 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Who didn't see this coming.... Lawsuits begin Family members and relatives of man killed by scumbags on Black Friday at Wal-Mart are suing.... everybody.
Currently the list of targets are of course Wal-Mart... and include the firm that provides security patrols for the retail mall it's in.... The company that owns the retail park.... The County... The police department.
The death was sickening and tragic... but now the rush for Cash is on. It's like the new American way to hit the lottery. Sue.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
1 edit | I still say every one of those shoppers who was there and rushed in should be charged with negligent homicide and inciting a riot. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Nightshade:I still say every one of those shoppers who was there and rushed in should be charged with negligent homicide and inciting a riot. The shoppers are the ones who should be sued.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by KrK:The shoppers are the ones who should be sued. Sure. But that doesn't mean WalMart is without guilt. It knows that it's creating an unruly mob environment when it offers a limited number of items at a fraction of their actual wholesale cost.
This is just like "Festival Seating" at concerts. Musical groups like this form of anarchy because it helps fire up their most passionate fans, creating a "mood" that helps fire up others.
The retail chains do the same thing with these "first 20" low-priced "doors open early" sales. They're using the most motivated customers to create the "mood" that they hope will get other customers motivated.
So, just like festival-seating events, you'd think the retail chain would have a greater responsibility to provide extra security for crowd control. They know what they're creating, and what it can lead to. And, it's a financial interest causing them to create the environment.
Mark |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| I still don't buy the argument that having a limited number of deep bargins on sale for a limited time automatically means "Unruly Mob Environment". Crowds of bargain hunters, sure, but I don't necessarily think that just because an event like this is held = automatic liability for crowd action.
I guess it's an example of the sad state of the nation that a crowd of people should automatically be assumed to be a mob and dangerous.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by KrK:I still don't buy the argument that having a limited number of deep bargins on sale for a limited time automatically means "Unruly Mob Environment". Then you apparently haven't been to many. I've seen women knock children out of the way. People snatch things out of the hands of others.
I don't know anyone who would call it an "orderly environment."
Mark |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Yes, I understand what happens, but it's more a case of very bad behavior/lack of manners on the part of the people.
In other words, blaming the store I think is another example of not placing the blame on the people actually guilty of wrong-doing.
I remember the PS3 and Wii launches here in town. Again, large numbers of people, long waits (day/overnight) yet the "mob" was largely very orderly and friendly----- and 90% of the people there didn't get one.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by KrK:Yes, I understand what happens, but it's more a case of very bad behavior/lack of manners on the part of the people. In other words, blaming the store ... I agree. People have bad manners. But, it's a question of what a reasonable person should/would do when 1) they know individuals don't behave well, and 2) they intend to hold an event that is intended to play upon passions likely to evoke those bad behaviors?
The simple question is: If the retail chain wanted orderly behavior, they would hold a lottery for the 5 Playstations (@ $20 each). They don't want orderly. They want their most "motivated" customers to create a "mood" that contributes to the sense of an "event" on Black Friday. This is designed to help motivate others. It enhances the advertising.
It's the same thing with "Festival Seating" concert events. Everyone knows they are unruly. That's why stadiums provide extra security compared to assigned-seating events. It's also why musicians wouldn't book concerts in Cincinnati after festival seating was banned in the late '70s. Musicians (or their agents) like it when their most passionate fans are encouraged to express their "passion" (rushing/fighting) to get the best seats. It helps create passion for the other fans.
It's that interest in the disorderly, impassioned mood which creates a higher level of responsibility upon the musician or retail chain that creates it.
The more unusual the event, and how the event is designed to incite disorder, and how that disorder is desired by the event holder translates into greater responsibility/liability to the event holder.
Like I said, if Walmart didn't want the spectacle of disorderly buyers, they could have held a lottery. It's obvious they didn't do that because they want the Black Friday "scene."
Mark |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Well you could always set up automatic Gun Turrets but then people's families would still sue if the turrets opened up on the attacking mobs.
It would look good on video though.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by KrK:Well you could always set up automatic Gun Turrets but then ... Going from one nonsensical position to another doesn't seem constructive.
For most people, employing security commensurate with the risk you're creating is just common sense. If you're going to hold an event designed to create chaos, it's your responsibility to provide security to ensure it doesn't get too ugly. Even more when you have a profit interest in chaos to augment your advertising and sense of holding an "event."
To me, with our prevalence of personal-injury lawsuits I can't imagine why a retail chain would want to create this kind of "attractive nuisance" on their property. It's begging for lawsuits.
I think they could accomplish the goal of attracting customers, and creating the sense of an "event" if they held a lottery to sell those limited-supply items. But, you have to be present to win. Print the coupon in the newspaper. Coupons deposited at the front door. Receive an ink stamp on your hand showing you deposited a coupon (so you can't stuff the ballot box). Winners announced at 6am.
Maybe announce winners of different items throughout the day.
Mark |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by amigo_boy:Going from one nonsensical position to another doesn't seem constructive. Neither does assuming everyone else's position is nonsense. The point being, you could do everything under the sun and people will still blame you rather then the guilty party. It's like being between a rock and a hard place.
Let's see what they did do.
Extra staff;
Extra Security;
Consulted police, Police presence.
Didn't change the outcome. Now you're saying well they should have done more or done something different. Yeah, perhaps, but hindsight is 20/20. I think saying they are automatically liable just for having the sale however is a bit of stretch... although I'm sure some get rich quick juries would agree with you... Unfortunately, and then the rest of us pay for it.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by KrK:I think saying they are automatically liable just for having the sale however is a bit of stretch. That's still nonsense. I have a swimming pool. I could choose not to put a fence around it using your same reasoning that "it wouldn't matter what I do, someone can still get to the pool if they really want to."
Fence laws (and rural areas without municipal codes) are based upon the concept of "attractive nuisance." You have a responsibility to understand the outcome of conditions you create (a pool will attract kids, etc.). It's not that your remedial actions have to be "perfect." Just what a reasonable person would be expected to do. (In the case of pools, five-foot high fences and locked gates reduces your liability for negligence considerably. It's considered common sense.).
Whether Walmart took "reasonable" steps will be a matter for a jury to decide. For example, where was security when the crowd was massed at the door (the focal point of the crowd)?
But, just ignoring their increased level of liability (and risk of negligence if things didn't turn out well) is incorrect. The fact that they have a profit motive increases their responsibility (or, the appearance that they had a motive to skimp on security.).
Mark |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by amigo_boy:It's not that your remedial actions have to be "perfect." Just what a reasonable person would be expected to do. Congratulations. You just stated my point.
Extra staff.
Extra security.
Consulting police, bringing some officers.
Reasonable, normal precautions. Obviously, wasn't perfect.
reduces your liability for negligence considerably. It's considered common sense. Yep. Sounds like Wal-mart took those steps.
In today's society, you can take reasonable steps and still be held responsible, however, because it's easier and more profitable then going after the *actual* guilty parties.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by KrK:In today's society, you can take reasonable steps and still be held responsible, It's all about what the definition of "reasonable" is. That's defined by a jury of your peers.
The fact that Walmart had extra staff, extra security and police officers on site doesn't automatically mean they acted without negligence (as you seem to imply).
The fact that they took these steps actually indicates that they understood the risks, making the fact that things didn't turn out well even worse for Walmart (that they underestimated the dangerousness of the condition they created).
The obvious question is: Where was security when the crowd's focus was on the door, making that location the most dangerous place to be? (My guess is that when security and the police are questioned, they'll say they wouldn't put themselves between the crowd and the door because it was dangerous.).
If Walmart deployed security throughout the store (when there were no shoppers inside yet). Or, deployed police to keep the shoppers in a single line that stretched around the block, there's a reasonable argument that Walmart was negligent by failing to provide security at the focal point (the door).
It's a lose/lose proposition because the more dangerous/risky your actions, the more responsibility you incur for negligence. To the point that if anything goes wrong, you were automatically negligent for having created the dangerous/risky event to begin with.
Consider the dance club fires. The fact that a dance club has fire extinguishers doesn't mean they're immune from liability when they let an act light off pyrotechnics in a closed building.
Grocery stores are liable for slip-and-fall injuries. They usually have a lawyer at the hospital (with a settlement check) within the hour. It's just insane for retail chains to hold these kinds of events that are guaranteed to create a more dangerous environment than the potential for a bottle of mayonnaise to fall on the floor.
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to KrK
Krk, remember, you're talking about this kind of environment:
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bhp1ElO4···=related
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeSgBL7g···=related
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehSkxg7w···=related
It's unbelievable to me that retailers willfully create this kind of environment when a broken bottle of mayonaise (slip-and-fall injury) can result in a claim of negligence.
Mark |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | That's my point. That's not what the retailers want. They expect people to behave in a lawful, civilized manner. Sure they want excitement, some rushing, etc but they don't want mob violence or criminal acts like looting or rioting.
I feel that just because the retailers create a crowd of shoppers doesn't mean they know that a raging mob will be the end result.
Another case in point. This incident was tragic and violent--- however how many crowds of shoppers all across America remained orderly and peaceful this Black Friday? Sure, we hear about the bad ones--- but that means that hundreds or thousands of others went off smoothly. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by KrK:That's my point. That's not what the retailers want. They expect people to behave in a lawful, civilized manner. Sure they want excitement, some rushing, etc but they don't want mob violence or criminal acts like looting or rioting. If that were true, they'd hold a lottery. They hold these events because they want excitement. And, it's their responsibility to ensure the excitement *they* are generating doesn't get out of hand.
said by KrK:I feel that just because the retailers create a crowd of shoppers doesn't mean they know that a raging mob will be the end result. It's a matter of degrees, not absolutes. These events create an environment as mild as women knocking children out of their way, to shoppers grabbing things out of other people's hands, to shoppers threatening each other, to trampling.
It seems like you're depicting it as usually calm and orderly, and infrequently a mob riot. That's not true. It's nearly always disorderly (to varying degrees).
That's exactly what you'd expect when you create an event intended to attract 500 people to buy only 20 items at below factory cost. It's like shouting "fire" in a theater. There's no way the retailer can claim they thought the crowd would act in a courteous and orderly manner. If the retailer thought that, she wouldn't have hired extra security and had police on hand.
Mark |
|
