So this guy's got to waste tax payer's dollars and resources that can be used to catch real criminals on this! I say the woman's bail should be repaid amoung other things... Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Actually, I think there's a point there. They messed up the food and served it anyway? That's really gross.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
They definitely shouldn't have served it and should bear consequences for that, but it seems more like something to tip the food and safety inspection people off about, rather than arresting the girl who served it, doesn't it?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
That's true. It's a little bit overboard with the reaction. I was mostly reacting against Syn's post that it was a waste for this to be handled at all - it clearly isn't. The restaurant serves food that has been severely compromised. That's really disgusting, and definitely something should happen.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Very true.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote: Police said samples of the burger were sent to the state crime lab for tests.
Why!? Oh dear god, why!?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I say the woman's bail should be repaid amoung other things...
It will be, either when the charges are dropped or she has made all required appearances.
quote:
quote: Police said samples of the burger were sent to the state crime lab for tests.
Why!? Oh dear god, why!?
Because the burger made someone sick, and salt can cover other tastes. It's called investigating.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm surprised he didn't just shoot her and have done with it.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Sure. Because arresting someone for serving damaged food = murder.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's called investigating.
Please. It's called harassment.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
If the employee told her supervisor, who then tried to "thumb" the salt off, how is it the employee's fault at all? Shouldn't the supervisor get in trouble for approving the sale of over salted meat? And shouldn't that trouble consist of no more than an official complaint to corporate headquarters and a call to the food and health inspector? Me thinks so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's called investigating.
Please. It's called harassment.
How is it harassment to send food to a crime lab?
quote:If the employee told her supervisor, who then tried to "thumb" the salt off, how is it the employee's fault at all? Shouldn't the supervisor get in trouble for approving the sale of over salted meat? And shouldn't that trouble consist of no more than an official complaint to corporate headquarters and a call to the food and health inspector? Me thinks so.
You're assuming that the story told to the police is accurate.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Yes, the food should not have been distributed as was.
Yes, the food chain supervisor and employees should be reprimanded for their lax procedures.
But to arrest the person who served the food and to send the offending food to a crime lab!?
I don't see it as harassment, but what result from the investigation is expected? That it was too salty? The crime analysis seems to be excessive and wasteful and well over the top for such an incident.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Whatever happend to sending it back?
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
P.S. McDonalds burgers are likely to make you sick, anyway. Most fast food makes me sick. A lot of people would get arrested.
I wholeheartedly agree that this is stupid. Send it back, get a refund, call the health inspector. No need to call in the fuzz, yo.
I would also like to know just how sick this man considers to be "sick." Feeling sick is different than being poisoned, or having a dangerous reaction. Sick can be a tummy ache. Sick can also be your eyeballs melting.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
The last time I went to McDonald's, the food made me sick. I didn't know I could have the people who served it to me arrested! I rather thought the answer was never to go to McDonald's again (which really, I knew before I got the revolting sandwich).
This whole thing is harassment. It's a gross abuse of power that is part of the reason that cops get such a bad rep. This is not a criminal offense; it's a civil matter. If he wants to sue McDonald's for oversalting his burger, I'd have the greatest sympathy for him. Although, IMHO, even that would have been overreacting.
The only actual reasonable response to a situation like this is to speak to the manager and demand a refund or a new burger.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I say the woman's bail should be repaid amoung other things...
It will be, either when the charges are dropped or she has made all required appearances.
Not necessarily entirely true. In Cook County, at least, they keep a portion of your bail (10%) even if charges are dropped.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not necessarily entirely true. In Cook County, at least, they keep a portion of your bail (%10) even if charges are dropped.
Are you sure? Most bail bondsman charge 10%, which is not refunded, but using a bail bondsman is not required. Illinois allows defendants to make a deposit of 10% of the bail with the court, in which case 10 % of the amount deposited is retained after the criminal proceedings are complete. This means that only 1% of the total bail amount is retained, not 10%.
To avoid having anything retained, the defendant can deposit the entire bail amount.
quote:But to arrest the person who served the food and to send the offending food to a crime lab!?
I don't see it as harassment, but what result from the investigation is expected? That it was too salty? The crime analysis seems to be excessive and wasteful and well over the top for such an incident.
Or that there was something else wrong with it. Everyone keeps saying that this is merely a case of "over-salting" a burger. You don't know that yet. And until it's investigated further, you won't know that.
Note I haven't commented on the propriety of the arrest, merely the investigation.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I'm also assuming that the people in the story actually exist and that Union City, GA is a real place. We're going off what the article tells us, so we have to at least start with the assumption that the article is correct.
It states that the officer went to the counter and "told the manager [his burger] made him sick." Then "Bull admitted spilling salt on the meat." Then "Adams took her outside and questioned her." She was then arrested "because she served the burger "without regards to the well-being of anyone who might consume it.""
Nowhere does it mention that there is even a possibility of poison or that it is anything more than "merely a case of "over-salting" a burger." That is what it's a case of. That's what the article is about.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
If you ate something that made you sick (we do not, at this point, know what that means, so let's assume some stomach violence at the minimum) and the server's response was "oh, I oversalted it," would you be inclined to believe them?
I might, if I knew I had a medical condition that could be aggravated by excess sodium intake. Otherwise, I'd be pretty suspicious of that response, especially since I've worked at a McDonald's and they do not, under ordinary circumstances, add salt to their burgers during the cooking process.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Not necessarily entirely true. In Cook County, at least, they keep a portion of your bail (%10) even if charges are dropped.
Are you sure? Most bail bondsman charge 10%, which is not refunded, but using a bail bondsman is not required. Illinois allows defendants to make a deposit of 10% of the bail with the court, in which case 10 % of the amount deposited is retained after the criminal proceedings are complete. This means that only 1% of the total bail amount is retained, not 10%.
To avoid having anything retained, the defendant can deposit the entire bail amount.
Hmmm...I may be getting "bail" and "the money that had to be put up before I could get out of jail". I didn't use a bail bondsmen and (eventually) got a check for 90% of what had been deposited. Fortunately, it wasn't a significant amount of money.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Hmmm...I may be getting "bail" and "the money that had to be put up before I could get out of jail". I didn't use a bail bondsmen and (eventually) got a check for 90% of what had been deposited. Fortunately, it wasn't a significant amount of money.
Of course I'm now dying to know the story behind this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm also assuming that the people in the story actually exist and that Union City, GA is a real place. We're going off what the article tells us, so we have to at least start with the assumption that the article is correct.
It states that the officer went to the counter and "told the manager [his burger] made him sick." Then "Bull admitted spilling salt on the meat." Then "Adams took her outside and questioned her." She was then arrested "because she served the burger "without regards to the well-being of anyone who might consume it.""
Right. The article doesn't say that the only thing wrong with the meat was that it was over-salted. It says that the employee claimed that over-salting was what was wrong with the meat.
quote:Nowhere does it mention that there is even a possibility of poison or that it is anything more than "merely a case of "over-salting" a burger." That is what it's a case of. That's what the article is about.
Nowhere does the article claim that the only thing wrong with the meat is that it was over-salted. The article does say that an officer says he was made sick by the burger. It also says that the officer received one possible story as to why this was the case. Finally, it reports the arrest and the sending of the burger for testing to determine if there is anything else wrong with the meat.
I get why people are annoyed by the arrest. Why are they annoyed by sending a burger that made an officer sick for testing?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Well, Fox News (who has a better headline, IMO) has a slightly different story. The salt was spilled when Bull was mixing the meat, the manager continued making patties and all of this is available on security cameras, according to Bull. In that case, where she is offering fairly irrefutable evidence, I'm inclined to trust her.
Also, "according to MyFoxAtlanta, the police accused Bull of purposely pouring the salt and pepper on the burger and charged her with reckless conduct." Assuming that's true, it sounds like the officer does not suspect anything further than over-salting the burger.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Hmmm...I may be getting "bail" and "the money that had to be put up before I could get out of jail". I didn't use a bail bondsmen and (eventually) got a check for 90% of what had been deposited. Fortunately, it wasn't a significant amount of money.
This probably isn't explained well at the jail - unless Cooke has a unique requirement that isn't covered by the code section, then you had the option to pay 10x what you paid and receive it all back.
In these cases, the city is serving as a bail bondsman for defendants and charging them about 1/10 of what private bail bondsman would.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, Fox News (who has a better headline, IMO) has a slightly different story. The salt was spilled when Bull was mixing the meat, the manager continued making patties and all of this is available on security cameras, according to Bull. In that case, where she is offering fairly irrefutable evidence, I'm inclined to trust her.
Which has nothing to do with whether or not the burger should be tested. Moreover, the story doesn't say if she told the police about the camera.
Moreover, if the salt did make the officer sick, and the burger-maker knew about the salt, then it's not a huge leap at this point to charge recklessness.
It will depend on the amount of salt, how likely that much salt is to make someone sick, and how likely it is for a food worker to know it. All things to be determined at trial.
quote:Also, "according to MyFoxAtlanta, the police accused Bull of purposely pouring the salt and pepper on the burger and charged her with reckless conduct." Assuming that's true, it sounds like the officer does not suspect anything further than over-salting the burger.
Even so, I still don't understand what the problem with the crime lab submission is.
BTW, since when do they make patties inside individual McDonalds?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That makes sense. It wasn't very well explained. Very little was "well explained". It wasn't a big deal ($10) for me - and I had made the choice to deal with possible consequences before I got arrested. It does bother me, though, that people who are frivolously or wrongly arrested have to pay anything for the privilege.
edit to add: it isn't a particularly interesting story, Noemon. Civil disobedience effort to get people to realize that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. Sigh. Don't you wish they had paid attention?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QUOTE]I get why people are annoyed by the arrest. Why are they annoyed by sending a burger that made an officer sick for testing?
Actually, this is the only thing I can honestly say I did not have a problem with in the story -- sending the burger off for tests. The article was pretty poorly written if the cop honestly suspect poison since it did not suggest this as a possibility nor did they go into detail about what "making him sick" means.
re: bail...I know from experience that there are some dishonest cops that will make you *think* you have to use a bail bondsman and end up paying 10%. I ended up in a pretty weird situation where I had to bail my husband (fiance at the time) out of jail and I had the thousand dollars they wanted sitting in the bank but the cops did some fast-talking and made me think I had to use a bail bondsman. They told me I wouldn't get any of my money back if I didn't. Hopefully, this will never come up again, but I know better next time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That makes sense. It wasn't very well explained. Very little was "well explained". It wasn't a big deal ($10) for me - and I had made the choice to deal with possible consequences before I got arrested. It does bother me, though, that people who are frivolously or wrongly arrested have to pay anything for the privilege.
Yeah, better explanations would be nice. It should be noted that the Illinois system is a MAJOR improvement from a defendant's perspective over the old system that had only private bail bondsmen. That system required coming up with the full bail amount or losing 10% of the bail. Even if there is room for improvement (which it sounds like there is), it represents real progress and has cut the permanent costs for those who don't want to or can't put up the whole amount by 9/10.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:BTW, since when do they make patties inside individual McDonalds?
They don't. The patties are prefabricated and shipped frozen; the cooking process is simply putting the patties on the frying surface, no seasoning added.
This is a weird McDonald's, if they're claiming they have video footage of the meat mixing going on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:BTW, since when do they make patties inside individual McDonalds?
They don't. The patties are prefabricated and shipped frozen; the cooking process is simply putting the patties on the frying surface, no seasoning added.
So it sounds like something strange was going on here, based on this part of the Fox report:
quote:Kendra Bull was mixing hamburger meat when, she said, too much salt and pepper accidentally spilled into the bowl. Bull said her manager was working with her, and continued to make patties out of the meat.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sending it to a crime lab and arresting her seem silly. If there was a problem, the customer should have returned the burger, complained, and then called the local HHS people in to inspect the place. If someone at my restaurant got arrested everytime someone had a problem with the food, we'd be out of business from a lack of employees. Mistakes happen. Without knowing precisely how much salt was spilled into the meat mix, it's hard to say whether it was wrong or not, admittedly, but criminal? That seems excessive. What's the crime? Attempted First Degree Natricide?
And for using their hands to brush off the salt, assuming they were wearing gloves, I don't see the problem. If they weren't wearing gloves, then that'd be another big health department violation. There's a system set up to handle these kinds of things, and it generally isn't done through the police department, at least not initially to my knowledge.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:So it sounds like something strange was going on here, based on this part of the Fox report:
Yeah, very, very strange. The patties almost have to be prefabricated in order to assure McDonald's high level of consistency, not to mention getting the patties to the exact 1/4 and 1/10 lb sizes.
I won't say that what they're claiming is impossible, but it would be the first I've heard of it...ever.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
My wife was a manager at McD's for a while (don't worry, she got out with her soul intact), I'm checking to see if they ever make patties on site.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: it isn't a particularly interesting story, Noemon. Civil disobedience effort to get people to realize that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. Sigh. Don't you wish they had paid attention?
Exactly what I was guessing.
And yes, I do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: If someone at my restaurant got arrested everytime someone had a problem with the food, we'd be out of business from a lack of employees.
This isn't an "every time someone had a problem with the food" case, but a "someone got sick from the food" case. If the sickness is traced to intentional use of food that is known to have a problem, we're well into criminal possibilities here.
quote:And for using their hands to brush off the salt, assuming they were wearing gloves, I don't see the problem. If they weren't wearing gloves, then that'd be another big health department violation. There's a system set up to handle these kinds of things, and it generally isn't done through the police department, at least not initially to my knowledge.
Police departments have handled numerous cases alleging tampering by employees with fast food.
quote:Yeah, very, very strange. The patties almost have to be prefabricated in order to assure McDonald's high level of consistency, not to mention getting the patties to the exact 1/4 and 1/10 lb sizes.
I won't say that what they're claiming is impossible, but it would be the first I've heard of it...ever.
One possibility is use of cheaper, expired meat with over-salting to hide spoilage. It's not unheard of. Assuming McD's doesn't allow making patties, maybe they'll investigate.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:One possibility is use of cheaper, expired meat with over-salting to hide spoilage. It's not unheard of. Assuming McD's doesn't allow making patties, maybe they'll investigate.
I hope so. The six or seven McDonald's prep areas I've seen haven't even had the equipment necessary to make patties - not even a mixing container.
I'm going to stop speculating, because the mental images I'm getting are horrifying, and I love McDonald's food too much to stop eating it.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Making the patties on site definitely not standard procedure at McD's. They would put grill seasoning on them though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The first article could have been interpreted as either making patties or simply seasoning premade patties ("a burger made with the oversalted meat"), but it's the second article's use of "mixing" that seems conclusive. Assuming, of course, that word was used by the worker and not a result of the reporter jumping to the wrong conclusion from "made with the oversalted meat."
Luckily it's all on security camera. Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
When I worked at McDonalds, back in the stone ages, we sprinkled a mixture of salt and pepper on the patties on the grill. I'm pretty sure they do the same at the McDonalds restaurants here still.
As for arresting the employee, that's rather premature. One of my responsibilities at work is to investigate food complaints. People are notoriously bad at determining what food made them ill. They usually blame the last thing that they ate, or fish, if they ate fish. They are almost ALWAYS wrong.
Before I would even investigate the restaurant, I'd have to know a lot more about the complaintant's symptoms, incubation period, etc.
If an investigation shows that there was deliberate tampering with the food, then an arrest would be appropriate, but I have to agree that this officer was way out of line here.
Of course, that's assuming that the full story is in the article, which of course it isn't.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm confused. When I read the article, all it said was that she accidentally spilled salt on the meat. I was envisioning a bunch of frozen patties in a box by the fryer and a salt shaker (for the fries, maybe?) getting tipped over into the box. There's no way anyone at McDonald's MAKES hamburger patties. Where does it say that they were doing this?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Kendra Bull was mixing hamburger meat when, she said, too much salt and pepper accidentally spilled into the bowl. Bull said her manager was working with her, and continued to make patties out of the meat.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I'm confused. When I read the article, all it said was that she accidentally spilled salt on the meat. I was envisioning a bunch of frozen patties in a box by the fryer and a salt shaker (for the fries, maybe?) getting tipped over into the box. There's no way anyone at McDonald's MAKES hamburger patties. Where does it say that they were doing this?
Edit: dammit, too slow!
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Thanks!
Hmmm...that's weird. I really didn't think McDonald's (or any other fast food restaurant) prepared burgers in the store. My own experience was with a Burger King, but I gotta say that I'm not sure some of my coworkers were capable of making hamburgers if they had to do anything more complicated than take them out of a box and put them on the broiler.
There's one other thing that just doesn't seem right, though....from the second article:
quote:A police officer purchased one of the salty burgers and became sick. According to MyFoxAtlanta, the police accused Bull of purposely pouring the salt and pepper on the burger and charged her with reckless conduct. The police photographed the burger, took the sick cop to the hospital, and carted Bull off to jail.
He went to the hospital because of too much salt? If the cops are suspecting something other than salt is in those burgers, they sure don't seem to be mentioning it and I just can't imagine how salt can land someone in the hospital. A couple of weeks ago I accidentally over salted some mashed potatoes for dinner. My husband took one bite, kind of choked, and then we threw them out. Had we eaten more than one bite of the super salty potatoes, I still don't think we'd have gotten sick, but the thing about humans is we have taste buds. We can tell when things are very salty. So one, we didn't eat them and two, we wouldn't have gotten sick even if we had.
I guess my point is, there's more to this story than what is in these articles. I am going to retract my earlier outrage at the ridiculousness of the situation and reserve judgment until we get the rest of the story. That is, IF we do get the rest of the story. I find that often these kinds of stories don't get proper follow up by the press. Posted by grammargoddess (Member # 10828) on :
That IS pretty weird. In the first article, it definitely sounds like she just spilled some salt on frozen patties (after all, it does say they tried to thump the salt off...how do you do that with raw meat??) I think that's much more plausable than the mixing story. I bet Fox News just got confused. Anyway, if anyone was arrested, it should have been the supervisor. It seems like the cop was just jumping the gun, though.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ha. Jumping the gun. I just think there are real criminals he could go after instead of some woman working in McDs not making enough money to skin a flea.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Was the officer that ate the burger the same one who arrested Bull? Isn't that sort of dodgy?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I just think there are real criminals he could go after instead of some woman working in McDs not making enough money to skin a flea.
What does the amount of money she makes have to do with it?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I just think there are real criminals he could go after instead of some woman working in McDs not making enough money to skin a flea.
What does the amount of money she makes have to do with it?
Nothing, but folks at McDs usually don't make a whole lot of money. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I also worked at McDonald's back in the dark ages and can second or third what's been said about making the patties on site. I think its far more likely that Fox News mixed it up than that they were actually making hamburger patties as described.
Absolutley nothing is mixed on site at a McDonalds, or it least it wasn't back in the dark ages. Everything, including the salt and pepper mixture we sprinkled on the patties while they were on the grill came premixed and prepackaged from McDonalds head quarters. That procedure was important not only to ensure product uniformity but also to protect McDonald's recipes from competitors. If though its been ages since I worked there, I can't imagine them changing that procedure.
I also find it highly unusual that a food poisoning issue would be handled as a criminal investigation. Normally if someone reports that food make them sick, it goes to the department of health who also have labs to test food. In fact, they are very likely better equipped for food testing than a crime lab. Unlike Dag, I simply can't see a reason to send the food to a crime lab unless the initial investigation by the board of health suggested the food had been intensional tampered with.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I can't imagine them changing that procedure.
Not changing it with the knowledge of corporate HQ, anyway.
quote:Unlike Dag, I simply can't see a reason to send the food to a crime lab unless the initial investigation by the board of health suggested the food had been intensional tampered with
This is not just a case of "food x made person y sick." There is direct evidence that the server knew that the food procedures were not followed and sent the meat out anyway. That's more than most food poisoning cases.
Further, chain of evidence is very important. Crime labs have elaborate procedures to preserve this. Although I'm sure health department labs have elaborate procedures for keeping samples safe, organized, and unmixed, those don't necessarily rise to the level necessary to preserve chain of evidence. Even if they do, I wouldn't expect police officers to think they would.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Legalize aside....can anyone explain exactly how salt can make a person so sick that they need to report to a hospital? I know there are conditions that might cause a person to be on a low-sodium diet, but even in those cases I can't think of anything that would send a person to the hospital. It's not like sugar and diabetics.
Any medical people out there who can explain this to me?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote: I can't imagine them changing that procedure.
Not changing it with the knowledge of corporate HQ, anyway.
If you are at all familiar with how fast food franchises work, you would realize that it would be nearly impossible to make such a change without the knowledge of HQ. First off, It would require a significant remodeling of the kitchen to even provide space to make anything on site. It isn't like this is a decision a manager could make off hand. Second, when I worked at McDonalds there was a meticulous accounting of everything from meat patties to packages. Everything had to be accounted for. If the number of burgers sold plus the number of burgers in the trash plus the number of burgers still in inventory didn't add up, there was big trouble. Finally, to get a McDonalds franchise, you have to contract to follow the rules from HQ. Getting a franchise isn't cheap. Ten years ago, it cost over $1 million. Its very hard to imagine anyone risking that kind of investment by making their own patties rather than ordering them from headquarters. I doubt that there is even a financial advantage since the cost of labor involved could hardly compete with the machines pumping out burgers at HQ.
While its not impossible that it could have happened the way it was reported by FOX, it seems far more probable that FOX News didn't get the facts straight. Its hardly like FOX News screwing up the facts is an unusual occurance.
quote:
quote:Unlike Dag, I simply can't see a reason to send the food to a crime lab unless the initial investigation by the board of health suggested the food had been intensional tampered with
This is not just a case of "food x made person y sick." There is direct evidence that the server knew that the food procedures were not followed and sent the meat out anyway. That's more than most food poisoning cases.
Further, chain of evidence is very important. Crime labs have elaborate procedures to preserve this. Although I'm sure health department labs have elaborate procedures for keeping samples safe, organized, and unmixed, those don't necessarily rise to the level necessary to preserve chain of evidence. Even if they do, I wouldn't expect police officers to think they would.
I'm pretty sure that police officers work routinely with the Board of Health in handling complaints about contaminated food. I trust Maui Babe when she says that there would normally be a much more extensive investigation before anyone was arrested.
Correct me if I'm wrong Dag, but unless there is a threat of flight or a suspect poses an immediate danger, it is far more common for police to wait until an investigation is complete before issuing an arrest. At least that is the standard procedure in this area. There have been a number of high profile cases here where car drivers have killed or seriously injured bicyclist and pedestrians and police have taken 6 months or longer to make charges and arrests. This is even though the driver's in question were immediately identified.
In this case, the arrest was made before the victim had received medical help, the burger had been analyzed or the security tapes had been reviewed. What outstanding characteristics are there which would warrant an arrest before such an investigation?
I'm quite confident that if you or I had eaten that burger rather than a police officer no arrest would have been made at least until the alleged crime had been properly investigated.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Legalize aside....can anyone explain exactly how salt can make a person so sick that they need to report to a hospital? I know there are conditions that might cause a person to be on a low-sodium diet, but even in those cases I can't think of anything that would send a person to the hospital. It's not like sugar and diabetics.
In huge amounts, salt can kill any cells it comes into contact with by "sucking" all the water out of them through osmosis, but at that level I'd expect the burger to taste absolutely horrible.
Edit: I did a little Googling on salt toxicity. According to "The Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances" the toxic level for humans is listed as 12,357 mg/kg. Figure an average adult male at around 85 kg, that would mean 1,050 grams, or 2 1/3 lbs of salt would be necessary to reach "toxic" levels.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Legalize aside....can anyone explain exactly how salt can make a person so sick that they need to report to a hospital? I know there are conditions that might cause a person to be on a low-sodium diet, but even in those cases I can't think of anything that would send a person to the hospital. It's not like sugar and diabetics.
Any medical people out there who can explain this to me?
An overdose of Sodium Chloride can cause high blood pressure, migraines, fluid retention, nausia, vomiting, mental confusing and even coma.
Of course, to get the more severe symptoms would require an extemely large amount of salt. Based on the Materials Safety Data Sheet for Sodium Chloride (common table salt), the LD50 for a 165 lb man would be about half a pound (~1 cup) of salt.
While some of the more minor symptoms like high blood pressure or migraines might be caused by an over salted hamburger, I find it hard to imagine that one could put enough salt on a burger to cause more serious problems.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Legalize aside....can anyone explain exactly how salt can make a person so sick that they need to report to a hospital? I know there are conditions that might cause a person to be on a low-sodium diet, but even in those cases I can't think of anything that would send a person to the hospital. It's not like sugar and diabetics.
In huge amounts, salt can kill any cells it comes into contact with by "sucking" all the water out of them through osmosis, but at that level I'd expect the burger to taste absolutely horrible.
Edit: I did a little Googling on salt toxicity. According to "The Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances" the toxic level for humans is listed as 12,357 mg/kg. Figure an average adult male at around 85 kg, that would mean 1,050 grams, or 2 1/3 lbs of salt would be necessary to reach "toxic" levels.
So, if he was eating a quarter pounder then in order to be toxic, there had to have been almost 10 times more salt than meat. That's about what I figured.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you are at all familiar with how fast food franchises work, you would realize that it would be nearly impossible to make such a change without the knowledge of HQ. First off, It would require a significant remodeling of the kitchen to even provide space to make anything on site.
I've seen too many scams to think that someone might not try to scam either the parent corporation or the franchise owner by selling the burgers out the back while serving bad meat. Hence my comment.
I don't know that is what happened here, and my original commentary isn't based on the mixing article. I'm not postulating that this was done here. I'm merely not going to assume it wasn't because it's not policy.
In fact, I expressed surprise that anyone was mixing meat on-site at McDonald's and asked for confirmation of my surprise.
quote:I'm pretty sure that police officers work routinely with the Board of Health in handling complaints about contaminated food. I trust Maui Babe when she says that there would normally be a much more extensive investigation before anyone was arrested.
I'm pretty sure they do, to. But I also think that a case where someone has admitted adding the substance that is believed to have caused the problem is different than most food poisoning cases.
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong Dag, but unless there is a threat of flight or a suspect poses an immediate danger, it is far more common for police to wait until an investigation is complete before issuing an arrest. At least that is the standard procedure in this area. There have been a number of high profile cases here where car drivers have killed or seriously injured bicyclist and pedestrians and police have taken 6 months or longer to make charges and arrests. This is even though the driver's in question were immediately identified.
In this case, the arrest was made before the victim had received medical help, the burger had been analyzed or the security tapes had been reviewed. What outstanding characteristics are there which would warrant an arrest before such an investigation?
I've already said I haven't commented on the propriety of the arrest.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It does seem weird that the officer who claimed the meat made him sick was (if I'm reading the article that started this right) the same one who made the arrest. If the discomfort suffered was so minor that he remained on duty, sending this off to a lab seems excessive.
But I'll admit I've never worked on that side of law enforcement. Or fast food, for that matter.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: edit to add: it isn't a particularly interesting story, Noemon. Civil disobedience effort to get people to realize that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. Sigh. Don't you wish they had paid attention?
Well, it's not a debauched tale of drugs and sex or an action-packed story of a brawl that put dozens in a hospital, but as reasons to get arrested go, I think that's pretty cool. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Considering that I shared a cell with a 73 year old Sister of Providence*, the sex and drugs were somewhat limited.
*a truly inspiring woman - and not her first time in jail.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Legalize aside....can anyone explain exactly how salt can make a person so sick that they need to report to a hospital? I know there are conditions that might cause a person to be on a low-sodium diet, but even in those cases I can't think of anything that would send a person to the hospital. It's not like sugar and diabetics.
To a person with heart failure, it is exactly like sugar and diabetics, or worse. My father is a Type I diabetic and also has a bad heart (congestive heart failure seven years ago followed by a quadruple bypass, and angioplasty three or four years ago) and the salt has a much more dramatic effect on him than the sugar does.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I know two people who have to calculate exactly how much salt they eat every day (my advisor and my grandma). My advisor has heart problems and I don't know exactly what is wrong with my grandma. But I know they are meticulous in how much salt they eat. If they used the nutritional information and it was substantionally different from reality, that could have a bad effect.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Swallowing a spoonful of salt is an old-fashioned (although not currently recommended or safe) emetic -- it can make you vomit in relatively small quantities. An otherwise fairly healthy adult [i.e., no heart disease] had become comatose [and then died] after swallowing 3-4 tablespoonsful at once***, and the aforementioned use as an emetic has been fatal in some published cases in the literature.
I will find the articles if it would make an actual difference to someone's assessment of the case. Currently I can find citations but not online texts (and this routine usage of salt is so outdated that the published cases -- as far as I can tell -- predate electronically registered abstracts).
Of note, though, is that these people voluntarily had swallowed sufficient table salt to make themselves vomit and/or put themselves in a coma. It can't have been pleasant, but it was feasible. I have no problem believing that a police officer took a big gulping bite and automatically swallowed it, only registering afterward how salty it was -- and then, perhaps, threw up. I also have no problem believing that an officer might reasonably ask "hey, what's going on with the burger you gave me?;" be told it was if not intentional, at least known and permitted deliberately; and then wish to start a chain of evidence as Dagonnee suggested.
---
Edited to add links (unfortunately, no full text):
quote:Emetics for acute poisoning -- treatment or hazard? [from the British Medical Journal, 1977]
Sodium chloride used to be recommended as an emetic by many authorities, perhaps because it was readily available. Opionions have changed, however, and the current view has been summarized succinctly in the statement (3): "Salt may be an occasionally successful emetic. It is a reliable poison."
---
I haven't checked the rationale for the poisonous doses as cited by previous posters, but both seem far outside the clinical amount it would take to cause serious medical problems in many people.
There are clear records of coma after rapid ingestion of 3-4 heaping tablespoonsful. Please do not assume that one is safe from harmful effects unless someone consumes much more than this, and please -- please! -- do not use salt to induce vomiting (as in the case of trying to vomit after having ingested something poisonous, or for other reasons). As noted above, a good spoonfuls-worth of salt may well induce vomiting, but it reliably will be poisonous when ingested quickly in not terribly great amounts.
---
Edited to add: Of further note, that old article linked above still recommends Syrup of Ipecac to induce vomiting if a known poison has been ingested. This is no longer routinely recommended, so please do not do that, either!
[ September 11, 2007, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
There are clear records of coma after rapid ingestion of 3-4 heaping tablespoonsful. Please do not assume that one is safe from harmful effects unless someone consumes much more than this, and please -- please! -- do not use salt to induce vomiting (as in the case of trying to vomit after having ingested something poisonous, or for other reasons). As noted above, a good spoonfuls-worth of salt may well induce vomiting, but it reliably will be poisonous when ingested quickly in not terribly great amounts.
Thanks for the info.
To be honest, I have trouble believing that even a heaping spoonful of salt was on that burger, but that is at least possible.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We're stuck where we usually are when newspapers report on the latest outrage: with insufficient evidence to evaluate the situation fully. There's doubts about whether meat was being mixed or merely salted. There's doubts about how sick the officer was.
Does getting sick mean vomiting? I realized last night I was interpreting it that way, because that's the most common way I know of the usage "food x made me sick." But it certainly doesn't have to mean that. It could mean just nausea.
If "sick" = "vomited," then I stand by the officer submitting the hamburger to the crime lab as the right thing to do. If the crime lab is not equipped to test properly, it is perfectly equipped to get the lab expertise it needs to do so. If "sick" = "nauseated," then I'm not sure it was necessary to do that. But I don't think there's anything wrong with being over-inclusive in deciding what gets sent to the lab. So based on the story, I think it was proper - if not necessarily the best idea - to send it to the lab.
As to the arrest, there's not enough in the story to justify the arrest. If the story is complete, the arrest was improper. However, the story is almost never complete. Which is why I haven't given an opinion on the arrest. And note I'm not saying, "if there's more to the story, the arrest was proper."
BTW, the suspect's comment that the security camera would prove her story might be true, but her story being true doesn't necessarily exonerate her. What she was accused of does not require that she put the salt in the food on purpose.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: As to the arrest, there's not enough in the story to justify the arrest. If the story is complete, the arrest was improper. However, the story is almost never complete. Which is why I haven't given an opinion on the arrest. And note I'm not saying, "if there's more to the story, the arrest was proper."
Dagonee, I was thinking more about the officer*** trying to make decisions in the moment. Poisoning or attempted posioning falls under "assault," right? (I don't know if it does legally, but it does in the medical coding of diagnosis under ICD-9-CM, the International Coding of Diagnosis, 9th edition, Clinical Modification.)
Is an assault on a police officer on duty necessarily a felony?
And how much leeway do officers have with regards to detaining or arresting someone suspected of a felony? I mean, I know it may seem to be silly afterwards in some individual cases, but I was wondering if a law enforcement officer has requirements of duty in such a case, at least until whether the situation is made clear, or whether there is a greater element of discretion.
Isn't there something about "misprison"? (My knowledge of the law is very skimpy, and my memory even skimpier! )*** ***
---
***When I see police officers getting food at a restaurant or coffee shop, I don't think I've ever seen them alone. Sometimes as a pair, but often as three or four. Now that I think about it, I assumed officer usually were paired with a partner on beats, and I assume that getting together on break was something one might do with others on service (kind of how the local streetcleaners get together at a certain Tim Horton's every morning). But I don't know much about this [police, that is] culture.
---
Christine, it does seem unlikely, doesn't it? I am only working with guesswork about what might be. However, the old remedy (as explained to me by my mother, a nurse, some 30 years ago -- so a recollection not to be relied on without a, er, grain of salt ) was a spoonful of salt in a small glass of warm water, since I suppose it's hard to swallow straight salt. I don't know if most people had to swallow the entire glass (and so the equivalent of the entire spoonful, but somewhat diluted), or if only a few swallows might do it.
I'm not going to experiment. *grin
But that reminds me offhand of a girl in my high school health class who tasted a drop of ipecac on her finger and promptly had the expected effect. It had been passed 'round by our teacher so we could see what the bottle looked like. I suppose that teacher would be in a fine pickle these days.
[and of course, it would surely take more than a "taste" of salt -- how much, I'm not sure, and I wasn't trying to draw an analogy on that (just to clarify in case of confusion)] -----
*** *** Edited to add: Wikipedia on misprison of a felony (surely a citable source in court!) has it as still a serious offense in the US, but that it seems (from my read) to apply to civilians required to report "to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States." I take it that a LEO would be a civil authority. I wonder if there is a similar requirement for the next step up, though?
[ September 11, 2007, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, I was thinking more about the officer*** trying to make decisions in the moment. Poisoning or attempted posioning falls under "assault," right? (I don't know if it does legally, but it does in the medical coding of diagnosis under ICD-9-CM, the International Coding of Diagnosis, 9th edition, Clinical Modification.)
Is an assault on a police officer on duty necessarily a felony?
Assault would require intent. Assaulting a police officer will upgrade assault to a felony automatically in most (all?) states, however, in most states, knowledge of the officer's status would be required for that upgrade to happen.
Here, there's no evidence that she knew he was an officer (based on the story), so the automatic upgrade to felony wouldn't happen. As to assault, there's likely not the requisite intent (based on the story, again) to cause harm. Rather, the allegation is that she ignored a known danger. In some states, if this causes harm, it can amount to assault. In other states, it can't. In those states, reckless endangerment is charged instead.
The reason I think the arrest is improper is that the element of risk isn't really established without the testing.
Although, if the harm happens, I guess there's probable cause that the risk was present. Since she admitted knowing the circumstances that gave rise to the risk, there's probable cause that knowledge of the risk existed. So maybe "improper" was too strong a word.
quote:And how much leeway do officers have with regards to detaining or arresting someone suspected of a felony? I mean, I know it may seem to be silly afterwards in some individual cases, but I was wondering if a law enforcement officer has requirements of duty in such a case, at least until whether the situation is made clear, or whether there is a greater element of discretion.
I'm not sure what the law is on officers ignoring felonies. And I know that some police departments allow issuing of summons even for felonies. Also, officers can obtain an arrest warrant before arresting, even though they are not required to for felonies (when arresting outside the home). So I'm pretty sure that, even were this a felony, there were ways of proceeding without arresting right away.
In Virginia, an officer with knowledge giving rise to probable cause that a felony has been committed may issue a summons, present the evidence to a magistrate to obtain a summons or arrest warrant, or arrest the suspect (outside the home).
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That's really helpful. Thanks.
I am glad we have lawyers, and I'm extra-glad I know a couple. *grin
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)