Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by Bob McLaughlin
I think it's a human nature thing to be an ugly mob in a given situation
|
|
Originally Posted by Yee-Ming
How about conducting a lucky draw for the right to buy one of those limited loss leader items then? Instead of first-come first served? So for instance, if you are in the store between, say 5 and 7 am, you are entitled to enter the draw, which will be conducted at say 8 or 9 am (thereby encouraging people to stick around and shop while waiting for the draw). A little more civilized, methinks? You still need to go early, but you don't have to charge into the store to be among the first however many people.
|
| The people were crazy but I do not think that the front of the line could have stopped once the man was down. |
|
Originally Posted by RobertR
Did every crowd at every Walmart behave in such a manner, with the same result? If not, your statement is unsupported. It's similar to saying "poverty causes crime", ignoring the poor who don't commit crimes.
|
|
Originally Posted by Bob McLaughlin
You can't really draw that conclusion because of all the other variables. Did every Walmart handle their crowds the same way on that day? Did every Walmart have the same number of people show up? Did every Walmart line the people up the same way?
|
|
Originally Posted by BrianW
Requiring "adequate stock" is utterly impossible since that's a burden that extends beyond the store, all the way to the manufacturer. Stores are entitled to run specials to clear out obsolete, discontinued, and diminishing inventories.
|
|
Originally Posted by BrianW
If I can point to someone's behavior that "triggered" me to commit a violent act, does that make the other person responsible?
|
|
Originally Posted by Malcolm R
Do most people who get the big BF deals stay and shop anyway? From what I understand, most people grab the stuff then run for the checkouts and leave the store. So those deals are not having the desired effect of additional shopping.
|
|
Quote:
|
| You can't really draw that conclusion because of all the other variables. Did every Walmart handle their crowds the same way on that day? Did every Walmart have the same number of people show up? Did every Walmart line the people up the same way? |
|
Originally Posted by BrianW
It's unfortunate, but mobs are like floods: no single raindrop can be blamed for the consequences.
|
|
Originally Posted by RobertR
It doesn't seem to have occurred to you to ask another question: Did the people at every Walmart have the same personality or character (or lack thereof)?
|
|
Originally Posted by 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. |
|
Originally Posted by Bob McLaughlin
I'd say it's a slippery slope to begin making judgments about individuals based on mob behavior. ... But which crowd would the average person feel safer in, knowing nothing but what they see on the surface?
|
Why am I not surprised?)
|
Originally Posted by 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 )and B) Since it's tough to figure out the exact culprit in the mob, you may as well blame the easier target. |
|
Originally Posted by 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 $$, how does this exactly help ease the pain?
Now while I don't mean to sound like a cold hearted bastard, at the most basic of levels the only thing I see (when I hear about these law suits) is greed. The whole reason for suing a store is to make them suffer by losing the money, but that's not all that happens with a law suit. And while I am not against taking the money away (as a punishment) from the store, I don't exactly think it should go to the person suing. Any money that ends up in the pockets of the victim or victim's family is considered greed in my book. The only way I'd ever agree with people like this is if they donated every cent to a charity. Then I would know that their law suit had nothing to do with trying to get rich. It sickens me how people try to do whatever they can to profit from the death of a loved one. Truly disgusting. |
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
The family's bread winner is gone
|
| Money is a poor substitute but, outside of resurrection, it is the only way to compensate this family for their loss. |
| They should allow themselves to be victimized twice? Once with the death of their family member and again with financial devastation? Unbelievable. |
| The family of the dead man deserves to be compensated for his unnecessary death. |
|
Originally Posted by MarkHastings
but it's the sister who is suing.
|
| Well of course they'd prefer him alive (although there are some cases where I believe they'd be happier with the $$), but people always seem to find a way to put a price on the loss of a loved one. Why is it always millions? Is that because they know Wal-Mart can afford it? I bet ya it is. |
| If a poor person kills someone how come they're never sued for millions? Instead, the family is happy with the person going to jail. How come the justified "compensation" is always different depending on how much the person makes? |
| I bet if you gave this woman a choice between $2 million (I'm assuming it's at least that much) and having the Wal-Mart managers going to jail, she'd probably take the $$. |
| Yes, compensate them for loss of money (to pay for any expenses), but that's all they should get. |
| How much is your life worth to your family? If you were suddenly wrenched from their lives at the hand of a murderer or a drunk driver (not intended to be analogous to instant situation), how much would be enough to compensate them for their loss? I bet you're worth more to them than just a paycheck. |
|
Originally Posted by 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. |
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
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.
|
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
