I think he's well within reason. If you were assaulted by a cashier at McDonald's, would you just ignore it and continue on? I'm pretty sure I would try and get the perpetrators fired and possibly charged, and have the company pay for any damages to my property.
I agree, he is well within reason to get a lawyer and sue the pants off of McDonald's in civil court if his case is accurate as he describes it.
He's not asking for that though. What he basically wants is a public apology and for McDonald's to FIX his glasses. This is laughable.
Notice how all aspects of this story point to how awesome his glasses are: "they help with a medical condition", "having them fixed is more important than money", "they saved photos of a crime, even after they were broken"...
"I also contacted the Embassy, Consulate, Police, etc., without much luck."
He said he already tried getting law enforcement involved.
Maybe he plans to use lawyers as a last ditch effort, if his internet plea doesn't work? I would think it's a bit extreme to involve them first before trying to just settle things with McDonalds directly.
The useless pedant in me is thinking that the difference is:
1) pay for damages: provide monetary compensation for materials, labor, etc to have the experimental device replaced or restored to working order
2) fix his glasses: McDonalds takes the glasses, performs all operations in house at a corporate location, and return the device in working order.
The rest of me rejects the pedant, saying the effects of both are the same, therefore they are effectively the same statement, which I am pretty sure is reasonable and the intended meaning of those "discrepancies". :)
If you ask for that first, and don't get it, it also adds more bite to a suit later.
The infamous hot coffee MacDonalds case involved a woman who had first asked MacDonalds (or that franchise, not sure) to pay her medical bills (around 20 grand iirc for extensive second and third degree burns) and they refused. It was only after that when she sued, got a list of other complaints about the temperature and won a large judgement (reduced on appeal).
According to the HBO documentary "Hot Coffee," which is excellent, by the way, even after she sued she didn't request damages beyond medical costs, rather they were awarded by the jury.
You are completely misreading him, as far as I can tell.
He says:
I'm not seeking to be awarded money. I just want my Glass fixed, and it would also be nice if McDonald's would see fit to support vision research.
Which means in any sane interpretation to be that he wants McDonalds to pay for whatever it costs to repair or replace his property, but he is not seeking punitive damages for the assault, he just wants his glasses fixed. And he thinks it would be nice if McDonalds made a gesture of donating something to vision research, to show they are actually sorry.
