Black Friday shoppers break down doors, trample employee to death

[Name Lips]

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27955316/)


Wal-Mart worker dies after crowd rushes store
Shoppers knocked him over, 'physically broke down doors,' police say

NEW YORK - A worker was killed in the crush Friday after a throng of shoppers eager for post-Thanksgiving bargains burst through the doors at a suburban Wal-Mart, authorities said.

Nassau County police said the 34-year-old man was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead at about 6 a.m. ET, an hour after the store in Valley Stream on Long Island opened.

A police statement said a throng of shoppers "physically broke down the doors, knocking him to the ground." The exact cause of death "will be determined by the medical examiner's office," the police stated.

A co-worker said the clerk was "bum-rushed by 200 people," according to the New York Daily News. "They took the doors off the hinges," said Jimmy Overby. "He was trampled and killed in front of me. They took me down too ... I literally had to fight people off my back."

Police added that "a 28-year-old pregnant female was also transported to an area hospital for observation."

Shopper Jessica Keyes told the Daily News that she saw the woman being knocked down near where the worker lay dying.

According to Keys, when paramedics arrived they told the woman that "there's nothing we can do. The baby is gone."

But a police spokesman later said both the woman and her unborn child were doing fine.

Other shoppers said people kept entering the story as emergency crews attended the woman and store clerk.

"They were working on him, but you could see he was dead," the Daily News quoted shopper Halcyon Alexander as saying. "People were still coming through."

"They're savages," shopper Kimberly Cribbs said of the crowd. "It's sad. It's terrible."

Police added that three other shoppers " suffered minor injuries and were transported to area hospitals."

Ellen Davis, a spokeswoman at National Retail Federation, said the group knew of no other incident where a retail employee has died working on the day after Thanksgiving.

Wal-Mart is working closely with police, company spokesman Dan Fogleman said. “The safety and security of our customers and associates is our top priority,” Fogleman said. “Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families at this difficult time.”
For some reason the canned reply, which is perfectly crafted to avoid offending anybody, but completely devoid of real emotion, upset me.

I worked at Wal-Mart last year on Black Friday. It was a 24-hour store so we had the special deals on pallets in the middle of the big aisles, and at exactly 5:00am we stripped off the opaque black plastic and let the crowds descend on them. It truly was madness, though nowhere near the scale of what happened in the article. After the first 15 minutes everything that was on sale was gone. The good stuff was gone in 2 or 3 minutes - I saw one guy with two big screen TVs balanced precariously in his cart. Another person was buying a stack of DVD players. Others stripped the movie display of all the movies, even though some marketing moron had forgotten to put a price on the display. They just assumed they were a good deal because they were under the Black Friday Plastic.

But after that first rush, after those first 2 or 3 minutes... most of the deals were gone. Hundreds of people weren't the first ones into the store and got precisely squat. Thus the madness, the horrifying rush, the stampede. People want to get to those deals. They've been waiting for hours to have a shot at it.

And this time some poor guy got trampled to death.

You hear of people getting trampled during pilgrimages to holy shrines around the world.

We are Americans. We trample people to death for 20% off. Capitalism is our religion, and Wal-Mart is our holy shrine.

[Varaj]

Sadly, be it concerts, religious events, sporting events, shopping events, etc. a mass of people stop acting as individuals. Tramplings happen way too often for us to be complacent with any large group of people that want to move.

[Kilmore]

Wait a minute... Some store worker got destroyed in the rush... and then they LET PEOPLE CHECK OUT?!? I know for damn sure Loss Prevention saw everything and got the whole thing on camera. They should have locked the place down until arrests were made.

[Varaj]

Wait a minute... Some store worker got destroyed in the rush... and then they LET PEOPLE CHECK OUT?!? I know for damn sure Loss Prevention saw everything and got the whole thing on camera. They should have locked the place down until arrests were made.

Who to you arrest? No single step killed. Often the people stepping on can't help but stepping on a downed person because literally they are being pushed forward. They can't stop to help even if they want to because of the extreme pressure of bodies behind them. They are packed so close they may not even be aware of the fact they stepped on somebody. The people at the front didn't break down the door they were pushed through the door.

[PWD]

Might as well get a bargain while you're there, too.

[Northcott]

In echoing Kilmore's sentiment; the only way this kind of behaviour will be curbed is if accountability is forced upon the greedy sons of bitches who are responsible.

In seeing pictures from these mad Wal-Mart rushes, I don't see people being forced through the front doors -- I see them prying the doors open and shoving people aside to get what they want. I say the local DA should find the most appropriate charges that are most likely to stick, and nail as many people as they can. These are not decent, law-abiding citizens. These are people who have put human life and dignity on a level of priority below getting a goddamned DVD player for a good price. Burn 'em.

And while they're at it, burn Wal-Mart for safety violations if local laws allow for it. Around here there are bylaws that demand a certain level of crowd control from stores, bars, etc. Fail to have appropriate security on hand, or allow too many people into your business for safety, and you can get smacked with some serious penalties.

[Varaj]

In echoing Kilmore's sentiment; the only way this kind of behaviour will be curbed is if accountability is forced upon the greedy sons of bitches who are responsible.

In seeing pictures from these mad Wal-Mart rushes, I don't see people being forced through the front doors -- I see them prying the doors open and shoving people aside to get what they want. I say the local DA should find the most appropriate charges that are most likely to stick, and nail as many people as they can. These are not decent, law-abiding citizens. These are people who have put human life and dignity on a level of priority below getting a goddamned DVD player for a good price. Burn 'em.

And while they're at it, burn Wal-Mart for safety violations if local laws allow for it. Around here there are bylaws that demand a certain level of crowd control from stores, bars, etc. Fail to have appropriate security on hand, or allow too many people into your business for safety, and you can get smacked with some serious penalties.

I wonder if anybody besides the owner/operator of a building has ever been found guilty in a trampling death (or even charged).

[Ink Bleeder]

They might want to start handing out numbered tickets to arrivals, and letting folks in a few at a time, in small groups. I've never been to Wal-Mart when the doors opened on Black Friday, but after Merak's description, I would never, ever go to that - I just don't shop that way. Horrible.

[Kilmore]

I wonder if anybody besides the owner/operator of a building has ever been found guilty in a trampling death (or even charged).
I think the biggest problem is identifying the culprits. But since we have Wal-Mart's Loss Prevention security cameras and recorders as well as a lot of these guys' credit card numbers, I'm sure even a District Attorney would be able to put the finger on some people.

[Varaj]

I think the biggest problem is identifying the culprits. But since we have Wal-Mart's Loss Prevention security cameras and recorders as well as a lot of these guys' credit card numbers, I'm sure even a District Attorney would be able to put the finger on some people.

What actions would you be looking for?

[Kilmore]

What actions would you be looking for?

Let's see the video.

[Varaj]

Let's see the video.

I'm slightly confused your original position seemed to be "hold them until arrests were made" which to me means arrests would be made, assuming you don't want to hold them forever.

Since you think arrests should be made what specific activities do you think occurred should people be arrested for?

[Random Encounter]

What actions would you be looking for?

Assault resulting in death?

How about rioting? "Under United States federal law, a riot is defined as A public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual"

Although this is really more of a stampede than a riot "A stampede is an act of mass impulse among herd animals or a crowd of people in which the herd (or crowd) collectively begins running with no clear direction or purpose."

[Varaj]

Assault resulting in death?

How about rioting? "Under United States federal law, a riot is defined as A public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual"

Although this is really more of a stampede than a riot "A stampede is an act of mass impulse among herd animals or a crowd of people in which the herd (or crowd) collectively begins running with no clear direction or purpose."

You I don't believe you get either to stick, not by a long stretch. Personally I believe assault/battery isn't even close. Riot is more likely but as you say it is acts of violence and doesn't really apply in this case. A trampling death is an accident.

You might be better off trying for manslaughter (best bet in my opinion) but are you going to charge 200 people with manslaughter?

[Random Encounter]

Riot is more likely but as you say it is acts of violence and doesn't really apply in this case. A trampling death is an accident.


I believe that rioting could be attributed by the destruction of the doors.
The destruction of the doors being the "act of violence....resulting in the injury of the person of another individual".

[Trainz]

Black Friday didn't happen overnight. All the participants (customers and employees) have willingly, year after year, been part of that chaotic day, and the degree of violence that goes with it has been gradual.

When do you get off the sinking boat? Some would do it sooner than later, and those that waited too long have only themselves to blame.

It's sad that someone died, and hopefully this will make next Black Fridays safer, but there are no guilty people here, other than generic stupidity, from ALL parties involved.

[Varaj]

I believe that rioting could be attributed by the destruction of the doors.
The destruction of the doors being the "act of violence....resulting in the injury of the person of another individual".

I would be very surprised if that would constitute. In my opinion you are really stretching here.

[Kilmore]

You I don't believe you get either to stick, not by a long stretch. Personally I believe assault/battery isn't even close. Riot is more likely but as you say it is acts of violence and doesn't really apply in this case. A trampling death is an accident.

You might be better off trying for manslaughter (best bet in my opinion) but are you going to charge 200 people with manslaughter?

Definitely at least Reckless Endangerment. As far as the video comment goes, the LP folks should be watching everything as it unfolds, and they should be in contact with the folks up front. In most stores they can and will take action immediately if someone as much as cracks the plastic on a 50 cent CD, much less kills somebody.

The fact that this apparently didn't happen says a whole lot about the lack of security that allowed this tragedy to occur.

[Varaj]

Definitely at least Reckless Endangerment. As far as the video comment goes, the LP folks should be watching everything as it unfolds, and they should be in contact with the folks up front. In most stores they can and will take action immediately if someone as much as cracks the plastic on a 50 cent CD, much less kills somebody.

The fact that this apparently didn't happen says a whole lot about the lack of security that allowed this tragedy to occur.

I could certainly see reckless endangerment as a viable option, not sure it is productive to charge 200 people with it but reckless endangerment or manslaughter are your most likely to stick (still unlikely in my opinion).

[Name Lips]

Vandalism.

[Trainz]

Vandalism.

Yeah, that's about it. And you don't go to jail for it (at least for first offense). You pay a little fine, the loved ones of the dead employee cry, and you start it all over again next year.

[shiningbrow]

In echoing Kilmore's sentiment; the only way this kind of behaviour will be curbed is if accountability is forced upon the greedy sons of bitches who are responsible.

In seeing pictures from these mad Wal-Mart rushes, I don't see people being forced through the front doors -- I see them prying the doors open and shoving people aside to get what they want. I say the local DA should find the most appropriate charges that are most likely to stick, and nail as many people as they can. These are not decent, law-abiding citizens. These are people who have put human life and dignity on a level of priority below getting a goddamned DVD player for a good price. Burn 'em.

And while they're at it, burn Wal-Mart for safety violations if local laws allow for it. Around here there are bylaws that demand a certain level of crowd control from stores, bars, etc. Fail to have appropriate security on hand, or allow too many people into your business for safety, and you can get smacked with some serious penalties.

I agree, but it's hard to legislate away greed and stupidity. And where do you put these hapless idiots once they've been convicted? In prison at $35k/year each? We have a sick consumerist society and I don't think solving this problem is as easy as arresting poor bastards who are trying to save a buck to buy Christmas presents.

[Harry]

I decided to look some things up, and all I can say is "Wow".... There's actually a Wiki for the subject of "human stampedes":

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

[Enk]

I could certainly see reckless endangerment as a viable option, not sure it is productive to charge 200 people with it but reckless endangerment or manslaughter are your most likely to stick (still unlikely in my opinion).

This happened in New York, correct? Assuming that WalMart claims enough $ as destruction of property to make the vandalism a felony (as opposed to a misdemeanor), you've got a valid murder charge for the persons who wrecked the doors and let in the crowds. Death as a result of a felony is automatically murder in that state IIRC.

[cnath.rm]

This happened in New York, correct? Assuming that WalMart claims enough $ as destruction of property to make the vandalism a felony (as opposed to a misdemeanor), you've got a valid murder charge for the persons who wrecked the doors and let in the crowds. Death as a result of a felony is automatically murder in that state IIRC.Ohhh, nice catch!! Hopefully some DA thinks of the idea as well.

If they can nail student/morons in the MSU riots a few years back after they were seen on camera during car flippings and such, I don't see why they couldn't nail shoppers/morons who are on camera when the doors come down.

[Varaj]

This happened in New York, correct? Assuming that WalMart claims enough $ as destruction of property to make the vandalism a felony (as opposed to a misdemeanor), you've got a valid murder charge for the persons who wrecked the doors and let in the crowds. Death as a result of a felony is automatically murder in that state IIRC.

All depends on how the doors came down. Was it from press of the crowd or deliberate destruction?

[Harry]

My ex-wife and I had front row seats once at a concert where half the room was reserved, half wasn't. During the second encore (best show I ever saw), security fell apart and the general admission crowd rushed the stage. My ex and I were nearly crushed. Very difficult to extricate ourselves. Very hard and arduous, and we were split up in the process. Took forever to find each other, but then, Bob Dylan's roadies didn't make it easy on me once I started heading for the wings.

hth

[Kilmore]

Here we go. Where was security?

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

[Enk]

All depends on how the doors came down. Was it from press of the crowd or deliberate destruction?

That's what the cameras are for.

[Kilmore]

Two dead in Toys'R Us. They shot the shit out of one another.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081129/ap_on_re_us/toy_store_shooting;_ylt=AkTVaLd.bVJcGl9oX622M6Ss0N UE

[Name Lips]

Here we go. Where was security?


And what do you think security could have done?

[Kilmore]

And what do you think security could have done?

Whatever they did at 35 hundred other Wal-Marts and other stores that no one got killed at.

[Name Lips]

Ah. Built their stores in better neighborhoods. :tongue:

[Kilmore]

Low income is no excuse unless they trampled someone for the sake of pampers and ramen noodles.

[Pigs in Space]

I'm pretty sure this has happened in Australia before.

I'm also fairly sure there are laws now about security to people ratio, and opening hour times, and also how wide the door can be.

[Dawnstar]

I know they have fire codes that say how many people can be in on structure at a time but not sure if there are codes about people to security ratio. but now that you mention it, it would be something good to have out there.

[Varaj]

Here we go. Where was security?

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

All the stores here make people line up to enter. Big fuck up on the stores part. Doesn't mitigate the peoples responsibility. Before things started people should have seen the mass and gotten out of it. :mad:

[Harry]

Number of security guards can't make a difference. One can do the job of dozens, if he's capable of giving commands and has a megaphone or loudspeaker. It is the fault of the people rushing, but you can't fault the people in front. It's the people in back causing the problem. Hence, the need for one man with a megaphone. And I'm can only assume no one had one.

[The Winslow]

And you wonder why zombie movies always have a mall scene nowadays...

[Ancalagon]

To me, it seems the situation was in part engineered by Walmart by having just a few items on "supersale". If everything is gone in a few minutes, there is a need for a mad rush. If you could go at noon and still get stuff on sale, there wouldn't be a need for this madness.

[Name Lips]

Further Details (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27955316/)


Cops hunt Wal-Mart shoppers after worker dies
Charges possible after Black Friday crowd tramples employee at N.Y. store

NEW YORK - Police were reviewing video from surveillance cameras in an attempt to identify who trampled to death a Wal-Mart worker after a crowd of post-Thanksgiving shoppers burst through the doors at a suburban store and knocked him down.

Criminal charges were possible, but identifying individual shoppers in Friday's video may prove difficult, said Detective Lt. Michael Fleming, a Nassau County police spokesman.

Other workers were trampled as they tried to rescue the man, and customers stepped over him and became irate when officials said the store was closing because of the death, police and witnesses said.

At least four other people, including a woman who was eight months pregnant, were taken to hospitals for observation or minor injuries. The store in Valley Stream on Long Island closed for several hours before reopening.

Police said about 2,000 people were gathered outside the Wal-Mart doors before its 5 a.m. opening at a mall about 20 miles east of Manhattan. The impatient crowd knocked the employee, identified by police as Jdimytai Damour, to the ground as he opened the doors, leaving a metal portion of the frame crumpled like an accordion.

"This crowd was out of control," Fleming said. He described the scene as "utter chaos," and said the store didn't have enough security.

Dozens of store employees trying to fight their way out to help Damour were also getting trampled by the crowd, Fleming said. Shoppers stepped over the man on the ground and streamed into the store.

Damour, 34, of Queens, was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead around 6 a.m., police said. The exact cause of death has not been determined.'

'Savages'
A 28-year-old pregnant woman was taken to a hospital, where she and the baby were reported to be OK, said police Sgt. Anthony Repalone.

Kimberly Cribbs, who witnessed the stampede, said shoppers were acting like "savages."

"When they were saying they had to leave, that an employee got killed, people were yelling `I've been on line since yesterday morning,'" she said. "They kept shopping."

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., based in Bentonville, Ark., called the incident a "tragic situation" and said the employee came from a temporary agency and was doing maintenance work at the store. It said it tried to prepare for the crowd by adding staffers and outside security workers, putting up barricades and consulting police.

"Despite all of our precautions, this unfortunate event occurred," senior Vice President Hank Mullany said in a statement. "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those impacted."

A woman reported being trampled by overeager customers at a Wal-Mart opening Friday in Farmingdale, about 15 miles east of Valley Stream, Suffolk County police said. She suffered minor injuries, but finished shopping before filling the report, police said.

Shoppers around the country line up early outside stores on the day after Thanksgiving in the annual bargain-hunting ritual known as Black Friday. It got that name because it has historically been the day when stores broke into profitability for the full year.

Items on sale at the Valley Stream Wal-Mart included a Samsung 50-inch Plasma HDTV for $798, a Bissel Compact Upright Vacuum for $28, a Samsung 10.2 megapixel digital camera for $69 and DVDs such as "The Incredible Hulk" for $9.
Answers some of our questions.

[Varaj]

Answers some of our questions.

It does? Which ones?

[Name Lips]

Are the police investigating? Were shoppers allowed to check out? Where was security? Were precautions in place?

[Varaj]

Are the police investigating? Were shoppers allowed to check out? Where was security? Were precautions in place?

Ahhh I didn't realize those where questions we had. :grey:

[Northcott]

All the stores here make people line up to enter. Big fuck up on the stores part. Doesn't mitigate the peoples responsibility. Before things started people should have seen the mass and gotten out of it. :mad:

Oh, man. I'm so with you there.

[Northcott]

I wonder if anybody besides the owner/operator of a building has ever been found guilty in a trampling death (or even charged).


I don't know, but it's a damned good question. While I do think that businesses need to be held accountable for their actions (or lack thereof), and need to feel the lash of law in such cases, I don't believe that we've done our society any favours by utterly failing to hold individuals in such crowds responsible for their choices. There's a world of difference between being pushed along in front of a mob, and willingly being part of the rush, not caring who gets trampled in the process.

Of course, proving that intent is almost impossible in such cases. But letting it go seems to be encouraging this sort of behaviour to spiral further out of control.


I agree, but it's hard to legislate away greed and stupidity. And where do you put these hapless idiots once they've been convicted? In prison at $35k/year each? We have a sick consumerist society and I don't think solving this problem is as easy as arresting poor bastards who are trying to save a buck to buy Christmas presents.

See... I think the "poor bastard" in the equation is the poor minimum wage son of a bitch who got trampled by a bunch of fuckers who were more interested in saving a buck than the basic notions of human dignity or the sanctity of life. Which isn't meant to be a snark at you, but rather an expression of my disgust with the situation as a whole.

But as to our sick consumerist society, and the treatment for it...

I could certainly see reckless endangerment as a viable option, not sure it is productive to charge 200 people with it but reckless endangerment or manslaughter are your most likely to stick (still unlikely in my opinion).

Let's play ball with the number 200; even though it may be a half dozen, a dozen, or a couple dozen people charged -- let's say for now that they manage to correctly identify, pinpoint, and make a case against 200 people.

How is it not productive to charge them all?

Would it be insanely expensive? Certainly! Would it be arguably unfair to severely punish so many? Undoubtedly people would debate it. Would it draw massive media attention? Unquestionably -- and that's where part of the value comes in. The value in such a sweeping action isn't in the immediate payoff, but in the message it sends. Social engineering isn't taken with a view to the immediate, but a preference for the long term. The punishments of law function as a personal deterrent. It no longer seems sufficient to put the onus chiefly upon companies, when lack of personal accountability seems rampant in our society.

Mileage may vary, but I think one or two expensive and dramatic examples do a world of good in convincing the rest to keep their heads down.

[Hatter]

People act differently in a mob, it's weird and scary. Mobs scare the living fuck out of me, I will purposefully avoid any situation where there are large crowds because things can get out of hand so fast.

[shiningbrow]

I don't know, but it's a damned good question. While I do think that businesses need to be held accountable for their actions (or lack thereof), and need to feel the lash of law in such cases, I don't believe that we've done our society any favours by utterly failing to hold individuals in such crowds responsible for their choices. There's a world of difference between being pushed along in front of a mob, and willingly being part of the rush, not caring who gets trampled in the process.

Of course, proving that intent is almost impossible in such cases. But letting it go seems to be encouraging this sort of behaviour to spiral further out of control.




See... I think the "poor bastard" in the equation is the poor minimum wage son of a bitch who got trampled by a bunch of fuckers who were more interested in saving a buck than the basic notions of human dignity or the sanctity of life. Which isn't meant to be a snark at you, but rather an expression of my disgust with the situation as a whole.

But as to our sick consumerist society, and the treatment for it...



Let's play ball with the number 200; even though it may be a half dozen, a dozen, or a couple dozen people charged -- let's say for now that they manage to correctly identify, pinpoint, and make a case against 200 people.

How is it not productive to charge them all?

Would it be insanely expensive? Certainly! Would it be arguably unfair to severely punish so many? Undoubtedly people would debate it. Would it draw massive media attention? Unquestionably -- and that's where part of the value comes in. The value in such a sweeping action isn't in the immediate payoff, but in the message it sends. Social engineering isn't taken with a view to the immediate, but a preference for the long term. The punishments of law function as a personal deterrent. It no longer seems sufficient to put the onus chiefly upon companies, when lack of personal accountability seems rampant in our society.

Mileage may vary, but I think one or two expensive and dramatic examples do a world of good in convincing the rest to keep their heads down.

While it might be more fair to distribute the blame to all parties involved, as you say, it would be insanely expensive and the proof of intent is harder to establish than the simple fact of negligence on the part of Walmart.

One really needs to look to how the problem came into being in the first place. I can't help but think of the principle of the "attractive nuissance" -- something like having a swimming pool without adequate fencing into which an unsupervised neighborhood child falls and drowns. Who is responsible? The owner of the pool--not the child.

Walmart takes advantage of poverty, greed and desperation among the weakest members of society and sets up a situation that is bound to create a mob rush. It does not establish an orderly line, or provide a numbering system such as a lottery, which could help to avoid this mad crush. Nor did it expend the monies necessary to insure a safe passage into the store for the waiting customers. It did not limit the number (at least to my knowledge) of items per customer. So there was a sense of desperation and urgency among the crowd that was exacerbated by their waiting for hours in the cold and dark to be the first to obtain something precious in short supply. The situation is similar to the swimming pool without a fence or a lifeguard.

That seems like negligence, perhaps even criminal negligence, given the death that ensued. I imagine some very interesting wrongful death cases coming out of this. You can almost hear the heels clicking on those contingency lawyers who are most certainly seeking to counsel the families of the bereaved widow and orphaned children of the victim.

[Varaj]

How is it not productive to charge them all?

Would it be insanely expensive? Certainly! Would it be arguably unfair to severely punish so many? Undoubtedly people would debate it. Would it draw massive media attention? Unquestionably -- and that's where part of the value comes in. The value in such a sweeping action isn't in the immediate payoff, but in the message it sends. Social engineering isn't taken with a view to the immediate, but a preference for the long term. The punishments of law function as a personal deterrent. It no longer seems sufficient to put the onus chiefly upon companies, when lack of personal accountability seems rampant in our society.

Mileage may vary, but I think one or two expensive and dramatic examples do a world of good in convincing the rest to keep their heads down.

The deterrence issue you speak but can't even be proven when people know what they do will be a crime. if it doesn't work (in a verifiable fashion) when people are thinking a head I don't think it will do one lick of good for those that won't.

So what you have done (in my opinion),
Spent a huge amount of money that most likely caught an innocent or dozen (folks that wanted to get out but couldn't)
Put a few dozen or more families on welfare since primary bread winner is in prison.
Not prevented any further crimes of the sort.

Take all that money and put it into prevention programs and I personally think you will do much better at social engineering by several orders of magnitude.

[TiQuinn]

It seems to me the problem isn't the people, it's the situation that is being created by the business and possibly even the industry. I don't think punishment of individual people in the crowd is the most effective means of dealing with the situation.

Someone should've recognized that a throng of people threatening to burst down the doors to the store was an imminent threat and danger. I'm sure there had to be some laws or codes being broken right there. The problem isn't that people broke down the doors, it's that they were allowed to collect in such a way in front of that door to become a threat. In that case, it's the business' responsibility to provide for the safety of its employees and customers.

Form a line, provide proper cordoning off of the line to get in the door, have employees working outside to maintain some safety and security, guarantee that items being offered for sale are in plentiful supply to last past that initial rush. If the business can't do those things, then they shouldn't be opening on Black Friday at all.

[Kilmore]

Interesting thing about this situation is that in most mobs you hear about, the interest of the mob is regional in scope: sporting event, musical performance, political rally, things that draw in people from all over. This time it is a community mob. Therefore, if you look at comments on the event at various news sites and blogs, many are holding the community responsible.

Obviously this is not the case. I'm sure most of Valley Stream had nothing to do with this, but it certainly has left a nasty taint on the community. I wonder how they'll deal with it?

[Northcott]

Shiningbrow: I'm not saying that Wal-Mart should be left out of the process in this. Not by a long stretch. I'm merely advocating the idea of moving consequences past that point. I think it's been an error in the development of North American society over the last several decades that personal accountability is consistently being marginalized in favour of blaming somebody else for our failings.

The comparison of the child and the swimming pool, for example, fails in that children are not expected to be responsible for their own behaviour in our society, and our laws reflect this cultural foundation. Juxtapose that example with the notion of an adult using somebody else's pool without permission, and drowning, and sympathies change remarkably. Some would still advocate that the pool owner be held responsible and pay through the teeth to compensate the family of the drowned man. I say the man is responsible for his own death, just as he was responsible for his own decisions.


The deterrence issue you speak but can't even be proven when people know what they do will be a crime. if it doesn't work (in a verifiable fashion) when people are thinking a head I don't think it will do one lick of good for those that won't.

You're really stretching here. You've jumped from deterrance being unproven to deterrance stated as an objective failure in the same breath. The entirety of the legal system is based upon the notion that consequences for criminal action do indeed act as a deterrant. My personal experience has been that it indeed has that effect, having watched people contemplating crimes pause to weigh their options and the possible benefit against the possible legal consequences.

Spent a huge amount of money that most likely caught an innocent or dozen (folks that wanted to get out but couldn't)

Dude, that's supposed to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty", not "presumed innocent when proven guilty". Deterrance can't be verified to be effective, but we'll automatically presume that multiple innocents will get burned? That's a heck of a double standard.

Put a few dozen or more families on welfare since primary bread winner is in prison.

And while we're at it, we'll presume that any such people are automatically upstanding members of society with families that they're the sole supporters of? Wow.

Not prevented any further crimes of the sort.

We complete the loop from "doesn't work in verifiable fashion" to objective statement of finality. Sorry, man. Doesn't ring true.

Take all that money and put it into prevention programs and I personally think you will do much better at social engineering by several orders of magnitude.

I sincerely doubt it. Living in a nation where social programs aimed at preventing crime were a legacy of prior governments, my take on it is that they do work, but only if combined with a legal system that holds people accountable for their actions. Punishment is not enough by itself, nor is reward. The balance of the two needs to exist to act as a broader-reaching motivator, and helps foster a greater perception of justice. When it's just one or the other, it seems to more keenly foster a sense of hopelessness or apathy.

[shiningbrow]

Shiningbrow: I'm not saying that Wal-Mart should be left out of the process in this. Not by a long stretch. I'm merely advocating the idea of moving consequences past that point. I think it's been an error in the development of North American society over the last several decades that personal accountability is consistently being marginalized in favour of blaming somebody else for our failings.

.

Where is the personal accountability for that person who was in a crowd of people shoving them from the back so intensely that his/her only option was to move along with the rest of them or get trampled themselves? Where do you place intent or responsibility there? Do you prosecute someone for standing in a line that became an unmanageable crowd and not realizing that it was an unmanageable crowd before it was too late? Do we start prosecuting anyone who goes to a "doorbuster event" that goes wrong just because they should have had advance knowledge it bore the risk of becoming a stampede?

I say the store should have recognized it had an unmanageable situation and refused to open the doors until the crowd was under control. Period. Who else could have done something? The individuals in the crowd were not responsible for controlling one another--at least not in any strict legal sense. And even if you argue that they were morally responsible for self control, how do you make right the consequences of the loss of that self control?

[Varaj]

You're really stretching here. You've jumped from deterrance being unproven to deterrance stated as an objective failure in the same breath. The entirety of the legal system is based upon the notion that consequences for criminal action do indeed act as a deterrant. My personal experience has been that it indeed has that effect, having watched people contemplating crimes pause to weigh their options and the possible benefit against the possible legal consequences.

As a general word if it an effect can't be measured it doesn't work. As I said "it doesn't work (in a verifiable fashion)" which is 100% true. It doesn't work in a way that can be verified. Not a jump in logic.



Dude, that's supposed to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty", not "presumed innocent when proven guilty". Deterrance can't be verified to be effective, but we'll automatically presume that multiple innocents will get burned? That's a heck of a double standard.

You are going to tell me that everybody in line was guilty wanted to be there when the first sign of a problem started. I'm saying that is highly unlikely so they're are going to be innocents in the crowd.



And while we're at it, we'll presume that any such people are automatically upstanding members of society with families that they're the sole supporters of? Wow.

You are telling me that out of 200 people there aren't any primary bread winners. :boggle: I thought I was being conservative by saying only a couple of dozen out of 200 people would be primary bread winners.
So you tell me since 24/200 is too high what number is better.



We complete the loop from "doesn't work in verifiable fashion" to objective statement of finality. Sorry, man. Doesn't ring true.


:lol:
If it can't be verified statistically it is a failure. Sorry if it doesn't "ring true" to your faith. Deterrence in society has never been proven to work and is considered bunk my the vast majority of psychologists and social scientists.


I sincerely doubt it. Living in a nation where social programs aimed at preventing crime were a legacy of prior governments, my take on it is that they do work, but only if combined with a legal system that holds people accountable for their actions. Punishment is not enough by itself, nor is reward. The balance of the two needs to exist to act as a broader-reaching motivator, and helps foster a greater perception of justice. When it's just one or the other, it seems to more keenly foster a sense of hopelessness or apathy.

I agree 100% but that is very different that what you said in your previous post which was "let's punish them to send a message".

[Northcott]

If the only way you can address the notion of bringing charges against individuals who may have had a direct hand in the victim's death is to throw up strawman questions of "do we charge people for simply showing up?", then I'm afraid there's really not much room for discourse.

How do you make right the consequences for loss of self-control that results in the fatality of another? The law's pretty clear on that one: we have several options. It certainly won't make things right, but it will at least bring about action from the legislative and legal machinery our societies have created to deal with just such occassions.


I heard on the news this morning that shortly after the fatality, customers were asked via the store's PA system to please depart, as someone had been killed in the crush and emergency services were on the way. This apparently made things worse, as the customers grew incensed at being asked to leave before they'd got the deals they came for. This indicates to me a level of callousness and self-interest that goes beyond this bleeding heart image of helpless people being forced to trample a man to death, and then getting dragged off by the big bad police.

Greed was at the root of this. Wal Mart's greed, and the customers' greed. I'm a firm believer in equal and just application of the law. Wal Mart should be put under the legal lash for negligence in this case -- but if the police can identify the people who killed that man, and if there should be indication that they acted in a way that purposely put him in harm's way, then yes, I fully support the notion of charging said individuals.

[Varaj]

If the only way you can address the notion of bringing charges against individuals who may have had a direct hand in the victim's death is to throw up strawman questions of "do we charge people for simply showing up?", then I'm afraid there's really not much room for discourse.

How do you make right the consequences for loss of self-control that results in the fatality of another? The law's pretty clear on that one: we have several options. It certainly won't make things right, but it will at least bring about action from the legislative and legal machinery our societies have created to deal with just such occassions.


I heard on the news this morning that shortly after the fatality, customers were asked via the store's PA system to please depart, as someone had been killed in the crush and emergency services were on the way. This apparently made things worse, as the customers grew incensed at being asked to leave before they'd got the deals they came for. This indicates to me a level of callousness and self-interest that goes beyond this bleeding heart image of helpless people being forced to trample a man to death, and then getting dragged off by the big bad police.

Greed was at the root of this. Wal Mart's greed, and the customers' greed. I'm a firm believer in equal and just application of the law. Wal Mart should be put under the legal lash for negligence in this case -- but if the police can identify the people who killed that man, and if there should be indication that they acted in a way that purposely put him in harm's way, then yes, I fully support the notion of charging said individuals.

Anybody in the press of people had a hand in the person's death, that is the way a trampling works. Nobody went in and bounced on the person's heads. Dozens if not hundreds of people would have stepped on the guy. Many of them wouldn't have known what their foot hit. They wouldn't have seen the guy go down, they wouldn't see what was under them and they couldn't stop moving because of the people behind them.

If your response to a trampling is to ignore the facts of how a trampling occurs you are right there isn't much room for discussion.

Feel free to bring it up if you want to put down your cinder block stichk.

[Northcott]

As a general word if it an effect can't be measured it doesn't work. As I said "it doesn't work (in a verifiable fashion)" which is 100% true. It doesn't work in a way that can be verified. Not a jump in logic.

That's because you can't verify a deterrant based upon speculative thought of criminal activity with any reasonable accuracy. Sorry, bud, but your line of reasoning is complete bunk. If the sting of law held no power whatsoever, lawless societies would not be a fearsome thing. There are several examples through history of what happens when the law has no teeth, and in every case it's a nightmarish scenario.

Sorry, Varaj, but you're spouting complete bullshit now. You can't measure the effect of law in society in easily quantifiable terms, but its impact is undeniable through evidence of what happens when that deterrant is lacking.

You are going to tell me that everybody in line was guilty wanted to be there when the first sign of a problem started.

Your words, not mine. At no point did I advocate that every person who shopped at Wal Mart during that event be charged.

You are telling me that out of 200 people there aren't any primary bread winners. :boggle: I thought I was being conservative by saying only a couple of dozen out of 200 people would be primary bread winners.
So you tell me since 24/200 is too high what number is better.

You didn't say a couple dozen out of 200 people. You said a couple dozen. Period. In a prior post, you went on about charging 200 people... which, frankly, I thought was you blowing things out of proportion to try and make some semblance of an argument out of judicial laziness. As I said in response to that initial kneejerk number of 200 that you gave, if the cops manage to pinpoint, identify, and build a case against 200 people -- then yes, bring 200 people to trial.

That seems to be the point you're missing. This isn't about hauling off 200 random people. This is about the authorities potentially being able to make cases against specific individuals in a way that will hold up in court. Given the conditions, this is highly unlikely. In the case that they do end up being able to do so -- whether it's against 2 people or 200 -- I believe that the wheels of justice should turn without bias for numbers. Only the facts should determine the outcome.


:lol:
If it can't be verified statistically it is a failure. Sorry if it doesn't "ring true" to your faith. Deterrence in society has never been proven to work and is considered bunk my the vast majority of psychologists and social scientists.

So they no longer trust the rat to hit the button that earns a peanut instead of an electric shock. Good to know.

The death penalty has long been seen to be a failure as a deterrant. However, I'll keep my mind open to what you're now claiming: Given that our legal system is almost entirely constructed around the notion of serving as a deterrant to anti-social behaviours, what sources of information have left you with the impression that the vast majority of psychologists and social scientists view the notion of law as a failure? In short: I'm calling bullshit.

I agree 100% but that is very different that what you said in your previous post which was "let's punish them to send a message".

It's not different at all. I said that to achieve the end goal, a balance must be struck offering both positive reinforcement and consequences for actions. The guilty, regardless of number, should be ferreted out if at all possible and made an example of. This does not in any way, shape, or form negate the need for, or impact of, preventative policies.

A man was killed. Preventative policies may help prevent such a thing from happening again, but they won't redress the wrong comitted. Our legal system has methods to do so in place, though imperfect, and they should be used.

[Northcott]

Anybody in the press of people had a hand in the person's death, that is the way a trampling works. Nobody went in and bounced on the person's heads. Dozens if not hundreds of people would have stepped on the guy. Many of them wouldn't have known what their foot hit. They wouldn't have seen the guy go down, they wouldn't see what was under them and they couldn't stop moving because of the people behind them.

If your response to a trampling is to ignore the facts of how a trampling occurs you are right there isn't much room for discussion.

Feel free to bring it up if you want to put down your cinder block stichk.

I can only presume you're being purposely obtuse again. You know full well I worked three years as a bouncer. I have first hand experience with crowd control and dealing with large groups of people getting out of hand.

I'd like to think that you're also clear-headed enough to realize that this guy didn't just magically appear on the floor, and it's also highly unlikely that he was cleverly disguised as a talking welcome mat with pre-recorded messages of "Ow, get the fuck off me". At some point he got knocked down. Was this because the people in front were stumbling forward unable to control themselves? Or did they have a mad dash going, were several feet in front of the rest of the crowd, and purposely bodychecked him out of the way simply because he was in between them and a good deal on a DVD player?

You can't answer those questions, and neither can I. So for now, crawl down off your high horse, embrace your ignorance of the situation, and wait to see if charges are going to be laid. 'Cause if a few maniacs did purposely flatten the guy out of frantic greed? I say chuck 'em behind bars. And chances are a jury will, too.

[Varaj]

That's because you can't verify a deterrant based upon speculative thought of criminal activity with any reasonable accuracy. Sorry, bud, but your line of reasoning is complete bunk. If the sting of law held no power whatsoever, lawless societies would not be a fearsome thing. There are several examples through history of what happens when the law has no teeth, and in every case it's a nightmarish scenario.

Sorry, Varaj, but you're spouting complete bullshit now. You can't measure the effect of law in society in easily quantifiable terms, but its impact is undeniable through evidence of what happens when that deterrant is lacking.



Your words, not mine. At no point did I advocate that every person who shopped at Wal Mart during that event be charged.



You didn't say a couple dozen out of 200 people. You said a couple dozen. Period. In a prior post, you went on about charging 200 people... which, frankly, I thought was you blowing things out of proportion to try and make some semblance of an argument out of judicial laziness. As I said in response to that initial kneejerk number of 200 that you gave, if the cops manage to pinpoint, identify, and build a case against 200 people -- then yes, bring 200 people to trial.

That seems to be the point you're missing. This isn't about hauling off 200 random people. This is about the authorities potentially being able to make cases against specific individuals in a way that will hold up in court. Given the conditions, this is highly unlikely. In the case that they do end up being able to do so -- whether it's against 2 people or 200 -- I believe that the wheels of justice should turn without bias for numbers. Only the facts should determine the outcome.




So they no longer trust the rat to hit the button that earns a peanut instead of an electric shock. Good to know.

The death penalty has long been seen to be a failure as a deterrant. However, I'll keep my mind open to what you're now claiming: Given that our legal system is almost entirely constructed around the notion of serving as a deterrant to anti-social behaviours, what sources of information have left you with the impression that the vast majority of psychologists and social scientists view the notion of law as a failure? In short: I'm calling bullshit.



It's not different at all. I said that to achieve the end goal, a balance must be struck offering both positive reinforcement and consequences for actions. The guilty, regardless of number, should be ferreted out if at all possible and made an example of. This does not in any way, shape, or form negate the need for, or impact of, preventative policies.

A man was killed. Preventative policies may help prevent such a thing from happening again, but they won't redress the wrong comitted. Our legal system has methods to do so in place, though imperfect, and they should be used.

I think you are confused at the difference between social deterrence and personal deterrence. Like I said, remove your stichk and we will talk. While you are removing your stichk maybe research the issue you are ranting on because you have some glaring mistakes in knowledge in that post.

[Varaj]

I can only presume you're being purposely obtuse again. You know full well I worked three years as a bouncer. I have first hand experience with crowd control and dealing with large groups of people getting out of hand.

I'd like to think that you're also clear-headed enough to realize that this guy didn't just magically appear on the floor, and it's also highly unlikely that he was cleverly disguised as a talking welcome mat with pre-recorded messages of "Ow, get the fuck off me". At some point he got knocked down. Was this because the people in front were stumbling forward unable to control themselves? Or did they have a mad dash going, were several feet in front of the rest of the crowd, and purposely bodychecked him out of the way simply because he was in between them and a good deal on a DVD player?

You can't answer those questions, and neither can I. So for now, crawl down off your high horse, embrace your ignorance of the situation, and wait to see if charges are going to be laid. 'Cause if a few maniacs did purposely flatten the guy out of frantic greed? I say chuck 'em behind bars. And chances are a jury will, too.

Riding that stichk of yours still.

[Limper]

Those who stormed in for the sale and trampled people should get a nice tattoo compliments of the state.

For the rest of their life they should have a momento of the cost of their good deals on their flesh for all to see.

Something like... "I'm such a fuckhead that I helped kill a man to save $5.00"

[Varaj]

Those who stormed in for the sale and trampled people should get a nice tattoo compliments of the state.

For the rest of their life they should have a momento of the cost of their good deals on their flesh for all to see.

Something like... "I'm such a fuckhead that I helped kill a man to save $5.00"

That would be amusing.

[Limper]

That would be amusing.

Its the only way I could think of to punish a mob effectively.

[DarwinOfMind]

At least theres one thing. All walmart employees get life insurance from the company, at a value of one years salary, I know I spent 7 years there. So his family will be ok, they'll get 10-11k

:rolleyes:

[Random Encounter]

At least theres one thing. All walmart employees get life insurance from the company, at a value of one years salary, I know I spent 7 years there. So his family will be ok, they'll get 10-11k

:rolleyes:

Even those working for the store through a temp agency like this guy was?


And I agree with Northcott.
Someone knocked this guy down. He did not start this encounter on the floor. Now the video may or may not show clearly who did this and it also may or may not show that the person in question was pushed by people behind him/her; but it's a place to start. Being part of a crown (or mob) does not and should not be a ticket to waive any sense of responsibility for one's actions which is what I'm hearing. Did the people knocking him over and the subsequent people stepping on the poor guy know that their actions would result in his death? Of course not but that was the result. These people are just as guilty as the guy speeding to work hitting someone because he was driving faster than safety would allow. He can get charged with manslaughter even though "it was just an accident" and he didn't mean to kill anyone I don't see why being part of an unruly mob should be handled any differently.

[Varaj]

Even those working for the store through a temp agency like this guy was?


And I agree with Northcott.
Someone knocked this guy down. He did not start this encounter on the floor. Now the video may or may not show clearly who did this and it also may or may not show that the person in question was pushed by people behind him/her; but it's a place to start. Being part of a crown (or mob) does not and should not be a ticket to waive any sense of responsibility for one's actions which is what I'm hearing. Did the people knocking him over and the subsequent people stepping on the poor guy know that their actions would result in his death? Of course not but that was the result. These people are just as guilty as the guy speeding to work hitting someone because he was driving faster than safety would allow. He can get charged with manslaughter even though "it was just an accident" and he didn't mean to kill anyone I don't see why being part of an unruly mob should be handled any differently.

You have to be driving extremely unsafely before homicide charges are brought from a driving accident. The driving example is a great example. Consider a trampling death closer to a pile up in fog. It is extremely rare that charges are brought in those instances even when people know that driving in fog is unsafe. So I agree with you it shouldn't be handled differently. :)

[TiQuinn]

And I agree with Northcott.
Someone knocked this guy down. He did not start this encounter on the floor. Now the video may or may not show clearly who did this and it also may or may not show that the person in question was pushed by people behind him/her; but it's a place to start. Being part of a crown (or mob) does not and should not be a ticket to waive any sense of responsibility for one's actions which is what I'm hearing. Did the people knocking him over and the subsequent people stepping on the poor guy know that their actions would result in his death? Of course not but that was the result. These people are just as guilty as the guy speeding to work hitting someone because he was driving faster than safety would allow. He can get charged with manslaughter even though "it was just an accident" and he didn't mean to kill anyone I don't see why being part of an unruly mob should be handled any differently.

I'm just not seeing how this could be the case when the entire incident started with a crowd of people pushing on the doors and taking them off the hinges. That's not any one person's actions. You could argue that the people in the front of the crowd are innocent, and it was the people at the back of the mob who were witlessly pushing forward that were the cause. The poor guy got caught in a rush of people bursting through those doors. The problem was the lack of safety and security in place at the store that allowed the mob to assemble in such a way.

[DarwinOfMind]

Even those working for the store through a temp agency like this guy was?


And I agree with Northcott.
Someone knocked this guy down. He did not start this encounter on the floor. Now the video may or may not show clearly who did this and it also may or may not show that the person in question was pushed by people behind him/her; but it's a place to start. Being part of a crown (or mob) does not and should not be a ticket to waive any sense of responsibility for one's actions which is what I'm hearing. Did the people knocking him over and the subsequent people stepping on the poor guy know that their actions would result in his death? Of course not but that was the result. These people are just as guilty as the guy speeding to work hitting someone because he was driving faster than safety would allow. He can get charged with manslaughter even though "it was just an accident" and he didn't mean to kill anyone I don't see why being part of an unruly mob should be handled any differently.
That I'm not sure about, Our store had a rule against hiring temps. We we're allowed to, by regional management.

[Alpha Ralpha]

You I don't believe you get either to stick, not by a long stretch. Personally I believe assault/battery isn't even close. Riot is more likely but as you say it is acts of violence and doesn't really apply in this case. A trampling death is an accident.

You might be better off trying for manslaughter (best bet in my opinion) but are you going to charge 200 people with manslaughter?

yes

if someone was stupid enough to stand anywhere near the front of that crowd when they starting forcing the doors open then they are just as guilty as the person whose foot applied the death blow.

[Alpha Ralpha]

Where is the personal accountability for that person who was in a crowd of people shoving them from the back so intensely that his/her only option was to move along with the rest of them or get trampled themselves? Where do you place intent or responsibility there? Do you prosecute someone for standing in a line that became an unmanageable crowd and not realizing that it was an unmanageable crowd before it was too late? Do we start prosecuting anyone who goes to a "doorbuster event" that goes wrong just because they should have had advance knowledge it bore the risk of becoming a stampede?

yes, we do

if it even remotely looked like it was developing into a situation that might result in someone getting hurt then they should have pushed their way out of the front of the crowd. Haven't there been enough deaths at rock concerts and the like to educate everyone on the dangers or crowds and limited accessways? Can anyone claim to be that ignorant?

I saw the building in news clips, this was not one of the kind with a hallway leading into the store, the doors were directly on the front of the building, the crowd was in an arc, not in a line.

I say the store should have recognized it had an unmanageable situation and refused to open the doors until the crowd was under control. Period. Who else could have done something? The individuals in the crowd were not responsible for controlling one another--at least not in any strict legal sense. And even if you argue that they were morally responsible for self control, how do you make right the consequences of the loss of that self control?

The company and the store's management is also culpable for exactly this reason.

[Alpha Ralpha]

All the stores here make people line up to enter. Big fuck up on the stores part. Doesn't mitigate the peoples responsibility. Before things started people should have seen the mass and gotten out of it. :mad:

yep, I bolded the best part :)

the possibility of someone getting hurt or worse is just not worth saving a few bucks on an Incredible Hulk DVD

[TiQuinn]

yep, I bolded the best part :)

the possibility of someone getting hurt or worse is just not worth saving a few bucks on an Incredible Hulk DVD

Hell no.

Iron Man, maybe.