Walmart Employee Trampled to Death by “Black Friday” Shoppers

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by BirdStrike

In the USA there are 4,227 Walmart stores. There was only one instance where there was a stampede.

Wrong, there was only one instance of a death. The other stampedes lucked out.

Did you look at the video from last year? Was that a stampede or not?

Quote:

So what you are suggesting is that if Walmart has a one-day sale - as in this case - all 4,227 stores need to plan for stampedes.

Yes, they all need to manage the crowd.

Quote:

What I am suggesting is that Walmart had no way of knowing ahead of time that a stampede would occur that night... especially given that stampedes DIDN'T occur at 4,226 other Walmarts that very same day.

Please show your evidence that at none of the other walmart they had nice orderly crowds.

[Uzzy]

Much larger crowds occur at much more emotionally charged events all the time. For instance, sporting events. Yet somehow, deaths there are rare. Why? Because of proper crowd control. It's not that hard, really. You just have to prevent the crowd mentality growing amongst the people there, and you prevent a situation where bad things might happen.

Given that Wal-Mart brought about the event where this crowd developed, and then failed to institute proper measures to prevent the crowd turning into a mob, they are to blame. So are the people in the crowd, and the police.

Proper crowd control could have prevented this death. Wal-Mart failed to provide that.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by BirdStrike

I am not sure why so many here are so interested in blaming Walmart for the CONDUCT of shoppers. I guess it is an natural thing to find blame. I definitely am not a big Walmart fan, but Walmart cannot predict the future. Nor is Walmart responsible for the CONDUCT of shoppers.

For the record, I am not blaming Walmart solely for the conduct of the shoppers. I am blaiming them for inadequate crowd control. That is a worthy case to bring to court, I suspect.

But, part of the blame must go to the crowd, as well. If police can identify specific individuals who may have acted illegally in that crowd (not an easy thing to do, though), they should also be tried in court.

[CptColumbo]

http://www.startribune.com/business/...D3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
According to this AP article:

Quote:

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart said it added staffers and outside security workers and put up barricades to try to prepare for the crush. But police spokesman Detective Lt. Michael Fleming said Friday that security was inadequate for a scene he called "utter chaos."

Apparently the company did plan for a rush. If true, it would seem that this Store didn't use them in an effective manner.

[BirdStrike]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Wrong, there was only one instance of a death. The other stampedes lucked out.

What "other" stampedes? Link please.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Did you look at the video from last year? Was that a stampede or not?

I am not an expert on what constitues a "stampede."

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Please show your evidence that at none of the other walmart they had nice orderly crowds.

Not my point to prove. Many here are saying that Walmart should have planned for better crowd control. I am saying this is an unusual incident that Walmart could not have pre-planned for. How was Walmart to know that an out-of-control crowd would smash through the front doors and trample an employee to death?

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I am blaiming them for inadequate crowd control.

Originally Posted by Uzzy

Given that Wal-Mart brought about the event where this crowd developed, and then failed to institute proper measures to prevent the crowd turning into a mob, they are to blame.

I hear what both of you are saying. And I agree better crowd control may have prevented this death.

What I am disagreeing with is that by advertising a sale Walmart is somehow responsible for the CONDUCT of the crowd which showed up. And that Walmart should have had crowd control knowing the crowd would become a mob. For me that is simply Monday-morning quarterbacking.

Like I said before, these people are sick. And their sickness - see:greed - seems to know no boundries. Some even tore the doors down and stampeded into the store. What a sick commentary that is given that we are talking about a sale at Walmart.

[CptColumbo]

Originally Posted by BirdStrike

What "other" stampedes? Link please.

From the article I linked above:

Quote:

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.

[Uzzy]

Quote:

What I am disagreeing with is that by advertising a sale Walmart is somehow responsible for the CONDUCT of the crowd which showed up. And that Walmart should have had crowd control knowing the crowd would become a mob.

Walmart aren't responsible for the conduct of the crowd, no. However, they are responsible for a) Creating a situation where a crowd would develop (through their rather unusual opening times/discounted prices) and b) Not instituting proper crowd control.

Any time you have a crowd of any size, there is the chance of a mob developing. That is why when you know a crowd will develop, you institute crowd control. Its the same idea as insurance. Sure, most times you drive in your car, you won't get into a crash, but when you do, it can be disastrous.

Most crowds will not turn into mobs. But when they do, it can also be disastrous. And given that such can be prevented with some rudimentary crowd control techniques, it makes sense to institute them. Walmart failed to do this. The result was a mans death.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by BirdStrike

In the USA there are 4,227 Walmart stores. There was only one instance where there was a stampede.

Not true. You can find a post by me earlier in this thread with a quote about a woman injured in another Wal-Mart stampede. It is likely that "stampedes" were common at Wal-Marts on Black Friday. Only one resulted in a death, and only a few had reported injuries.

[William Parcher]

Quote:

The stampede began when people who had gathered well before 5 a.m. in the rear of the line began pushing, cascading the people in the front into the sliding supermarket-type doors, which were knocked off their hinges, Fleming said.

Augustine, 26, said the melee began just after a Wal-Mart employee told the crowd the store would open earlier than the scheduled 5 a.m. opening. The employee then said it was a joke. This angered the crowd, leading to people trying to rush the store, Augustine said.

Newsday.com

[I Ratant]

The local paper mentioned the blank visages of the 4 AM shoppers at the local Mall.. people bumping into people they couldn't see while walking from store to store.
The higher end stores were in fairly good condition after the swarm has passed thru.

[CptColumbo]

BTW dude was a temp.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by New York Times

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.”

I, I, I. Me, me, me.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

You might well be wrong.

In a stampeding crowd like this, the people who did the actual trampling might have been pushed by the crowd behind them. The people doing the pushing from behind might have been utterly unaware that there was any trampling.

That's exactly why this is such a dangerous situation.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

You are definitely wrong. I've been in several similar situations. It's scary as hell. Why people in the back push is beyond my comprehension but having been in the front of a pushing mob, I can definitely say people in the back are literally pushing the people in front of them.

Welcome to Crowdshop.... has a survey of crowd caused deaths at rock concerts and ticket lines. Like I said, I've been in such a situation more than once.

This argument has been brought up previously in this thread, and I've addressed it. Whether you want to blame the people in the front or the people in the back for inciting the actual stampede is irrelevant.

My point stands.

Through specific actions of certain people within that crowd, a man was trampled to death. No one forced those people (whether it was the "tramplers" or the "shovers") to engage in the behavior that cost another person his life. These people are guilty of a crime and should be held accountable.

Beyond that, from the reports I've read, just about everyone in that crowd was culpable to a certain degree. No one seemed all that concerned for the welfare of this dying man, as they were all more interested in behaving like gluttonous consumers than human beings.

Again, I can certainly understand being caught up in the crush of a surging crowd and not being able to control your forward momentum. It's the reaction to this man being injured that speaks volumes about the mindset of these people.

Hundreds of people stepped on, over, and around this man (possibly through no fault of their own), and yet how many went back after the initial rush to see if he was okay? How many put down their Xboxes and iPhones to take three minutes to assist or at least inquire about the guy they stepped on to get in the store? From what I can tell: No one. It is exactly because of this behavior that I hold these people accountable, and judge them so harshly. Someone died, and none of them really seemed to care.

No one is arguing against Wal-Mart taking better precautions to avoid situations like this, but to blame them and excuse these people who behaved so reprehensibly is utterly preposterous. The day I need someone in a blue smock to remind me that my safety and the safety of those around me is more important than acquiring a shiny new toy is the day I turn in my membership card to the human race.

[ravdin]

This just shows that some people need to be lined up against a wall and shot.

[steve s]

Originally Posted by johnny karate;4238382
No one is arguing against Wal-Mart taking better precautions to avoid situations like this, but to [I

blame[/i] them and excuse these people who behaved so reprehensibly is utterly preposterous.

How many times do we have to say it? To say that Walmart is partially responsible is not excusing the crowd.

Steve S.

[steve s]

Originally Posted by Travis

An unruly mob is by definition not going to obey any rules. I mean someone who is foolhardy could go out and ask them to form up in a queue but that person shouldn't be surprised when all they do is throw beer bottles at them. You don't try to reason with mobs because mobs are mindless, impulsive and violent and therefore the only way to deal with them is to crush them with billy clubs, rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons.

This isn't sinking in, is it? You deal with an unruly mob by preventing it from forming in the first place. You don't wait until the mob has formed to ask people to get in a line. You start forming lines when the very first people show up. It works for other stores. Why couldn't Walmart have done it?

Steve S.

[paximperium]

The Science of Crowd Dynamics:
http://www.crowddynamics.com/technical/

The Causes and Prevention of Crowd Disasters
by John J. Fruin, Ph.D., P.E. United States of America
(Originally presented at the First International Conference on Engineering for Crowd Safety, London, England, March 1993. Elsevier Science Publishers B.B. © 1993)
http://www.crowddynamics.com/Main/Fr...-%20causes.htm

Quote:

It is difficult to describe the psychological and physiological pressures within crowds at maximum density. When crowd density equals the plan area of the human body, individual control is lost, as one becomes an involuntary part of the mass. At occupancies of about 7 persons per square meter the crowd becomes almost a fluid mass. Shock waves can be propagated through the mass sufficient to lift people off of their feet and propel them distances of 3 m (10 ft) or more. People may be literally lifted out of their shoes, and have clothing torn off.

Quote:

PREVENTION OF CROWD DISASTERS BY CROWD MANAGEMENT Most major crowd disasters can be prevented by simple crowd management strategies. The primary crowd management objectives are the avoidance of critical crowd densities and the triggering of rapid group movement.

Quote:

CONCLUSIONS
The crowd incident model and its derivative guidelines show that many crowd disasters could have been avoided by simple advance planning and management techniques. Reliable real-time communication between those responsible for crowd management, and authoritative communication with the crowd, are also critical elements in defusing a potentially lethal crowd incident. These strategies are also the least costly means of preventing crowd disasters.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by steve s

How many times do we have to say it? To say that Walmart is partially responsible is not excusing the crowd.

When people say things like this:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

They want frantic crowds and intentionaly feed the idea that they need to buy it now and get in there now. They want people running and pushing, that is a goal, and when you get that sort of crowd you get deaths.

Originally Posted by gdnp

No one forces Wall-Mart to open at 5 AM or to temorarily deeply discount prices on highly sought-after items in limited quantities. They do this to bring people into their stores, people who they hope will then buy other items as well. They are responsible for creating the atmosphere that led to the stampede.

it sure seems like they are making an argument that the people in the crowd were not responsible for there own actions due to the malicious hypnotic powers of Wal-Mart's sales.

Even when you say this:

Originally Posted by steve s

This isn't sinking in, is it? You deal with an unruly mob by preventing it from forming in the first place. You don't wait until the mob has formed to ask people to get in a line. You start forming lines when the very first people show up. It works for other stores. Why couldn't Walmart have done it?

the argument seems to be that the "unruly mob" was inevitable expectation when a large number of people gather, and therefore it's up to an authority of some kind to manage the mob's unruliness. This line of reasoning excuses the mob for being unruly in the first place.

I don't think the argument is that it's either the crowd or Wal-Mart who has culpability. It's who has the most culpability. And that honor clearly belongs to the people that chose to behave like savages and kill a man so they could save a little money.

Is there an argument to be made that Wal-Mart exhibited negligence? Certainly. But this was obviously a tragedy they did not expect or encourage. If Wal-Mart does right by this man's family and takes the necessary precautions in the future to help prevent incidents like this, I feel they will have responded appropriately.

It's the people in the crowd who trampled a man to death and then callously went on with their shopping (and even complained when Wal-Mart told them they were closing the store because someone died!) who are the true villains here. It chills me to the bone to know that there are people walking the streets with so little disregard for the welfare of others.

[deadrose]

I've experienced crowds on the level described here, including door surges at large stadium rock shows before they started controlling entrance and seating. Actually, I was at two Who concerts on the infamous 1979 tour before the Cincinnati trampling deaths took place. I've been smashed against barriers, lifted and carried by the crowds, had my ribs violently compressed and my leg nearly broken.

During the door surge, you have no control at all until you're past the chokepoint and people can disperse. Attempting to stop, lean over, anything like that - it's impossible. It's more likely to end with you falling over the person you tried to help and both being trampled. Turning around to wade back into the crowd would work about as well as swimming up Niagara Falls.

After that Who concert, the onus was put on venues everywhere. Large shows were required to have reserved seating in many cases, others simply had to provide sufficient crowd control measures. The very few sales events (they call them 'doorbusters') I've been to also had crowd control measures.

It's possible that this Walmart manager was trying to save money in the store budget by not implementing any safety measures. Hopefully it'll all come out in court or the press. I'm also curious if the people waiting in line were *told* of the trampling death, or if they were just told the store was closing, go home.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

No one forced those people (whether it was the "tramplers" or the "shovers") to engage in the behavior that cost another person his life.

<snip>

<snip> I can certainly understand being caught up in the crush of a surging crowd and not being able to control your forward momentum.

You're contradicting yourself.

Quote:

Hundreds of people stepped on, over, and around this man (possibly through no fault of their own), and yet how many went back after the initial rush to see if he was okay? How many put down their Xboxes and iPhones to take three minutes to assist or at least inquire about the guy they stepped on to get in the store? From what I can tell: No one. It is exactly because of this behavior that I hold these people accountable, and judge them so harshly. Someone died, and none of them really seemed to care.

I'm wondering if its possible that most of the crowd didn't see the employee? We still don't know if he was pressed between the remains of a door and the wall or if he was on the floor. Either way most of them probably were doing their best to make sure they didn't get knocked down in the rush of the crowd. So I think its likely that many of them simply didn't know at the time.

The thing that I think is particularly stupid is that in all the videos I've seen of these Black Friday early store openings -- everyone is running (!)in through the doors. How stupid is that? How many running idiots does it take to force the entire crowd to run, just out of self-preservation? And I do blame store management for creating that situation.

Quote:

Beyond that, from the reports I've read, just about everyone in that crowd was culpable to a certain degree. No one seemed all that concerned for the welfare of this dying man, as they were all more interested in behaving like gluttonous consumers than human beings.

You are cherrying picking what you are reading then, and you are definitely cherry picking this thread. At least one poster has quoted a shopper from the scene who was utterly horrified as to what had happened. Yes, no doubt that some of the crowd was callous and even worse, but there were some average people and even some good people there too*.

Also just as an FYI, I've frequently seen people who have collapsed on the street in NYC. It's a big city after all. The best thing most people can do, once they are sure that the person is being looked after and that help is on the way, is to get out of the way. So sometimes when people walk by that doesn't mean that they don't care -- it may just mean that they know that creating a crowd at the scene of a medical emergency doesn't help.


* ETA Well of course I don't personally "know" that -- but I think its a safe assumption just based on statistics.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

the argument seems to be that the "unruly mob" was inevitable expectation when a large number of people gather, and therefore it's up to an authority of some kind to manage the mob's unruliness. This line of reasoning excuses the mob for being unruly in the first place.

"Motivation
The crowd incidents described above show different types of group motivation. In some cases there is an interruption of a simple traffic process such as exiting a stadium or a passenger conveyor, resulting in a critical crowd pressure point. Others fall into two general behavioural categories, either a flight response or a craze. [8] Flight occurs where people experience either a real or perceived threat. Frequently mislabelled a panic, closer investigation usually shows that flight was a reasonable group reaction under the perceived circumstances. These incidents often show mutual cooperation and assistance among individuals within the group, rather than destructive behaviour.
A mass craze is a competitive rush to obtain some highly valued objective. The Bangkok food distribution crush is a clear example of a craze. Craze like group behaviour has been created where participation in an event, or viewing of a public personage, is intensively promoted. General admission events and so-called "festival seating" concerts, cause craze like competition for favourable seats or standing positions close to entertainers."
http://www.crowddynamics.com/Main/Fr...-%20causes.htm
Simple human behavior. Expected human bahavior. Crowds behave a certain way. Crowds are not individuals and no individual could've forced thousands to break a door down.

Quote:

I don't think the argument is that it's either the crowd or Wal-Mart who has culpability. It's who has the most culpability. And that honor clearly belongs to the people that chose to behave like savages and kill a man so they could save a little money.

No. It lies mostly with Wal-Mart that created and allowed a situation like that to occur. Crowds behave in a very specific way. This situation is and was expected and their incompetence at protecting their employee and preventing a mob from developing is their primary responsibility.

Quote:

Is there an argument to be made that Wal-Mart exhibited negligence? Certainly. But this was obviously a tragedy they did not expect or encourage. If Wal-Mart does right by this man's family and takes the necessary precautions in the future to help prevent incidents like this, I feel they will have responded appropriately.

That's where you are wrong. They should have expected this, since this happens every year and huge crowd reactions are well known.

The game is cost. How much more are they willing to spend as a buffer for the unexpected events. In this situation they gambled and lost.

Quote:

It's the people in the crowd who trampled a man to death and then callously went on with their shopping (and even complained when Wal-Mart told them they were closing the store because someone died!) who are the true villains here. It chills me to the bone to know that there are people walking the streets with so little disregard for the welfare of others.

And of course I find that overgeneralization of an entire crowd, many who were likely unaware of the incident less than amusing as well.

I wonder how many people being pushed along the crowd, knew that they were stepping on some fella? Apparently your implying that even if they knew, they wouldn't care.

Frankly, what did you expect the other shoppers to do? "Oh no, someone died...don't know what happened or who died but now I shall mourn and go home".

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Originally Posted by Newsday

Augustine, 26, said the melee began just after a Wal-Mart employee told the crowd the store would open earlier than the scheduled 5 a.m. opening. The employee then said it was a joke. This angered the crowd, leading to people trying to rush the store, Augustine said.

Newsday.com

Now that was one incredibly stupid employee. That was liking lighting a wick of dynamite. Most of those people probably weren't use to standing for 5 hours or more in the cold on a regular basis.

It doesn't excuse what happened -- but I know a lot of people who would really lose it under far less provocation.

[WildCat]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Kaylee

You're contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not. You're cherry-picking my words to make it look I am.

Originally Posted by Me

No one forced those people (whether it was the "tramplers" or the "shovers") to engage in the behavior that cost another person his life.

My point there was that someone in that crowd was responsible for causing a stampede, and they engaged in this behavior of their own volition.

Originally Posted by Me

I can certainly understand being caught up in the crush of a surging crowd and not being able to control your forward momentum.

And the rest of that statement for context:

Originally Posted by Me

It's the reaction to this man being injured that speaks volumes about the mindset of these people.

I was making a generalized statement about the helplessness of being caught up in the surge of a crowd, and then offering a counterpoint to that generalization in describing the people in this specific situation.

Originally Posted by Kaylee

I'm wondering if its possible that most of the crowd didn't see the employee? We still don't know if he was pressed between the remains of a door and the wall or if he was on the floor.

Wonder no more:

Originally Posted by CNN

The employee was "stepped on by hundreds of people" as other workers attempted to fight their way through the crowd, Fleming said.

Unless you're willing to argue that hundreds of people failed to see the man they were stepping on, I doubt you'll find much traction going this route.

Originally Posted by Kaylee

Either way most of them probably were doing their best to make sure they didn't get knocked down in the rush of the crowd. So I think its likely that many of them simply didn't know at the time.

Do you have anything to back up this assumption? Because this is what I read:

Originally Posted by CNN

The employee was "stepped on by hundreds of people" as other workers attempted to fight their way through the crowd, Fleming said.

And even if every single one of those hundreds of people somehow failed to realize they were trampling someone, what was the reaction once they did find out what happened? This:

Originally Posted by New York Times

“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.”

Originally Posted by Kaylee

You are cherrying picking what you are reading then, and you are definitely cherry picking this thread. At least one poster has quoted a shopper from the scene who was utterly horrified as to what had happened. Yes, no doubt that some of the crowd was callous and even worse, but there were some average people and even some good people there too*.

You accuse me of cherry-picking, but I am just going by what was reported. I have quotes from media sources to back up my position. If you have different information, please feel free to provide it.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by paximperium

No. It lies mostly with Wal-Mart that created and allowed a situation like that to occur. Crowds behave in a very specific way. This situation is and was expected and their incompetence at protecting their employee and preventing a mob from developing is their primary responsibility.

The point of studies like the one you're quoting isn't to tell us what happens whenever we get a large group of people together, but rather to understand what happens and why it happens in the rare situations where large groups of people behave in a specific way. Understanding the psychology of certain types of crowd behavior is not the same thing as accepting it as an inevitability.

And it certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse for people in that crowd to behave any way they feel like. You can quote all the psychological case studies you want, none of it justifies trampling a man to death and then going about your day shopping as if nothing happened.

Originally Posted by paximperium

That's where you are wrong. They should have expected this, since this happens every year and huge crowd reactions are well known.

No, peopled aren't trampled to death every year on Black Friday. Thankfully, it's a rare and shocking phenomenon. And the fact that it doesn't happen every year only proves the point that regardless of Wal-Mart's, or any other retailer's supposed negligence, most of the time, most people manage to not injure or kill others just so they can buy stuff.

Originally Posted by paximperium

The game is cost. How much more are they willing to spend as a buffer for the unexpected events. In this situation they gambled and lost.
And of course I find that overgeneralization of an entire crowd, many who were likely unaware of the incident less than amusing as well.

Good, because I'm not trying to be funny. If you find my generalization offensive, you'll have to forgive me, but lacking specific names of the perpetrators, I am forced to use general terms. Much like you use the term "Wal-Mart" to indicate the corporation and not every single person who works for Wal-Mart.

Originally Posted by paximperium

I wonder how many people being pushed along the crowd, knew that they were stepping on some fella? Apparently your implying that even if they knew, they wouldn't care.

I'm not implying anything. Take a gander:

Originally Posted by CNN

The employee was "stepped on by hundreds of people" as other workers attempted to fight their way through the crowd, Fleming said.

Originally Posted by New York Times

“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.”

This happened. If you choose not believe it, you go right ahead.

Originally Posted by paximperium

Frankly, what did you expect the other shoppers to do? "Oh no, someone died...don't know what happened or who died but now I shall mourn and go home".

What did I expect people to do after finding out they trampled a man to death? At the very least, not this:

Originally Posted by New York Times

“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.”

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by WildCat

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Thanks for the link, Wildcat.

I wonder how much more those in this thread defending or making excuses for the people who trampled this poor man to death need to hear before they decide those people are actually responsible.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by gtc

They may not have known just how popular the sales event was going to be this year.

Quite true. The store's negligence in predicting this event would be dependent entirely on what had happened at previous sales. I was just trying to point out that it isn't necessary for the store to have reasonably predicted a stampede and someone being trampled in order to be negligent.

Originally Posted by gtc

This probably depends on how well trained the police are in that town and just how unruly it was at 3:30. I wonder if dispersing the crowd at that time would have made the situation worse.

Also true... I forget that the USA doesn't have a single cohesive police force.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Good grief. What a bunch of herd animals.

I don't blame Wal-Mart. I blame the animals.

From what I have read and seen, this would have happened Union or No Union.
I am not making any judgements as to whether Wal Mart was negligent or not, but I Really have problems seeing how A Union would have prevented this from happening.
Wal Mart has become a favorite kicking boy of the Left in America, and I fullly expect them to exploit this for all it is worth,and then some.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by WildCat

And as for Gumboot's claim that 6 people can easily keep a crowd under control, it depends on the crowd. Maybe people in New Zealand are more genteel, but I don't think 6 people were going to keep this crowd (eager to buy a Playstation 3) outside a Best Buy under control. A line of uniformed police had to resort to pretty rough tactics to control it:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Some crowds are different than others.

That just reinforces my point. They tried to establish control over an already-formed mob. That takes enormous manpower and some force.

If they had made people form a line against the wall when there was only 20 people outside the store, that shoving match simply would not have happened. Like I said, crowd control measures only work if they are implemented before the crowd forms.

[Drudgewire]

FWIW, the Black Friday sales nationwide were stronger than expected. So all the craziness did help the economy. vv

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The point of studies like the one you're quoting isn't to tell us what happens whenever we get a large group of people together, but rather to understand what happens and why it happens in the rare situations where large groups of people behave in a specific way. Understanding the psychology of certain types of crowd behavior is not the same thing as accepting it as an inevitability.

Yes...so?
Multiple studies show how a situation as reported could occur.
Wal-Mart(Corporation or the local manager) set up a situation where is could occur and did not take precautions from preventing it from occurring.

Quote:

And it certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse for people in that crowd to behave any way they feel like. You can quote all the psychological case studies you want, none of it justifies trampling a man to death and then going about your day shopping as if nothing happened.

You make this blanket statements without any justification and choose to reject evidence based on your own emotional reaction to it.

Most people in such a mass crowd situation do not consider themselves responsible for actions of the whole. "I didn't step on him. Why should I feel guilty? Why should I ruin my day?" It is a well understood aspect of crowd psychology. Crowds, water down responsibility.

If you don't want to or refuse to understand this aspect of mob mentality, how can you fix it?

The "crowd" murdered that man. As a member of the crowd, I'm only 1/2000th responsible for murder. Unless you were the instigator, most people would not feel much responsibility. Most people can live with that.

Unfortunately this plays into lychings, genocides, peer pressure and other atrocities. Ugly but better to understand it than refuse to accept this phenomena.

Quote:

No, peopled aren't trampled to death every year on Black Friday. Thankfully, it's a rare and shocking phenomenon. And the fact that it doesn't happen every year only proves the point that regardless of Wal-Mart's, or any other retailer's supposed negligence, most of the time, most people manage to not injure or kill others just so they can buy stuff.

And that's because most retailers take precautions to prevent such things from occurring. Trampling happens every year. Are you going to set the bar at death before a retailer takes responsibility?

If other Wal-Marts took such crowd precautions, I say they did the right thing. The question now is, is Wal-Mart(the corporation) lax in how it handles such crowds with unclear policies, or was it the manager's fault for not following such policies. Don't know yet, but it is the responsibility of the retailer to prevent such crowds from going out of control.

Quote:

Good, because I'm not trying to be funny. If you find my generalization offensive, you'll have to forgive me, but lacking specific names of the perpetrators, I am forced to use general terms. Much like you use the term "Wal-Mart" to indicate the corporation and not every single person who works for Wal-Mart.

That's fair.

Quote:

I'm not implying anything. Take a gander:
This happened. If you choose not believe it, you go right ahead.

Yes it did happen. How does that justify painting everyone in the crowd with the same brush?
BTW: It is heresay. Someone claimed someone else said that but I can believe it to be true.

Quote:

What did I expect people to do after finding out they trampled a man to death? At the very least, not this:

It is rather sad situation where, someone didn't believe he is involved, isn't responsible and shouldn't be penalized for someone elses problem. To play devil's advocate: "Why should I lose $1000 in Christmas savings after waiting in line for 5 hours for something I'm not involved in?"

Sorry, it's sad human nature.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by BirdStrike

And that is my point. Walmart had no way of PREDICTING that some shoppers would become so enraged by low low prices that they would riot and stampede into the store killing an employee.

I've already pointed that's not how negligence works. It appears Walmart should have predicted a large unruly crowd, because there's ample evidence of such crowds being present in other years (and probably at other stores that same year). They did nothing to try control the expected large crowd, therefore they are liable for whatever that unruly crowd does. That's how negligence works.

Originally Posted by BirdStrike

But many here say Walmart should have known.Therefore Walmart should have had precautions in place to counter a riot and stampede.

They should have had measures in place to control a large crowd of people.

Originally Posted by BirdStrike

My take is that people are sick, and their sickness - see: greed - knows no bounds. Some of these people are so greedy that they will line up a day before for a sale, and then stampede into a store.

And some people are so greedy they will initiate sales to attract enormous crowds to their store, then do nothing to attempt to control that crowd, because it would mean spending a few hundred dollars.

Originally Posted by BirdStrike

Lesson learned. Next time have police, security, dogs and truncheons.

Half a dozen extra staff with high-viz vests. That's all.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by bigred

<snip>

That's what I'm talkin 'bout. All hail the ghetto mindset! Money is worth more than a life and screw everybody else - gotta get junior that new Wii game, that's what matters!

<snip>

Just because this paragraph deserves to be quoted. (Nothing that was snipped gives it any context. It pretty well stands on its own merits.)

Do you really think that this is exclusive to the ghetto, BigRed? And why the assumption that they're from the ghetto in the first place? No black people from middle-class neighborhoods where you come from?

(Pennsylvania Avenue - that'll be the ghetto, now? Must be, there's a colored fella moving in.)

[Seanette]

Originally Posted by gdnp

Do you really think that there were 2000 animals outside of Wall-Mart at 5 AM? Or a bunch of sleep-deprived people who had been standing in freezing weather for hours with the hope of saving some money so that they could get through Christmas without going too much deeper into debt as the economy heads down the tubes?

I'm sorry, were any of the sale items actual necessities for survival, or just consumer luxuries that people in many places cannot hope to afford, so live without, without stomping another human being to a pulp out of sheer greed?

These "people" decided that their greed for goodies overrode basic morality and humanity. No, no one will die of not getting the game system/TV/sweater/whatever being hyped by advertisers, and if you're going into debt for non-necessities, you really need to rethink your priorities. [This, BTW, comes from someone currently shoveling herself out from such lack of mature judgment.]

[Cain]

tl;dr past the first couple of pages and the last page.

It's rather simple: Wal-Mart has the duty to take precautions because we can reasonably foresee the need for crowd control. The same sort of argument is used at clubs and rock concerts.

People claiming a lawsuit against Wal-Mart is grounded in some "liberal" ideology miss the point. Indeed, you'll find Chicago school style economists who simply seek to reduce a harmful activity and care not who is punished (an infamous example, different context to be sure, is that people who use a lake for recreational purposes ought to pay a company to stop polluting it).

Lawsuits can be used to prevent crowds from becoming unruly, which is, after all, in the best interests of the companies. People who say those who physically trampled the employee are responsible will find it difficult to prevent future stampedes. It's very difficult to attribute blame to particular individuals in those circumstances, and I doubt if it can be expected that lawsuits against Wal-Mart shoppers looking for price deals in the early morning are going to result in the bucks needed to deter this behavior.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Cain

Lawsuits can be used to prevent crowds from becoming unruly, which is, after all, in the best interests of the companies. People who say those who physically trampled the employee are responsible will find it difficult to prevent future stampedes. It's very difficult to attribute blame to particular individuals in those circumstances, and I doubt if it can be expected that lawsuits against Wal-Mart shoppers looking for price deals in the early morning are going to result in the bucks needed to deter this behavior.

Lawsuits are an after the fact measure, paximperium's point on good management a before the fact preventive measure. I know where I'd rather see effort spent.

While you are probably right on the bolded part, it is possible that WalMart security cameras may be able to identify the catalysts. Just as it takes a spark to start a fire when flammables are about, it takes someone to start a bums rush. If that soul can be identified, or that small clot of persons, perhaps a citation or five for riot or endangerment can be made.

Most likely not.

DR

[CptColumbo]

Originally Posted by WildCat

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

From that footage it looks like they used barriers to block off a different set of doors (probably the exit).

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Lawsuits are an after the fact measure, paximperium's point on good management a before the fact preventive measure. I know where I'd rather see effort spent.

I don't see Paximperium's point as separate. Civil lawsuits are a preventive measure. Lawsuits are actually a more free-market, libertarian idea as opposed to government regulations (which I also favor). I was in a shop in a bowling alley yesterday and the fire marshal came in, checking the capacity and fire extinguishers.

Quote:

While you are probably right on the bolded part, it is possible that WalMart security cameras may be able to identify the catalysts. Just as it takes a spark to start a fire when flammables are about, it takes someone to start a bums rush. If that soul can be identified, or that small clot of persons, perhaps a citation or five for riot or endangerment can be made.

Most likely not.

This goes back to the Coaseian property rights I mentioned earlier. Suppose your house's paint job gets marred by pollutants emitted by companies in the area. You might say argue that it's due to a new company that recently moved in (because the paint has always been fine), so they're the catalyst, but it's possible that they just raised the bar past a threshold.

[Travis]

Trying to control the crowd as it forms sounds good in theory but it rests on some assumptions: you are assuming people will do as they are told, you are assuming the facilities can accommodate the measures and you are assuming that lining people up will negate the possibility of a stampede.

As to the first, when I was in high school I volunteered with a group that would direct people where to park on a large field for football games. People would drive their cars in through a gate and we would flag them over and tell them where to park. Most of the time this worked and we'd get a lot of cars on there but still have them spaced so they could exit easily after the game was over. Then one night as I was doing this two cars came and ignored me and parked in the middle of the field when I was still trying to park cars against the far fence. As I went over to tell the people to not park there but where I was pointing three cars snuck in behind me and blocked in several other cars. As I dealt with that more cars started parking on there own around the first two cars in the middle of the field. In order to try and rectify this I told another volunteer to close the gate until we got things sorted out. This was done but then another guy drove around the gate and through a fence in order to get on the field. Then other cars started driving through the wrecked fence following the guy. These cars were all parking wherever they wanted and at that point all the volunteers and I just gave up and walked off to watch the game. The moral is that asshats who don't follow directions and the human propensity to emulate what the person in front of you is doing can quickly make a mockery of your efforts to keep things organized.

As to the second, depending on the parking lot, store layout and local laws there may not have been a way to establish such a queue in a manner that would have been feasible. For example our own local Wal-Mart was disallowed from making people line up for the release of the X-Box 360 because of a city ordnance which forbade outdoor customer queue's.

As to the last idea, that the use of crowd control techniques will preclude the possibility of a raging mob....another story from high school. At the beginning of every semester we had what was called arena registration, for signing up for our classes, which was a first-come first-serve thing. Each student was giving eight cards representing their eight classes and its period in the day. At a designated time you had to enter the gymnasium and give a card for a period to a teacher for their class and that was how you registered. For example; if I wanted to take the Literature Discussion class offered during period seven I would hand the period seven card to the teacher teaching it then. So most semesters this was fine. We'd get our cards and line up, as directed, and when the bell rang we would file, in a line, into the gym. Then, for my first semester of my Junior year, this didn't happen. We were in line as we had always been but when the bell rang, for whatever reason, about six guys from the back of the line just bolted in a sprint to get to the door before the people in the front of the line. This in turn panicked everyone else by introducing the idea that they would now be edged out for the more popular classes and in an instant it was a stampede. Several students were hurt when the stampede hit the narrow doorway and one student, a boy who was on the cross country team with me, was even trampled and had to be hospitalized. This all happened despite the use of crowd control measures that had always previously worked.


Another thing. Some are saying Wal-Mart encouraged the formation of the unruly mob. The only advertisements I saw for Wal-Mart in the lead up to Black Friday were ones with teller lights flickering to the Carol of the Bells and a promise from Wal-Mart that they would have extra lanes open on that day. Nowhere in the advertisement does Wal-Mart ask people to act in a frenzied, illogical and dangerous manner.

[gdnp]

Originally Posted by BirdStrike

I am not sure why so many here are so interested in blaming Walmart for the CONDUCT of shoppers. I guess it is an natural thing to find blame. I definitely am not a big Walmart fan, but Walmart cannot predict the future. Nor is Walmart responsible for the CONDUCT of shoppers.

No one here can predict the future. Neither can Walmart. Therefore Walmart had no way to know that some shoppers at their Valley Stream store would stampede into the store killing an employee.

It's just something so rare that one cannot forsee it happening.

I blame greed. The greed and lust of these shoppers for this event. Not the - some say - insufficient planning of the Walmart managers at the Valley Stream store. That's all.

People do not line up for hours at Wal-mart waiting for the store to open on a daily basis. This day was unusual, in that Wal-mart had some unusually low prices. They expected large crowds. They thus bear considerable responsibility when these crowds become unruly.

As an extreme example, let us say that a Wal-mart employee had gotten up on the roof and started tossing $100 gift cards into the crowd below. Would you still consider them blameless if an injury ensued? Their actions here were not as egregious (discounting the story of the "joking" employee that said he store would open early) but I still maintain that by enticing 2000 people to the store at 5 AM they bear a large degree of responsibility for the mob that resulted.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Through specific actions of certain people within that crowd, a man was trampled to death. No one forced those people (whether it was the "tramplers" or the "shovers") to engage in the behavior that cost another person his life. These people are guilty of a crime and should be held accountable.

You are entitled to your opinion, but this is what an expert says, quoted by paximperium:

Quote:

It is difficult to describe the psychological and physiological pressures within crowds at maximum density. When crowd density equals the plan area of the human body, individual control is lost, as one becomes an involuntary part of the mass. At occupancies of about 7 persons per square meter the crowd becomes almost a fluid mass. Shock waves can be propagated through the mass sufficient to lift people off of their feet and propel them distances of 3 m (10 ft) or more. People may be literally lifted out of their shoes, and have clothing torn off.

no individual can control a mob rush like this. No individual is responsible for the creation of the mob.

Originally Posted by Johnny Karate

Beyond that, from the reports I've read, just about everyone in that crowd was culpable to a certain degree. No one seemed all that concerned for the welfare of this dying man, as they were all more interested in behaving like gluttonous consumers than human beings.
Again, I can certainly understand being caught up in the crush of a surging crowd and not being able to control your forward momentum. It's the reaction to this man being injured that speaks volumes about the mindset of these people.


Hundreds of people stepped on, over, and around this man (possibly through no fault of their own), and yet how many went back after the initial rush to see if he was okay? How many put down their Xboxes and iPhones to take three minutes to assist or at least inquire about the guy they stepped on to get in the store? From what I can tell: No one. It is exactly because of this behavior that I hold these people accountable, and judge them so harshly. Someone died, and none of them really seemed to care.

So if they had trampled the man but shown remorse they would not be guilty? It is the apparent lack of remorse that becomes the indictable offense? As another expert pointed out, the members of the crowd may not even have known they stepped on the man.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

the argument seems to be that the "unruly mob" was inevitable expectation when a large number of people gather, and therefore it's up to an authority of some kind to manage the mob's unruliness. This line of reasoning excuses the mob for being unruly in the first place.

mobs are unruly by definition. Experts have stated that with relatively minimal effort Wal-mart could have had an organized line rather than an unruly mob.

Quote:

I don't think the argument is that it's either the crowd or Wal-Mart who has culpability. It's who has the most culpability. And that honor clearly belongs to the people that chose to behave like savages and kill a man so they could save a little money.

The members of the mob did not choose to behave like savages. Let's say you arrived at 3 AM for this sale. There are 500 people in front of you. You stand in the back. Over the next 2 hours an additional 1500 people arrive. You are now in the middle of a crowd of 2000 people. Over the last 10 minutes, people start jockeying for position. Density increases until it reaches that magic 7 people per square meter. During this time you get squeezed back a bit so you are now smack in the middle of the crowd. When people see store employees moving towards the door they begin to inch forward, trapping those in front against the door. You can't move an inch: you are trapped by those around you. The door shatters and the mob surges forward, carrying you along with it. All your effort is spent trying to remain standing. After a harrowing 60 or 90 seconds you are through the doors, and your mind returns to the reason you just put yourself though this hell, which was to save a week's pay.

Now if a crime was committed, it was committed during this period. Whether anyone knew that the store employee had been trampled or went back to help is irrelevant. What could you have done to avoid the tragedy? I would submit that the first time you would have known that a dangerous condition was developing was when the crowd compacted: at which point you could not have left if you wanted to. As the expert has said, you are now part of a "fluid mass"

Originally Posted by gumboot

Quite true. The store's negligence in predicting this event would be dependent entirely on what had happened at previous sales. I was just trying to point out that it isn't necessary for the store to have reasonably predicted a stampede and someone being trampled in order to be negligent.

To reinforce this point, isn't it reasonable to expect that a store that holds an event that is known colloquially as a "doorbuster" sale should expect that without adequate crowd control that a "door" may be "busted?" Are we to believe that the doors bust from the pressure of all the great merchandise inside, rather than the crowds trying to get in and buy it?