Slashdot Mirror
McDonald's Denies Prof's Claim Staff Attacked Him For Wearing Digital Glasses
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "In an update to a story posted on Slashdot earlier this week, McDonald's has responded to the claims of Steve Mann, a University of Toronto professor and augmented reality pioneer who says McDonald's staff in Paris assaulted him tried to pull off a computer eyepiece he's worn for decades, then threw him out of the restaurant. McDonald's confirms that Mann was ejected from the premises, but denies that there was a 'physical altercation' with staff or that they destroyed any of his property. That last claim is especially dubious, since Mann has posted photos taken from his eyepiece that show McDonald's staff ripping up a doctor's note that he showed them to explain his need to wear the device. The company still hasn't explained why Mann was removed from the restaurant, but Mann has speculated that it has a policy against recording."
So, that's it? That's your evidence? "They were tearing up a piece of paper, therefore they must have been tearing up the guy's doctor's note, therefore they also assaulted the guy."
For a criminal conviction, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. That means they have to prove *everything*. In particular, that means that you cannot start by assuming that anything that the alleged victim says is true.
Try putting your hatred for McDonalds or love for this "MIT professor" aside for a moment. Imagine that the roles were reversed: a McDonalds member of staff posts a story about being assaulted and claims it was this professor doing it. He writes a "report" and posts a picture of the professor e.g. wiping his nose with a red handkerchief as evidence of a fight. How would that make you feel?