Should Toys R Us be held criminally liable as well?

[Scooter24]

L.A. Times: 2 kill each other in shootout at California Toys R Us
http://www.madison.com/tct/news//index.php?ntid=316464

"Most shoppers headed to the Toys R Us in Palm Desert on Friday morning clutching their "door buster" ads and their shopping lists. At least two men walked into the busy store armed with their guns.

Instead of the usual frantic chaos on Black Friday, the year's busiest shopping day, mayhem erupted in the electronics department about 11:30 a.m., leaving two men dead in a gunfight and crowds of shoppers ducking for cover.
Joan Barrick, 40, of Desert Hot Springs said she was buying a Barbie Jeep for her daughter when two women started brawling. As the women swung at each other, the men they were with also started arguing."
--------------

[Bluebear]

1. I thought these deaths were due to a gang-related matter, not a "doorbuster" ad?

PALM DESERT, Calif. (AP) — Two men were shot to death in a crowded toy store Friday in a confrontation apparently involving rival groups, city officials said. The officials said they were told the men shot each other, but investigators remained tight-lipped.

The violence erupted on Black Friday, the traditional post-Thanksgiving start of the holiday shopping surge, but authorities indicated it was not prompted by a shopping frenzy.

The Palm Desert Police Department received calls of shots fired just after 11:30 a.m. and found the two men dead.

Riverside County sheriff's Sgt. Dennis Gutierrez confirmed there was a fight but said it was not over a toy.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMJP9ep_VABDoexPPDXfIDbnJL6gD94O9RE80

[Radical Activist]

2. Yes.

Running ads for great deals knowing full well that there won't be enough in stock for a fraction of the people who show up is a dangerous scam. Companies who engage in that scam should be held liable for their actions.

[earthlover]

14. Oh, so the killers should be set free? And punish the store?

The enablement mentality is mind-boggeling here!

How about....I know this sounds novel....punishing those who commit crimes instead of blaming the stores they were in when they did their mayhem? Is this politically incorrect to suggest such a novel idea?

[Radical Activist]

22. When did I argue against punishing the individuals?

Prosecute both in proportion to the role they played.

[NYVet]

16. But EVERYONE who shows up knows that there are not enough for everyone who wants the items

however, I didn't see anyone pulling a baseball bat to beat granny over the head at Wal Mart in Watertown, nor did we have the mass stampedes that you saw around the US.


There is no scam when they CLEARLY state in the ad that there are limited quantities of items.

[Radical Activist]

23. Exactly. Everyone knows that they have to rush to get it before others.

Thus, the motivation to shove, push and trample others. That's how advertisers created the mob mentality. They do it to build up hype and get people spending the night in line. But there are side effects, as we have seen.

[NYVet]

24. So why aren't there stories from every town in the US

about employees being trampled for the Black Friday deals?

It is the actions of a few for the "biggest and best deals" that you will be able to get anywhere if you shop smart and take advantage of doing research.

[Radical Activist]

31. If the economy continues to decline

I expect that it will happen in more places next year. And I'm willing to bet there were plenty of close calls around the country that weren't reported.

Sending an advertisement to thousands of people for a great deal when you have only a few in stock should be a crime.

[NYVet]

37. No it shouldn't be a crime.

What should be a crime is brutish actions of immature people who have the "Gimme, gimme, mine, mine" attitude that you most often see in children who haven't learned how to behave in a civil manner.


Personal irresponsibility caused the death of the clerk in Wal Mart, not advertising fliers.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nay]

3. No. Few stores can protect their customers from gun-wielding maniacs.

However, Walmart can, and should have, had decades-old crowd control procedures in place, esp since they encourage such mayhem on Black Friday.

[Scooter24]

4. I disagree...

I would agree if there were many problems in the past, but in reality these serious incidents are very low. Hardly justification for the increase cost of adding security.

[xultar]

7. What are they gonna do frisk everyone, put up metal detectors. come on.

[Deja Q]

39. They already do that in SCHOOLS - for CHILDREN to purportedly GET EDUCATED in.

Let's work on the fundamental problems.

And some of my solutions would annoy some DUers, but they can go live in their fantasy world where their kids will probably find AK-47s and ultimately shoot them.

[DBoon]

10. Some private venues *do* frisk people for weapons

and require entry through a metal detector as well

Many large music events require this.

[xultar]

11. Yes, games and concerts yes. Target and TRU no.

[KittyWampus]

17. what the fuck? Check Youtube, there's a plethora of videos showing people stampeding, falling

and getting stepped on.

If you intentionally CREATE a crowd, it's your responsibility to manage that crowd and provide for it's safety.

[surrealAmerican]

40. You said it perfectly.

They wanted the crowd, but were unwilling to take the responsibility for it. If they had attracted a crowd for a protest or a concert, and it trampled someone they would have been held responsible, but somehow, because it was for commercial purposes, it's not their fault?

[ColbertWatcher]

12. This is the best, most concise explanation for Wal-Mart's negligence. Thank you for posting. n/t

[xultar]

28. This thread is about Toys R Us.

[ColbertWatcher]

34. Yes, but I was responding to post # 3.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4558039&mesg_id=4558057

[xultar]

5. No. The shooting had nothing to do with the store.

[Dis Pater]

6. Any retailer that advertises products in a way that causes people to become excited

should be criminalized. They should have known that offering very good deals causes some people to behave in a violent manner.

[xultar]

9. The shooting had nothing to do with the sale. Two doodes who hated each other met in the store by

accident. Could have happened anywhere.

[Dis Pater]

13. With their marketing techniques they created an environment that encouraged

dog eat dog tactics. Fight for the best deal because there are only so many, get here first or miss out, etc..

This atmosphere stoked the regressive behaviors innate in humans, the hunter/gatherer instincts kick in and no one wants to go home empty handed. Kill or be killed.

[earthlover]

21. sorry, but the stores merely want to create an environment to sell their product

It is crazed consumers who buy into this stuff that stampede others as in the Walmart case. Yet...I know this is mind blowing for some business bashers....a heck of a lot of consumers did not shoot each other or stampede each other.

There used to be a thing of personal responsibility....

[madmom]

33. Hey good luck earthlover, I agree walmart shares some responsibility but not all, the

customers who sunk to the level of animals deserve some as well, after all we are supposed to be civilized adults are we not? I don't care how much store hype is going on people are still responsible for their own actions.

[surrealAmerican]

42. Certainly, the idiots with the guns are 100% to blame ...

... for the Toys R Us incident, but this Walmart event is a different type of problem entirely. Just which people in the crowd would you blame? The people pushing at the back had no clue what was going on ahead, those at the front were unable to stop because of the pushing. A crowd is not a single person with a single motive. Sure, some of those people may have been "crazed consumers", but not all.

[pampango]

43. You obviously have not read the memo "Crazed consumers are victims".

"Personal responsibility" is so 19th century. :hi:

[xultar]

27. The store encouraged two gangbangers to shoot each other. ROFL.

[Dis Pater]

30. Just like the store encouraged the mob stampede that killed that man.

Maybe when you get off the floor laughing about these tragedies, you'll have time to think about it.

[DBoon]

8. No, the store did nothing to encourage this

the event was largely unforseen, not being a likely consequence of encouraging a sale

and hopefully store security was adequate in terms of preparation for this sort of thing

[Hannah Bell]

19. bull. the same thing has happened every year, for years.

just people didn't die. injured by trampling, but didn't die.

"who could have forseen?"

bull.

[trollybob]

15. Of course not. It's just like this country of too many lawyers

to try to blame someone other than the person responsible.(Deep pocket theory) No one should be held criminally, OR CIVILLY, liable for an unforeseen, intervening criminal act by another. How absurd to think otherwise. How many of you would like it if you were sued just because some maniac entered your place of business and started shooting people?

[gristy]

20. "as well" as what?

Are you claiming some sort of equivalency with the Walmart situation? Where?

[ilrslr3]

25. Yes they should be liable!

[Spectral Music]

26. Toys R Us could not have predicted that 2 guys with guns would choose their

electronics department to have a shootout. They can't be blamed for not being prepared for a couple of criminals.

Wal Mart is slightly different story. The crowds are predictable and the unruliness, especially in certain economically desperate neighborhoods (this year in particular), is predictable. Wal Mart did prepare, but they made the mistake of allowing a temporary maintenance worker to open the door instead of having it opened by armed guards with obvious firearms.

[Obamanaut]

29. Yesterday was not the first time there was a Friday immediately

following Thanksgiving. Nor was it the first time that stores had early morning sales with a small quantity of 'door busters' to draw in the crowds. Nor was it the first time that the crowds became unruly. If people can't remember from one November to the next, then bad luck got 'em.

It is the same with people in show business who complain about their lack of privacy. It is not a new phenomenon. It has been going on since show business began, and if the newer 'celebrities' haven't noticed it previously as it happened to others, then bad luck got 'em.

The easiest way to avoid this sort of misery is not to get in a crowd of 500 people who are all trying to get one of the available three __________(insert product here).

[Breeze54]

32. No. TRU was random, Wallyfart was predictable and caused by Wallyfart. n/t

[ContinentalOp]

35. OMG, this was totally terrifying to read at first...

but then at the end it said that Toys R Us will be open tomorrow so it's all good.

[Forkboy]

36. Only for that lame giraffe mascot.

[rug]

38. I'm a pacifist but I'll be damned if anyone buys the last Barbie Jeep before me.

[Deja Q]

41. Only so you can put Barbie in the back seat with that new "Molest Me Elmo" doll.

[TexasObserver]

44. No, and they won't be.

Criminal and civil liability are two entirely different worlds. Criminal liability requires a finding "beyond a reasonable doubt." Civil liability requires only "preponderance of the evidence." Criminal liability is about imposing sanctions for a crime committed. There is no crime committed by Toys R Us in this instance, and no suggestion of such, so there will be NO criminal charges against Toys R Us.

Civil liability is about imposing ECONOMIC sanctions against the person who caused harm by failing to meet a duty to the person or persons injured. When a business invites people to come shop, when they advertise low prices but have only limited quantities, they must expect conflict. It is reasonably foreseeable there will be conflicts. Is it reasonably foreseeable someone will bring a gun into the store? That might depend on the store. It is the foreseeableness that brings liability.

Toys R Us will likely be sued for failure to keep a safe environment, and their activities to assure a rush of shoppers on Black Friday will likely be an issue. However, this case is much different from the Walmart situation, because there is an intervening criminal act by both the shooters in the Toys R Us case.