If we're going to blame Wal Mart exclusively for yesterday's tragic

[Midlodemocrat]

occurence, I say let's go one step further.

The Martin Agency right here in the Old Dominion came up with the 'Save Money, Live Better' slogan.

I put forth the concept that this ad agency is just as much to blame for yesterday's tragedy. If they hadn't been so irresponsible in trying to lure shoppers to WalMart under the guise of saving money, this might not have happened.


:sarcasm: because all the 'Death to Wal Mart' threads are insane. As long as there are people who need to shop there, they're going to exist.

Not minimizing the tragedy or defending Wal Mart. I don't shop there, but some people do out of necessity and the You're a bad American for shopping meme is ridiculous.

Flame Away.

[w4rma]

1. In the end Wal-Mart hired "The Martin Agency" and was happy with their performance. Wal-Mart is

wholly responsible.

[Midlodemocrat]

3. No. Greed is wholly responsible.

Wal Mart is no more culpable than the ad agency. That's the point.

Door Busters have been doing on for years. People know what to expect and they know what happens during a mob scene.

People are to blame. Greed is to blame. Not a corporation.

And, by way of disclaimer, I don't shop there.


Here's another example. A few years back, there was a MacBook give away here at the Richmond Raceway. People were trampled trying to get a $50 MacBook. Is a MacBook worth it? Once people saw the stampede, couldn't they have just not participated? Same as the people standing in line at WalMart? If it looked as though it was getting out of control, why not step back?

And, yes. I've been in some pretty significant crowd situations.

[w4rma]

14. Walton family greed. (nt)

[Midlodemocrat]

21. Right. Because as members of the most recent Forbes 400 Top 10,

they all got up at 4AM and waited in line for a Wii.

C'mon.

[w4rma]

27. They instituted the policies that killed that man. They lobbied for worse policies that harm others.

No. The Waltons are very greedy and insulated from the world. They do *anything* to stay that way.

[Midlodemocrat]

30. Link?

[w4rma]

34. Link to what? To an article that says Wal-Mart lobbies in favor of near-slavery through sweatshops?

Do you live under a rock?

[Midlodemocrat]

37. LOL.

Completely different issue. But thanks for playing.

:eyes:

[w4rma]

39. links for the lazy.

http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2008/04/walmart_sweatsh.html
http://www.ufcw.org/press_room/fact_sheets_and_backgrounder/walmart/sweat_shops.cfm
http://www.1worldcommunication.org/Walmart.htm
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/WalMartsweatshops
http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/en/web/article.php?article_id=50304
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/13/the-wal-mart-weekly-retailer-accused-of-sweatshop-conditions-in/

[Midlodemocrat]

40. Man,

You're a jerk. Different issue, dude. Buy a clue.

[w4rma]

79. Not a different issue. Fully related. You say it's all about greed and refuse to condemn it when big

business owners are greedy. But you have no problem condemning it when the person you are talking about has no power.

Quit projecting.

[ColbertWatcher]

23. Check out these pictures at the enclosed DU link ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4554275&mesg_id=4554814

Jdimytai Damour's death was caused by Wal-Mart's negligence--not the advertising. They promoted the "Black Friday" sales to ensure large crowds, but did not pay for crowd control.

Look at the pictures.

Even after two years (2006 and 2007) of stampedes, the company did not plan ahead.

They're responsible for Damour's death.

[Midlodemocrat]

24. I saw them. And, I strongly believe that the people who stood

in line and walked over this man are just as culpable.

I'm not absolving WalMart totally, but the 'Death to Wal Mart' threads are insane.

[ColbertWatcher]

26. I don't think you looked at the pictures if you can continue to blame the people.

There were at least two entrances and no crowd control.

There was no line.

No visible security presence.

Wal-Mart took no steps to insure anyone's safety. They called the cops earlier that morning, but refused to pay for security. When the cops left, there was no security.

The crowd was too large for any untrained person in the front of the crowd to stop anyone behind them.

There was simply too many people for anyone who is not trained to control.

Sorry, unless the surveillance tapes show people at a full football-type run (low to the ground, shoulders forward), then the people are blameless.

[Midlodemocrat]

29. Sorry. I disagree.

People who go to these types of events absolutely devour the ads. They knew full well that there were 'limited quantities'.

I remember being in a similar like at Hill's here when my son was obsessed with the Power Rangers. People were willing to take anything they could get to make their child's Christmas happy. There was no stampede.

Greed is what killed this poor person, not Wal Mart.

[ColbertWatcher]

49. Sorry, but you don't think Wal-Mart wasn't/isn't greedy?

Wal-Mart doesn't disclose what "limited" means, so it could mean anything.

Nonetheless, there was no security.

That's Wal-mart's fault.

Oh, and another thing, initial reports called Damour a temporary clerk. Later, he was called a "temporary security guard." Wal-Mart will have some explaining to do.

And, one more thing: check out this video of a Wal-Mart in Oklahoma, where just one guy (not a uniformed security guard) opens the door: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw18_16AGv4 (forward ahead to 2:55 or so).

That looks like it's Wal-Mart's policy to provide no crowd control and have one person open the door.

Wal-Mart did not provide security and crowd control because it is their company policy.

[Midlodemocrat]

52. I think Wal Mart is a corporation designed to make money for

its shareholders who brought it to national prominence. Much like my husband's company.

And, I also think that if this happened at Costco, the outrage here would be almost negligible.

[ColbertWatcher]

59. When you open your doors to the public, you are liable for their safety.

Nothing excuses that, shareholders or not.

Also, I do not know how you can predict how people would react to a similar situation happening at another store.

BTW, Costco is membership only, and there is a contract, which probably covers stuff like not suing the company in the event of certain catastrophes.

[Midlodemocrat]

64. LOL. The 'Membership Only' thing at Costco is a lot looser than

it used to be. About 20 years ago you had to belong to certain credit unions or companies to belong. That was back when it was Price Club. Not the case any more at all.

And, the contract thing, even if you sign it, won't hold water in a lot of states.

[ColbertWatcher]

70. Meh. You still cannot predict how other people will react.

Nonetheless, Wal-Mart is not exempt from liability just because they have shareholders.

[Midlodemocrat]

71. Agreed. But they are not solely culpable.

[ColbertWatcher]

76. Agreed, I'd like to see them given their day in court. n/t

[Midlodemocrat]

81. Not going to happen (nt)

[ColbertWatcher]

110. True, they'll probably settle out of court and not own up to anything. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

61. oh yeah, "greed". & folks like you limit the phenomenon to workers trying to get a cheap tv.

the waltons together own the equivalent of several countries, but the folks trying to get a cheap tv are "greedy".

"limited quantities" is precisely why they line up at 4 am, numbnuts.

& getting a jacked-up mob into their store by limiting quantities & hours is precisely walmarts' goal.

[madinmaryland]

68. Even after two years (2006 and 2007) of stampedes, why the fuck are people still acting that way.

Fucking morans.

[ColbertWatcher]

80. I don't know. You'd think corporate "person" Wal-Mart learned from the past. n/t

[madinmaryland]

88. You would think "everyone" would learn, also. Is that asking too much??

[ColbertWatcher]

93. The only harm came to a shopper. The shoppers will learn. When will corporations learn?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4558133&mesg_id=4558133

[Midlodemocrat]

96. I have to say, your comments smack of

abolishing alcohol and tobacco for the good of the shopper. Is that what you are implying?

[ColbertWatcher]

101. I haven't mentioned alcohol tobacco or firearms. I don't know what you're talking about. n/t

[madinmaryland]

106. Apparently the shoppers have NOT learned.

As we have seen over the last eight years their are a lot of SHEEPLE out there.

[ColbertWatcher]

109. Ugh, I meant to say "shoppers and emplyees" n/t

[Radical Activist]

2. Ad agencies absolutely deserve a share of the blame.

People know how the scam works. A big box store advertises an unbelievably good deal on an item and then stocks only a few or a dozen at most. People know from years past that they have to get there first to take advantage of the deal that was advertised to thousands but is available to only the first few. Therefore, they have to get in line and rush.
So yes, this was created by a disgusting advertising scam and they should be held legally liable. Maybe this will finally put a stop to that misleading bullshit.

[Midlodemocrat]

6. Greed is to blame. Greed.

Getting a flatscreen for $100 off is what caused this. Not Wal Mart. Not the Martin Agency. Greed.

And, I don't shop at Wal Mart. And I don't own stock (I was accused of that yesterday in another thread)

At what point do we assign blame to the idiots who swallowed this scam hook, line and sinker? (I know, I know, I'll get accused of using RW talking points, but c'mon, it's not like people were in line for cheese to feed their families.

Greed is to blame. Greed.

[KittyWampus]

77. You are totally wrong and probably just getting off on feeling superior to the "greedy" people.

If Walmart had provided adequate crowd control THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

Repeat, this would not have happened if Walmart had lived up to the responsibility it incurred when it advertised.

Walmart invited thousands of people into their parking lot and did NOTHING to control them.

[Midlodemocrat]

82. Wow. Whole lot of projection going on .

And, YOU are the one who is totally wrong, sister. Deal.

Adequate crowd control? Are you fucking serious? Ever been to a concert where it wasn't apparent that there was 'adequate crowd control?' Or a school event?

People didn't behave like animals. These people did. And some poor guy who was trying to make some money paid the ultimate price.

[Midlodemocrat]

89. One more thing, sweet cheeks. Are you one of the 'greedy people'?

Because I can't think of a reason other than that why you would defend this behavior.

[emilyg]

103. With you 100%.

[madmom]

4. Why is nobody outraged that there were guns in a toy store? This could have been

disastrous, but those threads are sinking like a rock.

[Midlodemocrat]

9. I thought it was a gang rivalry situation?

Not exactly the same level of preventable as this. IMHO.

[madmom]

28. It was preventable, they are responsible for the people in their store! Did they have a

sign that said "no fire arms beyond this point"? A lot of stores do. Do they have metal detectors? A lot of stores do. If there is a reason for a crowd to be in the store they had damn well be prepared for the worst possible scenario because it often does happen.

[Midlodemocrat]

31. Do you think someone Hell bent on shooting someone because of

a gang rivalry pays attention to signage? Seriously?

I've never, ever in all my years been in a store that has metal detectors. Never. Not one.

[ColbertWatcher]

The firearms sign depends on the area.

I'm not a lawyer, but if I'm not mistaken those kinds of signs can be found mainly in hunting country.

[ColbertWatcher]

55. That Toys R Us situation was the anomaly; not this Wal-Mart one.

Toys R Us probably has a policy that doesn't allow guns in their stores. The people who brought the guns were the ones completely to blame.

But, everything that happened in the Wal-Mart situation looks exactly like every other time Wal-Mart has had a "Black Friday" sale, despite warnings and close calls in the past.

[madmom]

95. My point is Walmart is NOT the only one who does stuff like this and to put the blame solely on them

is ignoring the rest of the problem. They all do it, it needs to be brought under control.

[AlCzervik]

5. the management of that one particular store is responsible imo.

[Midlodemocrat]

11. I agree that they should have called the police for assistance.

But, my point is, that they wouldn't have needed to if people weren't so greedy and weren't so into keeping up with the Joneses.

If the only way you can afford a flat screen is to wait outside the local Wal Mart for 10 hours in the cold and then run like a maniac to the back of the store knocking people out of the way to acquire the prize, you can't afford it.

There are plenty of things I'll never be able to afford, but I wouldn't endanger myself, my friends, my children or those around me to acquire it.

I still hold that greed is the guilty party.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. The tragedy was caused because that particular store

didn't take proper precautions for crowd control. Doesn't matter if it is WalMart or MallWort---that particular store and the people in charge of security are at fault, I think. If it can be found that lack of security is corporate policy, then talk to me about corporate liability.

[Midlodemocrat]

13. That is probably true. However, they wouldn't have needed to if

people hadn't started to behave in an out of control manner. Like a tsunami, perhaps they didn't see it coming.

I still say Greed was responsible.

[Selatius]

8. Hopefully, the more liberal half of the Dems can pass the Employee Free-Choice Act.

Maybe if the Wal-Mart stores are unionized, then there would be concessions given to the workers in the form of better workplace safety standards and protocol to deal with rowdy crowds.

[BelgianMadCow]

48. I must have misread something

Walmart employees have no union??

Say WHAT?

[Warren DeMontague]

10. And that dad blame rock & roll was responsible for those kids gettin' trampled at that Who Concert!

[Midlodemocrat]

16. Not the same thing. General admission was a huge mistake

back then. Been there, done that. Scary, scary stuff.

I wouldn't ever let my kids attend a GA concert for that reason. Holy crap 10 years ago, I took my daughters to see Hanson and we had lawn seats. When the gates opened, you have never seen so many middle aged moms dragging their kids to get a prime seat on the grass.

I mean, c'mon. :wtf:

[madinmaryland]

18. Actually it was, because that too was the Clenis' fault!

[Deny and Shred]

91. By your logic, those middle aged moms and their kids deserve to

get trampled. I'll pass on a Hanson comment - too easy.

If an event is clearly going to be that well-attended, be it concert or sale, then those who promote it must take precautions for the safty of the patrons. If they don't, they should bear the responsibility.

[Midlodemocrat]

92. yeah, that's what I said. And the Hanson stuff Oooh, you're so

fucking superior because your daughters didn't listen to them when they were little. Oh wait... Too easy.

[Deny and Shred]

98. No need to swear there, my dear. Just pointing out the pragmatic

failure of your logic. Wishing for a lack of greed among the US populace simply won't happen. If your looking for superiority, try the mirror. You're the one demeaning those who blame WalMart.

[madinmaryland]

12. Why do you hate Amurka? IBTL!!!

[bluesbassman]

15. Wal Mart isn't THE problem,

It's PART of the problem. I agree with your sentiments Midlo. Bashing people for where they shop serves no purpose. What happened in NY was a tragedy that could have easily been avoided with even a minimal amount of govt rules and regulations. I have experienced a mob crush like that, and once it gets to that level there is no way to stop it. The point is, that it should have been anticipated by people in the responsible positions, (both Wal Mart and govt agency) and the appropriate steps should have been taken to minimize the chance of it happening in the first place.

[Midlodemocrat]

20. We had the exact same sale here and no issues.

Two Wal Marts in the immediate area. No issues. I agree with chimps that they needed additional security, but I wonder if maybe the flunkie on duty didn't have the authority to authorize said security?

I think there is a lot of blame to go around here, and like I said, I don't shop at Wal Mart. I certainly don't think that they are totally guilt free here, but I think handing them 100% of the blame is ridiculous.

[blockhead]

43. Wow.

maybe that "flunkie" has to work there out of necessity.

[Midlodemocrat]

44. LOL. Okay. Poor choice of words

I am trying to convey that people who shop at Wal Mart out of necessity aren't the devil's spawn which seems to be the DU meme lately.

And, what I meant by 'flunkie' was that perhaps the person wasn't authorized to increase security, et al.

I think we're on the same page.

[madinmaryland]

17. Jeebus, Midlo! We all know it was the Clenis' fault!

[gristy]

19. Walmart is indeed at fault

Repeating Oak2004's post from another thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3622319#3622845

(Putting emergency management hat back on to post in yet another thread on this disaster):

Anyone who would have stopped to try to help that man would themselves have been knocked over and trampled. In fact likely they would not have been able to stop no matter how much they would have wanted to -- pressure from the crowd would have pushed them forward.

Crowd trampling is a known, well-studied disaster. There are even computer models for studying the motions of crowds that can accurately predict danger spots, given the architectural parameters and the crowd size. The crowd is not at fault, at least not for anything more serious than picking a crappy store to shop at. Walmart is culpable, and, given some of what has come out already, may deserve a corporate manslaughter charge.

Edited to add some links (some to papers requiring access, but at least the abstract shows the nature of the research):

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0524135 and http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1224690 (also article at http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/view.php?articleID=754 )

http://www.crowddynamics.com , and especially http://www.crowddynamics.com/Disasters/crowd_crazing.ht...

(there is much more on the topic... google away for other sources).

[Midlodemocrat]

22. Was there a precedent for this at this particular store?

If so, chimps is correct. They needed additional security.

Like I said upthread, how many other incidences were there across the country?

Are we blaming Toys R Us for the shootings yesterday? Was that their fault as well?

[gristy]

25. Depends. In what way do you see that these two events are similar?

And how do those similarities give rise to similar culpability on the part of the retailers?

[Midlodemocrat]

32. I don't. Others in this thread happen to disagree with me and believe

that Toys R Us is at fault. I don't. I think it's foolish to blame the retailer for a situation like that.

Until the final report comes out about this tragedy in NY, I will refrain from laying all the blame at Wal Mart's doorstep. I believe greed is more responsible.

If it happened at Costco, would we still be screaming that we wanted them to fail? Or is it just because the folks who own Wal Mart disagree with us politically?

[gristy]

69. I think you may be assuming bias in many cases where there is none

I'm not crazy about Walmart, but if Costco did (and had a history of doing) what Walmart did (and has a history of doing), I would be equally adamant about laying the blame with the corporation.

[Midlodemocrat]

74. Well in this particular instance, let's separate our hatred for Wal Mart

from the action.

[mediaman007]

35. Agreed! Just answer this question: Who's in charge?

Not the customers.

Not the employee.

The buck stops at headquarters. Like all of the others.

[Midlodemocrat]

38. Let me ask you a question. If this happened at Costco, would

there be this level of outrage on DU?

I'm going with no.

Greed caused this. This happened at one store. One of thousands of stores who had similar sales. Greed caused this.

WalMart's hands aren't clean, but neither are those people who stampeded and stomped this man to death.

[mediaman007]

84. Let me guess that if Costco had people line up at 4:00 am and let them

stampede into the store, there would be outrage here.

On the other hand, maybe Costco didn't have a "free for all" promotion. Maybe Walmart likes to take advantage of people who shop there. Maybe they even hope that the chaos is filmed and shown on the 6 o'clock news, so people can find themselves in the crowd. And maybe the executives want to see the behavior of the crowds. Maybe Costco does that too. Maybe everyone would be upset if it was Best Buy, or J.C. Penney's, or Sears, or Sam's Club.

I wouldn't worry too much about WalMart, or the others. I'm sure they have contingencies for this. The bean counters have to know that this is possible. They all have lawyers, insurance and public relations. The dead guy loses anyway.

[Midlodemocrat]

94. Maybe Target and JC Penneys and Best Buy are looking at

loss leaders as well. It's a very well known and well used marketing technique.

And, I guarantee you that if the same thing happened at Costco, because it is a 'blue store', the level of outrage couldn't hold a candle to this.

And, as far as 'worrying about Wal Mart'...not the issue. The issue is people who expect something for nothing. Greed. Pure and simple.

[mediaman007]

102. How do you know if any of "those" people were involved in

the Walmart incident? Walmart really should just invite people who are better.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

33. In a prosecution for Riot

those who rioted, as well as those who incited the riot are criminally culpable, the former for rioting and the latter for getting it started.

That concept should be fairly easy to grasp for all but the most die-hard Wal-Mart defenders.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[Midlodemocrat]

36. I'm far from a die hard

Wal Mart defender, but what you are saying is exactly what I am stating.

Is Wal Mart culpable? Of course. To whatever degree they neglected to provide adequate security, etc.

Are the people who stomped this poor soul to death culpable? In my mind, more so. Free Will. If they were giving stuff away for free, you don't kill someone to get to it. It's not like they were giving away food to the starving.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

75. Didn't say you were

Your OP refered to "exclusively." I was pointing out the culpability on both sides of the coin.

The crowd at the Wal-Mart was whipped into a consumerist frenzy. If you want a comparison, it's like what goes on at religious shrines. Consumerism is religion for a lot of Americans. While the crowds do the stomping, the religion provides the impetus.


Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[Midlodemocrat]

86. I think there is something to that. The person who absolutely

HAS to get the lowest price regardless. It's as though that particular mind set is their 'job'.

Which is fine, if you think about it. Clipping coupons, shopping the sales, etc. But this? I don't know of any of my coupon clipping friends who attended one Black Friday event simply because of the crowds.

[Spectral Music]

41. Wal Mart is responsible because they put a temporary (1-day) employee at the entrance

This temp doesn't know the job, the store clientele or even the locale very well, necessarily. He may never have done a "Black Friday" at Wal Mart or other major discount retailer. He was entirely unprepared and stationed at the most dangerous place in the store at 5AM on Black Friday: the entrance.

[Midlodemocrat]

42. Not the information I saw. Do you have a link to that?

And, blaming one store for the inadequacies of their management is a long way from wishing that Wal Mart would die a slow painful death.

[Spectral Music]

45. Here:

"Police said the man, identified as 34-year-old Jdimytai Damour, was a temporary employee who lived in New York City's borough of Queens."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/28/news/economy/blackfriday_walmart/index.htm?postversion=2008112812

[Midlodemocrat]

47. I'm missing where he was a one day employee

and didn't know the job?

[Spectral Music]

51. Look below. He was a "maintenance" temp stationed like a security guard at the front door.

http://www.newstimes.com/ci_11098887?source=most_viewed

The 34-year-old Damour was taken to Franklin Hospital Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at about 6 a.m., police said. The exact cause of death has not been determined.

Damour came from a temporary agency and was doing maintenance work at the store, Wal-Mart said.

[Midlodemocrat]

54. So, you are saying that he just happened to be in the wrong place

at the wrong time? That is what the article seems to be saying. I'm not seeing where he, as a temp. employee (still looking for the one day thing you are touting) was 'stationed at the front door'.
Seems to me, like the poster below stated, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Spectral Music]

63. Yes. He was the maintenance guy who opened the door to let the crowd in.

I agree with the person who said there should have been people outside controlling the crowd before the doors opened. But I think that would have required police. Wal Mart knows its clientele and there should have been some preparation for this.

[ColbertWatcher]

115. "I think that would have required police." No.

Other businesses are able to do the same thing without police.

They hire private security.

Wal-Mart's policy is to not pay people what they're worth.

[ColbertWatcher]

114. "he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. " So you admit Wal-Mart had not provided him with ...

... proper training or supervision.

[Spectral Music]

50. Also:

"Damour came from a temporary agency and was doing maintenance work at the store, Wal-Mart said."

http://www.newstimes.com/ci_11098887?source=most_viewed

[ColbertWatcher]

111. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.

The information is out there; you're being selective as to what you want to see.

Here is a link to a post I made earlier that includes pictures (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4554275&mesg_id=4554814).

What do you see there?

[Scooter24]

46. The man was doing his job as a maintenence worker,

probably emptying the trash.

The crowd busted through the doors and glass to get in. The man was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Spectral Music]

53. Wal Mart should have removed everyone from the entrance area before opening the doors

The guy was a temp. A maintenance guy.

[Midlodemocrat]

56. According to reports, the doors were broken, hinges broken

as the crowd pushed forward.

Does the crowd have no culpability in that behavior?

[Spectral Music]

60. Of course they do, criminally. But Wal Mart has civil liability here: they are required

to provide a safe workplace for their employees under OSHA requirements. Even Wal Mart should follow the law to protect human life. In this case, Wal Mart was in error: the management know their own store and their own clientele. Maybe they should have asked for police protection.

[Scooter24]

66. OSHA? LOL

The employees were in a locked building.

Incidents like this sometimes happen. However, they aren't common enough to justify any criminal charges. Hence why the police are looking at tapes to find those who actually did run over the man.

[Spectral Music]

67. That is a silly argument. The front door is part of the building and unlocking it should not be a

risk to life and limb.

Wal Mart WILL be held civilly liable for this. They will settle with the family out of court for a decent sum of money. But they also need to think about organizing the crowds outside or find another (automatic) way of unlocking the door.

[Scooter24]

72. Sigh...

The people busted the doors down creating havoc which killed the man.

Walmart has insurance to cover incidents like these. Highly doubtful that you will find a multimillion dollar settlement unless Walmart acknowledges they were at fault.

[Spectral Music]

83. Well, they probably won't. The latest press release from Wal Mart:

UPDATED - Walmart Statement on Black Friday Incident at Valley Stream Store

We expected a large crowd this morning and added additional internal security, additional third party security, additional store associates and we worked closely with the Nassau County Police. We also erected barricades. Despite all of our precautions, this unfortunate event occurred.

http://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/NewsRoom/8829.aspx


They clearly did take some precautions, but they should have had a couple of armed security people opening the front door and not some poor temporary maintenance guy.

I don't disagree with you about the criminal liability of the crowd. The people who trampled that poor man should be tried and convicted. What they did was simply wrong. But Wal Mart knows their store, the neighborhood it's in, the clientele, and they should have placed armed guards at the door to open it.

[Uben]

58. No, they should have told the crowd....

...to line up in single file before the doors would be opened. That simple step would have avoided the tragedy. Letting them storm the door was a management mistake they should be held accountable for.

[Spectral Music]

62. We don't disagree. But maybe police protection would have been helpful.

Wal Mart made a mistake here.

[Dis Pater]

78. I'm not sure that people would be willing to that at that point, who would be

in charge of deciding who would be in front of who? Would you be rewarding people who had shoved their way to the front?

[Spectral Music]

85. Maybe it should be like Baskin and Robbins--you take a number.

Or get your hand stamped with a number (like a night club.)

[Dis Pater]

90. Take a look at the crowd and tell us how well that might work

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4554275&mesg_id=4554814

[Spectral Music]

100. LOL!!!!!!!

Ok you have a point. :)

[Uben]

107. Who would be in charge?

The guy unlocking the door! Would you open it with a mob like that beating down on you? They could sit there and rot if it was me.
Why do people play these games? What kind of idiot goes to a friggin Walmart and joins in a mob for a friggin PS2 or something of similar non-significance? Without proper security, Walmart should never had opened that door.

[ColbertWatcher]

116. "The man was just in the wrong place at the wrong time." Wal-Mart did not provide him with ...

... adequate training or supervision.

They knew it was dangerous at the front door on Black Friday. Why would they let someone who had no business near the front door near the front door?

And where was the security?

Check out the pictures at this DU link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4554275&mesg_id=4554814)

Where is the security? Where is the crowd control?

[Dis Pater]

57. Stop empowering Murder Mart.

[Midlodemocrat]

65. .

You're still here?

[libnnc]

99. midlo, I don't agree with you on this issue

...but I agree with your instincts in that post.

;-)

[zbdent]

73. music venues no longer do the old style of allowing people to choose

seats due to "The Who in Cincinnati" ...

[Midlodemocrat]

87. Beg to differ.

Lawn seating. When I took my daughters 10 years ago to see Hansen, it was shocking how many moms went racing into the venue to get 'the best seats'.

A different headliner could have led to very different results.

[Deny and Shred]

97. Without proper security, shoppers and concertgoers are at the mercy

of the lack of 'greed' of the crowd.
Being astonished by their 'greed' won't get you anywhere but trampled. The venue has a responsibility, WalMart or not.
Otherwise, the elderly, infirm, slight of build, slow, etc. should never ever attend anything that draws a crowd for fear of their life.
I camped out for Who tickets in 1982. There was a single-file line, and a couple people whose job it was to patrol for line jumpers. It worked fine.

[lib2DaBone]

104. Wal-Mart Sucks !

http://walmartsucksorg.blogspot.com/

[lib2DaBone]

105. Remember a few years ago when they had the "Hands-A-Thon"?

The idea was.. that if you were the last person standing.. if you could keep your hands on the new Camaro or Firebird the longest.. the car was yours?

People died from heart attacks, stroke and dehydration.

They had MANY Law Suits over that little promotion.

I don't think Wal-mart is going to be able to weasel out of this debacle.

[ColbertWatcher]

108. I hope you're correct. n/t

[mdmc]

112. I'd just like to see them have safer work environments and lose some $

well, sure... I'd also like to see them out of business.

[Joe Fields]

113. Thank you, midlo!

I have no love for Wal Mart. I resisted shopping there for years, cutting off my nose to spite my face, so to speak. My wife (smart woman that she is) wore me down gradually. It took many years. But couldn't sensibly argue against her. We didn't make much money, and although we are in better shape now, we would still be considered lower middle class, but if we didn't shop at WalMart, we would not be able to afford the few luxuries that we enjoy, such as satellite or the internet. My wife and I lead simple lives and don't want for much, but we are going to enjoy a few things in this life of ours. Right now, until our economic status changes (he says, with his fingers crossed) then we will continue to shop at the evil place.