New York City McDonald’s Axe Attacker Released without Bail

A violent man who destroyed property and threatened customers with an axe at a New York City McDonald’s over the weekend was released Sunday without bail.

Michael Palacios, who allegedly wielded a hatchet, wrecking two tables and what appeared to be a glass wall, in the fast-food restaurant, was freed only hours after his arraignment on charges of fourth-degree criminal mischief and possession-of-weapons, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office told the New York Post.

Neither are bail-eligible offenses under the city’s new lenient bail reform laws, spearheaded by progressive prosecutors, which have created many loopholes for dangerous suspects with criminal records to be let back onto the streets. The criminal complaint filed in the case confirmed that Palacios left substantial damage at the Delancey Street location in Lower East Side, Manhattan.

Palacios claimed he only started flailing his weapon because he was assaulted. Three bystanders appeared to confront and beat him because he allegedly harassed a woman, who repeatedly rejected his advances, according to video of the incident.

“So, basically he got into an argument with a girl, and then the girl rejected him,” Uber Eats deliveryman Ruben G told the Post. “She didn’t want to talk to him. He kept going at her.”

He then took out the axe and started demolishing the room, at one point slapping a man who was sitting down in the back of the head, video shows. In an interview with ABC 7, Palacios justified his attack as a way to teach those who confronted him a lesson. “I did what I needed to do,” he said. “The most important thing is don’t be afraid to defend yourself.”

Palacios then reportedly left the scene on a bicycle, after which police apprehended and arrested him.

The manager of the Delancey street location said Monday morning that she wasn’t aware that Palacios had been let go until National Review informed her. When asked whether she was concerned for her employees’ safety, she replied, “No.”

More from National Review