It Happened Again: The Annual Black Friday Trampling (1 Viewer)

[Andy Sheets]

This reminds me of a Metallica concert I attended a few years back - as soon as Metallica took the stage (there were like 4 or 5 opening acts) the crowd began stampeding away from the stage (someone I spoke to later that was closer to the front claimed security personnel attacking fans was the cause) and I got caught up in the wave. It was pretty scary because there was a massive control tower in the middle of the field and the mob was pushing directly toward it; luckily people were able to turn aside without too many people getting squashed against it. I was able to keep from being sucked under by simply pulling up my feet, letting the mob carry me along. But hypothetically, if a disaster had occured and someone had actually been killed because of this, I don't think you could reasonably have blamed the people that actually did the trampling because the real force was coming from the *back* of the group, the panicky ones that caused the stampede in the first place.

 

[Bob McLaughlin]

I'd say it's a slippery slope to begin making judgments about individuals based on mob behavior. As I pointed out in my student registration example, I think any large group becomes more susceptible to these behaviors under certain conditions. People like to think they are above this sort of behavior and tell themselves it wouldn't happen in their neighborhood with their kind of people, but don't be so sure.

I have seen people injured by so-called 'fine, upstanding young students' at a class registration. I have also had the opposite experience where I fell down in a mosh pit at a Marylin Manson concert, and everyone around me immediately stopped what they were doing and helped me to my feet. But which crowd would the average person feel safer in, knowing nothing but what they see on the surface?

 

[RobertR]

Behavior is the ONLY way to judge individuals, not their social status or what neighborhood they live in. You're "fine and upstanding" only if you behave that way, not based on some label put on you.

 

[MarkHastings]

I still think it all comes down to intent. The people that end up in Black Friday incidents usually go to these stores with the 'intent' to do whatever it takes to get the sale.

Well, obviously most don't mean to kill, but that happens to be one of the results of someone who's intent on getting something at any cost. That's where the problem starts.

 

[BrianW]

I haven't seen anyone here make the claim that unruly mob behavior is a function of class, so I'm not sure to whom your comments are addressed.

I will say, however, that individual behavior is a fair metric to use when judging anyone, regardless of class.

[Edit: Robert beat me to it again. I gotta quit doing this on my phone...]

 

[Bryan X]

It was only a matter of time. Two men who where in the 'mob' are suing Wal-Mart.

"In a claim against the Nassau County police department, the men also contend that they "sustained monetary losses as a result of health care and legal expenses ... in the sum of $2 million."

Why am I not surprised?

 

[MarkHastings]

The sister of the man who was killed is suing Wal-Mart, the mall it was in, and the police force:
Victim's kin file suit in Wal-Mart stampede death - Yahoo! News

I still feel this suing has a lot to do with:
A) The deep pockets of Wal-Mart (i.e. they wouldn't get much money from the mob, so there's no point going there :rolleyes)
and
B) Since it's tough to figure out the exact culprit in the mob, you may as well blame the easier target.

 

[LewB]

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
The guy was 6'5" and weighed 270 lbs. It's amazing how someone of that size can be overcome in that situation.
My .02 says that Wallmart created the situation and someone had the bright idea to put the 'Big Guy' on the door. But, we've already discussed that.

 

[Bryan X]

Mark,

I think you are spot on about why the family of the victim is going after Wal-Mart. My guess is large, undisclosed out-of-court settlement.


As for the two "members of the mob" who are suing Wal-Mart for $2 Mil, I've still got to roll my eyes at that one.

 

[MarkHastings]

I really hate the whole idea of people trying to get rich off the suffering of family members. If the family were to get millions of $$, how does this exactly help ease the pain?

Now while I don't mean to sound like a cold hearted bastard, at the most basic of levels the only thing I see (when I hear about these law suits) is greed. The whole reason for suing a store is to make them suffer by losing the money, but that's not all that happens with a law suit. And while I am not against taking the money away (as a punishment) from the store, I don't exactly think it should go to the person suing. Any money that ends up in the pockets of the victim or victim's family is considered greed in my book.

The only way I'd ever agree with people like this is if they donated every cent to a charity. Then I would know that their law suit had nothing to do with trying to get rich. It sickens me how people try to do whatever they can to profit from the death of a loved one. Truly disgusting.

 

[Edwin-S]

The victim is gone and the family realizes that no amount of money will bring the victim back. That family's lawsuit has nothing to do with greed. Any money they are suing Wal-Mart for could be considered to be the potential wages the victim would have earned over his lifetime had he not been killed due to Wal-Mart's inadequate crowd control provisions. The family, I'm sure, would rather have their relative back. That is impossible, so some other method of compensation is needed to replace the family's loss. Money is a poor substitute but, outside of resurrection, it is the only way to compensate this family for their loss.

The family's bread winner is gone and now they are to be considered greedy and trying to profit from the bread winner's death? They should allow themselves to be victimized twice? Once with the death of their family member and again with financial devastation? Unbelievable. The family of the dead man deserves to be compensated for his unnecessary death.

 

[MarkHastings]

OK, so why not go after the people who trampled him? They are the ones responsible for his death. But like I said before, there's no massive profit in persuing that option.

See why it sounds like greed?

 

[BrianW]

I beg your pardon, but who's putting a value on a human life now?

 

[drobbins]

As was mentioned, you can not put a value on someones life and it can not be replaced. All businesses exist to hopefully make money. Not just profits for the shareholders, but for all the workers also. In my experiences not a single decision gets made with out considering the cost or the return on investment. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that there would be a cost in providing any type of security and or crowd control. The store decided not to spend the money. I don't know at what level the decision was made. Judging by the pictures, it was an every man for himself situation.

The $2million definitely gets the attention of those who will make the decisions next year. Not just at this story or company, but at other stores also. Will the stores be greedy and not invest in the safety of their employees and customers or will they see that the risk is too expensive? To me that would be the main reason for a high dollar settlement.

Now as far as the sister getting the money, why not or who else should? The man who died had the rest of his life taken form him. Once again, how to put a dollar amount on that. Even if he was single and had nobody depending on him, I would think his estate should be the beneficiary of the settlement. So even if his sister is the only living relative (I do not know) why shouldn't she get the money? Her motives are something that only she truly knows and has to account for. If she doesn't get the money, who should? If she takes the money and donates it all to a charity, or donates 50%, or spends it foolishly, or on fun and games, who are we to judge her?

 

[MarkHastings]

Ever hear of life insurance?

Seriously, I just want to know why the sister isn't going after the people in the mob? They are the ones who did the killing and they are the ones responsible for the loss of his life...period!

I just want to know why she isn't suing those people.If that were to happen, I would hope that my family would hold the driver responsible for his actions and not try to sue the bar (for millions) for serving him drinks because they felt the bar is responsible for the accident, absolving the driver of any responsibility.

Again, I just want the mob held more responsible than Wal-Mart, that's what I think is fair and when I see someone just suing Wal-Mart, all I see is that person wanting to profit. Like I said, going after the ones responsible for the death won't bring in as much $$, so considering they aren't going in that direction, you know it's more about the $$ and not about justice.

 

[drobbins]

I guess the big difference is that I still see WalMart as 99% responsible. I don't think anybody who actually did the trampling wanted to or had much choice in the matter. Based on the situations that I have been in, I am guessing that people were not just running for the sales, but also running to get out of the way so they do not become a victim.
The worker couldn't stop the mob, any one of the first 10 people in line couldn't stop the mob, any one of the first 100 people in line couldn't stop the mob. The only thing that could stop the mob, was not let it form in the first place, or a collective decision made by every one of the mob participants. We are not Borgs though and don't have that capability to communicate and make a collective decision and then act upon the decision in the few seconds that the incident occurred.
In order to go after any member of the mob, you would have to go after the whole mob. Then each persons role would need to be evaluated as to what % they are responsible and then a dollar amount assigned to that %. I do not think this would be just limited to the people up front, but the people in the back also. How about the taxi driver? As you said, when does it stop. I am with you on taking personal responsibility for ones own actions, but in this situation I don't see any intent or malice on any of the mob members. I just see people caught up in a bad situation that the store created and appears known about it ahead of time. They did not know that there would be a trampling, but they did know that there would be a mob and a certain level of frenzy activity. They encouraged it with out controlling it. Per the ipod left on the car seat example - human behavior can be predicted to some extent.

 

[Edwin-S]

Good explanation. The broken door frame is proof of the pressure that was being exerted by everyone trying to be first through the doors. People in front would have been crushed themselves if they had tried to resist the mass forward movement that occurred. In this particular instance Wal-Mart is totally responsible for what occurred because of their failure to put adequate crowd control in place. Posting a sign with the slogan "Blitz line starts here" indicates that Wal-Mart management were anticipating a "storm the doors" mentality and were trying to capitalize on it.

 

[TravisR]

How do you know that was posted by a Wal Mart employee? I've seen people in line for PS3s, XBox 360s, Black Friday and there's usually some 'funny' person in line that makes a 'funny' sign.

 

[Edwin-S]

I guess we have had different experiences. I've been in a lot of lines in my 47 years and I have never seen anyone making and posting signs. That is why I figured that the sign was made by a Wal-Mart employee. Regardless, even if it wasn't a Wal-Mart employee who posted the sign, they should have had someone out there patrolling and making sure that such signs were taken down. Overall, the whole mess still indicates to me that Wal-Mart took inadequate measures to ensure orderly entry into their store; therefore, they should hold the greater amount of liability.

 

[MarkHastings]

So this sign incited the crowd and if it hadn't been up things would be different?