Video of the Wal-Mart “vultures”
Resident blogger Yankees Fan claims these people are vultures (this is common among the right-wingers, blame the individual not the structure). But Wal-Mart created an environment for them to be such.
Shocking video, indeed.
December 2nd, 2008 14:55
Liberals, like scholar (i’m starting to have my doubts as to how accurate that name is) make excuses for the individual by implying some outside influence made them act in a criminal way. Sick, I know.
December 2nd, 2008 14:58
Interesting how tort lawyers agree with me:
http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2008/11/wal-mart-liability-in-stampede-death.html
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/2008/12/civil-liability.html
“The stampede at a Long Island Wal-Mart that resulted in the death of a worker yesterday was rather predictable. Every year the news cameras are out early on Thanksgiving Friday as the stores engineer crowds to come in to their stores for “door buster” bargains.
The stampedes result from lousy crowd control for which it isn’t difficult to foresee civil liability. But while the police are out looking for the stampeders, they should also be looking at Wal-Mart’s own conduct and potential charges of criminal negligence.”
December 2nd, 2008 15:00
Well you got me there…tort lawyers agree with you…i’m super jealous
December 2nd, 2008 15:02
Hah, well I’m just saying this ain’t a liberal/conservative thing, as much as you would like it to be. Some folks, like me, like to make sure justice is handed out evenly and fairly. It is fair to put some of the responsibility here on Wal-Mart. Not after the individual is prosecuted. Now.
December 2nd, 2008 15:05
I have no problem putting responsibility on Wal-Mart…Perhaps they should have expected such behavior, put police inside their stores, made sure there was enough staff to regulate lines, etc. Blame them for mismanagement of the crowd, but NOT the behavior.
December 2nd, 2008 15:06
No, that too is wrong. They are partly to be blamed for their behavior.
Do you feel the same way about the financial crisis? The ones selling the bad loans are not to blame? Just the behavior of the individuals signing the paperwork?
December 2nd, 2008 15:11
That isn’t an apples to apples comparison. Selling bad loans and knowing they are bad is not the same as offering discounted prices for a short period of time.
December 2nd, 2008 15:12
Wait a second, are you saying Wal-Mart didn’t know what would happen by creating this 5am opening with only a few of each product being sold at ridiculously low prices? Are you saying that with the experience of years of Black Friday morning openings they didn’t know this was a possibility?
December 2nd, 2008 15:15
I haven’t heard of any other person trampelled to death at Wal-Marts across the country, have you?
December 2nd, 2008 15:17
Are you kidding me? People get injured all the time in these things: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,458744,00.html
You are honestly arguing that Wal-Mart didn’t think it was a possibility that someone might get seriously injured or die one day from this behavior?
C’mon.
December 2nd, 2008 15:22
C’mon yourself…next time I break the law, I’ll blame someone else…this society sucks…Try teaching 25 kids who justify cheating because the system made them do it. There is a line and we need to set it. These ADULTS acted like pieces of sh*t and stepped on a man who was in need of their help. Cancel discounted price sales if people can’t handle them, but do NOT take one ounce of blame off of these SOBs.
December 2nd, 2008 15:26
Why won’t you answer the question? The reason, I believe, is because you know damn well that Wal-Mart always knew this was a possibility. It does not take a genius to figure out that if you put up a boundary, let a group accumulate, and then create a situation in which each person has an incentive to race through the entrance, that you might have a problem. Serious injury has happened before and it will continue to happen. Wal-Mart knows this. But they don’t care, they got worthless crap to sell, after all.
More importantly, however, if you want to see actual change in the world it’s not going to be by going after the individual-level. You can do that if you want, if it makes you feel good, but it’s not going to change anything. You want this behavior to stop? Stop Wal-Mart from invoking these dumbass policies.
December 2nd, 2008 15:29
I hope you don’t raise your kids like that…blame the school for having desks too close to each that allows the kids the opportunity to cheat.
December 2nd, 2008 15:33
You are operating under a false dichotomy, my friend. The kid who cheats because he sees the test of another student is wrong and should be punished. The teacher who has the desks close to each other is stupid.
The person who tramples another to death is wrong and should be punished. The institution that incentivized such behavior is wrong and should be punished. If we want to prevent future behavior, punishing the individual will not result in much success. Punishing the institution might.
What, of the above, do you disagree with?
December 2nd, 2008 16:18
Oh please, both are to blame. The people were idiots, who values a good deal on a fleece or a TV over a person’s life. It is completely ridiculous. And Wal Mart is of course to blame. Best Buy has these types of sales every year and I have never heard of someone being killed there. Obviously other stores have taken more precautions to make sure that stampedes don’t happen. But both Wal-Mart and individuals should be sued and criminally charged.
December 2nd, 2008 16:19
Sing it, sister!!
December 2nd, 2008 18:20
But that’s the issue, Scholar, offering a sale for a limited time should not be considered incentivizing one to behave like a madperson. I’ve already said that Wal-Mart should be investigated as to how predictable this was (but like Boston Girl pointed out, it doesn’t happen everywhere).
I think you are underestimating the power of jail time…i guarantee you, 100 people are arrested and prosecuted, next year’s black friday will look much more orderly, at least it will in Valley Stream.
December 2nd, 2008 19:03
It’s not a question of what should or shouldn’t be; it’s a question of what is. Counterfactual time: If Wal-Mart let each individual go in person by person separated by 10 seconds, would anyone have died?
December 2nd, 2008 19:17
Why is it up to Wal-Mart to regulate human behavior? Should we not have enough human decency to care about the safety of each other?
December 2nd, 2008 22:36
Sure, it would be nice if we did, but we don’t. And Wal-Mart knows that we don’t, just as you know that we don’t and I know that we don’t. That’s why they should have put in place some kind of safety valve.
December 2nd, 2008 23:00
I couldn’t disagree with you more, friend.
December 2nd, 2008 23:02
Do you lock your doors at night? If so, why? Should we not have enough human decency to care about the safety of each other?
December 2nd, 2008 23:10
Is the murderer less culpable for my murder if I failed to lock my doors?
December 2nd, 2008 23:12
Of course not. Who ever said these people are less responsible? They share responsibility, my friend. Responsibility is a big pie, there is a lot to go around.
I still don’t understand why it is up to you to regulate human behavior. I mean everyone has free will, right? Why not just let people be decent and keep your doors wide open?