Man dies in Black Friday shopping stampede.

[Art]

This is apparently a myth. As WP points out it doesn't make much sense business wise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(shopping)#Accounting_practiceRight. Those american degenerates all going crazy over shopping as opposed to classy europeans who just riot when their team loses at the footies eh?

To say somewhere is 'black' meaning crowded is an old and commonly used Irish expression. I'd hazard a guess this was exported to the US and was then used in reference to the crowds in the shops.

 

[Dale]

I do NOT shop on Black Friday.

Same here. The Thanksgiving holiday is my favorite of all holidays precisely because it is so low-key and non-commercial. Just getting together with friends and family to enjoy each other's company and some good food and to be grateful for all of the good things in life. I never go black-Friday shopping because it just doesn't fit with what I like about the holiday. To me a day with my family is much more important than getting a little more "stuff", even without the crowds and danger.

 

[Moonbear]

Look up, I hadn't finished my edit. I'm not saying that it is true, just that is how the term has been used in recent years. It's really more of a supposed "indicator". Articles I have read over the past years say that retailers say that business on Black Friday is an indicator of how profitable the month of December will be. The date on which Thanksgiving falls was actually selected in order to ensure a longer holiday shopping season.

But TSA's point is that it is NOT the correct ORIGIN of the term, which is what was asked earlier in the thread. It has more to do with the dark moods of the people who have to deal with the horrendous crowds...the police, store employees, etc.

 

[LowlyPion]

Same here. The Thanksgiving holiday is my favorite of all holidays precisely because it is so low-key and non-commercial. Just getting together with friends and family to enjoy each other's company and some good food and to be grateful for all of the good things in life. I never go black-Friday shopping because it just doesn't fit with what I like about the holiday. To me a day with my family is much more important than getting a little more "stuff", even without the crowds and danger.

I agree. I think Thanksgiving is more the sharing holiday, and Christmas more the giving/getting holiday. Kids like Christmas more and it's not without its rewards to parents to see their kids happy. But I think the sense of community symbolized by the communal get-together around a table of family and friends, new and old, is a more positive interaction than the what-do-I-get-them, or what-did-I-get of the Solstice Holidays.

I dislike the encroachment that commerce has attempted to make into motivating people onto this gerbil wheel of shopping to make their grab for their wallets, just hours after being so flush from a celebration of community. Free enterprise at its worst, preying on good spirit to gorge like vampires.

And now we have registered a death to go along with that ringing in of the shopping season. Clean-up on Aisle 8.

 

[Gear300]

people seem to die from a lot of stupid $h** now days.

 

[turbo]

It is reported widely that police are reviewing the security camera coverage from that Wal-Mart store, though a department spokesman says that identifying individual shoppers from that footage might be difficult. If they are not going to be able to charge members of that mob with B&E or negligent homicide, the least they can do is post the footage on Youtube and release it to the news media. It would demonstrate how ruthless the crowd was, and some individuals could probably be ID'd by family, friends, and neighbors. Perhaps it could even shame some of the mob into coming forward, though I have little hope of that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081129/ap_on_re_us/wal_mart_death;_ylt=AqVaLB9DV.OD3XmrfceYyjSs0NUE

 

[Evo]

But TSA's point is that it is NOT the correct ORIGIN of the term, which is what was asked earlier in the thread. It has more to do with the dark moods of the people who have to deal with the horrendous crowds...the police, store employees, etc.

No, the poster wanted to know why the day after Thanksgiving was referred to as "Black Friday" not the first time the term was used for something unrelated.

 

[Astronuc]

It appears that the 'black' in Black Friday is taking on a new meaning.

It used to be that negative money in ledger books (before the electronic age) were written in red ink, as opposed to positive entries, which were written in black. I expect the young generation has never seen a black and read typewriter ribbon. My dad used to use one - about 40+ years ago. For some companies, particularly retail business, which are sometimes highly leveraged, the actual profit for the year is realized in the last quarter, and even the last month.

Now the context is perhaps taking on meaning related to the kind of shoppers who stampede employees and other shoppers without regard to the safety and well-being of those others.


The NY Times reports - Wal-Mart Employee Trampled to Death
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/business/29walmart.html

The throng of Wal-Mart shoppers had been building all night, filling sidewalks and stretching across a vast parking lot at the Green Acres Mall in Valley Stream, N.Y. At 3:30 a.m., the Nassau County police had to be called in for crowd control, and an officer with a bullhorn pleaded for order.

Tension grew as the 5 a.m. opening neared. Someone taped up a crude poster: “Blitz Line Starts Here.”

By 4:55, with no police officers in sight, the crowd of more than 2,000 had become a rabble, and could be held back no longer. Fists banged and shoulders pressed on the sliding-glass double doors, which bowed in with the weight of the assault. Six to 10 workers inside tried to push back, but it was hopeless.

Suddenly, witnesses and the police said, the doors shattered, and the shrieking mob surged through in a blind rush for holiday bargains. One worker, Jdimytai Damour, 34, was thrown back onto the black linoleum tiles and trampled in the stampede that streamed over and around him. Others who had stood alongside Mr. Damour trying to hold the doors were also hurled back and run over, witnesses said.

Some workers who saw what was happening fought their way through the surge to get to Mr. Damour, but he had been fatally injured, the police said. Emergency workers tried to revive Mr. Damour, a temporary worker hired for the holiday season, at the scene, but he was pronounced dead an hour later at Franklin Hospital Medical Center in Valley Stream.

Four other people, including a 28-year-old woman who was described as eight months pregnant, were treated at the hospital for minor injuries.

Detective Lt. Michael Fleming, who is in charge of the investigation for the Nassau police, said the store lacked adequate security. He called the scene “utter chaos” and said the “crowd was out of control.” As for those who had run over the victim, criminal charges were possible, the lieutenant said. “I’ve heard other people call this an accident, but it is not,” he said. “Certainly it was a foreseeable act.”

But even with videos from the store’s surveillance cameras and the accounts of witnesses, Lieutenant Fleming and other officials acknowledged that it would be difficult to identify those responsible, let alone to prove culpability.

Some shoppers who had seen the stampede said they were shocked. One of them, Kimberly Cribbs of Queens, said the crowd had acted like “savages.” Shoppers behaved badly even as the store was being cleared, she recalled.

“When they were saying they had to leave, that an employee got killed, people were yelling, ‘I’ve been on line since yesterday morning,’ ” Ms. Cribbs told The Associated Press. “They kept shopping.”
. . . .

 

[Evo]

I saw the store on the news, there was a sign taped to the wall "Blitz line starts here ---->" There should have been actions taken to keep the crowd back and the tension down. Disgusting. The police said the store did not have enough security to handle the amount of people.

 

[turbo]

I saw the store on the news, there was a sign taped to the wall "Blitz line starts here ---->" So, the store was responsible for encouraging the crowd to get worked up. Disgusting.

That kind of "promotion" combined with "early opening", "huge discounts", "quantities are limited", "one day only" etc are used by large retailers to stir up feeding frenzies amongst the mindless, greedy mobs that queue up for these things. There is no doubt that Wal Mart bears responsibility for inciting that pack of greedy morons - I doubt they will change their marketing techniques if they think that they might lose even a fraction of a percentage point in profits, though.

 

[Moonbear]

No, the poster wanted to know why the day after Thanksgiving was referred to as "Black Friday" not the first time the term was used for something unrelated.

But the ORIGIN of the word IS why it's called Black Friday. Just because people have spread an urban legend as the reason for the name doesn't make it now a correct origin. And, as TSA's reference pointed out, a business that was in the red 3 quarters of the year is 1) NOT going to suddenly end up in the black in one day of shopping, and 2) is not going to stay open very long. Yes, businesses boost their profits in the 4th quarter, but they aren't operating at a deficit the rest of the year or they'd be going through bankruptcy before they even got to the end of the year.

It is reported widely that police are reviewing the security camera coverage from that Wal-Mart store, though a department spokesman says that identifying individual shoppers from that footage might be difficult. If they are not going to be able to charge members of that mob with B&E or negligent homicide, the least they can do is post the footage on Youtube and release it to the news media. It would demonstrate how ruthless the crowd was, and some individuals could probably be ID'd by family, friends, and neighbors. Perhaps it could even shame some of the mob into coming forward, though I have little hope of that.

The problem with big mobs like that is the people who actually trampled the guy might not have had any way around him without getting trampled themselves. If they were caught up in the middle of the pack, they may have simply been getting pushed by the crush of the people around them. So, even if you can identify individuals who actually stepped on him, it's hard to say if they really were to blame, or if it was the people in the back who couldn't see what was going on and were continuing to push and shove people ahead of them into the store who really were at fault.

 

[Dale]

That kind of "promotion" combined with "early opening", "huge discounts", "quantities are limited", "one day only" etc are used by large retailers to stir up feeding frenzies amongst the mindless, greedy mobs that queue up for these things. There is no doubt that Wal Mart bears responsibility for inciting that pack of greedy morons - I doubt they will change their marketing techniques if they think that they might lose even a fraction of a percentage point in profits, though.

Are you honestly saying that you believe that Wal-Mart's advertising campaign could be viewed in any way as inciting this murder? I hope I am misunderstanding you, because to play "blame the victim" here seems both absurdly wrong and in very poor taste. Please tell me I am misunderstanding you and you don't really intend to say that retailers who advertise a sale are complicit in the mob-murder of their employees.

 

[Proton Soup]

Are you honestly saying that you believe that Wal-Mart's advertising campaign could be viewed in any way as inciting this murder? I hope I am misunderstanding you, because to play "blame the victim" here seems both absurdly wrong and in very poor taste. Please tell me I am misunderstanding you and you don't really intend to say that retailers who advertise a sale are complicit in the mob-murder of their employees.

why not? it's common for stores to offer enticing buys, special discounts but only 5 or 6 items available for sale. this sets up a race among the consumers. they do this on purpose just to get people into the stores.

 

[Janus]

On Wednesday afternoon, I happened to visit Best Buy. A couple of people had already set up tents for camping out so they could be first in line today. Last night a local TV station interviewed one of them.

We had the same thing here. Apparently this was an annual tradition for some of these people! The reporter also noted that no one was standing in line at the near by Circuit City. The reason: A note posted on the door stating that anyone standing in line before midnight would not be served. The reporter went on to explain that the note was a hoax, and that the store had no such policy.

 

[gravenewworld]

Xmas has become an absolute joke of a holiday.



Please. The argument that we need to buy on Xmas "to help the economy" is BS. We have 364 other days to buy things we don't need to help the economy too. You know what would help the economy too? By increasing the rate of savings in the US. But you don't see people doing that.

 

[Dale]

why not? it's common for stores to offer enticing buys, special discounts but only 5 or 6 items available for sale. this sets up a race among the consumers. they do this on purpose just to get people into the stores.

So what? There is competition everywhere in life, that doesn't mean that the competitors are in any way excused for any inhumane and cruel acts they would commit in order to win. I hope you wouldn't excuse a competitor and blame the organizers of the Boston marathon if the competitor maliciously killed a worker in an attempt to gain a few seconds.

This is a really crass "blame the victim" mentality, and I think it is disgusting. If it were another store besides Wal-Mart would you be making these statements?

 

[turbo]

Are you honestly saying that you believe that Wal-Mart's advertising campaign could be viewed in any way as inciting this murder? I hope I am misunderstanding you, because to play "blame the victim" here seems both absurdly wrong and in very poor taste. Please tell me I am misunderstanding you and you don't really intend to say that retailers who advertise a sale are complicit in the mob-murder of their employees.

Early openings with limited quantities of heavily-discounted items are intended to draw crowds of aggressive, competitive shoppers. Wal Mart WANTS this kind of shopper, and their failure to provide security to control the crowd was negligent.

 

[gravenewworld]

Early openings with limited quantities of heavily-discounted items are intended to draw crowds of aggressive, competitive shoppers. Wal Mart WANTS this kind of shopper, and their failure to provide security to control the crowd was negligent.

I'd have to agree 100% with this statement. From what I saw in the news, the police said this death was 100% entirely avoidable if the proper security was put in place. Best buy hands out tickets for items and maintains an orderly fashion to get goods. People who don't get tickets are turned away.


See the photos of this stampede yet?

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/galleries/walmart_stampede_captured_in_pictures/walmart_stampede_captured_in_pictures.html

 

[Dale]

You both disgust me. "She was asking for it!"

 

[turbo]

You both disgust me. "She was asking for it!"

Your concern is misplaced. The victim was the poor temp worker who was trampled to death. Wal Mart is not the victim. Wal Mart is the enabler of this tragedy. Wal Mart constructed this dangerous situation with no safeguards in place to control the crowd. They wanted a shopping frenzy, and they got one, and it went horribly wrong.

 

[gravenewworld]

You both disgust me. "She was asking for it!"

Since when is Walmart the victim in this whole mess?


Walmart is just flat out stupid for not providing security. In an age where everyone sues everybody for everything you would have thought Walmart would have had the common sense to at least make people form a line.

 

[Dale]

My concern is not misplaced, your blame is misplaced. You are the one who started this line about Wal-Mart being complicit.

I certainly agree that the man is the primary victim, and his family is the secondary victim, and that they both lost much more than the store did, but the store is unarguably a victim. Their building was damaged, their store broken into, their employee was murdered, and their business was disrupted.

Your trying to turn a victim (even one far down the list) into a perpetrator is very disturbing. I cannot believe that you are not embarassed to take such a position. At first I had assumed I was misunderstanding, but it is clear that I am not.

 

[gravenewworld]

My concern is not misplaced, your blame is misplaced. You are the one who started this line about Wal-Mart being complicit.

I certainly agree that the man is the primary victim, and his family is the secondary victim, and that they both lost much more than the store did, but the store is unarguably a victim. Their building was damaged, their store broken into, their employee was murdered, and their business was disrupted.

Your trying to turn a victim (even one far down the list) into a perpetrator is very disturbing. I cannot believe that you are not embarassed to take such a position. At first I had assumed I was misunderstanding, but it is clear that I am not.

This is fallacious logic. So should a nuclear power plant that never does safety checks be held liable if their reactor suddenly explodes poisoning the environment and killing lots of people? I mean the power plant is the victim here right? Their reactor was damaged and they probably lost a lot of money from revenues that they would have made.

Wrong. The power plant should be held liable for creating the situation in the first place. Walmart created the situation by providing no security. End of story.

 

[Dale]

This is fallacious logic. So should a nuclear power plant that never does safety checks be held liable if their reactor suddenly explodes poisoning the environment and killing lots of people? I mean the power plant is the victim here right? Their reactor was damaged and they probably lost a lot of money from revenues that they would have made.

That is a particularly silly straw-man analogy. A nuclear reactor is an inanimate object and has no responsibility for its actions. Of course the designers, owners and operators are responsibile for it. That is not at all analogous to the case at hand. The members of the crowd are not inanimate objects, they are human beings with legal and moral responsibility for their actions.

 

[gravenewworld]

That is a particularly silly straw-man analogy. A nuclear reactor is an inanimate object and has no responsibility for its actions. Of course the designers, owners and operators are responsibile for it. That is not at all analogous to the case at hand. The members of the crowd are not inanimate objects, they are human beings with legal and moral responsibility for their actions.

Your arguments won't win in court. There was clearly an easily foreseeable hazard that was created. Guy died. Not enough security was put in place. End of story.By blaming walmart, no one in any way is absolving the people who trampled the guy. I hope they catch them too. However Walmart is also liable for creating the situation that was "clearly avoidable" as both the paramedics at the scene and also the police put it.

Stores are liable for both the safety of their shoppers and also the safety of their employees. This is not news.

Take for example the fire at that one night club that killed 100 people. The night club owners were found guilty and sentenced to 15 years in prison. But all they did was just create a situation right? The members of the crowd weren't inanimate objects and neither were the band members. So what's your point? People are DUMB. Institutions are held responsible for accidents and tragic events that occur when not enough security is put in place. This has been seen in court cases already.

Your reasoning won't win the the court of law. Sorry.

 

[BobG]

I think you could make a case that the situation was forseeable. It's far from the first Black Friday stampede. As sad as it is, it is forseeable that many people are little more than animals. These from 2006 Black Friday plus the PS3 release:

I like this one. Someone actually keeps the pregnant woman from being trampled (he's the guy shoving people down to keep them from trampling the pregnant woman). She's injured, but still remembers to put her wig back on. Edit: Oops, my bad. That's a 13-year-old girl protecting the pregnant woman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeSgBL7gpAk



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bhp1ElO4MiA

This one provides a frame by frame replay of a guy unexpectedly kissing a flagpole at full speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myQpL8_M980

 

[LowlyPion]

Early openings with limited quantities of heavily-discounted items are intended to draw crowds of aggressive, competitive shoppers. Wal Mart WANTS this kind of shopper, and their failure to provide security to control the crowd was negligent.

I don't think there is such a clear connection to liability. Low prices - sure. They want to advertise to encourage traffic. Limited product quantities? They want to limit their losses from these loss leaders, though it is unclear just how limited the quantities may have been. The real limits seem to be in timing - such as 5 - 7 am. That is plenty of time to make orderly purchases without being trampled.

It is far too easy to make the deep pockets responsible. What needs to be shown is that there was a calculated understanding that there would be hysteria and a reckless disregard for the safety of its employees and shoppers by Wal-mart at the opening. Now if you could discover a memo that suggests the loss of life would be free publicity ... you'd have a priceless smoking gun.

But failing that it was an unfortunate set of circumstances that resulted in the accidental loss of life. And clearly Wal-mart can be expected to handle things better in the future as regards to creating an orderly entrance at opening as now they have adequate knowledge of the inherent risks associated with such circumstances, but you cannot totally absolve the crowd itself for its group behavior, and for its disregard for the safety of others.

 

[Proton Soup]

i'm just going to assume that the "someone" who put up the Blitz poster was a walmart employee. i don't think most holiday shoppers carry posterboard and markers and tape with them. so, to me at least, it's looking like walmart intended for there to be this mad stampede of customers in the store. lawyers are going to have a field day here. i bet the payout will be enormous and they'll settle out of court to keep the figures out of the papers.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

oh the insanity. Black Friday stampedes are nothing new. Those who are part of the stampede and then end up getting trampled on, well, sorry that is their responsibility. There is such thing as risk assessment that must go on in someones brain. If someone thinks involving themselves in this riot is a good idea, then they must face the possible consequences. I am willing to bet that if someone in front of the pregnant lady fell, she would not think twice about stomping on that person to get a chance at whatever she was there for. I don't care if Wal-Mart partly facilitates this. It ultimately is personal responsibility for being involved in this. I didn't go shopping on black friday because I don't find standing in line and rioting much fun.

 

[Cyrus]

That is a particularly silly straw-man analogy. A nuclear reactor is an inanimate object and has no responsibility for its actions. Of course the designers, owners and operators are responsibile for it. That is not at all analogous to the case at hand. The members of the crowd are not inanimate objects, they are human beings with legal and moral responsibility for their actions.

I'm sorry, but you are way off the mark. These types of crowds rushing into stores is a known problem that has been going on for a few years now. When the store does nothing about crowd control knowing full well what has happened historically, they are at fault.

If you want to argue otherwise, good luck to you. You'll get the pants sued off you so fast it will make your head spin.