T customer service agent fired after beating up customer

[nitpick]The T does not serve customers, it serves passengers[/nitpick]

While I cannot honestly and in good conscience condone the amount of force used by the T employee, I fully support her efforts to defend herself against the assailant's assault. That's right, Mr. Wilkerson was clearly the assailant in this case, and he is guilty of assault and public intoxication. Receiving poor directions is no justification for shoving a camera in anyone's face. Right there you are guilty of assault and any form of self defense within the confines of the law (as in you obviously can't fire a rocket launcher at the guy) is fair game. I can't say that I'd put out that opinion as an employer however. I also certainly wouldn't fire the employee on the spot either. There is certainly a due process being skipped here, a full and thorough investigation should be conducted prior to any personnel action taken.

If I were the employee I'd press charges on the intoxicated assaulter, then go after my job back (although if I were the employee, I'm not sure I would have used the same amount of force).

"customer service agent" is the official job title, I believe.

I don't see how taking a photo of someone is "assault".

That guy is an ASSSSSSSS, get a life. Your mamma should slap you. Who the fuck cares if someone gave you bad directions, not the first time its happened to anyone. Buy a GPS next time if you dont like the T employees. I have never shoved a camera in their faces and never gone back because they gave me bad directions, oh wait... I am from here so I dont need them..lol

"Looking from the tape it looked as though he may have been a bit aggressive putting the cell phone camera, as I understand it, almost in the employee's face. In civility, I wouldn't say that's a way to civilly conduct yourself, but the reaction of the employee was far too aggressive and again, nothing we will tolerate at the MBTA," said MBTA GM Richard Davey.

I agree 100% with the GM. The guy was being a jerk, but she shouldn't have done anything physical to the guy. As for the "lawsuit," though, the guy needs to shove it. He was provoking the employee and should be happy that she was fired. He got his 15 minutes of fame for his little sob story.

Ron Newman wrote:"customer service agent" is the official job title, I believe.

The nitpick was not directed at you, it was directed at the T referring to riders as "customers." Calling the passengers customers gives them a false sense of entitlement.

Ron Newman wrote:I don't see how taking a photo of someone is "assault".

You don't need to see how, stick a camera in a cop's face and let me know how that goes for you.

Assault: A threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact.

You put any object in the immediate vicinity of another persons face, especially with violent motion and belligerence, you will make that person feel threatened and are therefore assaulting the person. If Mr. Wilkerson voluntarily came in contact with the employee at some point, which cannot be determined by the video shown, then he is also guilty of battery.

the nitpick was not directed at you, it was directed at the T referring to riders as "customers." Calling the passengers customers gives them a false sense of entitlement.

By dictionary look up a "Customer" is a person who purchases goods or services from another; buyer; patron.

If the person purchases a fare for them to ride a MBTA mode of transportation they are receiving a service, so why wouldn't they be considered a customer?

A partial payment on a subsidized fair is not a purchase, but offset of loss

If I buy a service from a company or organization, I'm their customer -- whether that company is the MBTA or Delta Air Lines or NStar or Comcast.

I really can't believe people are defending the T employee here. I know it's normal to defend those who are your "side" in these types of debates, but I don't see any other conclusion than she completely overreacted.

Sure, the guy taking the photo was probably an ass and was likely drunk, but come on. You can't start beating on the riders for just being rude (even if you really, really want to).

The definition of "customer" is completely irrelevant. Are those of you arguing that he wasn't a customer taking the position that T employees can beat up non-customers?

CRail wrote: Assault: A threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact.

You put any object in the immediate vicinity of another persons face, especially with violent motion and belligerence, you will make that person feel threatened and are therefore assaulting the person. If Mr. Wilkerson voluntarily came in contact with the employee at some point, which cannot be determined by the video shown, then he is also guilty of battery.

She still overreacted and is likely guilty of battery. Her actions go way beyond any reasonable claim of self defense. "He assaulted me first" is NOT a legal defense to battery.

I can't speak to the present case, I'll leave it to the lawyers to sort out, but
I feel for anyone who serves "the public" all day. I couldn't do it. The Public is an idiot.

Even if she could claim self defense, the guy can claim excessive force.

It really is hard to tell at this point who was the aggressor. I learned a long time ago that photos and especially videos lie. It's usually what they don't show that makes an impression, and that can be manipulated, either by chance or by editing. By the way, the crime of assault ("simple assault") is not usually charged in Massachusetts courts. It's actually an attempt to commit a battery. However obnoxious he might have been, if he went to photograph her only (and not intentionally attempt to strike her with the camera) there would be no crime at that point. Drunkeness is not a crime also. (It might even help his cause - "Diminished Capacity") From what I saw on the news, it clearly showed her kicking at him. Barring any counter attack not seen, had she connected without right to do so, she would have committed a felony- Assault and Battery to wit a Dangerous Weapon (Shod Foot), punishable by imprisonment in State's Prison. Here's a question for you which should answer the question of "was the phone used as a weapon ?" I don't know the answer to this as I don't own a camera phone (Is that what was alleged to have been used ?) Here's the question - Generally, how close do you have to be to a person with a cell phone in order to take a clear image of their face ? (The reason I say face is that that would be the closest distance whereas a head/torso shot would probably be further away.) If other views show that camera right up to her face, I believe that that would indicate that an Assault or an Assault & Battery by means of a Dangerous Weapon had taken place with the CSA as victim. If it's a distance away (especially if he's looking at a viewfinder) - no crime there.

Public intoxication is a misdemeanor. Disorderly conduct is a criminal offense. It all depends on how you swing it (kind of like how a police officer can say that you were "belligerent" if you argue with him)