60 Days for McDonalds Freakout

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 06:47:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This security camera video of 25 year old Melodi Dushane freaking out at the drive-up window of McDonalds because they were only serving breakfast and not McNuggets at 6:30 a.m., is hilarious. It also cost Dushane 60 days in jail and $1,500 in restitution to McDonalds.

The encounter begins normally, and around 1:10 in, the freakout begins. She escalates from berating the employee, to forcing the window open and trying to climb in, to bashing the employee. She then gets back in her car, only to get out and go back up to the window, smashing it with a bottle.

A few seconds after she finally leaves, another car drives up, and the employee, not missing a beat and still holding something to her bruised head, calmly hands over the order. I bet Jet Blue would like to hire someone with her work ethic.

Steven Slater, hero. Melodi? Misfit.

< Text of Sen. Michael Bennet's Primary Night Victory Speech | McInnis Loses, Maes and Tancredo to Face Hickenlooper for Gov >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

60 Days for McDonalds Freakout | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Really? (none / 0) (#1)
by NealB on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:18:22 AM EST

That woman was either off her meds; or on her meds. Clearly she was drugged, or inadequately drugged. Gibbs would be interested.

Granted, she was off her clock. She believed everything they told her on TV that she could have whatever she wanted 24 hours a day. I blame the TV if she couldn't get a breakfast selection after 10:30 am, or a lunch selection before. I've been pissed off about such things myself.

I'll still vote for the lame-butt Democrats this fall. But pity the poor woman who drove through the drive-thru. Like that guy on the airplane who just didn't give a good gol darn, she'd reached her limit.

They had the guts. What's wrong with the rest of us?

Invalid Comparison (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by canuck eh on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:25:50 AM EST

This lady should not be compared to Steve 'working class hero' Slater; it takes no guts to assault someone who is in a subservient position to you.

She's more like the ignorant passenger that set Steve off in the first place


60 days is harsh... (none / 0) (#2)
by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:35:29 AM EST

but I wouldn't look at McDonald's lady as some kinda hero...beating on some poor fast food worker like that, shameful...it is like everybody has got "kick the dog" syndrome or something. Yeah...I've been an unhappy customer when I'm 5 minutes late for a Sausage McMuffin, but the poor schmuck working the window didn't set McDonald's corporate policy...I'll shake my fist at the heavens, not at the wage slave.

Slater, otoh, is the man...he didn't take no sh*t, non-violently. And he slid down the emergency chute with two cold ones! I'm still smitten.


Classic case of shoot the messenger... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:16:19 AM EST

Shooting the Messenger? (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:03:34 AM EST

What do you think should happen to the woman?


Not 60 days but 60 nights (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Cream City on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:34:46 AM EST

of working the late shift at that McDonald's drive-through window, with the pay going to the workers she hit, while they get a 60-day paid leave?

And advertise just which nights this woman is working, and where, so that the neighborhood can have fun driving up to spew insanely complicated orders from the day-shift menu through the insanely incomprehensible microphone technologies in drive-throughs.

Oh, and she only can discharge this sentence by first enrolling in the College of Hamburgerology, with the requirement of A work at minimum.

How's that for starters? I haz more ideaz. . . .


: Yes (none / 0) (#24)
by squeaky on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:46:20 AM EST

Although, I was curious about ppj's comment, because he is usually very harsh on crime. This reversal, if that is what it is, is odd.
Must be something in the wingnut press that I am missing.

Are you daft? (none / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:25:54 PM EST

Oh well, the Stalker must have something to comment on...

The comment was to Kdog.

The messenger is the clerk.

The message is from MacDonald's.

The woman is "shooting the messenger" who is telling her MacDonald's message.

Gesh.


: Dementia Setting In? (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:30:03 PM EST

I thought I was the Smearer... but I guess you either need to flatter yourself or you are once again off your senility meds.

I think she deserves the 60 days for... (none / 0) (#5)
by vml68 on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:26:45 AM EST

...

beating on some poor fast food worker like that, shameful

She should be ashamed... (none / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:38:44 AM EST

but 60 days in a cage is a long time for a lil' drive-thru donnybrook and busting a window...short probation stint or a day or two community service is a better fit, imo.

If youtube infamy isn't punishment enough:)

Slater facing a potential 7 years just gives me naseau...damn the law is f*cked up.


Seven years? (none / 0) (#9)
by Untold Story on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:47:47 AM EST

For what? Can't be seven years, he didn't harm anyone - took a couple of beer and a different exit - walking off his job shouldn't be criminal, and we do have freedom of speech - so what would possibly give him seven years?


I doubt he will serve a day... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:59:37 AM EST

but the charges they arrested him for carry a possible penalty of up to 7 years in prison...reckless endangerment, criminal mischief, and trespassing...I don't understand it either friend. Its the game John Law plays to scare the accused into pleading to lesser and rack up a conviction.


You beat me, Dog! (none / 0) (#12)
by Zorba on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:02:09 AM EST

By a few seconds. I think the charges are garbage, and I hate the "pile it on so they'll plead" BS.


: You were more exact... (none / 0) (#16)
by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:08:41 AM EST

I forgot these bullsh*t crimes even come in degrees...I feel worse!

The charges are (none / 0) (#11)
by Zorba on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:00:14 AM EST

first and second degree reckless endangerment, second and fourth degree criminal mischief and third degree criminal trespass.

Seems a bit excessive. Who did he endanger, really, except himself? "Criminal mischief"? What the heck does that mean? And trespassing? He works for an airline, how is he trespassing? It would seem to me that this is a matter between his employer and him, not the courts.


: Excessive an't the word... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:06:39 AM EST

It's unreal.
I too had a hard time even imagining what "criminal mischief" is...I think it's one of those one size fits all made up crimes, for when the authorities feel the need to charge somebody with something but can't figure out what.

"Facing 7 years" only in a ... (none / 0) (#14)
by Peter G on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:07:09 AM EST

theoretical sense. That's the sum of the maximum possible sentences for the two charges now lodged against him. No way any prosecutor would pursue that, or any judge impose anything like it. (Reciting cumulative maximums when a person is arrested is a common form of journalistic disinformation in the coverage of criminal cases.) More likely a deferred prosecution of some kind. He was released on $2500 bond, which is an indication what the "system" is taking a restrained view of the situation. The passenger who refused to sit down before the plane arrived at the gate, and insisted on taking her luggage out of the overhead before it was safe to do so, and then cursed Slater out as her luggage landed on his head (too bad it wasn't her head), could (and might) be charged with the federal offense of interfering with a flight crew -- a [potentially] 20-year felony.


Is it not true?... (none / 0) (#17)
by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:11:21 AM EST

If John Law decided to have a field day, and a judge and jury agreed, it is possible he could get 7 years, ain't that right Peter?

Can it be fairly called "disinformation" when that is the law as written, even though in practice it never happens? I kinda appreciate knowing just how draconian our maximums are.


I do feel it is disinformation (none / 0) (#18)
by Peter G on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:25:24 AM EST

when the press reports only theoretical cumulative maximums, and never says that statutory maximums are available, in the judge's discretion, for use in the worst-imaginable cases that fall within that statute and are therefore rarely imposed, and almost never consecutively ... and that 85% of the first offenders (or whatever the number is in that jurisdiction) are put on deferred-pros programs that result in no criminal record, if prosecution is not declined outright by the DA's office upon review of the arrest report ... or that if prosecution is pursued charges may be reduced (or raised), and that of those who are actually eventually prosecuted and convicted (mostly on guilty pleas) 55% (or whatever) are placed on probation ... or that the average sentences imposed for these offenses are measured in months ... or anything else contextual. Then the information would be "true." But yes, the statement in the press is literally "true" -- although totally misleading. Understand, I'm not apologizing for this system -- we have way, way too many people in jail serving sentences both long and short, and we prosecute too many people to start with. I'm just advocating press coverage that serves public education rather than sensationalism.


: Thanks Peter... (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:48:56 AM EST

always appreciate your expertise, I gotcha.
I guess I'm pipe-dreaming that reporting of the worst case cumulative max will be a wake-up call that "tough on crime" went off the deep end...but in reality people are savvy enough to know how the crime and punishment game is played, and pay no mind when the papers drop the worst possible case scary sentences.

I'm surprised it's only 60 days (none / 0) (#15)
by Cream City on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:07:22 AM EST

considering that she hit two fast-food workers.

In my town, a fast-food worker at a drive-through window pulled a Slater and spewed sour cream all over a driver, as well as some choice words. That worker got a bigger penalty than this woman is getting.

And I learned to avoid that drive-through -- and all others. It often turns out to not be serving fast food, anyway, which was the reason for the altercation in my town. Told to pull off to the side and wait for the "fast" food order, the driver would not budge. I empathized with that, as I have been told the same at that "fast" food spot and at McDonald's drive-throughs, have pulled off to the side, and have been forgotten. . . .


This is too funny! (none / 0) (#6)
by Untold Story on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:38:23 AM EST

Do you think she was merely inspecting glass standards used by McDonalds?

Slater, otoh, enjoyed his beer on the way down the slide - no comparison.

(Wish he had waited and sued the rude passenger for injury)

No no no... (none / 0) (#8)
by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:44:14 AM EST

our society is sue happy enough...the case of the working class hero should be closed...no criminal charges, no lawsuits imo. Obviously he was not seriously hurt, just a bump to the head...I'd lose respect for him if he sued.

Let's just enjoy this one without ruining it...and that goes double for the DA! Drop all charges!


Have you seen the size of bags (none / 0) (#21)
by Untold Story on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:04:05 AM EST

stuffed into overhead bins?

Never safe in an aisle seat - always go window - most flights today have two or three passengers tugging to get bags out while taxing with a hint of a 'sorry' when someone actually gets bumped or it is a near-miss.

This may make the airline tighten up on that safety rule.


: I hear ya... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:20:58 AM EST

flying sucks in pretty much every way...I can't get on a plane without a spliff the size of my forearm pre-flight, and maybe some valium if it's a long flight...and despite all that it still ain't no fun, just makes it bearable.
The should pump nitrous oxide into the cabin or something to keep everybody from killing each other...I don't know.