Topeka, KS — If a disgruntled fast food employee put mustard in the drink of a person they did not like, they would be fired and the person who got the drink would likely have very minimal civil recourse. However, if the person who had the mustard in their drink is a police officer — the offending fast food worker can and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, or further; as is the case in Topeka.
Jonathan Gill, a 26-year-old McDonald’s employee was fired last week after he put mustard in a Topeka Police Officer’s drink as well as a Kansas Highway Patrol Troopers. His termination is certainly warranted. However, days after he was fired, a pro-cop Facebook page posted an image the officer took of the mustard in his drink and the outrage began.
The Facebook group Kansas GOING BLUE posted the photo the Sunday before last saying “a McDonald’s here in Kansas just served a Law Enforcement Officer on duty a Dr. Pepper with Mustard in a drive thru order. This is extremely unacceptable!!”
No one here is arguing that what Gill did was right or just. However, the subsequent reaction by police after this photo went viral is over the top.
For putting mustard in a soda, Gill was arrested and booked into jail on Friday. He was charged with two counts of battery against a law enforcement officer.
According to the Kansas State Law, the definition of Battery is as follows:
(1) Knowingly or recklessly causing bodily harm to another person; or
(2) knowingly causing physical contact with another person when done in a rude, insulting or angry manner;
Gill putting mustard in a soda hardly constitutes knowingly causing bodily harm and the very fact that police are attempting to charge him for this, speaks volumes.
Had Gill known that the officers were allergic to mustard and maliciously put the condiment in their drinks to deliberately hurt them, this would be a different story. However, it is clear that this is not the case.
What this case illustrates is the special treatment of law enforcement and their ability to use the law to retaliate against those who would mock or prank them. Mustard is a food. It is not a poison or bodily fluid that could actually cause harm, as it is meant to be eaten.
Again, Gill was not justified in putting mustard in someone’s drink. But, does he really deserve two counts of battery against a law enforcement officer?
Also, could a citizen expect these charges against someone who put mustard in their drink? If a citizen went to a police department or called 9-1-1 to report mustard in their drink they would most likely be met with laughter or ridicule. They might even be charged with abuse of an emergency hotline.
The special treatment of police in America has been coming to a head, and this is one more example of it. In states across the U.S., legislators are proposing and passing Blue Lives Matter laws to give police the status of protected class.
Per the ridiculously unnecessary Blue Lives Matter legislation, the voluntarily undertaken occupations of police officer, emergency responder, and firefighter are protected against hate crimes the way historically persecuted categories like race, gender, creed, religion, and sexual orientation have been — making crimes specifically targeting cops hate crimes with enhanced penalties in the eyes of the law.
In Louisiana, a homeless man was the first to be charged under the state’s Blue Live Matter law. For being drunk, pounding on a window, calling a female officer “a dumb c__t” and another officer “a dumb n____r,” police charged Raul Delatoba with “simple criminal damage to property, disturbing the peace, and a felony-level hate crime.”
It seems police in Kansas are also attempting to set an example for the masses — cross us and we will flex our blue privilege to bury you.