quote:

Originally posted by Angel:
MJ I dont know if it was all planned out or not,but if it wasnt,,
I have a hard time believing that someone who is 18 and also a adult woman who is well past 40 can be that naive as to follow instructions from a voice over the phone.If they were that naive, then the both of them need to be in padded cells for the rest of their lives. And no I am not being mean, but if they are that naive,lockèm up !!Take the 6 mill and the 1.1 mil to pay for their care.

I don't think it is as patently absurd as many people seem to think it is. The caller started off with the relatively innocuous request that the girl's socks be removed and turned inside out. The caller supposedly describes her to a 'T'. The caller had pulled off this hoax at dozens of fast food restaurants previously. Lastly, the act complying with the request to remove her socks meant that the manager had already bought into caller's alleged authority and made later questioning highly unlikely.

One social psychology experiment that may help to explain the manager's compliance with the caller's request would be the Milgram experiment. You can find more information on the Milgram experiment below.

Milgram experiment

But 3 1/2 hours later, no one was still questioning this caller's request??? C'mon...even the mentally challenged guy knew right away that something wasn't right about this fiasco.

As I previously stated, everyone knows that sexual abuse is never okay and they went beyond, waaaay beyond, simply taking her socks and/or clothes off for a 'strip search'.

As for the Milgram experiment...this guy was on the phone for heaven's sake, but not one of them questioned the sheer stupidity of the things he was telling them to do? Puh-leeze! One might have a valid argument if he was there in person...but not on the phone giving orders.

In regard to other people falling for the hoax, that just goes to show you that it's as I have always said, "Common sense does not run rampant in this Country". However, there were other places of businesses (not just McDonalds) that he tried the hoax on and they hung up on him as the hoax caller that he was.

And for people using the defense that McDonald's didn't tell them about the hoax. Maybe, maybe not, BUT they DID tell them all about their policy on strip searches in their handbook. They obviously didn't read it, THEN blame McDonald's for its lack of prevention when they didn't read McDonald's policy presented to them from the get-go.

Take responsibility for your own actions/inactions before you start pointing the finger!

And it was on the news prior to this incident about these hoaxes. What's to say these folks didn't hear it as well and concoct this up to get money?

As for the boyfriend, I think he started out innocent enough in it, but once he saw her naked, well men are sight animals, you figure the rest out. Did the caller really tell the boyfriend to perform sexual acts on him? Or, did the boyfriend take it into his own hands at that point cause he was excited about what was going on? We'll never know.