I can sum up an retort to everyone's statements towards my views on this matter:

 

 

 

Flagrant Sensationalism.

 

 

 

We aren't hearing the whole story, we are only hearing enough to sway us to one side of the argument. Like Mercifull, Bubsa, and I say, there is more to this story than meets the eye.

 

 

 

But everyone is too much "LOL! AMERICA!" to read between the lines.

good job to the people we sent this to the CRIME LAB.

 

 

 

No, i think they should bring in CSI, thats not enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....idiots -.-

good job to the people we sent this to the CRIME LAB.

 

 

 

No, i think they should bring in CSI, thats not enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....idiots -.-

 

 

 

Crime lab technician: Yep, it's definitely salt........uh........I guess we're done here.

good job to the people we sent this to the CRIME LAB.

 

 

 

No, i think they should bring in CSI, thats not enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....idiots -.-

 

 

 

the point of sending it to the crime lab was to test if it was enough salt to actually get him sick

good job to the people we sent this to the CRIME LAB.

 

 

 

No, i think they should bring in CSI, thats not enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....idiots -.-

 

 

 

Crime lab technician: Yep, it's definitely salt........uh........I guess we're done here.

 

 

 

Lol,

 

 

 

And riku ur a nub.

 

 

 

Thats like sending a bowl of pasta to the crime lab to check how mcuh meat was put...its not that hard to see if ther was alot...

 

 

 

"oh look at this exactly 137 pieces of salts have been put on this burger " - Scientist David

I can sum up an retort to everyone's statements towards my views on this matter:

 

 

 

Flagrant Sensationalism.

 

 

 

We aren't hearing the whole story, we are only hearing enough to sway us to one side of the argument. Like Mercifull, Bubsa, and I say, there is more to this story than meets the eye.

 

 

 

But everyone is too much "LOL! AMERICA!" to read between the lines.

 

 

 

Maybe resist to arrest? Or disrespect to an officer? But those are about as far as charges can/will go, and that's a night in jail until the situation gets cleared up. This is most likely abuse of power cases, which happen often [see jimmy justice on youtube for hypocritical traffic cops].

 

 

 

Cops have been known to make mistakes. For instance, take a true story video I saw on [bleep]e tv; a cop orders food from fast food restaurant, and 'thinks' he gives the woman at the drive thru a 20. It just so happens that he doesn't [which is proved later]. The cop insists he handed her a 20, and the drive through woman says he didnt [she wasn't being disrespectful either]. So the cop comes in, she resists arrest by telling him to hold on a second [she doesn't use physical force], but the cop still pushes her down roughly and yells, and she gets bruised and taken to jail. Just so happens that the manager, the video camera, the cash register, and the woman's pockets all prove that the man gave her a 10. She sues and wins 60k or something.

 

 

 

My point being, that cops commonly abuse their power. This is most likely just a case of a pissed-off cop who didn't get his good burger so he goes and arrests the lady.

You fail to see the point that the woman can be arrested for violation of the health code by serving tainted food.

 

 

 

This is less about the cop getting a salty burger and more about the fact that they served those burgers in the first place. I have worked in restaurants. If we accidentally taint food, we throw it away and start again. We did not take it to the customer first to make sure it was bad and then start to make something else.

Trust me, I've worked in a fast food joint, and the only reason the person would get sick is because he has a bad reaction to it. The ammount of salt put on it would not make him sick. I tell this from experience.

 

 

 

Also, yes if she did tell her supervisor, its the supervisors fault. All of it is the supervisors fault.

You fail to see the point that the woman can be arrested for violation of the health code by serving tainted food.

 

 

 

This is less about the cop getting a salty burger and more about the fact that they served those burgers in the first place. I have worked in restaurants. If we accidentally taint food, we throw it away and start again. We did not take it to the customer first to make sure it was bad and then start to make something else.

 

 

 

No, I don't fail to see your point... because I already rebutted it. She informed her supervisor as if she should throw it out or not. It is the job of the supervisor to say 'throw it out'. Yes, I realize this is an issue of common sense, but as mentioned in the article, she had a burger, and it wasn't an issue, she didn't die. If the quantity of salt in the burger was high enough to kill, chances are eating the burger would be painful and agonizing [like something you would see in fear factor]. The only health concern is if the burger was 10% salt or some crazy amount as such. I think the cop just found out and got mad and used 'health safety' as an excuse for venting.

Then she should sue the supervisor.

 

 

 

Better yet, she should have waited until he was not looking and thrown the meat away.

 

 

 

It's easy to pass the blame up the chain, but she should have done the right thing and thrown it away.

 

 

 

Regardless of how much salt was in the burger, it shouldn't have been there. It was contaminated with something that should not have been in it at that quantity.

 

 

 

Yes, the cop probably overreacted. But so would I if I knew someone had sold me contaminated food.

Wow, what is our world comming to..... A little salty meat and some one get arrested. Here is my question: If the officer was soooo sick like he said, how did he come back later that day? Not only did he complane(sp) to the manager, he took the woman and questioned her!!! He couldn't have been that sick. :shame:

Then she should sue the supervisor.

 

 

 

Better yet, she should have waited until he was not looking and thrown the meat away.

 

 

 

It's easy to pass the blame up the chain, but she should have done the right thing and thrown it away.

 

 

 

Regardless of how much salt was in the burger, it shouldn't have been there. It was contaminated with something that should not have been in it at that quantity.

 

 

 

Yes, the cop probably overreacted. But so would I if I knew someone had sold me contaminated food.

 

 

 

My argument was that the cop had no basis for arrest, by way of the salt quantity was not deadly, and the fact that there is no real basis. Therefore, I argued that the salt was not deadly and contamination was no more then a bad taste. I never said the salt didn't have a place there. I would ask for a new burger if If I was a normal human. Arrest is excessive and unnecessary in this situation.

Well, lets put it this way. Maybe she was wrong to give him the burger, but my i'd say he was wrong to blame the company the way he did. Lets face it, we've all falsely blamed a fast food place to try and get free food havn't we?

 

 

 

FTR: McDonalds have to throw food away if it's been on the floor, and for all those knocking health and safety, McDonalds is good for it, on the whole - they even have a system where they have to throw out burgers you see piled up in wrappers if they are past a certain number, and the numbers are placed there every so often. They do a lot to comply with health and safety, a lot more than some dumb tart throwing a load of salt on a burger.

 

 

 

And anyways, I bet there's a lot more salt in a bag of british chips than there was on that burger.

 

 

 

Wuss.

We don't know the facts, we don't know how much salt was placed on the burger because the article is biased against that information.

 

 

 

What could be unpleasing to the officer could be catastrophic to another person, if they had eaten it.

 

 

 

You are basing your whole argument on a sensationalist article. The article is designed to spin you towards the author's viewpoint, and you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

We don't know the facts, we don't know how much salt was placed on the burger because the article is biased against that information.

 

 

 

What could be unpleasing to the officer could be catastrophic to another person, if they had eaten it.

 

 

 

You are basing your whole argument on a sensationalist article. The article is designed to spin you towards the author's viewpoint, and you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

 

 

 

Non the less, the arrest should not of happened, and the officer could of bitten the burger, then gone back and got a new one. They would give it to him.

 

 

 

And for the record, she did the right thing by telling her manager. Thats where the manager is meant to take action. Since s/he did not, its their fault, not the worker.

You know, if the officer is telling the truth, and something in the burger did make him sick, but didn't affect the worker, then it could be a bad batch of meat, and thats why its going to a crime lab for testing. :-#

 

 

 

Still, she shouldn't be jailed, or anything, at the most a one week review of the health and safety code. :-#

We don't know the facts, we don't know how much salt was placed on the burger because the article is biased against that information.

 

 

 

What could be unpleasing to the officer could be catastrophic to another person, if they had eaten it.

 

 

 

You are basing your whole argument on a sensationalist article. The article is designed to spin you towards the author's viewpoint, and you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

 

 

 

I'm not falling for the hook, I'm following something called 'logics'. Please, just logically apply and think about this for a second... Just accept that, no matter how hard you spin it the other way [yes, your being baised also], logics and common sense are always going to slap you in the face. There is no way that burger could have possibly been deadly and somewhat edible beyond a first bite, let alone a whole burger. I fell for no sinker, I fell for logics.

Police said samples of the burger were sent to the state crime lab for tests.

the Macdonald's worker must actually be a terrorist in disguise!

I'm just glad it wasn't me!

We don't know the facts, we don't know how much salt was placed on the burger because the article is biased against that information.

 

 

 

What could be unpleasing to the officer could be catastrophic to another person, if they had eaten it.

 

 

 

You are basing your whole argument on a sensationalist article. The article is designed to spin you towards the author's viewpoint, and you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

 

 

 

I'm not falling for the hook, I'm following something called 'logics'. Please, just logically apply and think about this for a second... Just accept that, no matter how hard you spin it the other way [yes, your being baised also], logics and common sense are always going to slap you in the face. There is no way that burger could have possibly been deadly and somewhat edible beyond a first bite, let alone a whole burger. I fell for no sinker, I fell for logics.

 

 

 

For someone who is so adamant about "logics" you are certainly placing a lot of faith into imaginary evidence.

 

 

 

It's never stated how much salt was put into the meat, and the employee could have lied about eating one on her break.

 

 

 

The FDA has a legal limit for salt intake in foods, and that is most likely why the samples were sent to a lab.

 

 

 

And I am thinking about this from a logical standpoint. For one, reviewing the article for evidence, which is nonexistent.

For someone who is so adamant about "logics" you are certainly placing a lot of faith into imaginary evidence.

 

 

 

It's never stated how much salt was put into the meat, and the employee could have lied about eating one on her break.

 

 

 

The FDA has a legal limit for salt intake in foods, and that is most likely why the samples were sent to a lab.

 

 

 

And I am thinking about this from a logical standpoint. For one, reviewing the article for evidence, which is nonexistent.

 

 

 

Let's do an experiment.

 

Put a bunch of hamburger meat in a bowl [enough for multiple burgers]. Spill salt in it. Cook the Burger. Before eating it examine it for mega chunks of salt. If your burger has that much salt in it, eat it anyway [i highly doubt, by matter of common sense and logic, that the burger the cop ate contained megachunks of salt, due to the fact that he only described it as 'salty', and that it was necessary for lab work to be preformed]. See if you can get through one bite leisurely, see if you can get through multiple bites leisurely, being only minimally bothered to take more than 1 bite. If you can get through the whole burger, tell me if you die. Sound good?

 

This has nothing to do with evidence...

 

 

 

But thats just regarding a real burger. Put a load of salt on any food, even megachunks that are visible, and try to eat that food with more than 1 bite without being in agony or spitting your food out [pretend you don't know that theres salt in there]. Last time I checked, humans usually spit out excessively sour, salty, spoiled, or just generally bad tasting food.

WHAT THE F*CK.

 

 

 

She got arrested for spilling salt. What the sh*t is this world comming to??? And doesn't the crime lab have better things to do? Like solving MURDERS MAYBE???

 

 

 

+1

According to FDA and USDA rules, a food that carries the claim ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅhealthyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Hey, check it out! It's on the local news.

I don't blame the dude. If there's anything bad in the world, it is a bad-tasting hamburger. :shame:

 

 

 

Like McDonalds can get any unhealthier anyway. #-o