A Tim Hortons employee involved in a conflict that started in the drive-thru and spilled into the restaurant will not be criminally charged in the death of a customer.

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

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

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

  • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    11·
    2 days ago

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

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.todayEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

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

      Lol, facts are performative?

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

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

      Their moral and legal culpability is.

      Intent almost always influences legal culpability.