3-year-old Victoria Wilcher, who is recovering from a severe pit bull attack in April, was allegedly asked to leave a Jackson, Mississippi KFC because her face was scaring customers.

Her family was outraged by the alleged incident at the KFC and took to Facebook to share their mistreatment.

While Victoria was visiting her grandfather's mobile home in Simpson County, Mississippi, three pit bulls burst into the home and mauled Victoria, covering her body with injuries head to toe. Victoria's grandfather, Donald Mullins, fatally shot two of the dogs, WAPT reports. Mullins and his girlfriend, Rita Tompkins, were later arrested on child endangerment charges.

According to a post on her Facebook recovery page, Victoria lost her right eye in the attack and sustained a broken upper and lower jaw, a broken nose, and smashed cheekbones. She also lost the ability to move the right side of her face.

KFC is now investigating the incident. A spokesperson said Sunday that the company is also giving $30,000 toward Victoria Wilcher's medical bills.
Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/14...r=Business
--------------------------------------------------------

If this went down the way Victoria's family claims, whomever made the call to ask her to leave the KFC is a huge asshole and should be in some deep shit, if he/she still works there.

I think the $30k donation is very generous and a good PR move on the part of KFC.

KFC would be willing to throw 30k at anyone in a case that would violate discrimination laws... if such laws are on the books in Mississippi. Specifically state that public business shall not be refused on grounds of disability, along with race, religion, and all that good stuff.

On the other hand, children are annoying. Maybe KFC just tries to kick out every kid under 20.

Mississippi businesses can refuse service to anyone of their choice, AFAIK -- discrimination laws favor businesses heavily in the state.

But, KFC is a franchise and I imagine its franchise owner contracts have some provisions in relation to customer service policies across states.

I agree with you that it looks like discrimination (and that's what the family is calling it, too), and it reflects poorly on the brand, no matter where it happened.

Hard for me to imagine any owner, manager or employee asking a family to leave based only on the little girl's appearance/injuries. Then again, there are assholes at every turn.

This is why I hate people and corporations some times.

(06-16-2014, 11:43 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Mississippi businesses can refuse service to anyone of their choice, AFAIK -- discrimination laws favor businesses heavily in the state.

But, KFC is a franchise and I imagine its franchise owner contracts have some provisions in relation to customer service policies across states.

I agree with you that it looks like discrimination (and that's what the family is calling it), and it reflects poorly on the brand, no matter where it happened.

Hard for me to imagine any owner, manager or employee asking a family to leave based only on the little girl's appearance/injuries. Then again, there are assholes at every turn.

KFC would/should be to blame if they (franchise) did not train their store "managers" in the art of common decency. Apparently, they didn't.
Forget about the laws, common sense (in this case "none") should have prevailed and been exercised. Anybody who didn't like her looks, should not have kept looking!

I bet there is more to this than meets the eye. Something smells fishy.

Someone told me about this story this morning. KFC addressed it, I'm thinking if there were more to it they would have said so at the time, although they did say they were investigating so maybe something more will come out. I read that her appearance was making the other patrons uncomfortable.

The other patrons should have left then. $30k isn't nearly enough for being so cruel.

I'd prefer it if the money could come from the person who said it rather than the owner.

(06-16-2014, 01:52 PM)Duchess Wrote:

I'd prefer it if the money could come from the person who said it rather than the owner.

Agreed.

(06-16-2014, 01:45 PM)ramseycat Wrote: The other patrons should have left then. $30k isn't nearly enough for being so cruel.

I can't imagine they walked up to a three year old girl and asked her to leave. The parents probably were, and the parents don't need 30 grand or more for being offended. Let's not forget, these parents are ultimately responsible that their child got mauled by 3 pit bulls. KFC didn't scar the girl, and it's exceedingly unlikely that she'd even remember it. The parents and child will, however, have to deal with similar situations in the future.

The other customers and the employees were jerks for not being more understanding... but to an extent I understand their position just as well.

(06-16-2014, 11:31 PM)Cutz Wrote: Let's not forget, these parents are ultimately responsible that their child got mauled by 3 pit bulls.

How are the parents responsible for the actions of 3 dogs? They didn't throw the child into a pit bull pen. According to the original attack story, the dogs broke through a door at the child's grandfathers house. The grandfather and his girlfriend were charged with child endangerment.

http://www.wapt.com/news/girl-4-attacked...d=19157229

Depends on what sort of door it was, Screen Door? Wood Door?
The question becomes: Did the grandparents take adequate precautions to ensure the safety of the child from any reasonable interpretation of danger?
Apparently not, 3 dogs were able to get through the door and drag the child into the yard.
Dogs are pack animals deep in their DNA, in a pack (more than one dog) there will be pack behavior. Doesn't matter in the slightest if they ate poodles or pit bulls. The dogs will hunt, defend their territory, fight and kill as a pack.
This poor little kid was probably just talking to the dogs through the screen door and the other dogs attacked in order to establish their rank above her. They don't give a damn if she was not a dog, she is there so she had some relevance to the pack.

The grand parents should have known this as should all dog owners

(06-17-2014, 08:25 AM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: The grand parents should have known this as should all dog owners

which is probably why the grandfather and his girlfriend were charged with child endangerment.

My post, however, was questioning Cutz statement that the parents are ultimately responsible.

When the dog we adopted from the shelter bit my grandson a couple of months ago, I didn't blame his parents for letting him come visit us, I blamed myself for not knowing what kind of temperament the dog had before allowing my grandson near him.

(06-16-2014, 11:31 PM)Cutz Wrote: . . . and the parents don't need 30 grand or more for being offended.

The parents and child will, however, have to deal with similar situations in the future.

Maybe not . . . but 30K will go a long way to reconstruct this child's face, rehab and counseling.

If the kid was Black, the payout would have been tripled.

And then I'd be listening to Sharpton for the next three effin' weeks.

Not to mention the forced sale of the KFC franchise.

(06-17-2014, 09:05 AM)cannongal Wrote: which is probably why the grandfather and his girlfriend were charged with child endangerment.
My post, however, was questioning Cutz statement that the parents are ultimately responsible.
When the dog we adopted from the shelter bit my grandson a couple of months ago, I didn't blame his parents for letting him come visit us, I blamed myself for not knowing what kind of temperament the dog had before allowing my grandson near him.

The parents are responsible. You may blame yourself for letting your grandson get bit... but you weren't charged with a crime for endangering your grandchild either... I'm assuming. The fact that those grandparents were shows a lack of care on their part and a lack of judgement on the parents part for leaving the girl with them.
Also, whether or not you blame yourself for your grandson getting bit, his parents will first and foremost blame themselves for putting him in that situation. Objectively, responsibility can be shifted around from the child, the parents, you, the dog, the previous owners of the dog, the shelter, lots of people... but when it comes to caring for a child, parents ultimately foot the bill. Fair or not, that's how it is.

Sometimes it's hard to be objective.

(06-17-2014, 12:03 PM)Cutz Wrote: The parents are responsible. ... but when it comes to caring for a child, parents ultimately foot the bill. Fair or not, that's how it is.

Truly, you don't believe that if parents send a child to school and that child is molested by a janitor, the parents are ultimately responsible . . . do you?

Hypothetical: Father and child are driving in a car and they are struck by a drunk driver. Both father and child are killed. Is the mother, who stayed at home, responsible for the death of her child?

(06-17-2014, 11:17 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(06-17-2014, 12:03 PM)Cutz Wrote: The parents are responsible. ... but when it comes to caring for a child, parents ultimately foot the bill. Fair or not, that's how it is.

Truly, you don't believe that if parents send a child to school and that child is molested by a janitor, the parents are ultimately responsible . . . do you?

Hypothetical: Father and child are driving in a car and they are struck by a drunk driver. Both father and child are killed. Is the mother, who stayed at home, responsible for the death of her child?

Is the janitor a registered sex offender that the parents could have known about if they'd looked at the area's list of offenders? Did the mother cheat on the father, causing him to storm off with the child when he found out at 2am (more drunk drivers are on the road)?

I not trying to say that parents are to blame for every bad thing that happens in the world. Sometimes parents do a great job protecting their kids and unavoidable danger occurs. What I am saying is that parents are the first line of defense and most would blame themselves. Even in my own life, I've had bad shit happen and thought, "man, if only I'd left for work an hour earlier, this random thing wouldn't have happened."

The details will always be the devil for any hypothetical. Even in this real world example, we don't have them all. What I do know is that the girl was at her grandfather's home with 10 pit bulls. The grandfather and girlfriend were charged with a crime. That shows to me a lack of judgement on the parents part for entrusting their daughter to his care.

Either way, my point was that KFC donated 30 grand for offending someone. I went to Taco Bell last night and the clerk was rude... I don't expect a check even if I go on facebook and tell all my friends about it. The staff of that KFC were extremely insensitive... but I'm assuming that other customers did actually complain... so really they're just trying to do their job. I can see both sides of the situation.

(06-18-2014, 10:31 AM)Cutz Wrote: Is the janitor a registered sex offender that the parents could have known about if they'd looked at the area's list of offenders? Did the mother cheat on the father, causing him to storm off with the child when he found out at 2am (more drunk drivers are on the road)?

The details will always be the devil for any hypothetical.

What I do know is that the girl was at her grandfather's home with 10 pit bulls.

That shows to me a lack of judgement on the parents part for entrusting their daughter to his care.

"The details will always be the devil for any hypothetical."

Accept the hypothetical at face value -or- after adding your own "damning" details . . . what is extremely eery to me is you never condemn the perpetrators of the crime for their actions. Not once!

Why is that?

I agree pit bulls, especially a "pack" of ten, should raise a red-flag.

However, what "you know" is hardly sufficient to characterize the parents as having "a lack of judgment".

Was this the first time the girl was around dogs?

Did any of the pit bulls have a history of aggressive behavior?

What actually prompted the attack?

How inbred was the trailer trash who owned the dogs?

Here's something I know: A little girl was maimed. A little girl lost her eye. A little girl will, most likely, carry the physical and emotional scars of this horrific event for a very long time.

Regardless of her parents judgment, she alone, bears the lion's share of pain and suffering.

And maybe . . . when she's older . . . the continuing haunting question of: "What if I had only . . . ?".