Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TorchTheWitch

(11,065 posts)
90. she didn't say exactly, and that makes the threat WORSE
Sun May 19, 2013, 08:56 PM
May 2013

But there was no doubt whatsoever it was a threat. Any statement that starts out with "you/they better hope..." is a threat. There's no denying that. Frankly, her NOT explicitly stating what she would do leaves it up to the imagination of who she delivered the threat to as to what she intended, which could certainly be a lot worse than whatever it was that she was actually intending. Isn't that obvious considering so many people here made the assumption that she would somehow sabotage their food or drink in some way? She may have only been intending slow or belligerent service and may have even intended nothing at all, but by NOT saying what she would do the threat could easily be interpreted as far worse... as witnessed right here since many interpreted her statement to mean that she would sabotage their food or drink.

Statements that begin with "you better hope" are INTENDED to threaten someone specifically by NOT saying what their bad intentions are and leaving it up to the imagination of who it's delivered to so they need to worry about how bad the intention is, what it could be, and if it's a real threat or just a boast. People automatically assume the worst when threatened. Why would they not? A sense of self-preservation is ingrained in everyone, so we all consciously or unconsciously attempt to protect ourselves by assuming the worst and preparing for it. If someone said to you "you better hope I never come across you again" you would automatically assume the worst including the possibility of bodily harm or even death when the person who delivered the threat could very likely not really be intending any such thing and might actually have only said it as a boast. The point being you DON'T know what they really mean, and through an automatic sense of self-preservation would either consciously or unconsciously assume the worst in order to be prepared and thus protect yourself. The more you don't actually know the person delivering the threat the worse the imagination takes you since you have virtually nothing to go by to determine what the person means. Are they a sociopathic nut capable of anything? Have they done atrocious things to others they felt slighted by in the past? The more you don't know the person, the more you have to wonder - and WOULD wonder - what they might be capable of.

Seriously, if were a doctor and this woman had an irrational hatred of doctors and you saw her threatening message would you still want to toss the dice and eat at the establishment where she works wondering if you would get stuck with her as your server and what she might do to you? Would you feel comfortable eating or drinking anything she served you or wonder if she had spit in your food or drink or even worse? Of course you wouldn't. And who would? Who would cheerfully go out to eat at a restaurant where they knew there was a server they might get stuck with who had an irrational hatred of you and who threatened some unidentified consequences to you if you had the bad luck to have her as your server? Nobody would do that including you. You and anyone else would simply go somewhere else to enjoy a meal or a drink so they didn't have to worry about this irrational waitress that threatened unidentified consequences if she served you.

All that said why on EARTH would her employer NOT fire her? What employer would put up with an employee that threatened their customers or potential customers especially because of an irrational hatred of them and so publicly? Of COURSE she would get sacked, and of COURSE she deserved to be. There doesn't need to BE any explicit threat, and her not making it explicit makes people automatically assume the worst.

So, she made a post suggesting that she would contaminate an order from a cop. Nye Bevan May 2013 #1
Yep. Wait Wut May 2013 #4
absolutely appropriate - that kind of threat should be dealt with by an employer DrDan May 2013 #28
Yep. I'd expect the same response whether it was aimed at cops, nuns, frat boys, petronius May 2013 #35
No, she did not do anything of the kind. Occulus May 2013 #41
Oh, Please. I believe most regular people would read it as a threat to mess with their food. dballance May 2013 #51
She didn't say anything specific about food, either. Not one word. Occulus May 2013 #79
Well Yes. You're right. I do want to find the most fault possible. Therein lies the rube & UR FAIL. dballance May 2013 #88
She indicated that their dining experience would be deliberately unsatisfactory Orrex May 2013 #68
No, she didn't do that, either Occulus May 2013 #80
I doubt that any reasonable person would interpret it as you claim Orrex May 2013 #85
Absolutely. AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #78
Seems a bit disingenuous Major Nikon May 2013 #92
I read her comment as saying "I will provide these policemen with poor service." MADem May 2013 #52
I hope she wasn't fired for insulting cops tblue May 2013 #54
I don't argue with the restaurant for firing her. You don't say "I will do a bad job when it comes MADem May 2013 #55
So to what degree can a boss regulate a person's personal opinions? Deep13 May 2013 #2
The boss did not regulate her opinion ...... oldhippie May 2013 #5
That's the stupidest thing I have ever read. Deep13 May 2013 #8
Would you keep someone working in your deli if he said he'd do a criminal act there? Honeycombe8 May 2013 #10
The waitress never implied a criminal act, and never implied contamination Occulus May 2013 #42
At minimum, she implied she wouldn't do her job. Which was really stupid on her part. PeaceNikki May 2013 #67
"Why don't you smoke some refers and relax, Mr. Hippie. You voted for Nixon, didn't you?" tkmorris May 2013 #12
Does she not still have ...... oldhippie May 2013 #30
"She's lucky she wasn't prosecuted for a terroristic threat." Th1onein May 2013 #76
Yeah, I was .... oldhippie May 2013 #77
I have a little more respect for First Amendment Rights..... Th1onein May 2013 #91
The bad thing about Facebook is it gives a voice to people you wish would shut up. Initech May 2013 #3
Yeah but it allows the stupid to expose themselves... Pelican May 2013 #19
So very true, but... Inkfreak May 2013 #66
Oh, she was the potty training woman. No wonder she hated cops CBGLuthier May 2013 #6
The thing is, she was victim of one idiot cop treestar May 2013 #73
I think her firing was justified since this is job related bayareamike May 2013 #7
Very true, and there have been countless cases of this happening over the past 5 years or so davidpdx May 2013 #24
Even without social media, alp227 May 2013 #74
Well that would be secondhand knowledge davidpdx May 2013 #84
She wasn't fired for statement re the officer. She was fired for saying she'd do something criminal Honeycombe8 May 2013 #9
She didn't mention any criminal act Art_from_Ark May 2013 #11
It's inferred. Even if intentionally not doing her job properly...cause for termination. nt Honeycombe8 May 2013 #13
It is not inferred. Occulus May 2013 #43
Give it up, dude. You lost. Chick got fired, for cause. nt Honeycombe8 May 2013 #75
"Chick?" Occulus May 2013 #81
She just said she would not do the job she was paid to do joeglow3 May 2013 #18
And now someone else gets a job SoCalDem May 2013 #31
I agree that she showed a serious lapse in judgment Art_from_Ark May 2013 #33
It doesn't matter what she implied TorchTheWitch May 2013 #47
What threat, exactly, did she make? Occulus May 2013 #82
she didn't say exactly, and that makes the threat WORSE TorchTheWitch May 2013 #90
...giving her boss justification to fire her burnodo May 2013 #64
Pretty bold to say you're going to poison some cops. MrSlayer May 2013 #14
It was an implicit threat gollygee May 2013 #15
Intelligence is not a requirement for a facebook account. nt. NCTraveler May 2013 #16
Isn't that the truth! davidpdx May 2013 #22
As a chef who'd like to open his own place I feel really torn on thia Arcanetrance May 2013 #17
She strongly implied that she would spit in cops' food if she was their waitress, Nye Bevan May 2013 #23
Because I hate that she lost her job and all that. It's a fight between the rebellious Fuck Arcanetrance May 2013 #26
She did not strongly imply any such thing. Occulus May 2013 #44
Most DUers in this thread interpreted that comment as suggesting she would adulterate cops' orders. Nye Bevan May 2013 #50
Maybe it would be better if that weren't possible. Occulus May 2013 #83
You're Right. My first though was "Well she's going to mess with their food." dballance May 2013 #53
She did no such thing. burnodo May 2013 #65
Which is still a valid reason to fire her (nt) Nye Bevan May 2013 #69
Not disputing that at all burnodo May 2013 #70
Facebook is NOT your diary! Seeking Serenity May 2013 #20
+1000 bunnies May 2013 #21
She deserved to be fired. HappyMe May 2013 #25
Help I'm being oppressed! alphafemale May 2013 #61
Reason No. 1 I never signed up on Facebook or Myspace. nt Poll_Blind May 2013 #27
Her mistake was that she dragged her workplace into her comment. Quantess May 2013 #29
Read it again. Occulus May 2013 #45
Couple a points Half-Century Man May 2013 #32
Another point- why do we accept that saying something in ANY place not on company property, Occulus May 2013 #46
Logical outcome of a person's choice of behavior or comments. DoctorObvious May 2013 #34
Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin May 2013 #36
Looking forward to some nice conversations with interesting folks DoctorObvious May 2013 #38
Welcome to DU-- have fun. panader0 May 2013 #37
Thanks! DoctorObvious May 2013 #40
Exactly TorchTheWitch May 2013 #48
Having worked in service, I don't think joking about sabotaging orders is ok. Ash_F May 2013 #39
Saying that can indeed be bad for business nt Shankapotomus May 2013 #49
The Internet! defacto7 May 2013 #56
These types of posts are really misleading. Apophis May 2013 #57
It's called the "HOSPITALITY" Industry and she was hired as a SERVER. Not a critic or blogger. dballance May 2013 #58
i was prepared to take her side, but she deserved to get fired and i feel no sympathy for her JI7 May 2013 #59
Try this simple substitution game. "Nig_ers better hope I'm not their server. Fuck Nig_ers." alphafemale May 2013 #60
FaceBook is a self-incrimination service Cronus Protagonist May 2013 #62
I agree etherealtruth May 2013 #89
It seems like she wasn't fired for calling cops "stupid" but for threatening to do something Raine May 2013 #63
I honestly wanted to be outraged by her firing etherealtruth May 2013 #71
I just read upthread that she might have implied a promise of super-duper service Orrex May 2013 #86
In an alternate universe all is possible etherealtruth May 2013 #87
fuck da police datasuspect May 2013 #72
I have no problem with the actions of the restaurant geomon666 May 2013 #93
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Chili's Waitress Fired Ov...»Reply #90