top-of-the-line Mercedes, and hand them cash for it, and then they give me the keys for a used Yugo with peeling paint and an engine that is iffy about starting, but hey, they’ll get me that new Mercedes whenever they get one in stock, I can’t insist on getting my money back right then and there because they “offered me something of value”?

              WTF?

              1. Nooooooow you’re getting the idea!

                1. Obama Motors, you made my day.

          3. Come on Fluffy (and others), those things are not at all the same. If you walk into a Walmart and agree to pay them $100 a month for X months for a TV, and then you find out you don’t have the money and can’t pay them, they don’t get to arrest you. They get to sue you.

            Your example assumes there was never any agreement whatsoever to purchase a TV. The equivalent would be if the manager walked up to the cop, took out the cop’s wallet and pulled out $10.

            In the present case there was an agreement to exchange money for chicken. The cop performed his side of the deal, KFC (maybe – see below) failed to perform theirs. That is a breach of contract and a purely civil matter. The cop doesn’t get to arrest anyone for breach of contract. And no, it wasn’t even close to fraud. Not only is there no suggestion that the store intentionally misled anyone, we all know how these things happen: an order gets rung in and someone in the back goes to fill it only to realize that they’re out of it.

            Further, it may not even be a breach of contract. They may well have posted, or otherwise made available, the standard terms of all sales at the store and those terms may include their policy on items they are unable to deliver. If so, then handing over the money is agreement with those terms, and absent those terms being legally unconscionable or a violation of public policy, the officer is stuck with the deal, however much it might seem like a bad business policy.

            And having said that, yes, it seems like a terrible business policy, but that’s not the issue. What it isn’t, in any way whatsoever, is a crime. Therefore the cop threatening use of force or arrest is illegal.

            1. In my TV example, just to be clear, I’m assuming that both you and Walmart have agreed on a sales contract (assume whatever terms you want, but the point is you fail to make the agreed upon monthly payments at some point before it’s paid off).

            2. Bad analogy. You’re talking about buying a TV on credit, with payment over time, negotiated up front.

              If you breach that contract, you don’t get to keep the TV, it gets repo’d.

              In this case, there was no contract to make installment payments on the chicken over time, cash was handed over on the spot in exchange for a specific product to be provided then and there. That was the contract. It was breached, and thus the money should be returned then and there and the chicken handed back, voiding the contract.

              1. No, its was an agreement to pay now, to receive a chicken in the future (sure, about 3 minutes in the future). They were unable to deliver said chicken 3 minutes later.

                Yes, a refund is the proper response, but it isnt theft unless they took the money with intent to deny the guy a chicken.

                1. The purchasing of the chicken is immediate and the fact that they had to turn around to pick it off the counter or wrap it up does not make it in the future. If this were the case then we all have to do the silly game of 1, 2, 3 switch (money for merchandise) for every sale to satisfy your view.

              2. It’s not a bad analogy. The repo thing is utterly irrelevant to the point (not to mention it is also governed by civil law, not criminal). The point of the TV example was to contrast it with Fluffy’s no agreement whatsover concept of just walking out with it.

                To be more clear, let’s say you somehow get Walmart to agree to this contract – you get a TV, they get $1000 in six months — that’s it. You have every intent and belief that you will in fact pay them the money in six months. Unfortunately when you go to do so you find out (who knows why, maybe your employer went bankrupt and can’t pay you) that you can no longer pay them.

                Again, they do not get to call the police to arrest you, or come into your home to repo the TV or anything else. They get to file a suit against you in court. That’s it.

                In the present chicken case the same thing is happening, only on a different time scale. Both parties entered into a good-faith agreement to perform certain duties. After the fact, one party realized it could not perform. No fraud or crime has been committed and nobody gets arrested (and if there is fine print somewhere covering terms of sales in the store, there’s not even a breach of contract).

                This is a simple concept: it is not theft to agree to a contract and then to be unable to perform it. It can be part of a crime if other elements such as intent to deceive, are present (which would include having, in fact, no reasonable intention of performing).

                1. It’s like you take the TV to the cashier, the cashier doesn’t have change, keeps your money and offers to have you come back the next day when they might have change, and won’t let you return the TV to refund the bills you just paid with. Is that not theft?

                2. This is why I don’t like libertarianism. Most libertarians (rightly) deplore the Government use of force or coercion, but the moment a corporation does something underhanded and patently wrong libertarians clamor to defend it. As if ‘company policy’ is sacrosanct. Well shit, Bob, the store has a policy …

                  Hey dfd, you say: “if there is fine print somewhere covering terms of sales in the store, there’s not even a breach of contract).” Can I incorporate myself and hide behind this kind of shit? Do I just need to make a t-shirt with some ‘fine print’ on it and rip people off? Can I use it to get out of paying a bill at a restaraunt?

                  “Sorry IHOP, the fine print on my shirt clearly states that any implied agreement to payment for food is contingent upon my satisfaction with the meal served. The eggs were a little runny so good day.”

                  1. I am so getting a tee shirt with fine print.

          4. Amen, bro! Usually never support the pigs, but here I do. I need a shower. Oh, I would have sworn at them too.

          5. Amen, bro! Usually never support the pigs, but here I do. I need a shower. Oh, I would have sworn at them too.

            Sorry posted below.

          6. You’re confusing fraud with larceny.

            (*Warning* I am not a lawyer, so trained practitioners of the law, do not chew my ass for what is likely to be a faulty definition)

            Fraud is when I represent something to you as fact in the hopes that you will rely on it as being true, and act on it in such away as causes you to suffer damage.

            Larceny is when I willingly and with intent take possession of, and carry away, your chattels without your consent.

            From the looks of the situation, the KFC store could be argued to have pulled a bait-and-switch on him by refusing to give him his money back, especially if it was store policy to only make X pieces of chicken to cover Y hours and still take his money for chicken even after they were out.

            Suing KFC for false advertising would have been the actual self-restraint option. Threatening to throw the manager in the back of his car for less than $20.00 of “fradulent activity” is bit extreme.

            1. Anonymous Coward-

              You are right. I mistakenly inserted fraud for lacrceny.

        2. Small claims court my ass. Whoever made this policy ought to be dipped in their extra crispy batter and boiled in a vat of their trans-fat-free oil.

        3. Once again, you spout ridiculous bullshit about how cops are complete idiots. I guess you didn’t feel like wishing them death like you did in a comment a few months ago, you degenerate fuck.

          Police perform one of the most dangerous, and necessary, jobs there is in our society. Yet there are some assholes who feel the need to show they are “more libertarian than thou” by smearing everyone single person who is a police officer, simply because of the actions of their less-than-stellar coworkers. Tell me, dickhead, what would you prefer in place of the police?

          1. booo hooo! Baby got a full diaper?

            1. Alan, you are a fucking moron.

          2. Actually being a cop isn’t even a top 10 most dangerous job. They are fishermen, loggers, pilots, farmers/ranchers, roofers, ironworkers, sanitation workers, machinists, truck drivers and construction workers. I would say sanitation workers, farmers and truck drivers are more vital too.

            1. I always thought being a nurse was in the top 3 too. I’m surprised it isn’t in the top 10.

        4. Once again, you spout ridiculous bullshit about how cops are complete idiots. I guess you didn’t feel like wishing them death like you did in a comment a few months ago, you degenerate fuck.

          Police perform one of the most dangerous, and necessary, jobs there is in our society. Yet there are some assholes who feel the need to show they are “more libertarian than thou” by smearing everyone single person who is a police officer, simply because of the actions of their less-than-stellar coworkers. Tell me, dickhead, what would you prefer in place of the police?

          1. And no, I didn’t mean to double post my comment.

      2. “I told them, ‘You’re committing fraud. You can’t take someone’s money, not give them any product, and refuse to give the money back,'” Graham said. “… I didn’t yell. I didn’t use profanity, and I left. So how was that disorderly?”

        Sounds like the cop did in fact use profanity, and is suffering some side effects from his head injury, and maybe needs to not be policing for a while until or unless his symptoms clear up.

        But, the KFC committed fraud. The cop was in the right about that. Dunno what the law says, whether that is a misdemeanor where you write a ticket, or a felony where you haul them to jail, but the store manager was out of line, and that practice needs to stop.

        1. The law in Massachusetts is as follows:

          “To support a conviction of larceny the Commonwealth is required to prove the unlawful taking adn carrying away of the personal property of another with the specific intent to deprive the person of the property permanently.” Commonwealth v. Mills, 436 Mass 387, 394 (2002), quoting Commonwealth v. Donovan, 395 Mass 20, 25-26 (1985).

          There was no larceny. In fact, as I suspected, any claim of such here is baseless.

          But, let me repeat myself, KFC’s policy is WRONG. It is horrible customer service.

          Yes, I would have COMPLAINED. Probably a lot more vociferously than most of the posters here as I demand customer service excellence. I also demand far more of multinational heavyweights than I do of mom & pops.

          1. specific intent

            Key wording. There was (probably) no intent, they just ran out of chicken.

            1. Like Bernie Madoff just ran out of money.

          2. Let me contrast with Pennsylvania:

            “? 3922. Theft by deception.
            (a) Offense defined.–A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains or withholds property of another by deception. A person deceives if he intentionally:
            (1) creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention or other state of mind; but deception as to a person’s intention to perform a promise shall not be inferred from the fact alone that he did not subsequently perform the promise;
            (2) prevents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction; or
            (3) fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced, or which the deceiver knows to be influencing another to whom he stands in a fiduciary or confidential relationship.
            (b) Exception.–The term “deceive” does not, however, include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance, or puffing by statements unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in the group addressed.”

            The only defense to (1) is if the KFC is going to argue they didn’t intend to take money for food they didn’t have, which is kinda hard when it apparently happens regularly enough to justify having a formal policy on how to handle it.

            1. The Phillies and Pirates do this on a regular basis and they’ve usually seen the weather report.

              1. They also take millions of dollars from the citizens of Pennsylvania by force and use it to build stadiums. Just because MLB gets away with things doesn’t make them right.

              2. I seriously doubt they have a weather report for any particular game when they start selling tickets in Feb.

                And in any case, the ticket is for admission into the park at a certain time and date, not for watching a game.

                1. When the game is rained out, try getting into the park for that specific time and date and see what happens.

  10. Whatever the fairness of the chicken policy, it’s a civil matter. Cops acting like thugs is something that needs to be stomped out wherever it happens.

    I eat KFC chicken once in a while & I can’t imagine why anyone would care which chicken they were given. It’s all pretty much over-salted greasy goop.

    1. Whatever the fairness of the chicken policy, it’s a civil matter.

      Nope. It’s fraud.

      But hopefully, this story is going to fuck KFC over as well. I’m not sure they really want their dirty little secret of a “non-refund policy” broadcast to the four corners of the earth.

      1. Are you a lawyer fluffy? I doubt it. I’ve seen you spout to much nonsense.

    2. So if they took a $20 bill for a $5 meal and then refused to give back the change, would that be “a civil matter” too? It’s essentially the same thing.

      1. There is no fraud here. In fact, any argument to that effect is frivolous.

        In order to prove fraud, the state must prove that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the cop of his property. The KFC policy provides for an alternative or a voucher. Hence, as a matter of law, there is no fraud.

        1. Nobody here has ever heard of a rain check?

          1. I don’t know what you think a rain check is, but to me, it’s something a store gives you when they run out of a sale price item, allowing me to come back and buy the item at that price later. But I keep my money until I come back.

            Wow, I should start selling people a cure for cancer – and take and keep their money, and give them “rain checks” for when I eventually discover the cure.

            1. You’ve never purchased a ticket to a baseball game that got rained out? I’ll fill you in on what they do. They give you a rain check, not a cash refund.

              1. I wonder why neither Fluffy or Tulpa has replied to this.

                Hmmmmmm

                1. You know when you buy a ticket to a baseball game that if it is rained out you only get to go to the ballpark another day. When you order a 3 piece original recipe white, and they only have extra-crispy dark they either tell you they don’t have any or refund your money. You aren’t buying an “opportunity to eat chicken” you’re buying chicken.

                2. Cause we have lives outside of Hit & Run?

              2. That’s a slightly better point than anyone else has made.

                I guess I didn’t think of it because, NO, I have never gotten a rain check for a baseball game. Baseball games are very unpleasant to attend live. I’ve attended hundreds of hockey games and never had a single one cancelled out from under me.

                I would say that I would cut a baseball team more slack for selling me a ticket in April to a weather-related event in August then I cut a merchant for taking my money at 7 PM for an item they already don’t have at 7 PM, by their own admission.

                If I put an ad on Craiglist to throw a picnic for you, and it rains and I say I’ll throw the picnic the next day, that’s different from putting an ad on Craiglist saying I’ll sell you an X-box, and then taking your money and laughing and saying, “Ooops, I don’t have an X-box. Here’s a voucher for whenever I have an X-box to actually give you.”

                1. I am glad that you addressed the rain check analogy. It has happened to me three or four times in my life.

                  Just to be precise and comprehensive, I repeat, that KFC and any other retailer with such a policy should be shamed. Its a horrible policy and I would not have been happy either. The cop had the right to raise his voice and demand better service. He had the right to criticize management. He also has the right to sue KFC.

                  You and I agree about 99.8 percent of the time. We agree that the policy sucks. We agree that the cop had every right to be upset and to vent his frustration-even to the point where other patrons might be uncomfortable. We agree that he has the right to sue KFC and we agree that he would win a breach of contract claim.

                  Can we also agree that you are no fan of the fuzz rules and that I do not think that there should be special rules for the multinational multibillion dollar big boys?

                  1. A “civilian” should have been able to call the cops and either get his money back or have the SOB arrested.

                    1. In the linked article, which is not clearly written, BTW, they say that the officers who responded to his call told him it was a civil matter, which is how they had handled it when they previously received complaints over the policy.

              3. When you buy baseball tickets, it’s usually posted (on the ticket, the wall of the sales office, the ticket website, etc.) and it’s generally understood that there is a chance the game will get rained out and you might get a raincheck. The terms of that contract are known to both parties.

                When I buy KFC chicken and pay for it, I expect that I’ll get what I paid for, now. If I don’t, it’s entirely reasonable for me to demand my money back now versus accept a not-previously-disclosed or agreed-upon “chicken rain check.”

                I find it surprising that more people on these boards don’t agree on that front.

              4. A rain check is for an occurrence they had no control over. A lot of arrangements were made to play the game, and part of the game may even have been played. And it’s parrt of the terms of the ticket. Event tickets typically have a lot of fine print.

                There’s no fine print when you buy fried chicken! It’s not like they had to go out and hunt a chicken while you waited.

              5. The ticket entitles you to admission to the stadium at a certain date and time, not to watching a game. If they lock the gates into PNC Park or Citizens Bank Park at the time of the game you have a ticket for, you should get a refund.

  11. This is the one in a million time when I don’t think the cops were acting like thugs.

    If the KFC does this to ANYONE, the victim deserves to be able to call the police to have them arrested.

    It’s not thuggery if a cop arrests a mugger who is stupid enough to try to mug them. So it’s not thuggery if a cop tries to arrest someone who steals from them in plain sight, either. And that’s what happened here – they tried to steal from him in plain sight.

      1. Answer the baseball rain ticket analogy below.

        1. OK, say I give the cashier $20 for $5 in chicken, and she puts it in the drawer and realizes she doesn’t have any smaller denomination currency with which to give me my $15 change.

          With respect to criminal law, can the manager (1) refuse to give me back my $20 bill, and (2) just tell me to come back another time and maybe they’ll have change to give me?

    1. It’s not a crime. See above. It was a pure, almost text book case, of breach of contract (assuming the store doesn’t have posted the “fine print” somewhere – and that’s a big assumption.

      1. Posting the fine print somewhere don’t mean shit if the customer didn’t assent to those terms in some way. (I don’t believe that when you hand your money over to the KFC cashier, you click on any button saying you agree to the unseen terms and conditions.)

        1. Lots of casual transactions are governed by small print that you implicitly agree to. That is just a basic legal fact. There is no law that says you must “click” on every term of a contract to agree to it. An example is return policies – you can hand over cash for a pair of jeans and never bother to notice or agree to (explicitly) the posted return policy but if you try to go to court over it, you’ll be held as having agreed to it by the act of purchasing the jeans.

          1. Return policy is a whole other matter. When you buy something, the ownership is transferred from the retailer to you. The retailed is not obligated to accept the return.

            1. When you buy something, the ownership is transferred from the retailer to you.

              Not until the retailer actually delivers the item.

              If you pay $100 to Wal Mart for a TV that you will pick up in the store, and then get to the store to pick it up and discover (before taking possession of it) that it has been damaged in transit from the warehouse, they can’t just say it’s your problem since you owned it once you paid for it.

              Not to mention the problems with arguing that the customer owns nonexistent chicken after paying for it.

          2. No. The only reason you have the right to return the merchandise at all is that the store has a return policy. Once you’ve bought the merchandise, the store has the legal right to regard transaction as final, in the absence of those circumstances which, under article 2 of the UCC, allow the buyer to revoke acceptance.

            IOW, the store’s return policy generally gives you *more* rights than article 2. If it gives you *fewer* rights than article 2, then you have to give actual consent, not just consent that is inferred from the fact that you bought the goods.

  12. I wonder how severe his TBI was. This kind of behavior is very common in males with head injury. So is the poor awareness of his actual behavior. If he was active, sounds like he was cleared for duty too quickly.

    1. I also wondered about the effects of his brain injury. It could have impaired his ability to control his anger, and to correctly recall his actions.

  13. If the policy is bad, take it up with KFC, not the local wage-slave manager. Maybe the policy is fraudulent, but the local store manager isn’t the propagator of the fraud, the corporate executives are. The guy here was just doing his job, shitty as his job is.

    1. I guess a hit man shouldn’t be charged with murder then. After all, he was just doing his job.

      1. KFC isn’t the Mafia. One is a legitimate business operation, the other a crime syndicate. An employee performing duties as dictated by corporate policy isn’t the same as an individual performing illegal activities in the name of a criminal organization. Your analogy is strained.

        1. To the extent KFC has a policy mandating theft by deceit, it is not a legitimate business operation. Nice job assuming your conclusion there.

          1. Theft is when you take money and give nothing in return. KFC did offer something else, albeit not want the officer wanted. It’s not like the cashier tried to deny the officer a meal after he paid, he offered a subsitute.

            Nor is this like buying an expensive car and getting a cheap car in return. The cashier tried to resolve the issue by offering a subsitute. I can understand why the officer wouldn’t take the subsitute. And I don’t fault him from getting angry. KFC should have given him a refund.

      2. Really? You think “Sorry, we can’t give you your money back, here’s some other food and a voucher for a free meal” is the same as murder? Assuming the guy took the offer, he gets two meals for the price of one. Not saying it’s a good deal ? it’s clearly designed to keep customers coming back to the same KFC. But it’s not a criminal act. You actually believe someone should spend time in jail for a shitty refund policy?

        1. I sure do, because the “policy” was to steal the guy’s money. If KFC had pulled that on me, I would have called the cops immediately, and wanted the guy arrested. If a conman rips me off, I shouldn’t have to go to small claims court to get the money back.

        2. It is not a fucking return policy issue.

    2. RTFA,

      It was the dipshit franchise owner’s policy and his son was the manager in question.The “suits” at KFC corporate would be appalled.

      1. Yes, there’s a difference. KFC, Burger King, McDonald’s are franchises and individually owned. Whereas restaurants like Olive Garden and Red Lobster are corporate owned and operated.

      2. Then charge the father with fraud, or whatever. If the son actually had a role in making policy, charge him, though I doubt he did if he’s only 19.

        Seriously, it’s a shitty, stupid policy, but it’s not worth threatening arrest over.

        1. Enforcing an illegal policy is illegal.

          If his father wrote up a policy that said they should charge every customer’s credit card for double the real transaction amount, and the son followed this policy, should he be held blameless? This isn’t some obscure law we’re talking about. It’s theft by deceit.

    3. How so? He’s the one who took the guy’s money, he’s the one who refused to give it back, he was probably fully aware that they were either already out or almost out of chicken, so there was no “good faith” to hide behind for it to be a purely civil matter. He defrauded the cop. The fact that corporate policy demanded that he break the law implicates KFC as an organization as well, but it doesn’t diminish his own crime.

      1. And no, I didn’t RTFA. Life’s too short to get all the facts together before giving your opinion.

  14. Cashier: You wanna get fried with that?

  15. “I told them, ‘You’re committing fraud. You can’t take someone’s money, not give them any product, and refuse to give the money back,'”

    The fellow officers told Graham his complaint was a civil matter, and that they would not take action, just as had been the case with past customer complaints over the non-refund policy at the restaurant.

    “It’s a civil matter because you’re a lazy f—–,” Graham said he responded to one subordinate officer.

    The bad cops got to keep their job. The “good cop” got fired

    1. Sounds like “Theft By Deception” to me. A criminal offense, in most states.

      1. Respond to the baseball rain ticket analogy below.

        1. The difference is that buying a baseball ticket it like a contract, and the “rain check” clause is built in. There are no rain checks on a chicken.

        2. It seems like a form of bait and switch to me. They say they have something for immediate sale, take the cash and then refuse to return it even though they don’t have the item. No reputable restaurant (or retailer who sold things over the counter) would act this way.

          It’s absurd the say this sort of thing should be resolved by the hugely expensive solution of lawyers in court. The correct remedy is to use hours or days of your time plus many times the cost of the item? That would be a barrier to justice that makes a poll tax look fair.

          This is admittedly at the lower edge, but it’s a “call the cops” thing. And if you do a “call the cops” thing to a cop, you should be threatened with arrest.

          The baseball rain ticket is inapt. One reason: Handing cash to someone for the immediate purchase of X is quite different than a pre-planned event that depends on the weather.

  16. Yes, KFC’s policy is wrong.

    Here, given that the manager adhered to the policy, the cop has a viable claim in small claims court. If I were the judge, based on what we have all read, KFC would not like my decision.

    However, some of you seem to have ignored the outrageous actions of the cop. He had no right to threaten the employees under the color of law. He acted the troglodytic crybaby gangster bully cop.

    He should have been fired.

    1. If this happened to me, and I called the cops, I’d want them to do exactly what the Lt. wanted.

      1. Aren’t there stories 2 or 3 times a year of someone calling 911 from a fast food chain, saying that they didn’t give him/her the correct dipping sauce and the 911 operator tells them to fuck off.

        The thing is that if I was in KFC and started hollering, they’d call the cops and I’d be in the pokey for disturbing the peace or some shit. The thing that annoys me about this story is the “do you know who I am” part where this guys thinks he’s something special and can use his authority to arrest someone who annoys him. The KFC policy is bullshit, what I don’t understand is that usually when you order at a place, they will say “we’re out the shit that looks like chicken” before you order. But he’s probably not the first one to rant and rave over that policy, he’s probably the first that thought he had some sort of special authority to arrest those that piss him off. But firing is probably a little egregious.

        1. Aren’t there stories 2 or 3 times a year of someone calling 911

          Yes. I believe they call it Nugget Rage.

        2. Right, but the problem in those cases is that those people shouldn’t have been arrested, either.

          Whenever stories like that are posted, we all bitch about how unjust it is and what bullshit the disorderly conduct charges are.

          This guy doesn’t deserve to be treated any worse because he’s a cop.

          The 911 operators in those cases are just cunts who feel empowered to decide on the fly what citizens are going to be protected from theft and what citizens aren’t. And that’s bullshit.

          If there’s a citizen with a theft complaint and the guilty party is standing right there saying, “Yeah we admit it – we took his money and wouldn’t give him any chicken!” there should be an arrest. What’s the basis for not making an arrest? Other than “KFC is a big corporation, and we only arrest niggers, not big corporations”? Because you and I both know that’s the real reason.

          1. There was no theft. It is black letter law that in order to prove larceny, the state must prove that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the alleged victim of his property.

            1. Then I guess I can walk into a WalMart, take a plasma TV, leave them a note promising to pay them in 2019, and walk the fuck out.

              Don’t be an idiot, man.

              1. Right! That’s exactly the same thing!

                1. Actually, it is.

                  If I want chicken on Friday, I want chicken on Friday. Telling me I can have chicken on Sunday is not compensation for deceiving me on Friday.

                  “Hey, we’ll give you the chicken eventually.” Fuck you. I wanted it now. If you don’t have it, don’t take my money. The act of taking my money when you have no chicken is inherently fraudulent and theft.

          2. It is and should be a crime to phone in a fraudulent emergency. Freaking out over your nugget count and tying up an emergency response dispatcher isn’t too bright.

            1. The police publicize a number to use to report crimes.

              They shouldn’t get to complain if someone uses that number to report a crime.

              If the store manager called 911 to report that I had walked behind the counter, taken a bucket of chicken and laughed in their faces and walked out, there’s absolutely no fucking way they’d be told they had phoned in a fraudulent emergency.

              Because their money is important and mine isn’t, and they’re citizens and I’m not, and stores count and citizens are just shit on the ground. That’s what you’re saying.

              1. Getting mustard sauce in your bag instead of barbecue is hardly a crime worthy of a 911 call. You’re kind of a retard.

                1. You continue to refuse to address the core issue here:

                  Would the store manager be arrested for calling in a false report if someone stole a meal and walked out?

                  No.

                  If the store is entitled to call 911 if I take their meal and give them no money, I am entitled to call 911 if they take my money and give me no meal.

                  The meal and the guy’s money are EXACT EQUIVALENTS. The store made them exact equivalents when they put the price on the menu.

                  That means my act if I steal a meal and the store’s act if they take my money and give me no meal are ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL.

                  The store would not take a voucher from me. I should not have to take a voucher from the store.

                  The only reason you think differently is because you’re such a fucking maggot and natural born serf that you implicitly accept that the store owner has rights and deserves protection against theft and you and I don’t.

                  1. You continue to refuse to address the core issue here:

                    As do you. Are you going to respond to the baseball analogy or not? It is identical, your analogy is not even fucking close.

                    INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
                    INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
                    INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
                    INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
                    INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
                    INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT
                    INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT INTENT

                    1. By the way, now that I think about it, I would say that baseball teams should be required to issue either a rain check OR a refund.

                      If I buy a ticket to attend an event on September 1st, a ticket to attend a similar event on September 27th is not actually equivalent, for any number of reasons.

                      I think the practice is ingrained in the culture so no one objects, but if someone did and said “Fuck you I want my money not a fucking rain check,” I’d think they were right.

                    2. And since my money is still sitting there on the table while we’re arguing about whether you should get me my chicken, I would say that at the moment you refuse my refund, it’s pretty clear what your intent is.

                    3. And since my money is still sitting there on the table while we’re arguing about whether you should get me my chicken

                      My assumption was the money was already in the register. Or credit card charged.

                  2. Still, the difference between larceny and fraud is that you handed over your money willingly, whereas you just unilaterally grabbed the meal and ran.

            2. But that’s what the cop did. He didn’t get his chicken so he called the station and said to send a car over. The difference is that as an authority figure, he thought he had the right to arrest them because he didn’t get his fucking chicken.

              KFC is fucked up on this but it’s not the same as taking a TV and saying you’ll pay later. They apparently gave him equal value, in different merchandise or vouchers, so there’s no theft and doesn’t even sound like fraud. It’s just stupid and lousy customer service. Again, I said above, if he asked for the chicken dipped in extra lard, why the fuck didn’t they say we’re out of it?

              1. Correct. Being bad businessmen isn’t a crime.

              2. All right then. What if I take the TV and, when the store clerk runs after me to demand payment, I give him a bunch of euros equal to the purchase price in dollars, or marketable securities trading at the equivalent of the purchase price. I could say, “Hey, that’s just my policy, which you implicitly consented to when you chose to do business with me”?

              3. They apparently gave him equal value, in different merchandise or vouchers,

                Do you know what the “fast food” business is all about? No way the food they give you has intrinsic value equal to the money they charge. You pay a premium to get the food immediately, so rain checks or vouchers are NOT equivalent in value.

                1. Right – it’s FAST FOOD. It derives a lot of its value from the fact that it’s FAST.

        3. Aren’t there stories 2 or 3 times a year of someone calling 911 from a fast food chain, saying that they didn’t give him/her the correct dipping sauce and the 911 operator tells them to fuck off.

          But that’s what makes this case so precious! Small claims court, sure — who’s going to do that? Much more trouble than it’s worth. But here’s a chance to get instant justice!! Who cares if technically it’s not a crime, the clerk doesn’t know that.

          This is like in that Mike Douglas movie where the guy pulls a gun for not being served breakfast because they changed to their lunch menu. Only there wasn’t the justif’n as in this because in the movie they hadn’t taken his money.

    2. He had every right to threaten the manager under the color of law.

      If muggers had run up to this cop and said, “Give us your wallet motherfucker!” and the cop said, “Hey, bitches, you keep saying that and I’m going to arrest your sorry asses!” it would also be a threat under the color of law.

      An absolutely justified threat.

      As was this one.

      1. Yes, but “do you know who I am” from an off-duty cop should be an immediate firing offense. Like ever using the term “civilian”.

  17. Damn, I think I’ve entered the Twilight Zone. If this were a Radley post, there wouldn’t be all this cop love. Then again, a dog probably would have been shot, or at least a chicken.

    1. Actually, this all started with killing the chicken.

      1. It doesn’t count if the murder takes place on a conveyor belt.

      2. It started with demand for golden brown and delicious chicken. The killing came later.

    2. It ain’t cop love. It’s about the KFC store committing fraud and theft.

    3. Yes, and libertarians would be excusing criminal activity and elevating corporate policy to the level of law, instead of equating a business corporation with the Mafia (which is inherently ridiculous, since the Mafia is not only known for pizza delivery instead of fried chicken, but considers their 30-minute guarantee a matter of family honor.)

      Anyhow, I’m calling my Senator to demand a new set of fast food regulations to reform food voucher policies. I think any such bill should also promote racial sensitivity by requiring KFC to provide free oil-cooked poultry products to urban public housing developments.

  18. Can I hate the cop and KFC?

    What the fuck they didn’t have the chicken he ordered…he should have gotten his money back!!

    Anyway I feel for the poor bastard who had to follow this idiotic “store policy”.

    1. RTFA,

      The “poor bastard” is the son of the asshole with the defraud-the- customers policy.

      1. A son cannot be blamed for the sins of his father.

        1. Only in the Klingon Empire.

      2. Only in the Klingon Empire.

        Screw you!!

  19. Is something like this actually criminal fraud? If not, the cop doesn’t have the authority to arrest anyone.

    1. If I walk into that KFC tonight, walk behind the counter, take this cop’s exact order, give everybody the finger and walk out, would that be an arrestable offense?

      Whatever offense that would be, that’s the offense the KFC committed.

      1. Still not replying to the baseball analogy?

        1. You are being a fucking douche. The baseball analogy was posted at 7:35 and you’re posting “still not replying” at 7 fucking 47? Blow me.

          1. hey, I was working down the thread. The thread is still in sequential order right?

            1. Yeah, OK. I was just annoyed that you were acting like I was ducking when I am posting half the content in this damn thread.

              You’re not really a douche.

              Most of the time.

              1. Probably was this time, but I really started it before I realized your dozen posts after the baseball post were before it.

                I dont ever look at time, I assume the thread is in temporal order.

                The problem was you were posting have the content AFTER your argument was completely destroyed.

                1. s/have/half/

                  AFTER in thread order, not time order.

        2. robc,

          Shut the fuck up about the goddam baseball analogy. Some of us have lives to live that cause us to be unable to post comments on Hit & Run for periods lasting several hours.

    2. In PA, it would be more than just fraud, it’d be “theft by deception”.

  20. The moral of the story is don’t go to KFC. Not that I’d eat that garbage anyway. Used to be decent. Sucks now. Evidently they need to steal peoples money to stay in business. The cop should have walked away and then proceeded to make that dudes life a living hell when he was on duty. Screw that bullshit. Fuckin’ thieves.

    1. The moral of the story is don’t go to KFC

      The other moral is don’t be less powerful than a cop.

      1. You mean less well armed

        1. Alas, I meant, per impossibile , less powerful.

  21. The KFC franchise was dumb and stupid.

    The cop was dumber and stupider.

  22. When I used to work in a Medical Records department, I was in charge of releasing information…

    I was threatened with arrest many times for refusing to hand over confidential patient information without a properly executed subpoena or a signed release form by the patient.

    LAPD, FBI, Sheriffs… I was threatened by some of the best. After you explain to them once a) this subpoena’s out of date or b) I’ll lose my job and maybe get arrested for releasing information without a properly executed release or subpoena… Some of them would persist and pull out their badge and threaten to arrest me…

    Which I treasured, ’cause then I could look them in the eye and say in my worst impression of a Mexican accent, “We don’ care about no stinkin’ badges!”

    I mean, seriously, if you’re a cop and it’s gotten to the point that it’s easier to threaten someone with arrest for following the law than it is to go downtown and get a subpoena?

    Then something’s wrong.

    Same thing here–if it’s easier to threaten to arrest an assistant manager rather than take somebody to small claims court? Somethin’s wrong.

    1. I mean, seriously, if you’re a cop and it’s gotten to the point that it’s easier to threaten someone with arrest for following the law than it is to go downtown and get a subpoena?

      That’s why they have “self-written search warrants”, now.

      See: Patriot Act

    2. It’s easier to threaten to do anything than it is to actually do anything. Bluffing is always easier.

      1. Is that the way it should be?

        Option 1: You can make a phone call and have a subpoena at their office in a couple of hours.

        Option 2: You can threaten a guy who’s following the law with arrest.

        It might have saved them half an hour if they could have intimidated me into losing my job–that’s the way it should be.

        I appreciated the amusement at the time–that side of the Medical Records business is pretty boring otherwise.

        Cops: “We’re gonna arrest you!”

        Shultz: “O RLY?”

  23. KMW, couldn’t you let Balko deliver some cop news with a happy ending once in a while?

    1. That’s probably why she got it. That and it’s related to food.

  24. You know who this little KFC incident benefits the most? Mitt Romney.

  25. The story here should be an inquiry into how the guy who runs the local KFC owns the police department to such an extent that he can get a cop fired for threatening his son with a lawful arrest.

    He has a remedy-he can take KFC to small claims court.

    That’s the legal venue for a dispute, not for a witnessed theft.

    He should have shot him.

    1. He should have shot him.

      My sentiments exactly

      1. Wow. This is what a libertarian police state looks like?

        1. No that is what a free society looks like. A little hyperbole on the chicken but in a free society you should be able to use force to protect your property.

          1. Like threatening a civilian with jail over a piece of chicken? By the way, it isn’t property if you don’t have it.

            1. He threatened the jerk over taking his money. If somebody is running out of my garage with my weed whacker it is still my property.

              1. I dont think you guys quite grasp the difference between a civil offense and a criminal offense.

                1. It is a criminal offense. The lazy fucking uniform cops just didn’t want to deal with it.

                2. Bad faith.

          2. Not to mention…

            1. Chickens are property. We’ve covered that before;^)

        2. No, in libertopia anyone can blast some fool on the spot for pulling shit like that, not just cops.

          Now, if they give us “chicken” that we think tastes a lot more like rat meat, that’s a matter to be settled with a duel. I mean, we’re not fucking barbarians, everyone deserves a fair chance to make their case.

  26. I can’t believe people think you should take the store to small claims court. If they did this to you, and the cops came, wouldn’t you expect the police(in a non-corrupt town) to tell the store to give you your money back?

    1. or arrest him if he didn’t?

  27. The hell with this “theft by deception” and “fraud” crap.

    They ran out of what this guy wanted, which sometime happens. Why not either A: accept the voucher for use some other time or B: pick something else on the damn menu?

    Lots of people getting their asses up on their shoulders over $5 worth of low-quality chicken.

    1. Why not just give the guy back his $5?

      Answer: Because although this store would gladly have someone arrested if they took $5 from the register, if they take $5 from this guy’s wallet everybody’s just supposed to say, “Hey, that happens sometimes.”

      1. The store in question has its own rules for dealing with items temporarily out of stock. He was offered something else on the menu, plus a free voucher to be used at another time. I’m sorry, but that’s not theft. Taking his money and giving him nothing in return would be theft.

        I’m not saying that the business practices of this particular franchise are great. But threatening people with arrest and generally making an ass of yourself over a fast food meal isn’t great either.

        1. That is theft. Now offering the customer a choice between:

          1) something else on the menu, plus a voucher for a free meal later

          OR

          2) their money back

          would be legal and good customer service.

          If I go into Nordstrom’s and plunk down money for a suit, and they accept the money and say, hey, sorry, turns out we’re out of those suits, but take this tie and maybe we’ll give you a suit later, and no way will we refund you your money:

          I will ask to speak to the manager about my money back. If they refuse, I will ask to speak to the manager’s manager. If I’m still not getting my money back, I’m gonna call the cops.

          1. This Nordstrom’s analogy is apt, more so than rain tickets or hitmen or robbing Best Buy. It’s a simple transaction with an understood contract. Would anyone here take Nordstrom’s side on this one?

            1. No,i would not take nordstrom’s side, but that doesnt make a civil offense (breach of contract) into a criminal offense.

              1. What’s the difference, if nobody on the scene knows that?

                1. A tort is an offense against and individual, crimes are offenses against the king/ political body as a whole.

        2. I run a business taking money from cash registers.

          Sure, my business practices aren’t great, but threatening me with arrest isn’t great either…

        3. Last time I checked, no legistlative power had been vested in the management of KFC. Their store rules don’t override the law.

        4. I’m sorry, but that’s not theft. Taking his money and giving him nothing in return would be theft.

          Whence eminent domain.

        5. bullshit. What is with this mentality that because “the store has rules” we are bound to them? I have rules too, and rule number one is give me my fucking money back.

          1. This is a very good reminder of why I no longer work in retail. Whoever said “the customer is always right” needs a good nut punch. So you think you can do whatever you want, that the store has no right to structure its business practices how it sees fit?

            1. Your “business practices” don’t trump property rights or the law.

              Tell you what, next time you go to KFC during a busy, chaotic time, wait around and stall on actually paying until they bring out your order. When the guy at the register is distracted, drop an IOU containing your address and promising that you will pay them as soon as you have the money available, then grab the meal and get out the door before they notice that you didn’t give them actual money.

              Now, here’s the experimental part — do you think they’ll bring you into small claims court, or call the cops on you? And what do you think the cops will say if you explain that it is your “customer practice” to give people IOUs when you run out of money instead of paying them?

              1. It’d be a lot more like leaving a check (dated to tomorrow) than an IOU.

        6. “The store in question has its own rules for dealing with items temporarily out of stock.”

          I have my own rules for meat-based property rights.

      2. Still not replying to baseball analogy?

        1. How about reasonableness and common sense?

        2. Baseball tickets are all sold that way.The purchaser knows that.
          Fried chicken isn’t (outside of this one KFC franchise in AZ)

          1. First time you run into it, I bet its a surprise to lots of people.

            1. There is a difference between an act of god, leading to a rain delay, and a restaurant too lazy to make the food you paid for.

        3. So you posted AGAIN at 7:48 the demand you made at 7:47 that I answer a post made at 7:35?

          You are a fucking child.

          1. You made a few dozen posts below the baseball post. You could have been responding to it instead.

            Stupid fucking threaded comments.

        4. Here’s your reply: A rain check is “a new ticket for the make-up game if a baseball game is started but does not reach the point of becoming official.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_check). The ball club can’t just cancel the game before it starts and tell you to be satisfied with a rain check instead of refunding you your money.

          1. Actually, the rain check occurs if the game starts or not.

            If its cancelled short of 4.5/5 innings, you get a rain check, whether its 0.2 innings or never starts.

        5. A baseball ticket is allows you to view a specific contest between two teams of athletes. Although that contest is tentatively scheduled at a certain time it says right on the ticket that dates and times are liable to change. If the game ends up not being played (as often makeup games are not played at the end of the season) then the ticket price is refunded.

      3. Nonsense analogy. If the manger reached into the cop’s pocket to take the money he would be arrested. Obviously.

        What you’re failing to understand is there was a true, good-faith agreement here on the part of both parties to exchange money for chicken. One party then learned it would be unable to fulfill its side of the bargain.

        In every case Fluffy and others argue there is either no agreement or a deliberate attempt to deceive. Neither of those is situations is present in this case. Really, this isn’t that hard.

        1. The side that then learned it couldn’t fulfill its side of the bargain then needs to return the money. You can’t breach a contract, refuse to return the valuable consideration given to you according to the contract, and then unilaterally renegotiate the contract over the other side’s objection, and NOT be engaging in fraud or theft.

          If you don’t understand that, then for you at least, yes, it is that hard.

          1. Maybe you should reply to the baseball analogy since Fluffy isnt.

            This works the exact same way baseball rain checks work. Whats the difference?

            1. I’ll keep answering.
              All baseball tickets are sold under those terms.Fried chicken isn’t.

              1. Fried chicken is. IN THAT STORE.

                Like with the baseball game, you dont find this out until after you pay (the baseball terms are on the back of the ticket).

                1. And Im sure, if you took the baseball team to small claims court, you might win a civil case, since the contract wasnt given to you in advance (if you were some foreigner who had no idea how baseball worked). But the ticket seller doesnt go to jail.

                  1. Yes, thank you. Just because something is illegal does not mean you can be arrested for it, you dont get thrown in jail for the presumption that you broke a contract (and it has to be a presumption, because a cop does not determine if you actually broke the law, a court decides that)

              2. You don’t know that. The store may well have terms of sale posted in small print at the register. Lots of casual transactions are actually governed by lots of small print that you implicitly agree to all the time. That said, even if the terms are not posted, then it’s just a breach of contract for failing to fulfill it’s side of the bargain.

            2. Event tickets are treated weirdly under the law. If you buy chicken at KFC for $5 and then find someone outside the restaurant willing to give you $10 for it, no laws have been broken, but if you do that with a baseball ticket, that’s scalping.

              Personally I think baseball teams should pay refunds to people when a game is rained out, but of course the logistics would be messy; I doubt they have enough cash on hand at the ticket office to do it immediately. Maybe send you a check.

          2. You can’t breach a contract, refuse to return the valuable consideration given to you according to the contract, and then unilaterally renegotiate the contract over the other side’s objection, and NOT be engaging in fraud or theft.

            That statement is unequivocally and universally false (with one logical caveat) in every jurisdiction in the United States.

            You can indeed do all those things without engaging in either fraud or theft (*well, logically and legally you can’t unilaterally renegotiate the contract as a matter of definition — it’s not a contract if it’s unilateral).

            But every single day in every jurisdiction people refuse to return the consideration (usually because they can’t) and are not engaging in theft or fraud – they are breaching an agreement.

            Another example: You agree to buy my car for $10,000. You pay me and I agree to bring the car to your house in an hour. When I go to get the car, I find it’s been stolen and I can no longer live up to our bargain. Now of course in real-life I’d just give you the money back (as KFC should have done), but if I was an asshole and refused (or if, say, the money was immediately transferred to another person from whom I was buying a car so I no longer had it), your only remedy is to file a civil lawsuit against me. You can’t have me arrested. Nowhere in the US is what I described above legally (as opposed to morally) considered theft or fraud unless I intentionally deceived you by never having made a good-faith agreement to sell you a car.

            If I instead said, hey that car was stolen but you can have this other inferior car — of course I’d still be in breach (unless you agreed to amend the contract) and you could still sue me no matter how much I try to tell you your only option is my other car.

            * Another technical point – even when, in real life, I offer to return the money you can still refuse and I’d still be in breach of the agreement. Of course in this trivial example that would be silly since the car is stolen and the only thing you’d ever get was the money so you might as well take it, but technically it’s still a breach since I’m not delivering what I agreed to.

            1. Nowhere in the US is what I described above legally (as opposed to morally) considered theft or fraud unless I intentionally deceived you by never having made a good-faith agreement to sell you a car.

              Right, but the question of whether or not you really made a good faith effort would be a question for the finder of fact.

              If a cop shows up while we’re arguing about the incident and we tell him what we’re arguing about, if the cop doesn’t buy your story he can arrest you. If the prosecutor doesn’t buy your story he can prosecute you, and offer to the jury the theory that you had disposed of the car in some other way or sold it to someone else. You could then offer your story about really intending to sell the car to the jury, and they’d either believe you or not.

              Would the set of facts you just described justify an arrest?

              If the set of facts you describe could be legitimately used to support an arrest, then a cop who threatened your arrest wouldn’t be doing anything wrong.

              1. No the facts as stated do not justify an arrest, it is like dfd said, you might be in breach of contract, but that is determined in civil court, it is not a criminal matter.

                1. If that was true then Bernie Madoff couldn’t have been arrested.

                  The facts the cop has that aren’t in dispute is that you have my 10 grand and I have no car.

                  You can claim that you once really had a car, and you can claim that it was stolen from you before you had a chance to give it to me – but if the police don’t believe you they get to arrest you.

                  If that wasn’t the case, any mugger who was about to be arrested could just say, “He gave me this money for chicken!” and the police would have to say, “Gosh, we better let a civil court judge sort out all these confusing facts and claims!”

                  1. Well i dont think madoff was arrested. That doesnt mean you wont spend time in jail, but I dont think he spend any time in jail until he was actually indited. IANAL so whatever, but the distinction here is what cops can do, not what punishment actually befalls you.

              2. But to make the arrest you would need probable cause, and not merely an allegation of wrongdoing. Unless you actually saw me sell it to someone else there is only conjecture at that point and no evidence.

                The prosecutor in order to have standing would have to allege facts sufficient to make the act criminal. Such as someone else registering the title, and paying sales tax on the car on a date before he “sold” you the car.

                1. IIRC, the level of evidence for an arrest is ‘reasonable suspicion’. ‘Probable cause’ is the standard required to get a warrant.

                  1. Reasonable suspicion is the standard to perform some searches and brief detentions. Probable cause is the standard for arrests, issuing of warrants thereof, and search warrants.

            2. if I was an asshole and refused (or if, say, the money was immediately transferred to another person from whom I was buying a car so I no longer had it), your only remedy is to file a civil lawsuit against me. You can’t have me arrested.

              Sure, I can. I can swear out a complaint against you for fraud, and you will be arrested. If you’ve got my money, and I’ve got no car, and you only have your word that you actually intended to give me the car, your claim of innocence is going to look damned fishy to a magistrate if you’re being douchebag and holding onto my money. You’d probably be held over for trial without bond.

              -jcr

            3. With one exception: if you knew the car was stolen when you made the agreement. Now maybe this cop was unlucky and the guy in line right before him got the last piece of chicken. But it’s more likely the chashier knew they were out of chicken and continued taking orders for it anyways. That’s what makes it a crime: continuing to negotiate transactions before hand that you know you have no ability to complete.

          3. I am altering the 3-piece mixed combo. Pray I don’t alter it again.

        2. there was a true, good-faith agreement here on the part of both parties to exchange money for chicken. One party then learned it would be unable to fulfill its side of the bargain.

          What if the customer insists on submitting an IOU in exchange for the chicken of which he has already taken possession? Tonier venues call the cops.

          1. Well, if you want to debate the technical details of theft of services laws, that’s fine but since they clearly don’t apply to this case it’s irrelevant. The only question here is a purely positive legal one (as opposed to philosophical — where I agree they should just give him his money).

        3. What you fail to understand is that I consider all sales of any kind to be bazaar exchanges, and everything else above the level of an individually-negotiated sale occuring in a market setting is meaningless elaboration.

          When I agree to exchange $5 for a bucket of chicken, that is the sole agreement I have made.

          The money in question is right there sitting between the two parties.

          It would be one thing if there was an actual dispute here – if the store felt it had in fact delivered the chicken, but the customer thought it wasn’t adequate or didn’t exactly match what he had demanded. That case would demand adjudication. Here, the customer says, “They took my money and gave me no chicken,” AND the store ADMITS “We took his money and gave him no chicken.”

          1. Absolutely. The money is right there, the chicken is not, give him back the money. Period. Sounds like common law, common sense, and common practice to me. Screw substitutions, vouchers, courts and lawyers: this is theft by deception, bait and switch.

            And while I normally hate the “do you know who I am?” thing, I don’t object to it here. They’re basically running a scam on the cop, so that’s not a surprising or uncalled for response on his part.

    2. Lots of people getting their asses up on their shoulders over $5 worth of low-quality chicken.

      MSG does strange things to people’s minds. It convinces them bad food is actually good.

  28. The cop deserved to get fired simply for using that “do you know who I am” schtick. If you think a crime is occurring that’s one thing, but trying to get the store to treat you special because you’re wearing a badge? Well, welcome to unemployment.

    1. The cop deserved to get fired simply for using that “do you know who I am” schtick.

      Many times this.

      1. One might reply, “No, so let me get someone who can help you find out.”

    2. Maybe he was just incredulous that someone would actually try to victimize a person who could directly and unilaterally take action for it.

      If a cop uses that line to demand special treatment he doesn’t legally deserve, it’s bullshit. If he says it because you tried sell him a bag of crack while he was in uniform, it’s more of a commentary on what a fucking dumbass you are.

  29. I think we should just be happy that at least in one small area a cop got fired over a trivial issue.

    If this could keep happening so that this was applied to all misbehavior by the police so that cops everywhere were afraid of even the slightest confrontation with any of the rest of us things would get a lot better in this country.

  30. I have, after getting fucked at the drive thru, driven back to the fast food place and demanded a proper order AND gas mileage money. Ive never received the latter (although I keep asking – I have received my order+free meal, sometimes without asking for gas mileage money) but Ive never considered having them arrested for fraud for putting the wrong sandwich in my bag.

    1. Truth be told, I know that I have overreacted in similar circumstances.

      I get into a certain zone and won’t let up. More than once, a manager has threatened to call the police on me claiming that I was disturbing the peace.

      I don’t blame the cop for being upset. I wouldn’t blame him for hollering at the employees, particularly the manager, for having such a horrible policy and for not having a committment to providing outstanding customer service.

      But, once you start with, “do you know who I am…?”, the game changes.

      1. Exactly. Like I said somewhere up above “do you know who I am” and “civilian” are both instantaneous firing offenses, IMO. Even if the rest of the cops behavior is perfectly understandable. And regardless of the criminality or not of the act by KFC.

        1. Look, I hate cops as much as the next guy, but –

          And regardless of the criminality or not of the act by KFC.

          I expect cops to threaten to arrest people who steal.

          That’s kind of a ridiculous “regardless” you got there.

          1. I dont care about him threatening to arrest, I care about him saying “do you know who I am”.

    2. In those cases, what always happens is the store insists they gave you the item and you insist they didn’t.

      If a cop came and heard that story, I wouldn’t blame them if they said, “CIVIL MATTER!” and walked out.

      But in this case, the store admits they didn’t give him the chicken.

      It’s like you drove back and the store manager said, “Yup, we didn’t give you your item. And we’re keeping your money. HAHA you stupid loser! We fucked you and you lose! NYAH NYAH NYAH NAH NAH!”

      1. Its not at all like that.

        Its like a baseball game that got rained out.

        1. Well, like I said above after you whined like a douche because I took 20 minutes to eat some falafel – although the practice has arisen of baseball teams issuing rain checks and everyone just accepts it as normal, I think that if someone demanded a refund, they’d have a decent case that they’re owed one.

          If I buy a ticket to see a baseball game in Chicago on September 1st, that’s what I should get. That, or a refund. If they give me a ticket to a game on September 27th, that might be worthless to me. I might not even be in Chicago on September 27th. They should have to secure my written consent to their rain check policy prior to taking my money.

          1. Do us all a favor and keep going to hockey games. We are greatly shocked to discover that you are a fan. Never would have thunk it.

          2. I agree, you might win in small claims court vs the baseball team. But you dont get to have the ticket seller arrested. Nor do you get to say “do you know who I am”.

            1. Which is exactly the point fluffy refused to get, illegal and arrestable are two different things.

        2. No it isn’t, because when a rain check is issued for a ball game, at least some of the game has been played; i.e., the customer has gotten *some* value for his money. The ball club can’t just postpone the game before it even starts and refuse to refund the money to customers who bought tickets in advance.

          1. Wrong. Even if postponed before the first pitch, you get a rain check.

            1. Your analogy is flawed. This is not the same thing that happened to the cop in KFC. See below and tell me this would be alright.

              If you walked up to the ticket counter the day of the game and they sold you a ticket and then immediately told you the game was cancelled, would you think this wasn’t fraud? Even if they offered you a rain check it is still fraud because you may be only in town for that night or have to work, etc…

              They knew they could not fulfill his order but would not return his money…this is fraud.

            2. what if you buy tickets to watch the Celtics-Lakers game and the Celtics take your money and then tell you that they are sorry that the Lakers game was sold out and they offer to give you a ticket to the Celtics-Clippers game. Would you still think that is not fraud?

              1. I agree 100%.

            3. Event tickets are treated differently from ordinary goods and services under the law. If I buy a bucket of chicken at KFC for $5, walk outside the restaurant, and sell that bucket of chicken to some chump for $10, it’s perfectly legal. Not so for a baseball game ticket.

              I think baseball tickets SHOULD be treated like chicken, but they aren’t.

          2. The ball club can’t just postpone the game before it even starts and refuse to refund the money to customers who bought tickets in advance.

            They do it all the time. What planet do you live on?

      2. That doesn’t make any sense. Knowing what happened doesn’t make something more of less of a civil matter.

        If the cop doesn’t know what happened, he could just as well say there isn’t enough evidence to do anything and leave it at that. Something can be a criminal matter and a cop not arrest anyone because he isn’t sure who to arrest.

    3. Putting the wrong sandwich in your bag is (plausibly) an accident, selling shit you know you don’t have and refusing to give refunds is fraud.

  31. A tasty tidbit for the Reason economists to tear into: http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/…..obama.html

  32. You know who else ordered chicken and said “do you know who I am”, don’t you?

    Me neither…

  33. Can I call the cops next time united oversells the plane and *bumps* me to the next day?

    I gave them money, and I damn sure would not get a refund anytime soon. I get a flight at a different time, and a voucher for another flight.

    1. Another good analogy that people readily accept because it is “the norm”.

      The chicken policy is bad customer service, but for some reason we accept it in baseball and airlines. How many thousands of cops do you think have had a baseball game rained out without throwing a rant?

      1. But he really wanted that extra crispy dough on a stick. And a mere chicken clerk thwarted him! That’s at least a tasing offense.

      2. People can accept a lot because it’s the “norm”. That doesn’t make every extension of a bad principle acceptable.

        I think that people cut both the airlines and baseball teams some slack because the items in question are contingent on factors outside the seller’s control and are often purchased in advance, before anyone knows an issue will arise.

        Selling items over the counter is different, because the seller should know what items he has available while making the sale.

        If it was a sit-down restaurant and not a KFC, and you sat down and ordered the chicken, if there was no chicken you would be told that before you paid. A seller should not post for sale or accept money for items he doesn’t possess. And it’s just not reasonable in the context of a 1500 square foot KFC to say, “Oops, we didn’t know we didn’t have this item. It’s like a rainout in baseball! Act of God!”

        1. In a reasonable store (which this wasnt), the first order after they run out is probably always a surprise. This is fast food, not the greatest communication skills going on between front and back.

          I sent an overnight package to a client a few winters back. It snowed 3 inches in NC that night and the package didnt arrive. I tried to get a refund from UPS from overnight to 2 day rate and they refused because it was an “Act of God”. My client made it to his office, I dont know why UPS trucks couldnt. It was only 3 inches of snow, its not like it was a lot. I probably could of sued them, but not worth it. I never considered having UPS arrested for fraud.

          1. They get around their delivery guarantee all the time that way. I think God gets a piece of the action.

          2. 1. As a rule of thumb, you should expect to get fucked by UPS. Period. They permanently lost my business when they refused to leave important packages at my doorstep because of “theft” in my neighborhood. I said I wanted to sign a consent form so they could just leave things, and they replied that they didn’t have forms for a request like that. So I had to leave work early and drive an hour out of the way, then stand in line with all the other angry customers to pick things up from them.

            2. I’m pretty sure most people who send packages realizes that Acts of the Gods can occur, and that UPS has a fairly liberal policy for identifying them.

            3. Snow and especially ice in NC usually downs trees and power lines, and in cities like Charlotte you get a lot of slick areas while in the mountains you get some really sketchy driving on narrow roads. What might be reasonable for a commute isn’t necessarily reasonable for a day’s worth of package deliveries. Also, North Carolinians drive like imbeciles in snow. Jus’ sayin’.

            1. With global warming around the corner who fucking cares how you drive in the snow? In fact, sliding around bumping into shit is a rare treat here given the rarity of snow, and then some tight ass from up North whines, ‘oh, you are doing it ALL wrong!’ Catch a ride on a fucking polar bear if you wanna be safe, meanwhile we have some sliding around to commence.

            2. I will give you this, even as a native born Carolinian, one of the oddest sights that still baffles me is if the weather report so much as calls for an eighth of an inch of snow that will melt away before noon, the bread isle of every store in that county will be empty of supplies. It is the strangest thing, and I am no way exaggerating this phenomenon.

              1. That and eggs and milk. I’m convinced there’s some ethnic group in the country who’s religious traditions require celebrating snow by eating French toast.

              2. No shit. It’s goddamned bizarre. There’s usually a run on the toilet paper and milk, too. Drinking milk and eating TP sandwiches. Yum.

          3. In a reasonable store (which this wasnt), the first order after they run out is probably always a surprise. This is fast food, not the greatest communication skills going on between front and back.

            Sloppy business practices are not a defense under the law.

        2. “I think that people cut both the airlines and baseball teams some slack because the items in question are contingent on factors outside the seller’s control and are often purchased in advance, before anyone knows an issue will arise.”

          While that’s sometimes true with airlines, they’re still guilty of deliberately overselling AFAIK, and mainly because they’re allowed to get away with it. And frankly, I think in both cases you have a legal right to get your money back, without going to court. Essentially, if they have the ability to refund your money, then an unwillingness to do so is sufficient evidence of bad faith to justify a fraud charge.

          That said, being “the norm” is actually sort of a defense, insofar as it lends more credibility to an “implicit contract” if most people understand that certain conditions apply. Most people I think assume that when they hand a fast food employee a five dollar bill, he’d better either give them fast food, or five dollars and an apology.

      3. You accept ahead of time that a ballgame might be rained out or a flight might be delayed or canceled.

        You do not accept that the Skinwich might be sold out and you’ll receive a voucher in its place. If that’s the policy, they need to post it on the register in bright red giant Comic Sans. But KFC wouldn’t do that because every other order would be preceded by a customer asking whether the place has enough breasts/thighs/skin piles, so they just have a dick-ish, underhanded policy.

        1. Ive never seen this posted at the stadium. Its on the back of the ticket.

          1. And I don’t know what I think about that, because to get the ticket I have to pay the money. I don’t get to see the ticket before I’ve paid. So it’s not really an adequate disclosure.

            1. I agree, and you could probably win in court if you really were that out of touch and didnt know that was the term.

              Or, you could probably get a refund after buying the ticket, reading the contract and refusing to enter the stadium because you didnt agree to it. But finding a manager to handle that would be problematic.

          2. Like I said, expectations. Are people aware that games can be rained out?

            It doesn’t matter whether it’s an adequate disclosure. It’s implied. If you weren’t aware of it, you might get your money back in small claims court or whatever, and you could probably get a refund at a ticket window.

            At my local transit station, I can find a sign that gives me schedules and transit times. There is no disclosure about traffic jams, earthquakes or the like causing delays, because that kind of stuff should be assumed.

            The point I was making about posting a huge sign is that very few people would assume they can give someone $5 for a particular product and receive a voucher back in a matter of seconds. If that’s the standard, it’s an extremely abnormal one and should be disclosed prior to purchase.

    2. You can’t, but you probably should be able to.

      Unfortunately, the airline industry has well paid and highly effective lobbyists.

    3. The time factor is crucial. You are paying in cash for an item or service, and one of the things you are buying is the immediate delivery of the item or service. They still have the precise currency you paid with, minutes ago. There is no excuse for not returning it.

      A good analogy would be a taxi. You jump in, say “take me to the airport,” and hand the driver the money. He takes it, and then says “Sorry sir, I can’t give you your money back, but I’ll take you to the bus station and give you a voucher good for a trip to the airport at another time. It’s an equal or better value for the money!” No, it’s not. The next step is to call the cops, not the lawyers.

  34. I’ve been thinking a bit about this: Fraud requires an intent to defraud. If the manager took the money in good faith, it’s not fraud. Neither civil nor criminal.

    The cop offered $5.00 for a product. The vendor accepted the $5.00 in the mistaken belief that he could perform. Because the expectation in that setting would be a refund, failure to refund the sum would be a breach of contract. We don’t typically jail people for breach of contract.

    If you doubt this logic, what do you think would’ve happened if the same incident occurred, except that the cop was replaced by a non-cop? Who got pissed enough to call the police? What do you think the police would’ve said to the complainer?

    Legally, the options for the cop are as limited as they are for we little people. Call the AG’s office. Sue. Or, of course, the smart consumer would just call corporate and get a check and a coupon for the trouble.

    1. Or never patronize the restaurant again, which is how I’ve handled poor customer service. Pitching a bitch isn’t going to make things any better.

      1. That’s what I’d most likely do, for $5.00.

      2. Pitching a bitch isn’t going to make things any better.

        I always get refunds.

    2. The cop offered $5.00 for a product. The vendor accepted the $5.00 in the mistaken belief that he could perform.

      This is the point I just don’t accept.

      They aren’t entering into a contract to perform a future act. They’re purporting to offer me an item they have right behind the counter.

      If I walk into a store to buy an X-box and the store manager says, “I have X-boxes right behind this counter. Give me money and I’ll bring one out,” and I give him money and he then says, “Oopsie, I have no X-boxes back here. Silly me. What a crazy mistake! No refunds though, sorry!” that is not a “mistaken belief he could perform”.

      “Wah, Fluffy, that’s not what happened here!” Sure it is. I’m not contracting to have them come to my house and make chicken, and then their car breaks down. They’re supposed to be handing me chicken over the counter in exchange for money. They shouldn’t offer to accept money for chicken unless they have it.

      1. It is a future contract. 3 minutes in the future.

        Look, their policy is stupid, and possibly a contract violation. But it isnt fraud.

        1. The purchasing of the chicken is immediate and the fact that they had to turn around to pick it off the counter or wrap it up does not make it in the future. If this were the case then we all have to do the silly game of 1, 2, 3 switch (money for merchandise) for every sale to satisfy your view.

          1. it isnt immediate. The guy selling you the food generally has no idea if the item you are ordering is still available or not.

            1. It is immediate and they are responsible to know whether or not the item is available or not. If it is not, then they are obligated to return your money if you do not want a substitute/voucher. The fact that he is a moron and does not know what is in the store does not make it in the future.

              Now if he said welcome to KFC can I take your order. But be advised, we may not have what you actually pay for and will not give you your money back if your are stupid enough to take that chance…then you would be correct.

            2. If this were the case then we would all have to do the silly game of 1, 2, 3 switch (money for merchandise) for every sale in order to ensure there is no future contract.

              I am just trying to understand your reasoning. Do you consider it a future contract if you buy a TV at Walmart and then they go to the back to pick it up?

            3. The guy selling you the food generally has no idea if the item you are ordering is still available or not.

              Sloppy business practices are not a defense under the law.

      2. But it can’t be fraud without fraudulent intent.

        1. But it can’t be fraud without fraudulent intent.

          What if the routinely take the money for orders of original recipe when they know only extra-crispy is left?
          Are gizzard and a coupon an acceptable substitute? What if the only have the shitty mashed potatoes and cole slaw? And you only have 5 bucks? And there is a Mrs’ Winners or a Popeyes across the street?

        2. The fraudulent intent occurs in the moment after they realize they have no chicken but still refuse to return your money, which is sitting in a box three feet from their hands.

        3. They have a policy forbidding giving back money for items they do not have in stock. That’s plenty of intent in my book.

          1. Not to suggest I like the practice or think that it’s entirely legal, but I think it falls short of fraud.

            1. I disagree, it indicates awareness beforehand that they may not be able to fill their orders, but an intention to continue accepting them anyways.

      3. “You’re thinking of this place all wrong. As if I had the money in the cash register right here. The money’s not here. Your money’s in Joe’s fried chicken; that’s right next to yours. And in the Kennedy’s Mashed Potato Bowl, and Mrs. Macklin’s Double Down, and a hundred other meals. Why, you’re lending them the money to cook, and then, they’re going to pay it back to you as best they can. Now what are you going to do? Take their fried chicken?”

        Dude, the fiver is sitting right there. It’s not some situation where they got the money and spent it and then some crazy shit happened and now they can’t pay him back or give him the chicken he wanted. There’s an obvious and self-evidently equitable solution to the problem (give the money back and say sorry), and they refuse to take it. That doesn’t remotely sound like “good faith” to me.

    3. So because the cops would ignore you if you called them, you want the one time there actually is a cop there who is the customer, he should suffer too, instead of, being the one who has both the ability to bluff arrest and the will to do so, actually being able to carry out your fantasy?!

      1. The cops wouldn’t come to the rescue because it’s not a criminal matter. Why is this such an emotionally charged issue?

  35. LOL, sounds like your typical, average cop to me. They all think they are above the law they are sworn to uphold.

    online-privacy.it.tc

  36. By buying a baseball ticket, you are consenting to waive your right to a refund.

    The same is true for airline tickets. Check the fine print.

    No, the question is, did KFC make their policy clear to consumers?

    If they did, then the cop was in the wrong. If they didn’t, he wasn’t.

    1. Like baseball, you only find out after you buy the ticket.

      You also consent on purchase to being drilled in the head by a 100 mph baseball and/or a flying bat.

      1. The chicken was like the baseball. The airline is actually up front about it.

        1. A hundred-mph chicken would hurt like hell.

      2. No, the disclaimer is also posted at the ticket box. It’s required by law in NY.

  37. Know the terms of a contract before entering into it.

    1. I had no idea an adjustable rate mortgage could go up. WHY DIDNT ANYBODY TELL ME!!!

    2. They usually tell you if they are out of what you order. When they don’t you are usually offered another choice,wait till they cook some more, or a refund so you can go to the other chicken place or get a burger somewhere.

    3. Right. Before purchasing a bucket of bleached pus sacs covered in batter for $5, you must interrogate every employee on the premises, search the structure for any and all printed matter relating to possible purchases, and demand to know all store policies.

      1. Because if they have a sign on the wall somewhere that says they reserve the right to take your money and give you nothing in return if you don’t begin every sentence with “Please”, then oh well it’s you’re fault for not being aware of the terms of the contract.

        1. Here’s the thing: To me, it doesn’t really matter which oil-soaked lump of dry chicken KFC hands me for my dinner, so I wouldn’t be bothered with a substitution. However, if it was important enough that I would get worked up over it, I would be able to muster the effort to ask the refund policy up front.

  38. Wow, lots of strong feelings. I’ve never seen this policy posted at KFCs around here,but I’d be really ticked off if it happened to me. That said, there are two ways to deal with this that would be more satisfying than threatening to have the manager arrested:

    1) Don’t mess with small claims court for a few dollars. Instead find a lawyer in the area to file a class action lawsuit representing all customers and aim for some heavy punitive damages. Sure the lawyers will end up with most of the $$$ but it would be fun to take it from KFC.

    2) Express your concerns to the manager calmly and quietly then shut up and take your replacement food. Then demonstrate what a klutz you are by accidently dropping all your food and accidently spilling your soda on top of it (preferably a sticky non-diet soda). Doing this on a table or the counter would have a good effect but if you do it on the floor you can also accidently step all over it and make it a bigger mess. Make sure you apologize profusely to clarify that it’s an accident and cannot be considered vandalism of any sort. An alternative would be to accidently drop it all in the toilet, plug it, and flood the bathroom through your very sincere attempts to flush the mess down.

    Make sure you apologize one last time as you head out the door.

    1. Or:

      3) You can act like a mature, sensible adult and not like a petulant child.

      1. touche’

        But really, isn’t it a lot more fun to be petulant child?

        And for the record – I’ve never actually done either of my suggestions in real life but on bad days I’ve lived them both out in my Walter Mitty fantasies.

      2. A mature sensible adult would get his refund or stand at the register preventing them from taking orders until the cops came.If you are clean and sober the cops will probably get you your refund because they don’t want the hassle of arresting anybody.

      3. If “mature” and “sensible” mean that people get to steal from me and I have to smile, I’d rather burn the fucking place down and kill everyone inside. Thanks for the advice though.

        Honestly, I’m about 100x as angry at these fuckers as I was when we first started talking about it, because of the abysmally stupid and gallingly patronizing shit I’ve been forced to read.

        It’s not your money, so you don’t get to decide what’s trivial and what’s worth fighting about. If it’s one fucking cent of my money and none of yours, then the entire decision about whether to be pissed belongs to me and you get zero say.

        1. “If “mature” and “sensible” mean that people get to steal from me and I have to smile, I’d rather burn the fucking place down and kill everyone inside. Thanks for the advice though.”

          Here’s some more advice: Never, never go out in public. You can’t handle it.

        2. I hear you Fluffy. But just because someone has a right to get pissed and make a scene doesn’t make it an attractive or sympathetic quality, and if the guy is a douche enough to throw a temper tantrum at the drive-thru, people can and should ridicule him for it. Nothing wrong with saying the guy should chill the fuck out, whether there’s an actual threat to liberty involved or not.

          It is possible to be a dickhead without violating anyone’s rights, and I really have nothing against calling out dickheads for being dickheads.

    2. Or, you could take the voucher, come back another day at 11:30 just as the lunch rush is about to begin, down a bottle of ipecac and puke all over their cashier counter.

      Or, you could stand on the sidewalk wearing a sandwich board detailing your bad experience during their next busy lunch hour.

      1. Now, you’re talking!

  39. 200 posts on a thread about fried chicken?

    Dudes, the Braves game is on. They are up by 3 in the 6th.

    Don’t you guys have cable?

    1. Crispy chicken skin inspires strong feelings in real Americans.

    2. Who cares about the Braves…even if they get in the playoffs they will choke as usual.

      1. I know you’re angry right now so I’ll try to forget you said that.

        1. I am not angry just truthful. They have been a good regular season team in the past but in the playoffs they are dreadful (except 95′).

          1. Yeah, you are actually right. I just like ’em because I hate the Yankees and Atlanta is one of the few teams that can match their payroll…

            1. Well we agree on hating the Yankees. I am an Orioles fan and it has been painful to be on since 1997. I live in STL and like the Cardinals to but they are choking away this season with authority.

              1. YANKEES WOOOOH GET SHIT ON LOSERS

                YANKEES

                WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS MY FRIEND

                27 WORLD SERIES TITLES

                40 AMERICAN LEAGUE PENANTS

                DEFENDING WORLD CHAMPIONS OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL

                ENJOY YOUR PUNY TEAMS, SUCKERS

                That is all.

                1. That’s all history. You’re going to lose the division this year. And you know it.

  40. Geez, man. Pay with a credit card. Dispute the charge if you have to and go to Chick-Fil-A like you should have in the first damned place.

    Don’t pull some thug ass power trip.

    The policy is a very poor one but it shines like the First Amendment compared to what the cop did.

    1. People who pay for fast food with credit cards are fucking losers.

      1. Um, carrying around cash sucks taint. Plastic FTW. Unless it’s a weed re-up.

    2. Can you even dispute a charge under those circumstances? I thought that was only done when you claim you didn’t authorize a charge.

      1. I pay for everything I can, including fast food, with a credit card. Perhaps you can tell me why that makes me a fucking loser so I can gain from your knowledge.

        Whether you can dispute this particular case, because it is less than $50, will depend on the issuer. They don’t have to allow you to dispute it, but they can. AMEX would nail the Colonel’s ass to the wall.

  41. Seems odd to me that so many libertarians want the big mean old government to intervene in this matter. Clearly what is needed here is for the market to work its magic: this policy will be unpopular, they will lose customers, and they will be punished by the market.

    I mean, doesn’t the lazy customer have a duty to inquire about the refund policy before purchase? Do you guys really want to reward their foolishness if they do not? Talk about your moral hazard! Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

    1. I think you are correct the government shouldn’t have to intervene. He should be able to take the money back by force because he stole it from him. The only reason people are taking the side of KFC is because the price of the chicken is so small. But if this was a car or house and they pulled the same stunt no one would be talking about a non-existent refund policy hidden in the manager’s office.

    2. “Whatever happened to caveat emptor?”

      You don’t have to believe in caveat emptor to be a libertarian. You’re confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Preventing and punishing theft is a legitimate function of government.

    3. For caveat emptor to apply they would have had to give him the chicken.

      1. Exactly. This is fraud. There’s nothing unlibertarian about wanting the government to prevent fraud.

        1. Yes, there is.

  42. I get lectured so much here about coercion and “Teh Slavery!” based on the non-agression principle that I find the fraud exception of libertarianism to be very interesting. In classic fraud there is no force, yet most libertarians will concede it is wrong. Why if there is no force? I think it is because they can see it vitiates what appears to be a freely given consent. Perhaps where liberals and libertarians disagree is in how far one can take this idea of vitiating consent?

    Consider the classic law school example: me and fluffy make a deal for him to buy what he thinks is a fertile cow. Now, what if I know the cow is infertile. If I don’t disclose that, do we have fraud? What if I don’t disclose but he never asked? What if I know but I also don’t know he cares whether it is fertile so I say nothing? What about a law that requires the seller of cows to test for fertility and disclose results, or to disclose vet records that would likely have such information, or have an agency inspect for these and other “material facts” and no sale allowed unless inspection is done and results made plain?

    1. If Fluffy thinks (ie presumes) but does not make it part of the contract then you have not committed fraud.

      If he never asks nor makes it part of the contract then you have not committed fraud.

      I am not really sure what the test/vet records have to do with anything. However, if that is the law and you blatantly forge the test or vet records then you are committing fraud.

      In addition, it does not have to be a law but could be part of the contract before the sale becomes final. If you do not perform the test or disclose the vet records then you would be committing fraud.

      I am in no way trying to lecture anyone here just giving my two cents.

    2. If you take money for the cow, but give him a goat instead, you have committed theft.

    3. To a libertarian, the meaning of fraud is to promise one thing in a contract, but do something else.

      If you had made a contract with fluffy to purchase a fertile cow, and you gave him an infertile cow, that is fraud. If the contract said nothing about fertility, i.e. only that you would give fluffy a cow, then I don’t see where fraud comes into play.

      1. All contracts rely any number of unspoken assumptions. Putting too much faith in contracts results in evil genie logic and a society plagued by lawyers, and skewed in favor of large entities that can easily absorb the cost of having an deceptively awful contract written and foisted on “willing” victims.

        Contracts are important, but some libertarians lean too heavily on them.

  43. Interesting related story:

    I once (more than once, but once that really ticked me off), while in college, put money in a vending machine and didnt get my candy bar. I seriously considered breaking into it to get it, I kicked the front once, but the glass didnt break and I realized it was probably a bad idea at that point. Anyway, then I called the number on the machine and they said they would mail me a refund. I told them instead to send a delivery truck out with a candy bar. They refused and mailed me the refund.

    So:

    What about that situation? They took my money, thus entering into an agreement to deliver me a candy bar. They didnt.

    1. Would I have been justified in breaking the window on their machine and taking my candy bar (and nothing else)?

    2. Should they have had to bring me the candy bar and fulfill the contract we had entered?

    3. Or was refunding me the money 3 days later acceptable?

    Despite all considerations of one and two at the time, three seems very reasonable and I think it would have been at least a civil offense, if not a crime, if I had damaged their machine.

    Two would have been very good customer service on their part, of course.

    1. I do not believe you would have been justified in breaking the window. The machine malfunctioned and no delivery guy was present. There was no purposeful intent to steal your money.

      The second question is a tricky one. How long do they have to bring the candy bar to you?

      Thus the third option seems to be the correct one. They refunded the money you paid for the undeeliverd candy bar. Now if they would have sent you a voucher for a candy bar from their specific machines then it would have been the same situation as the KFC/cop incident.

      1. If they had sent you a voucher with a restocking guy present and capable of retrieving your money.

        I think that’s an important distinction. KFC didn’t possess the original item, but they most certainly had the ability to give the guy his money back immediately. The vending machine company’s in more of a logistical bind without a delivery guy present.

        1. In hindsight that is the better example. Nevertheless the voucher is unacceptable unless the customer agrees to accept the voucher and that is what I was trying to portray.

        2. The vending machine company’s in more of a logistical bind without a delivery guy present.

          The phone operator had a car. They werent in a bind at all.

      2. I do not believe you would have been justified in breaking the window.

        Why not? They entered into a contract when the machine accepted my money and the candy bar is RIGHT THERE, why dont I have the right to get it by breaking the window? Hell, why cant I have them arrested for fraud? That seems to be the idea.

        There was no purposeful intent to steal your money.

        Ditto on the chicken. He took the money and then found out the chicken was missing. So he offered replacement+voucher (if I understand it right, that basically means 2 for the price of 1, with the 1 now not being what you really wanted). If the vending company had given me a 3 Musketeers now plus a voucher for a future Milky Way, that would have been more than reasonable for the Milky Way not being delivered now.

        1. In that situation, there is not a human being standing there, holding your $5, and refusing to give it back to you. You can’t charge a vending machine with theft.

          1. Yes, a mechanical breakdown is not theft by deception. The vending machine analogy doesn’t work.

            1. Unless, you can show that the vending machine company intentionally rigged its machines to accept cash and not deliver. Like, if a casino rigs its slot machines to never “hit”.

  44. truth be told, I have totally lost my s*** at KFC more than a couple of times. worst service in any fast food place. If I was a cop going to my local KFC I would have tazed somebody already.

    1. >, I have totally lost my s*** at KFC more than a couple of times.

      Why in the world would you go back if they pissed you off once?

      -jcr

      1. The chicken.That original recipe stuff is top notch.I never get sides or any of their other product.

    2. Yeah I’ve never once been to a KFC that had their shit together from a service standpoint. Long lines, fucked up orders, a total lack of any interest in helping anybody. I always talk myself into trying a new location, since logically it musty be a crap shoot, with some well-run stores and other poor ones. Nope. They all suck.

      The chicken is like salty crispy heroin, but I haven’t been to KFC in at least 5 years.

  45. I think part of the problem with discussing this case is that so much of our existing law is so corrupt and unjust that it colors the discussion.

    For example, most areas have what I believe are called innkeepers’ laws. Those laws make it a crime to stay at a hotel, but then to leave without paying [or even in many cases just to take your luggage out without paying].

    Now, this creates a situation where two people are participating in an economic transaction where they are exchanging items of equal value [by definition] but one party is given rights at law that the other party doesn’t have. And that’s fucking bullshit.

    If the innkeeper takes my reservation and deposit but then when I get there he says, “Oopsie, I overbooked. But we have a no refund policy. Come back next year! Next!” according to the people here my only recourse is taking him to small claims court.

    If, OTOH, I stay in the room, decide it was inadequate [maybe I see a rat or something] and leave without paying, saying “Sue me,” on the way out, I can be arrested.

    This disparity is SO OBVIOUSLY unjust that it boggles my mind.

    Both sides to an economic transaction have to be presumed to be equal. If one party only gets to go to small claims court, and can’t call in the police to arrest the other party, that should be the case for both parties.

    If not, then I don’t want to hear any of my fellow “libertarians” complain when the law treats employers and employees differently, and gives employees more rights than employers. Too bad! The law doesn’t have to treat them the same, just because they are two different sides of an economic exchange of equal values.

  46. the way i read it, its like paying up front for subscription to reason magazine. only to be told”sorrrrry, we didnt print enuff mags, but hey, we’ll give you a cool reason foundation t shirt and a voucher for a free back issue….” Fuck that!!!!!give me my damn money back!!!!!If i wanted a damn t-shirt and old issues, id’have bought those instead!!!
    luckily for stingy bastard like me, the online content is free!!!!

    1. You can have a voucher for Mother Jones, if you’d prefer.

  47. KMW, congrats! 272 post in. Evening hours at that. You clearly have raised the stakes for everybody else on the staff for the pool this week.

  48. If you go to a nice restaurant, they bring you your meal, and when you are finished, they bring you the check. When you go to a shithole fast food joint, you pay first, then they give you the food. If you are stupid enough to pay first, you deserve to get fucked.

    1. There’s an analogy here. If I go to a restaurant, and I eat my meal but it turns out I didn’t bring any money, they’ll probably call the police, and I’ll either get arrested or issued a misdemeanor citation. Nobody would say that the restaurant should be forced to accept an IOU, pursue me in small claims court or just refuse to do business with me in the future.

  49. Give him a break. Cops aren’t trained to deal with these sort of social issues. He obviously wasn’t armed or he could have just shot someone and ended the whole thing per protocol. But instead he had to fend for himself in a social situation where he was not wielding the force of coercion through harm.

    You people just don’t understand.

  50. To the poster constantly making the “baseball rain check” analogy:

    “All other tickets – Your April 11th tickets may be refunded by check or exchanged for another game-pending availability. Value on ticket can be applied toward purchase of any available ticket. All rain checks may be presented for refund by submitting at the Cubs box office or mailing to the Chicago Cubs Ticket Office at …”
    http://mlb.mlb.com/chc/ticketi…..041107.jsp

    1. My Louisville Bats tickets didnt have that option.

      So, despite what someone said, it isnt the same at all baseball parks.

      Also, notice they dont just open the till and give you your money back on the spot.

      1. Because you probably didn’t just buy the tickets from them a minute ago.

        The logistics are a lot different. Making the baseball rain check policy a lot more reasonable than the KFC policy.

  51. “notice they dont just open the till and give you your money back on the spot”
    1) tickets can be forged.
    2)I don’t expect the Cubs to have $800,000 cash on hand in case it rains
    3) handling refunds for 30,000 people is more complicated than 1 guy in line
    4) a ticket has terms and conditions. Ordering fast food doesn’t

  52. He should have taken the voucher, then jumped over the counter, grabbed $5 out of the till, and given them the voucher back.

    Since it’s of equal value and all.

    1. With the way the Fed is printing money and buying Treasuries, that voucher is probably a better “store of value” than the $5 bill.

      1. Hah yeah, that shit’s an investment.

  53. Any way this can go to court and have both of them lose? The cop may be able to beg off on account of the head injury.

    KFC’s failure to refund a customer’s money when they can’t deliver what they promised to deliver when taking the money is theft.

    -jcr

    1. “”KFC’s failure to refund a customer’s money when they can’t deliver what they promised to deliver when taking the money is theft.””

      If you order chicken, and they offer you chicken, it’s not theft just because it’s not prepared the way you wanted.

      If you wanted change for a twenty, and you specifically wanted four $5 bills, and I gave you twenty $1 bills. It’s not theft.

      Granted, IMO KFC should have refunded the money.

      How often should the power of the state be used, and how great should that power be when a food services company won’t give you exactly what you asked for? If that authority can protect me from a $5 menu dispute, why not the quality of the air I breath, or protect my investments? Those items have a greater value than a couple pieces of chicken.

      Quite frankly, I’d rather have taken the subsitute and never went back, and told everyone else of my experience. I see that as the better option than giving government the authority to beat up businesses just because I didn’t get my way. But I’m a limited government kinda guy, and not just when it favors my situation.

  54. One place to look for those wanting to do something against this KFC is to look at the rules and requirements of being a KFC franchise. Even if a specific discrepancy isn’t found, enough complaints about a specific location will often lead to the disfranchisement.

    My uncle owns and operates a Dairy Queen, and it sounds like costumer complaints that reach corporate are taken seriously.

  55. The head injury could have impaired his ability to control his anger and his ability to recall the events correctly, actually. I wish the story were more clearly written.

  56. Anyway, this is the most successful KMW post ever.* She should consider poaching on Radley’s turf more often.

    *No dogs were harmed in the making of this thread, though several commentators made fools of themselves with hyperbolic rhetoric and absurd analogies. Wardrobe furnished by Ken’s of Burbank. Furs by Dicker & Dicker of Beverly Hills. Catering by Pink’s. ?2010, Reason Magazine. All rights reserved.

  57. there aren’t enough details to draw hard conclusions, but that doesn’t stop some people.

    1. Chicken is a contract!

  58. Gawd, you people actually think there is something called “company policy” at a independently owned KFC?

    company policy = you’re a dick

    I can’t do anything because of company policy = I can’t do anything for you…because you’re a dick

    Watch this instructional video, please.

    1. The critical lesson here: Raoul had his attorney make his reservation. And look how smoothly it went.

  59. Oh, I hated the Colonel, with his wee beady eyes. Oh you’re gonna by my chicken. Oh, oh…

    1. Ah, you are familiar with the works of the Pentaverate, I see.

  60. “Another manager offered another type of chicken and a voucher for a free meal later during the July 9 visit.”

    He was offered chicken and a voucher for a free meal. How is it theft if you are offered more value in return than that which you paid?

    1. Because value is subjective. You might think that’s more valuable, and I might think it’s more valuable to get my specific order right now.

    2. As I said above, one of the things being purchased is immediacy: this particular chicken dish right now. Vouchers and substitutions may not cut it, and if they don’t, a refund is called for.

  61. I don’t have any cop authority but I would have raised hell to get my money back too. It usually works. Retail businesses usually forego their chicken shit policies to avoid creating a scene.

  62. I don’t have any cop authority but I would have raised hell to get my money back too. It usually works. Retail businesses usually forego their chicken shit policies to avoid creating a scene.

  63. Cop sounds like an asshole. But, in this case, being an asshole is exactly what is called for, and it makes the world a better place. If you take somebodies money for a product you don’t have, then don’t give the money back when you discover you don’t have the product, you deserve to have a psychopathic asshole redneck get in your face. If you are too fucking stupid to figure this out, and fall back on a “just following orders” defense, then you deserve a second helping of psychopathic redneck yelling “do you know WHO I AM?”, because apparently you respect authority more than common decency anyways.

  64. How do they not give you your money back if they don’t have what you ordered? I don’t condone it, but extra judicial corporal punishment would make me smile.

  65. The KFC arguably broke this law:

    13-2202. Deceptive business practices; classification

    A. A person commits deceptive business practices if in the course of engaging in a business, occupation or profession such person recklessly:

    […]

    2. Sells, offers or exposes for sale or delivers less than the represented quantity of any commodity or service[.]

    As for intent, that’s probably going to be interpreted pretty broadly. Generally in criminal law, you can’t escape liability by willful ignorance. Here, the chicken was in plain sight nearby. Even then, the refusal to refund money once the mistake was realized may create intent by itself.

    The bottom line is that what the KFC did was obviously wrong, and in there are laws that could have been plausibly applied to encourage the KFC to issue a refund. Threatening to issue a summons to the owner or manager would have done the trick.

    This also wasn’t akin to an outdoor event that might be rained out; it was a single transaction where, at the time the transaction occurred, the restaurant either had the product or it didn’t, and easily had the means to issue a single refund.

    However, this case never actually reached that stage because the officer was apparently flying off the handle and nobody wanted to help him. Although he had a legitimate beef, his behavior was evidently out of control. The KFC was wrong, but the officer was supposed to maintain his composure and not throw his weight around.

  66. If your looking for restraint cables I recommend you use http://www.cmacable.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.