According to Florida Sheriff Grady Judd, a violent altercation broke out at a McDonald’s in Polk County, resulting in a worker shooting a customer in the neck. The incident, described as a ‘McMess,’ occurred after two customers, Nicholas Jones and Peter Story, pulled into the drive-thru to place an order. The store worker, Yoan Soto, politely informed the customers that the store was overwhelmed with online orders and couldn’t take their order. The two men allegedly threatened Soto with violence and a mass shooting, escalating the situation to a dangerous confrontation inside the restaurant. Soto, who had a right to self-defense, fired a shot that injured Story in the neck, according to Sheriff Judd.
The sheriff explained that the altercation began when the two customers became frustrated with the store’s inability to accommodate their order, leading to a conflict. Soto allegedly told the men that he couldn’t take their order because the manager had instructed him to prioritize online orders. The customers then threatened Soto and the manager, suggesting they would attack them. The manager stepped in to mediate, but the situation escalated further when the customers threatened a mass shooting with firearms. Soto, who had a gun, responded by threatening the men with it in the main part of the store. When the customers attempted to grab his gun, Soto fired, wounding Story in the neck. Judd emphasized that S, the store’s manager, was present and tried to prevent further escalation by stepping between the three men.
Judd noted that the customers were trespassing and told them to leave, but they claimed only law enforcement could declare them trespassing, which the sheriff clarified was not the case. Jones then drove Story to the hospital and called the police. Soto fled the scene but was later apprehended and charged with felony tampering with evidence. Story and Jones were charged with trespass after warning and disorderly conduct. The sheriff described the incident as a chaotic and dangerous confrontation, highlighting the need for calm and lawful behavior. He also reiterated that individuals have the right to protect themselves when there is a well-founded fear of violence, but threatening such actions can lead to severe consequences. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the potential for violence even in everyday situations, especially when threats are involved.
Despite the violent nature of the altercation, Judd expressed relief that the injury was minor and noted that the incident underscored the importance of de-escalation and adherence to the law. The sheriff’s comments reflect the broader community’s concern about the escalation of ordinary conflicts into life-threatening situations and the need for public safety measures. The case also highlights the legal complexities surrounding self-defense, trespassing, and the use of firearms in public spaces. As the investigation continues, the community is left to grapple with the implications of such an incident and the need for improved conflict resolution strategies in public settings.