Wally world death match

[Scruit]

How is a store responsible for idiots being idiots? You and you alone are responsible for the choices you make - period.

The store is responsible for cramming idiots into a tight space.

[buildit]

I hear they increased store security this year

[YSR_Racer_99]

The store is responsible for cramming idiots into a tight space.

This seems to go against the essence of your sig line. What about "personal responsibility"? Why should the retailer be responsible for people being idiots? Isn't that the idiots' responsibility? Ninety-nine percent of us know how to behave. Whether its a Black Friday stampede, or going to the barber, there are always going to be idiots. The build-up and anticipation of Black Friday just amplifies their reactions.

FWIW, the only place I went for Black Friday was 10 minutes away to the in-laws. Battling people to save a couple of dollars has no appeal to me. My wife, on the other hand, headed out at 4am, but I didn't get any calls from the police, and she didn't have any asshat stories to tell when she got home. Like everything else, the media overplays these few incidents and tarnishes the whole lot.

If Walmart were an indication of our society as a whole, then "People of Walmart" wouldn't get the traffic that it does. You expect certain things at Walmart. Rioting on Black Friday is becoming one of those things. At some point it will go militant, and somebody will open fire on the front of the store one minute before the doors open so they can get that $30 DVD player.

[Disclaimer]

"The goal for the corporations is to maximize profit and market share. And they also have a goal for their target, namely the population. They have to be turned into completely mindless consumers of goods that they do not want. You have to develop what are called 'Created Wants'. So you have to create wants. You have to impose on people what's called a Philosophy of Futility. You have to focus them on the insignificant things of life, like fashionable consumption. I'm just basically quoting business literature. And it makes perfect sense. The ideal is to have individuals who are totally disassociated from one another. Whose conception of themselves, the sense of value is just, 'how many created wants can I satisfy?' We have huge industries, public relations industry, monstrous industry, advertising and so on, which are designed from infancy to mold people into this desired pattern."

-- Noam Chomsky

[Scruit]

This seems to go against the essence of your sig line. What about "personal responsibility"? Why should the retailer be responsible for people being idiots? Isn't that the idiots' responsibility?

I never said the individual idiots are not responsible for their criminal actions. (** See blow) What I am saying is that Walmart is to take reasonable steps to provide a safe place for customers to shop and by knowingly creating a dangerous situation they become liable as well. The individual customer should be charged with whatever crime he committed and Walmart is at risk of being sued for monetary damages for corralling all these idiots together despite an long and well established pattern of dangerous conditions.

It's no different than when a bar is shut down after repeated acts of violence. The bar is not responsible for individual's crimes, but if the bar cannot stop the crimes from happening then they get shut down. It may not be the bar's fault, but you reach a point where public safety is more important than making a buck.

You expect certain things at Walmart. Rioting on Black Friday is becoming one of those things. At some point it will go militant, and somebody will open fire on the front of the store one minute before the doors open so they can get that $30 DVD player.

And Walmart knows this. And because they know this, they are required to take reasonable steps to mitigate this.

Premises liability is an amorphous concept sometimes... Used to be that a slip/fall on ice was a sure winner for the customer. Then stores started clearing sidewalks. Then people started suing for slip/fall on poorly cleared sidewalks arguing that the cleared sidewalk is represented as safe so the risk was hidden from them. Then the courts started ruling that people should recognize when a walkway is icy and be extra careful, so nowadays people don't clear sidewalks as much because a poorly cleared sidewalk is a risk, an uncleared sidewalk is not. It's stupid.

** If you're all arguing that anyone who goes to Walmart on BF and gets trampled should be treated like someone who slips/falls on an obviously icy path... Well, you may be onto something there. I thought we were talking about the personal responsibility of the idiot doing the shooting/stabbing/pepper spraying/trampling...

I wouldn't go near WM on BF.

[Scruit]

Would you hold a pedestrian accountable for crossing the street on a busy corner? I mean' date=' there are rules for this behavior. Crosswalk, wait for the light and look both ways. Same applies for Walmart.

[/quote']

A better example would be - would you hold the city accountable for a pedestrian jaywalking? Well, maybe, if there was no legal or safe way to cross and pedestrians are compelled by circumstance to jaywalk, causing numerous accidents that the city continues to ignore, and that they could fix by putting in a crosswalk.

If two teenagers kicked the hell out of each other over the entire contents of that bucket' date=' would you hold the homeowner responsible?

[/quote']

Depends. Do teenagers kick the crap out of each other over and over again year over the bucket? If so, time for the homeowner to do something different.

[Disclaimer]

Indoor aerial drones... $100/hr flight time, includes 3 paintballs

Additional armaments = $100 for radar jamming, $100 for emp pulse (AA artillery), $200 for single shot Taser, $500 for one rubber buckshot

All items billed only if used.

Deployed at obnoxious retail establishments.

Best use case scenarios:

Cover for self and family whilst shopping

Entertainment for non-shoppers / CoD Fans

#BusinessIdeas

Copyright JRMMiii 2012

[Scruit]

Indoor aerial drones... $100/hr flight time, includes 3 paintballs

Additional armaments = $100 for radar jamming, $100 for emp pulse (AA artillery), $200 for single shot Taser, $500 for one rubber buckshot

All items billed only if used.

Deployed at obnoxious retail establishments.

Best use case scenarios:

Cover for self and family whilst shopping

Entertainment for non-shoppers / CoD Fans

#BusinessIdeas

Copyright JRMMiii 2012

[buildit]

Sounds good. Let's just keep propping up the stupid in this country until they're all we have left.

I believe the final count is over 50% of the USA meet the criteria of idiot.

[Disclaimer]

Yes... because everybody that doesn't share your opinion is an idiot. What was your PhD in again?

[swingset]

I think the store should be 100% responsible for any injuries or deaths associated with the frenzy they create.

Personal responsibility, how does it work?

I've been to many events that had long lines and anxious people, and no one erupted into violence or mayhem. Black fridays, concerts, giveaways, I've never experienced it or felt the urge to hurt someone or cause trouble.

If the store is responsible for these incidents, I would have witnessed many instances.

Should rape victims be held responsible for dressing provocatively or being pretty?

Stupid fucking liberals.

Edited November 24, 2012 by swingset

[Scruit]

There's a crosswalk and a light' date=' but some people are just insistent on not being responsible. How is that, in any way, the fault of the city? It's not and you know it.

[/quote']

That's why I said "maybe, if there was no legal or safe way to cross".

So' date=' we're going to hold the person that hasn't broken any laws accountable for the actions of knuckle-draggers? Sounds good. Let's just keep propping up the stupid in this country until they're all we have left.[/quote']

I never said the stupid are not responsible for their own actions. I'm just saying that those who willingly invite stupid people knowing those people are going to be placed in a situation where they are likely to hurt someone are likely to be considered negligent. I'm not saying the stupid people should be compensated! I'm saying that responsibility for the Walmart guard who was trampled to death falls on BOTH the people who trampled him AND the store that knowingly put him alone in front of a crowd of rabid fucksticks.

Think of it another way... If you dog bites someone, and has never bitten anyone before, then you are not liable because you didn't know your dog was a biter. If your dog bites someone AFTER that, then you ARE liable because you KNEW your dog was a biter and are therefore expected to take extra care. The only difference between the two scenarios is the knowledge that your dog is a biter.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Scruit

[Scruit]

Personal responsibility, how does it work?

I've been to many events that had long lines and anxious people, and no one erupted into violence or mayhem. Black fridays, concerts, giveaways, I've never experienced it or felt the urge to hurt someone or cause trouble.

*sigh* Again, the people who do the stupid stuff are still responsible for the their own action. I never said otherwise. The store should be liable for any civil torts arising from the frenzy they create.

Should rape victims be held responsible for dressing provocatively or being pretty?

Low, man. Low.

[Scruit]

Let's all stop for a second and classify these groups so we all know who we are talking about...

In a Black Friday sale you have the store (e.g Walmart) you have hundreds of normal people, and then you have a small contingent of hardcore fucksticks.

- If a fuckstick goes off an hits/shoots/stabs/pepper sprays someone then they are responsible for that crime.

- If a pair of fucksticks go at it then they are both responsible for that crime.

- If a normal person is injured by the actions of a fuckstick then premises liability law kicks in:

- Are the premises reasonably safe? Is the store aware of a risk that exists? Did the store take reasonable steps to reduce that risk?

[Pokey]

Many patrons of Walmart cannot be reasoned with, excessive inbreeding and giving their kids too much MT Dew as a child.

[BugginsDR]

Wear your smiley shirt with the bleeding bullet wound in the forehead, open carry, make your first stop the ammo counter and make sure to buy bulk ammo. Problem(s) solved.

Is excessive inbreeding when a brother trips his sister being chased by another brother and they don't know who the father is?

[snot]

If the stores would carry an adequate amount of sale items, allow items on sale to be purchased online or offer to order at the advertised price some of this could be avoided.

[Scruit]

If the stores would carry an adequate amount of sale items, allow items on sale to be purchased online or offer to order at the advertised price some of this could be avoided.

And that would be a reasonable mitigation that would absolve them of liability.

[TSB67]

If you dog bites someone, and has never bitten anyone before, then you are not liable because you didn't know your dog was a biter.

Uh, what?

[Scruit]

Uh, what?

Most American states make dog owners liable for all dog bites when a person is bitten, based simply on owning the dog that did the biting. A minority requires the victim to prove that the dog was vicious or that the dog owner or another party caused the incident through negligence or by violating an animal control law (like a leash law).

http://dogbitelaw.com/

Ohio is in the "minority of states" with a one-bite law.

As it applies to dog bites, this doctrine holds that a victim can recover compensation from the owner, harborer or keeper of a dog if (a) the dog previously bit a person or acted like it wanted to, and (b) the defendant was aware of the dog's previous conduct. If either of those conditions are not met, however, the victim cannot employ this doctrine as a ground for recovery. See The One Bite Rule.

http://dogbitelaw.com/statutory-strict-liability-state/ohio-dog-bite-law.html

But wait, there's more... Same page

Ohio supplements the scienter cause of action with a dog bite statute. The state therefore is classified as a statutory strict liability state. Its dog bite statute makes a dog owner, harborer or keeper liable whenever his dog injures, bites or causes a loss to a person or to the property of a person (meaning a person's dog or any other property of a person), even the first time.

So I stand corrected. Ohio is not *statutorially* one-bite-state.

But it's not that easy... Same page again...

To recover compensation on the ground of negligence in Ohio, however, the victim must prove the elements of the one bite rule (i.e., that the dog had the propensity to bite people without justification, and that the owner, harborer or keeper knew it). "To prevail on a common law negligence claim, the victim must show that the defendant harbored the dog with knowledge of its vicious tendencies." Webb v. Prout, 2006 -Ohio- 4792 (Ohio App. Dist.5 09/05/2006), citing Burgess v. Tackas (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 294, 297, 708 N.E.2d 285. Similarly, in Bowman v. Stott, 2003 -Ohio- 7182 (Ohio App. Dist.9 12/31/2003), it was held that "nder the common law, a plaintiff suing for damages inflicted by a dog under a theory of general negligence must show: (1) the defendant owned or harbored the dog; (2) the dog was vicious; (3) the defendant knew of the dog's viciousness; and (4) the defendant was negligent in keeping the dog." Bowman v. Stott, 2003 -Ohio- 7182 (Ohio App. Dist.9 12/31/2003), citing Flint, 80 Ohio App.3d at 25-26.

Statutory law says there is no one-bite rule, but case law and court precedents apply an effective one-bite-rule in that you must show the dog was vicious and the owener knew it.

Does you head hurt yet? Mine does.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Scruit

[swingset]

*sigh* Again, the people who do the stupid stuff are still responsible for the their own action. I never said otherwise. The store should be liable for any civil torts arising from the frenzy they create.

Low, man. Low.

What frenzy? Can you not wrap your head around the concept of personal responsibility? The frenzy is created by the people who act out not that situation they choose to get worked up over. The store is just selling stuff that begins at a certain time. All sales work this way, it's not Walmart's fault that people act like fucking retards, any more than it's the Buckeye's fault when they win a game and people storm the field and tear down the goal post. Is Chipotle responsible for a Halloween promotion day where Burritos are $2 if people line up and a fight breaks out? Apparently you say yes.

You say the idiots responsible, and in the same breath blame it again on the store creating a frenzy. Bullshit.

And, my example is perfect. If Walmart is to blame for creating a frenzy by having a good sale that begins at a certain time, then a rape victim is responsible for attracting a rapist by being too sexy. According to you, the wrongdoer is somehow only partially culpable because of the actions of someone else who tempts them into their misdeeds.

You can't have it both ways.

[Scruit]

What frenzy? Can you not wrap your head around the concept of personal responsibility? The frenzy is created by the people who act out not that situation they choose to get worked up over.

You cannot wrap your head around the concept that more than one person can be responsible.

Is Chipotle responsible for a Halloween promotion day where Burritos are $2 if people line up and a fight breaks out? Apparently you say yes.

IF fights break out regularly and they do nothing to prevent it.

You say the idiots responsible, and in the same breath blame it again on the store creating a frenzy. Bullshit.

BOTH are responsible. Why can't you understand that more than one person/group can be responsible??

And, my example is perfect. If Walmart is to blame for creating a frenzy by having a good sale that begins at a certain time, then a rape victim is responsible for attracting a rapist by being too sexy. According to you, the wrongdoer is somehow only partially culpable because of the actions of someone else who tempts them into their misdeeds.

Are you dense? How many times do I have to say it?

"I never said the stupid are not responsible for their own actions."

There's the fundamental disconnect. You think only one person can be responsible for an event. I think that multiple people can be responsible.

If you can't get it through your thick skull that more than one person can be responsible for something then there is nothing more to say.

[swingset]

Are you dense? How many times do I have to say it?

You can say it 10,000 times fucko, but saying it doesn't make it true, or even logical.

"I never said the stupid are not responsible for their own actions."

There's the fundamental disconnect. You think only one person can be responsible for an event. I think that multiple people can be responsible.

Sure, if an action or intent of one party compels the other to their misdeed. In this case, having a sale and having it start at a certain time is not sufficient cause to make people trample each other, fight, or riot. That's where your leap to "guilt" is moronic, for all the reasons I illustrated. Having a sale? Not a crime or compulsion to act out. Having it start at a certain time? Not a crime or compulsion to act out. This obvious even if you disagree because millions of people attend these sales in stores all over the nation, and do not act out or get into a frenzy.

If you can't get it through your thick skull that more than one person can be responsible for something then there is nothing more to say.

Again, the rape analogy is perfectly suited to illustrate why you're feeling instead of thinking. If a frenzy over buying a TV can be assigned to a store having a sale, then without question you can blame a good looking woman for wearing too-revealing an outfit, or leading a guy on. Afterall, the hormonal drive of a red-blooded rapist is equal to or greater than anyone's desire to buy a $179 TV....we're talking reproductive drive and testosterone here....and if a woman were smart she would know better than to whip men into a frenzy.

[Scruit]

...

Then we agree to disagree.

[Pokey]

Nanny stores, goes right along with nanny states and nanny government. Stores are at fault for nothing, customers are at fault for everything.