I'm missing the logic here...

There's an ongoing bit of "sensational" news about a KFC employee beating up a customer.

The facts, as I have heard them, are that the KFC outlet ran out of chicken for its customers (who had already bought coupons, which were about to expire), and one customer complained and wanted to see the manager. Somehow all this ended with an employee hitting the customer.

What happened in between, we don't really know...

But what strikes me about all this is that a lot of people are talking about boycotting KFC. This seems to me, rather irrelevant to the issue at hand.

One person beats up another. The first person happens to be in the service industry, so his employer sacks him. Why should the employer be blamed for what the employee did? You try to employ good workers, but you don't know what they will do when they are provoked.

Okay, so maybe the employer should pay damages, medical fees, etc. (which would probably be deducted from the salary of the employee) But this talk about boycotting a whole company for something its employee did sounds ridiculous to me. What's the reasoning behind it? Maybe someone can enlighten me... (if we boycott the company for defending the employee's actions, I'd understand...)

Well, for now KFC is is investigating the issue...most probably to cater to the public eye, to salvage its reputation. I don't blame them...I guess they have no other choice.