Is this world just nuts????

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

So your saying that the shoppers behavior was acceptable?!?!? From the reports I have heard the shoppers unhinged the doors from the outside.

I guess it's not acceptable, but it raises the the question: whose behavior?

I assume we're going back and forth on this because one person is making a larger moral or logistical argument (?) and the other is making a legal argument. As I've said, people should probably not covet material goods as much as they do, and in a collective, said people can become a deadly weapon, but individually, I fail to see the criminal action.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by durl

So are we now to the point that we need uber-security in, say movie theaters, because everybody in there may go crazy because they didn't like the movie? Sure, I don't expect people to act like that at a movie theater, but I also don't expect them to trample a store employee in a rush to get a toy at a discount.

No, movie theaters don't swing open their doors and let 2000 people in all at once to get 1/2 price popcorn and soda plus free admission--while supplies last.

The Wal Mart people saw the crowd, they have a basic understanding of physics, they were in a position to do something about it. They didn't.

They created a very dangerous environment.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by Chip R

Both the store and the shoppers are at fault. This isn't an either/or answer. Some people in here have compared this incident to the Who concert here back in the 70s. Does that mean that Cincinnatians are horrible, horrible monsters or that it was a problem with the ticket setup and the security since nothing similar has happened there since? It doesn't excuse their actions but it's going to be a lot easier to find Wal Mart responsible than a mass of people - most of whom are unidentifiable. If they can identify someone who stomped that poor guy, prosecute the hell out of them. But that's going to be easier said than done.

I think Wal-Mart is far more culpable, certainly in a legal sense.

[durl]

Originally Posted by Chip R

How many of these incidents have we had at movie theaters?

That's secondary. If we're going to hold businesses accountable for the bizarre behavior of their patrons then the businesses will be forced to go to extreme measures to protect themselves from lawsuits.

Now if this were a late-night club in a rough part of town where drugs flow, it's safe to say that hightened security is necessary and violence is to be expected. But we're talking about shoppers looking for bargains. I don't think it's too much to expect people to act responsibly in such an environment.

Shopping is not typically considered a dangerous activity. Walmart was not encouraging people to participate in risky behavior. If someone is stuck in rush-hour traffic and decides to drive on the sidewalk, injuring pedestrians, we don't sue the maker of the stop light because they promoted a mob mentality.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by durl

Shopping is not typically considered a dangerous activity. Walmart was not encouraging people to participate in risky behavior. If someone is stuck in rush-hour traffic and decides to drive on the sidewalk, injuring pedestrians, we don't sue the maker of the stop light because they promoted a mob mentality.

The comparison is flawed for numerous reasons, but the biggest is that the guy driving on the sidewalk is breaking a clear law.

[LoganBuck]

Originally Posted by Chip R

How many of these incidents have we had at movie theaters?

Chip google "yelling fire in a movie theater"

[durl]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

The comparison is flawed for numerous reasons, but the biggest is that the guy driving on the sidewalk is breaking a clear law.

So is trampling someone to death but the law didn't stop these people from stampeding through a door. These people thought a good bargain was more important than someone standing in their way.

I'm just having a difficult time accepting the premise that stores that promote bargain shopping are creating a mob mentality that encourages violence. Again, we're not talking about people fighting for survival. We're talking about shoppers with lots of money to spend, and trying to save a few bucks. The ultimate responsibility lies with people that make decisions about how to behave in public settings.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by LoganBuck

Chip google "yelling fire in a movie theater"

Nice try but that's really not the same thing. More towards your analogy, let's say the next Lord of the Rings or Star Wars movie opens. We know people sit in line for days, weeks, months in order to either buy tickets or wait for the movie to play. When they finally let them in, how many times have we heard of ushers being trampled by the people standing in line?

No one has answered the question I have asked yet. Why was this store the only store out of all the other Wal Marts, Targets, K-Marts, Best Buys, etc. that had this problem? Bad luck? Are they above a hellmouth, as FCB said? Is that subset of the population prone to this sort of thing? Were they crackheads? Is there something in the water? Why this store and not any others?

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by durl

I'm just having a difficult time accepting the premise that stores that promote bargain shopping are creating a mob mentality that encourages violence. Again, we're not talking about people fighting for survival. We're talking about shoppers with lots of money to spend, and trying to save a few bucks. The ultimate responsibility lies with people that make decisions about how to behave in public settings.

But WHO is responsible? No one can answer the question. A crime has to have a perpetrator. I'd hate to spend my life in prison because someone behind me pushed me into a guy and I caused that man to fall down and get trampled. I wanted to go slow, but the guy behind me wouldn't let me. Should I go to prison? Should the guy behind me or the guy behind him? Who is the criminal?

The guy who drives on the sidewalk is an individual consciously or negligently breaking the law.

[AmarilloRed]

There's enough blame to go around. This store had it's doors locked before 5 A.M., so it clearly was not a 24 hour store like the one one I work at. At some point you can point the finger at the store management; a well run store does not see these things happen. The customers also should take some responsibility for what happened; there are good deals on Black Friday but nothing worth losing your life over.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

But WHO is responsible? No one can answer the question. A crime has to have a perpetrator. I'd hate to spend my life in prison because someone behind me pushed me into a guy and I caused that man to fall down and get trampled.

You just answered your own question. If someone purposly knocked someone down, pushed someone down, kicked someone they are clearly responsible.

The chance of them being identified, charged and convicted are slim and none, and slim has already left town. I get that part of your argument. You'll never be able to positivley say that guy right there pushed me and that's the only reason I stepped on the guy on the ground.

What I don't get is your assertion that once you get a large enough crowd of people everybody is automatically immune from prosecution and no longer responsible for their actions.

Sure, there's people in that group who had no intentions of pushing, shoving or kicking. Many/most were likely pushed forward in the swell and had little/no ablity to avoid pushing back or bumping into other people. But there was someone, or several someones acting like jackasses inside that mob and you know it. That's kindof why mobs develop. There's almost always a couple of instigators who get things going or keep them going.

You want us to believe that this was a group of well behaved people who just got a little anxious when the doors opened and if they wern't under the spell of that big, mean, corporate Wall-Mart they would just orderly moved into the store albiet at a faster pace.

I know you abhor assigning responsibility to people for their actions, but being inside a large group of people doesn't give you immunitiy to act any way you please.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

You just answered your own question. If someone purposly knocked someone down, pushed someone down, kicked someone they are clearly responsible.

The chance of them being identified, charged and convicted are slim and none, and slim has already left town. I get that part of your argument. You'll never be able to positivley say that guy right there pushed me and that's the only reason I stepped on the guy on the ground.

What I don't get is your assertion that once you get a large enough crowd of people everybody is automatically immune from prosecution and no longer responsible for their actions.

Sure, there's people in that group who had no intentions of pushing, shoving or kicking. Many/most were likely pushed forward in the swell and had little/no ablity to avoid pushing back or bumping into other people. But there was someone, or several someones acting like jackasses inside that mob and you know it. That's kindof why mobs develop. There's almost always a couple of instigators who get things going or keep them going.

You want us to believe that this was a group of well behaved people who just got a little anxious when the doors opened and if they wern't under the spell of that big, mean, corporate Wall-Mart they would just orderly moved into the store albiet at a faster pace.

I know you abhor assigning responsibility to people for their actions, but being inside a large group of people doesn't give you immunitiy to act any way you please.

You're doing the opposite of getting it here. This has nothing to do with some perceived slight toward Wal-Mart. Seriously. The same would go for Saks Fifth Avenue, Target, or Taco Bell--or your next door neighbor, inviting friends over to climb inside his work shed to claim one of five brand new Playstation 3's for free.

The store is liable for the environment it allows on its premises.

What's ironic is that *I'm* the one arguing for personal responsibility--the manager of this store is guilty; he ignored the environment present on his premises--he said, "My few workers can handle the rush of 2000 people." Others are arguing for something that doesn't really exist: guilty parties amid chaos. Looking to punish shoppers for doing what shoppers do doesn't seem particularly productive. Now if an individual shopper were to get inside the store and punch or knife another shopper, then we've got a very different circumstance. We have an act of volition.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

You're doing the opposite of getting it here. This has nothing to do with some perceived slight toward Wal-Mart. Seriously. The same would go for Saks Fifth Avenue, Target, or Taco Bell--or your next door neighbor, inviting friends over to climb inside his work shed to claim one of five brand new Playstation 3's for free.

The store is liable for the environment it allows on its premises.

What's ironic is that *I'm* the one arguing for personal responsibility--the manager of this store is guilty; he ignored the environment present on his premises--he said, "My few workers can handle the rush of 2000 people." Others are arguing for something that doesn't really exist: guilty parties amid chaos. Looking to punish shoppers for doing what shoppers do doesn't seem particularly productive. Now if an individual shopper were to get inside the store and punch or knife another shopper, then we've got a very different circumstance. We have an act of volition.

I take issue with two things:

1. Shoppers doing what shoppers do? Shoppers removing door hinges from the outside is shoppers doing what shoppers do?

2. The store was locked. The people weren't allowed in until a certain time. The shoppers tried to enter the store before that allowed time. How in Walmart supposed to prepare for that?

[durl]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

The store is liable for the environment it allows on its premises.

The environment created was "saving money." Hardly a reason to start pushing a crowd of people in front of a door.

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Looking to punish shoppers for doing what shoppers do doesn't seem particularly productive.

"Shoppers" shop. They don't riot. Whacked out people riot over saving a few bucks.

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Now if an individual shopper were to get inside the store and punch or knife another shopper, then we've got a very different circumstance. We have an act of volition.

This is where I have great difficulty. We treat the "mob" as a non-entity. It's not personal, therefore it cannot be held accountable or judged. But people make up the mob and people can and should be held responsible for the decisions they make. Since people want "someone" accountable, they go after the company, also an entity, but this one can be identified and sued for cash.

Walmart gave people an opportunity to shop and save money. It's the people that went too far.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by durl

The environment created was "saving money." Hardly a reason to start pushing a crowd of people in front of a door.



"Shoppers" shop. They don't riot. Whacked out people riot over saving a few bucks.



This is where I have great difficulty. We treat the "mob" as a non-entity. It's not personal, therefore it cannot be held accountable or judged. But people make up the mob and people can and should be held responsible for the decisions they make. Since people want "someone" accountable, they go after the company, also an entity, but this one can be identified and sued for cash.

Walmart gave people an opportunity to shop and save money. It's the people that went too far.

The mob is not a non-entity. It's a non-individual. Again, where were the criminal charges in The Who concert incident? There were none. The individual is not liable in a circumstance like that. Because we're not talking about individual culpability.

Wal Mart created a dangerous environment for its employees. Plain and simple. They had other methods to make it a non-dangerous environment for its employees. Check in with the managers of the other 6 trillion Wal-Mart stores where no one got hurt despite huge pushing crowds. I'm sure they have tons of advice.

As more info. comes in, it sounds like the police might have been negligent as well. Does that debunk this idiotic notion that this is some crusade against poor lil Wal-Mart? The police have a union, you know. But it sounds like they might have been negligent anyway! Shock! Stunner!!