Man dies in Black Friday shopping stampede.

[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.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

When the store does nothing about crowd control knowing full well what has happened historically, they are at fault.

How about the crowd controlling themselves knowing full well of what has happened historically. Are we freakin stupid zombies all of a sudden that need to be corralled like cows?

 

[Cyrus]

How about the crowd controlling themselves knowing full well of what has happened historically. Are we freakin stupid zombies all of a sudden that need to be corralled like cows?

I think they should run into the store to find awaiting inside a group of police with batons to hit them all.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. But the store is at fault for enticing such behavior.

From the videos, obviously yes. Sadly, people are stupid zombies. Since this was known and the stores continued to promote such dangerous sales practicese they are at fault.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

From the videos, obviously yes. Sadly, people are stupid zombies. Since this was known and the stores continued to promote such dangerous sales practicese they are at fault.

The stores certainly didn't help the situation, totally agreed. But I still stick with personal responsibility. The stores can't make anyone do anything. It is a personal choice to act a certain way.

 

[LowlyPion]

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?

I think this citation is not useful because I believe in this case it is a bit more complicated. Ultimately there were a number of defendants in the civil action, that was exacerbated to no small degree by the failure of the insulation company to disclose the flammability of their product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire

The promoter/pyrotechnician was sentenced to 15, but served 4. The owners roughly the same.

 

[Monique]

How about the crowd controlling themselves knowing full well of what has happened historically. Are we freakin stupid zombies all of a sudden that need to be corralled like cows?

Traveling by public transportation in rush hour I experience everyday that crowds are unable to control themselves. It really is a sad thing but people loose personal responsibility when surrounded by a group of people (for example hooligans).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Traveling by public transportation in rush hour I experience everyday that crowds are unable to control themselves. It really is a sad thing but people loose personal responsibility when surrounded by a group of people (for example hooligans).

Good point. Mob mentality is very powerful.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It really is a sad thing but people loose personal responsibility when surrounded by a group of people (for example hooligans).

By hooligans, do you mean salespeople?

This incident is pathetic beyond belief. One has to wonder why anyone would be so anxious to buy crap. To an extent I can understand mob mentality, but I don't understand why we have mobs at WalMart.

 

[Hurkyl]

How about the crowd controlling themselves knowing full well of what has happened historically. Are we freakin stupid zombies all of a sudden that need to be corralled like cows?

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know it!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know it!

Interesting way of putting it

 

[Hurkyl]

It's by far the best way I've heard of summarizing it. (It's a quote from Men in Black; except I forgot the word 'dangerous')

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's a quote from Men in Black;

An unexpected reference!

 

[Proton Soup]

The stores certainly didn't help the situation, totally agreed. But I still stick with personal responsibility. The stores can't make anyone do anything. It is a personal choice to act a certain way.

how do you feel about the poor stocker that got assigned to man the doors? is the store not responsible for putting him in that position?

 

[edward]

The concept of Mob Mentality has been well known for years. As I stated earlier 2000 people, even in a Super Walmart, is well beyond what the fire codes would allow.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

how do you feel about the poor stocker that got assigned to man the doors? is the store not responsible for putting him in that position?

I feel badly for him. Study the video and criminally prosecute those who stomped on him. Maybe that will set an example for others. The store did not tell the group of people to rush in and stomp the man. Send those directly responsible to jail. Maybe fire the management at the store.

 

[Moonbear]

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.

I agree. It wouldn't have taken much effort to put up rope lines to get people to enter in a more orderly fashion, especially once they saw the crowd growing.

How about the crowd controlling themselves knowing full well of what has happened historically. Are we freakin stupid zombies all of a sudden that need to be corralled like cows?

The point is that once someone is in the middle of that crowd, whether they planned to walk in calmly and orderly or not, they propelled forward by the unruly mob behind them. Why the people at the back of the line think they're going to get a better chance at buying some cheap crap if they push the people in front of them faster, I don't know, but it's usually the people in the back of the crowd that are more the problem than the ones in the front. It doesn't take much on the part of the store to put some measures in place to control that crowd. From setting up a single-file queue with rope lines, to even putting an occassional stop in place along that queue so people have to wait for a portion of the line to move before the next section moves to keep things moving slowly and organized, it really isn't hard. It's the same concept used by amusement parks. You don't just let everyone in the parking lot rush at the door at one time and in no order!

I hope the employee's family sues the pants off Walmart for the loss. As for preventing it in the future, I think the best hope is for the insurance carriers for those stores to raise rates through the roof if they hold "door buster" type sales, and raise them astronomically, or drop them entirely, if they don't put specific security measures in place to prevent such incidents from happening.

 

[BobG]

I agree. It wouldn't have taken much effort to put up rope lines to get people to enter in a more orderly fashion, especially once they saw the crowd growing.



The point is that once someone is in the middle of that crowd, whether they planned to walk in calmly and orderly or not, they propelled forward by the unruly mob behind them. Why the people at the back of the line think they're going to get a better chance at buying some cheap crap if they push the people in front of them faster, I don't know, but it's usually the people in the back of the crowd that are more the problem than the ones in the front. It doesn't take much on the part of the store to put some measures in place to control that crowd. From setting up a single-file queue with rope lines, to even putting an occassional stop in place along that queue so people have to wait for a portion of the line to move before the next section moves to keep things moving slowly and organized, it really isn't hard. It's the same concept used by amusement parks. You don't just let everyone in the parking lot rush at the door at one time and in no order!

I hope the employee's family sues the pants off Walmart for the loss. As for preventing it in the future, I think the best hope is for the insurance carriers for those stores to raise rates through the roof if they hold "door buster" type sales, and raise them astronomically, or drop them entirely, if they don't put specific security measures in place to prevent such incidents from happening.

Setting up rope lines so people outside the store enter in an orderly fashion almost always works. That's not the same as always works. The kind of situation where the Walmart employee was killed is extremely rare. Usually, even when lines don't work (whether ropes are used or not), the stampede doesn't start immediately. It's the latecomers trying to cut in line after the doors are open that start the stampede (cutting in line before the doors open is just asking for violent confrontation; getting through the doors and into the store makes the chances of confrontation extremely small since both have made their goal).

A store would practically have to put up a chain link fence to be sure of controlling the lines. It becomes a cost-benefit situation where the store will probably be okay without any expensive measures to control the crowd. Expanded over an entire chain of stores nationwide, I would expect Walmart to make more money off of the sales that day than they'll pay in damages for one death and a few injuries.

 

[mheslep]

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know it!

K to J!

 

[WarPhalange]

Are we freakin stupid zombies all of a sudden that need to be corralled like cows?

"All of a sudden"? Where have you been for the past 10,000 or so years?

 

[turbo]

A Finnish research collaborator of mine has as his sig:

Stupidity grows denser in a crowd. (Old Finnish saying)

 

[Monique]

I wish I had a taser so I could jolt all the people who are rude enough to push me over just to get into a train or bus, or the ones who are pushing from the back (why would you push?)

I agree with Moonbear that there should be additional security measures taken in situations that are potential crowd-attractors, but I think it will be difficult to make a law to reinforce this (how much crowd control do you need for what situations).

 

[Moonbear]

I agree with Moonbear that there should be additional security measures taken in situations that are potential crowd-attractors, but I think it will be difficult to make a law to reinforce this (how much crowd control do you need for what situations).

I saw an article in the news earlier today (but didn't save the link) that local officials in Long Island are already looking into passing a law to mandate what types of sales would require additional security, and to specify what types of additional security are needed, as well as require coordinating such events with local police so they are prepared if a situation gets out of hand. I'm not sure how realistic it will be. I mean, some parts they certainly can require, such as sales of limited quantities for limited times that typically attract large crowds could be required to have a certain amount of security personnel and sturdier barriers to prevent them from all rushing the door at once. But, I'm not sure that the local police will have enough officers to cover all the stores that want to do this type of sale if they require police be involved.

 

[Proton Soup]

the store should just run a raffle system. everyone that wants gets a ticket for the in-demand items, then you start calling out numbers. anyone that isn't present, you go to the next until all items are sold. no need for a stampede.

 

[turbo]

Sears was even more blatant about the "quantities limited" and "bait and switch" scams years back. In 1982, my wife did not have a driver's license, so I bought a nice Honda Civic, and since winter was coming on, I wanted to equip it with all-weather tires. Sears advertised a sale that featured some high-quality Michelin tires, and of course, the smallest ones (that fit the Civic) had REALLY low prices in the ads. I was the first person in the store, only to be told that those tires were sold out in that size. I had to threaten the manager with a law-suit before she agreed to issue a rain-check.

During that same sale, an attractively-priced set of screwdrivers were also "sold out" first thing in the morning, though larger, more expensive sets were available. Creeps.

 

[Moonbear]

Sears was even more blatant about the "quantities limited" and "bait and switch" scams years back. In 1982, my wife did not have a driver's license, so I bought a nice Honda Civic, and since winter was coming on, I wanted to equip it with all-weather tires. Sears advertised a sale that featured some high-quality Michelin tires, and of course, the smallest ones (that fit the Civic) had REALLY low prices in the ads. I was the first person in the store, only to be told that those tires were sold out in that size. I had to threaten the manager with a law-suit before she agreed to issue a rain-check.

During that same sale, an attractively-priced set of screwdrivers were also "sold out" first thing in the morning, though larger, more expensive sets were available. Creeps.

Back in the 80's, a lot of stores used those methods to attract customers, which is why there are more laws prohibiting it now. The other common trick used by stores selling major appliances was to put out a circular ad with an unbelievably low price on an item like a refrigerator or washer and dryer set. When you got to the store to buy it, it would be sold out, even though the same model was sitting on the floor in front of you. They'd then point to the fine print in the ad that would list the SERIAL number of the appliance for sale...they only had ONE at that price! I don't know how that ever really worked, because when they tried it on my parents, we just walked out in disgust from that appliance store never to return.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Back in the 80's, a lot of stores used those methods to attract customers, which is why there are more laws prohibiting it now. The other common trick used by stores selling major appliances was to put out a circular ad with an unbelievably low price on an item like a refrigerator or washer and dryer set. When you got to the store to buy it, it would be sold out, even though the same model was sitting on the floor in front of you. They'd then point to the fine print in the ad that would list the SERIAL number of the appliance for sale...they only had ONE at that price! I don't know how that ever really worked, because when they tried it on my parents, we just walked out in disgust from that appliance store never to return.

They get the people who go in after seeing the ad expecting great prices, see... prices, and hence assume they're great

 

[BobG]

Which would be a better example of mob mentality overcoming an individual's most rational decision (from the standpoint of achieving their goal)?

1) Calmly going to the end of the Walmart line knowing a position at the end of the line reduces your chances of purchasing any of the items on sale.

2) Joining the stampede into Walmart as soon as you see someone else cutting in line.

I'm not advocating that cutting in line and starting a stampede is a good action. I just think maybe the stampede is mischaractized a bit.

Peer pressure encouraging conformity has some good aspects, as well, which is probably why it becomes such a powerful force in influencing individual behavior. It maintains some stable behavior in society even when that behavior can be disadvantageous to the person in certain situations.

Kind of like the popular ethics question where a poor man has an ill wife that will die without a rare, expensive medication. Should he steal the medication to save his wife, especially since stealing a rare medication means it won't be available to save a different, wealthier patient with the same disease?

Or the famous Asch experiment where if everyone else gives the same incorrect response, the subject of the experiment has a much better chance of giving the same incorrect response - even when the questions are so easy that the average person would be sure to give the correct answer if tested alone (the percentage of correct responses dropped from 100% to about 63% with 75% of subjects making at least one incorrect response - people can resist peer pressure, but few are completely immune to it).

As soon as one person breaks conformity, others find it much easier to break conformity as well (Asch experiment and the Milgram experiment). As soon as shoppers see latecomers making the more rational decision (at least for that single situation) of cutting into line and getting into the store as rapidly as possible, many shoppers throw conformity aside and start looking out for their own interests - society be damned.

 

[LowlyPion]

The simplest way to deal with it is to create a line in the parking lot and force people to enter in a much narrower stream than the doors. No line then the doors won't open. It should only take a few employees outside to create orderliness and throw up a temporary rope line.

I was reading about a man in NJ that was pinned to the ground by Walmart employees for shoplifting a few day ago and he died.

If they have the muscle to do that, then they should have been able to prevent a surging crowd.

 

[BobG]

The simplest way to deal with it is to create a line in the parking lot and force people to enter in a much narrower stream than the doors. No line then the doors won't open. It should only take a few employees outside to create orderliness and throw up a temporary rope line.

I was reading about a man in NJ that was pinned to the ground by Walmart employees for shoplifting a few day ago and he died.

If they have the muscle to do that, then they should have been able to prevent a surging crowd.

Or one policeman. You don't need enough to outmuscle the entire crowd. You only need enough that no one wants to risk being the only dissenter.

 

[LowlyPion]

You mean the "I've got 6 shots. Who's going to be first" deterrence?

Probably a useful tactic all the way up to lynchings and likely more than enough to keep a half-priced Barbie crazed mob at bay.