Shoppers Suing Police Over Deadly Walmart Stampede

Who is to blame when shoppers attack en masse? The store? The individual shoppers? The police? Two shoppers who say they were injured during the deadly Walmart Black Friday stampede in New York are suing the local police — claiming that they didn’t do enough to calm down the crowd minutes before the mob surged through the doors killing one employee.

Newsday reports that the claim, which is for $2 million, says that officers on the scene “stood outside their vehicles drinking coffee while the crowd became more and more unruly.”

$2 Million Sought In Store Stampede [Newsday]
(Photo: Getty)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. sinfuly Delicious says:

    what a load of crap.

  2. smirkette says:

    Cause, gee, heaven forbid the shoppers should be responsible for their own actions. :P Word to the wise: if you see a mob forming, get the heck outta there and call the cops yourself!

    • TWinter says:

      @SF_iris: Seriously! If they are claiming it was SO obvious the crowd was unruly that the police were negligent not to do something then it should have been clear to them that they needed to get out of the way.

    • sinfuly Delicious says:

      @SF_iris: I would like to file suit against the two who are suing. If they were so aware of the mob mentality and failed to notify nearby authorites. They are at fault for failing to act.

      • strathmeyer says:

        Wow, you guys should should write a book on avoiding mobs called ‘Just Get Out of the Way’. Let’s hope you never have to experience the stupidity of your own comments.

      • sonneillon says:

        @sinfuly Delicious:
        I want to sue Walmart for having such a bomb sale. And because it’s fashionable to sue Walmart.

      • katiat325 says:

        @sinfuly Delicious: God forbid anyone would step out of the line for a walmart black friday sale. They should also sue walmart for not hiring enough security, and also for poorly informing and managing the crowd outside. As for the police, unless there is undeniable proof of what the 2 ppl were saying, I’m hesitant to blame them. Also another thing to consider, if they were hurt by the stampede, they were probably trying to participate in it too, so now we know of 2 ppl who were probably involved in that worker’s death.

        • i_love_life says:

          @katiat325: From what I understand from working in retail, that it’s not the store’s responsibility to control what goes on outside the doors. The parking lot is technically the city’s property, so therefore the cops should have taken care of it. If walmart even tried to do some sort of control outside of the store, the city could have easily sued them for god knows what.

    • alexawesome says:

      @SF_iris: Call.. the cops? You mean the people who are paid to control crowds who were standing around watching the mob form and drinking coffee? THOSE cops? Or… some secret ninja cops only you know about, perhaps?

  3. Mr.DuckSauce says:

    You know the police aren’t obligated to help you. I read that somewhere, I forgot where but it opened my eyes.

    • Ein2015 says:

      @Mr.DuckSauce: They are in some states, including Texas.

      • Canino says:

        @Ein2015: [Citation Needed]

        • CoAMarcus says:

          @Canino: [www.totse.com]

          FTA: “The court held that police have a duty only
          to the “public at large and not to individual members
          of the community.” “

          That was what I found with a quick Google, but it looks pretty legit. Regarding the article, I do not see how it is the police’s fault; if you don’t want to get trampled then don’t go to Wal-Mart on Black Friday at 5AM.

          • Anonymous says:

            From Warren V. District of Columbia
            The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”

            Exerpted from from http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

            @CoAMarcus:

      • dr1024 says:

        @Ein2015: By multiple supreme court decisions, including a unanimous decision, ‘the government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to individual citizens’. In other words the police have no duty to protect you or other individuals, nor can they be held liable for failing to do so. Their duty is to enforce the law.
        Reference Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989)

    • happysquid says:

      @Mr.DuckSauce: Disinformation

      • jwissick says:

        @happysquid: It is not disinformation at all. California has Government Code 845. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
        failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.

        All states have something similar. And it has been upheld every time by SCOTUS.

        Read Dial 911 and Die by Richard Stevens, [www.amazon.com]

    • B says:

      @Mr.DuckSauce: So much for To Protect and Serve.

      • alexcassidy says:

        @B: That’s why a lot of people own guns, actually. People say that if your house is being broken into, you should leave it to the police, but they are under no obligation to protect you- just to clean up after.

  4. Pylon83 says:

    I hate these kinds of lawsuits. It’s simply a money-grab hoping for a quick settlement from the police. I’m not sure one could easily allocate fault in this situation. They were injured by a mob of people, not by Walmart or by the police. Further, as the attorney in the article points out, the police don’t have a general affirmative (legal) duty to protect people. Since they don’t have such a general duty, they can’t be liable for their inaction. Until the police have affirmatively assumed a duty to a particular person (or probably even group of people), they aren’t liable. My guess is the people who were injured were part of the mob, pushing and shoving, but they happened to get injured in the whole mess. Regardless of their participation, they feel entitled to $2 million. Suits like this are nothing more than a get rich quick scheme.

  5. emilymarion333 says:

    I guess no one is every responsible for their own actions anymore…just sue someone else…

    what a load of crap!

    • usul356 says:

      @emilymarion333: Looks like one more weave for the hand basket this country is going to u know where in.

    • tmlfan81 says:

      @emilymarion333: The family of the deceased Wal-Mart employee should get some compensation – from Wal-Mart. The customers that, of their own free will, decided to stay in a line / crowd that became unruly is not the responsibility of Wal-Mart or local law enforcement. It leads me to believe that the crowd was no more or less rowdy than years past, and only got disturbingly evil in the moments leading up to the door coming off its hinges and the employee being trampled.

      The people that took the life of another human being for granted all for the purpose of getting cheap holiday deals should be ashamed of themselves. They are certainly not due compensation because someone else didn’t stop them from being unruly, or prevented them from taking actions that would ultimately play a part in the death of a Wal-Mart associate.

      • PittsburghJen says:

        @tmlfan81: You hit the nail on the head, my friend.

        I have to say, I wish there were some way to punish the people who broke the doors down and then rushed the place. They should all be brought into court. Even if they’re not convicted, they should have something happen to them for their actions.

  6. Blitzgal says:

    The article I read last week said the cops were there at 3:30 AM to calm the crowd down but as the opening time of 5AM approached, they’d left because the crowd seemed to be at manageable levels.

    Psst, Walmart has deeper pockets!

    • ilves says:

      @Blitzgal:

      Yup, plus, Walmart is probably more culpable since they didn’t control the crowds within their store when they knew it was going to be pandemonium

      • logicbox says:

        @ilves: i was thinking the same thing. at all the big releases for games/consoles/movies whatever they address the crowd OUTSIDE before opening the doors to remain calm and controlled or you’ll be tossed out. Why didn’t they have everyone enter according to some sort of organization? Like, I don’t know, a LINE?!

  7. Corporate_guy says:

    The solution to this problem is clear. Review camera footage and charge anyone that pushed or walked on the murdered guy with murder. You can’t sue the cops for not protecting someone if you are charged with the responsibility of the crime.

    • Nic Fit says:

      @Corporate_guy: If you’ve ever been in a tight crowd of people, you know that individuals don’t move on their own. The whole thing moves in mass, and you either go with it or get trampled yourself.

      I blame WalMart 100% for this.

      • ilves says:

        @Nic Fit:

        You know how people get killed in S. American/European football matches when the crowd surges forward and crushes the people at the front? The people physically in contact with them are not at fault because they literally cannot move… similar situation here most likely. Walmart should have had better crowd control since they knew the day was going to be crazy and were negligent.

        • BrianDaBrain says:

          @ilves: I make my case again that it is the people’s responsibility to control themselves. Wal-mart had a queue set up, which, if not ignored by the people, would have allowed people into the store in an orderly, and safe, fashion. The people chose to ignore that system, so there was nothing negligent about what Wal-mart did. Saying blame Wal-mart here is like…

          If Bob run a traffic light and kills a pedestrian, the makers of the traffic lights can’t be sued, neither can the cop who was sitting on the corner on his motorcycle. Bob is blamed, because Bob ran the red light. In both cases, both parties involved chose to ignore the system in place to control the crowd. In both cases, the blame should be put on the shoulders of those who ignored that system.

    • Pyrusticia says:

      @Corporate_guy: Not murder, which I believe must be premeditated. But manslaughter, definitely.

  8. NightSteel says:

    What were they supposed to do, wade in with truncheons and tasers? If the cops *had* done anything to break it up, they would have been vilified by rabid shoppers who didn’t get the deal they wanted.

    As far as I’m concerned, this is on Wal-Mart’s shoulders. It’s their property, it’s their store, and it’s their responsibility to take steps to ensure that things like this won’t happen.

    I work with a guy who had a great suggestion: Set up a queue. Sure, it’s not perfect because there will be queue jumpers, but it’s better than having a mob at the door. All it takes is those tall, thin traffic pylons and some yellow police tape. And it doesn’t reward people who ignore the fact that there is a line and try to push in at the door.

    • eXo says:

      @NightSteel: There WAS a que. These shoppers chose to ignore it and bunch up at the doors. They were in an orderly line before that point. Wal-Mart can do nothing to control a group of people who outright refuse to follow directions.

      • startertan says:

        @exo: Ha, we went from the right spelling (queue) to the wrong spelling (que).

        Didn’t Best Buy hand out numbered tickets to people in line? As much as I’d hate to praise them this is a good idea and we haven’t heard of any negative hijinks (outside the usual) going on at BB. And weren’t you only let in if you had the next number? Seems like a simple, orderly, and easy to follow solution. Even those cheesy raffle type tickets would have worked since they are numbered in order.

        • katiat325 says:

          @startertan: Best Buy only handed out numbered tickets to those that were there for that one computer deal. Everyone else was in a regular line. My friend worked BB black friday opening, and said that BB got more security there, and that the cops were there a little before BB opened and made sure people didn’t jump the line up front and somewhat controlled the crowd along with BB employees for a bit, then left as everything quieted dowm.

          • i_love_life says:

            @katiat325: Best Buy hands out tickets for an assortment of hot items. This year, there were tickets for a cheap GPS, some laptop packages, some desktop packages, and I believe an LCD or two. The tickets are numbered and so are the items in the store. This gave those people with the tickets an opportunity to leave and shop somewhere else, and come back for their item that was held with their number on it. However, the item would only be held until noon or else it’s up for grabs.

            Last year when I worked for Best Buy we had cops there all night, but the “cops option” is only up to the store and the store has to pay the cops their typical earnings for one night.

      • NightSteel says:

        @exo: I don’t mean ‘get in line over there’. I mean ‘set up physical barriers to indicate where people should be, and don’t allow people physical access to the doors without going through the line’.

    • Acolyte says:

      @NightSteel:
      What were they supposed to do, wade in with truncheons and tasers?
      I wish they did, then maybe that dude would still be alive . Sigh they’d still get sued anyhow.

    • BrianDaBrain says:

      @NightSteel: As quaint as those solutions are, they really don’t work. The simple thing here is that the people chose to ignore the queue that was set up, they ignored the employee, and they ignored the police. This can’t be blamed on Wal-Mart or the police. The blame lies squarely with the people who were in the mob, and ONLY with them. It was their behavior that injured people and killed an employee, not the cops’ and not Wal-mart’s.

  9. morganlh85 says:

    Yeah cause I’m sure 3 or 4 cops can control 2000 mad people. What were they supposed to do, start shooting everyone?

  10. katieoh says:

    the judge should award the $2mil, but then pluck it from the hands of those greedy assholes and give it to the family of the man who was killed.

    your sprained neck and scraped knee are not worth $2mil. get the fuck out.

  11. morganlh85 says:

    Walmart should simply not have allowed 2000 people to stand in line…they surely didn’t have 2000 of their in-demand items to sell, so allowing that many people line up is asking for trouble.

    They should do like Best Buy and hand out vouchers for the first X amount of people in line who want a particular item, then tell people they are out of them and they can go home.

    • mzs says:

      @morganlh85: The last time I did any of this Black Friday shopping was three years ago. Target did the vouchers thing as well. Also they let only 20 or so people at a time in about an hour early. They had extra security. People carrying electronics items were escorted out of the store by security in small groups. While we were waiting in line they provided warm coffee, water, juice, doughnuts, and cookies. I was very impressed and from what I learned later the Target at the next town over was a complete mess in comparison.

    • eXo says:

      @morganlh85: So you suggest they have a limit, and then turn people away? Then they would be sued for discrimination.

      • morganlh85 says:

        @exo: Discriminating against WHO? people who didn’t get in line early enough? That’s not a protected class, last I checked, and it’s already first come – first served. Using vouchers is nothing but a more organized way to work Black Friday.

      • Trai_Dep says:

        @exo: And they’d lose the suit. Don’t believe everything you hear on talk AM radio.

      • katiat325 says:

        @exo: not really, it’s first come first serve and only while supplies last. the last part is in every add.

        • eXo says:

          @katiat325: They do sell other stuff though. I have the right to go to Walmart and buy stuff, whether it is advertised or not. Walmart cannot tell me, “Oh, you want some groceries and milk – not the $300 TV? Well fuck off then”.

          Also, lets say they have 4 items for sale, with 500 of each item. Do you assume the first 500 people are buying all 4 items? Do you assume that each person will only buy one item, leading to 2,000 sales?

          All that aside, the entire bloody point of a doorbuster is to GET PEOPLE TO COME TO YOUR STORE. If walmart turns them away, then what is the point of the sale in the first place??

    • gwong says:

      @morganlh85: Because giving out vouchers encourages people who don’t get them to just leave? They’d probably prefer that everyone believes they have a shot at the doorbuster items and, if they don’t get them, they’ll buy something else anyway because they’re already there.

    • Outrun1986 says:

      @morganlh85: The problem with this is there is no rightful reason to turn the people away. It would be better if they let people in in groups say 20-30 at a time. Not everyone out there was waiting for the doorbuster items, they were waiting to get into the store to buy other merchandise in the store as well. There is a whole store of merchandise there, not just the doorbusters. Lets not forget that Walmart was price matching BF specials as well. Also of course they want the publicity of 2000 people standing outside their door waiting to get into the store as well!

      It would be helpful if they handed out vouchers for the doorbuster items and let people in in small groups. Other than that Walmart will not turn people away at the door unless hell freezes over.

  12. katylostherart says:

    wtf is wrong with our country?

    • bagumpity says:

      @katylostherart: It’s full of human beings. Unfortunately, we as a whole tend to suck.

      • katylostherart says:

        @bagumpity: this isn’t rioting over food because a military coup has taken place.

        this is OMG THERE’S A WII AT THIS WALMART. you don’t get an excuse for that.

    • PittsburghJen says:

      @katylostherart: I can’t help but think the same thing. People died on Black Friday? There were deaths because of a mad dash for deal? What happened? How did this happen?

    • Anonymous says:

      @katylostherart:
      IF there’s too many people for space available
      means someone has to die to make room whether
      its the WalMart entrance, Easter Island, Rhode
      Island bar on fire or our Planet Earth. Just keep
      on with high BirthRates and you get high Dearth
      Rates, Again and Again. NeverAgain means you
      are sticking your head in the sands of time
      Read

    • katiat325 says:

      @katylostherart: I would answer this, but my 20 pg essay days are over…maybe I can pull for a book by that title.

  13. JulesWinnfield says:

    This case will be thrown out pronto. In New York, the police are not obligated to protect anyone in the absence of a “special duty.” The elements of a special duty are (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking. I don’t see ANY of that here.

    • jodark says:

      @JulesWinnfield: Exactly. Otherwise you could sue the police for not preventing a crime. The phrase “To Serve and Protect” isn’t refering to people, it’s refering to the Law. This case will be thrown out because there have been a number of these type of lawsuits over the years where people have sued the police for not protecting them. Plaintifs have lost every one of them.

      The police have no legal obligation to help you or stop a crime, thats what the Supreme Court has decided.

  14. SWBLOOPERS says:

    So, I can go and get rowdy and hurt people and myself and then sue the police for not getting me to calm down? Sweet!

    I think I just found my new retirement plan!

  15. emis says:

    Next Black Friday we’ll read about all the people who are suing the local cops for being overly aggressive in controlling the crowds–like that girl who got shot in the face by a bean-bag gun… it was a million to one shot fired into a complete insane crowd… they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

  16. Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★ says:

    Wal-Mart should have talked to the local FOP or PBA and rented some off duty uniformed cops. As the son of a 30 year veteran, I can tell you they love doing off duty jobs sometimes, b/c it’s extra $$ 10 uniformed cops would have done a lot to quell the crowd, as trampling a cop to death carries a bigger penalty than a temp greeter.

  17. Scoobatz says:

    To the two morons who filed this lawsuit, best of luck in getting any future support from a police officer in your time of need. Hope your short-lived publicity stunt was worth it.

  18. Trai_Dep says:

    Here’s the gig. If you close your eyes to predictable consequences for chuckles while angling to make your store this year’s YouTube’s WORST BLACK FRIDAY STAMPEDE, then people are hurt, you gotta pay. A lot.
    You wanted notoriety, you got it. Congrads! Now pay the piper.
    Crowd control is a science. This isn’t the first time that uncontrolled mobs ran amuck. Far from it. Wal-Mart, with it’s billions, knows better, or should.

    (And – sigh – sure there’s some blame on the individual. Same as if a mob runs wild because a club-owner locked the emergency exits and a fire broke out. But like the Wal-Mart situation, the venue owner shoulders most of the blame)

    • Trai_Dep says:

      @Trai_Dep: Oops, sorry. In my rant, I misread the article. Damn. Sue Wal-Mart, sleazy lawyers, not the police. Wal-Mart!
      (blush. apologies. b-l-u-s-h)

      • Interstella5555 says:

        @Trai_Dep: “YouTube’s WORST BLACK FRIDAY STAMPEDE” Is YouTube really the standard we’re measuring by now? It doesn’t matter if a guy got killed, it wasn’t on YouTube.

  19. Gokuhouse says:

    If we’re lucky Wal-Mart will not do the Black Friday deals the same day everyone else does them. Maybe spread the deals out over a few weeks so no mob forms to begin with!

    • MooseOfReason says:

      @MSUHitman: Why should they sue Wal-Mart? It wasn’t Wal-Mart’s fault a bunch of idiots knocked the door down.

      That’s called breaking and entering.

  20. geekgrrl77 says:

    It’s amazing to me that no one here understands that stampedes aren’t caused by the actions of any single person in the crowd!

    Have you ever been near the front of a standing-room only concert, when the doors open and everyone comes piling in from behind and you get pushed up against the stage? You CAN’T STOP IT (let along stand still and not trample the person in front of you), and the people in the back aren’t to blame because they can’t see what’s going on up front.

    This is Walmart’s fault. Plain and simple. They needed to set up better crowd control and barriers to prevent the crowd from squishing the people up front in mass. The police couldn’t have done anything, unless they were there to organize the thing in the first place, and the individuals in the crowd had no way of stopping what was going on.

    It’s easy to blame a psycho-sale-crazed consumer, but that isn’t whose at fault here, folks.

    • Brazell says:

      @geekgrrl77: Just because an angry mob commits a crime does not mean that nobody in the mob is blameless.

      It’s obviously a mix of blame (WalMart for not organizing like so many other stores do just fine, police for not using force in emptying the store, and, of course, each member of “the mob” who either did the trampling or stood idly as somebody died on the ground), but you cannot remove blame from those who actually did the trampling or who ignored the dying person, just because they were members of a mob. Should a lynch mob not be held accountable for their actions — the lyncher is just one person, after all.

      • Brazell says:

        @MichaelBrazell: Eek, double negative. “does not mean that nobody in the mob is to blame” **

      • geekgrrl77 says:

        @MichaelBrazell:

        A lynch mob or mob behavior is not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about physics.

        If a tremendous force is coming at you from behind, even if you don’t want to step on the person in front of you– even if you want to help them– you aren’t going to be able to. Unless you have super-human strength or something.

    • jenl1625 says:

      @geekgrrl77: These two may not have chosen to join the stampede, when it started. They did, however, chose to remain in the crowd (close to the front) even when the crowd started to get way too big and too pushy.

      If they had time (and attention, and wits) to notice the cops were just standing there drinking coffee, then they had time to consider the fact that the people were turning into a mob, and that it could become dangerous.

      How can you hold the police (just 2 cops, at that) responsible for not preventing a mob scene that you yourself didn’t get out of? Had the cops come in and pushed people around and dragged these two out of the crowd, they would now be suing the cops for assault.

    • katiat325 says:

      @geekgrrl77: the mob is not excused. Most people in that mob, from back to front, know what a mob is, and probably reacted in unison of “Whoo hoo, the doors are cracking open, lets get the sale!” This does not mean that only the people in the back were to blame, or just those in the front. It’s everyone that started running and pushing, since they probably too felt some pain and strain from those around them, and yet failed to stop that action for themselves. Walmart is also to blame, because they failed to provide enough security and crowd control.

      • Pyrusticia says:

        @katiat325: Except that the doors didn’t open. The mob broke them down. That to me implies a whole new level of responsibility on the part of the crowd, since they can’t even claim they were reacting to an external stimuli.

        They took the initiative to break down the doors to get into that store, despite the fact that employees were actively trying to hold the doors shut. The result? They ended up trampling and killing one of those employees. Through a willful action on their part.

  21. Brazell says:

    … wait… the shoppers who trampled and ignored the (now dead) employee are suing? My goodness.

  22. Angryrider says:

    Bullhonky. If ya wanted the cops to “control” you, you’d be suing for police brutality.

  23. FlashbackX01 says:

    All these people have to do is look in the mirror to find the responsible party.

  24. jenl1625 says:

    All those people, two cops? Sorry, but it sounds like it would have taken a bunch of cops in riot gear to prevent what happened. Meanwhile, these two could have gotten OUT when the crowd around them first started pushing . . . .

  25. RurouniX says:

    Yeah this is OBVIOUSLY the police’s fault…I mean, they could have been out there in riot gear and firing tear gas into the throng of shoppers to calm them down.

    /sarcasm.

  26. Blitzgal says:

    The family of the deceased will be suing Wal-mart.

    [www.foxnews.com]

    It alleges Damour’s death resulted from “the carelessness, recklessness negligence, wanton disregard for public safety and gross negligence of the defendants … in the staging, conducting and advertising for sales events.”

  27. ~Ian~ says:

    well thats nice , one persons dead and the ones who survived all of the sudden get dollar signs in their eyes …… unfortunately this is all to quickly becoming ” the american way”. I suppose we don’t care about people at all anymore we just have to get more cash to feed into the ever hungry corporate conglomerates.

    Greed …. the mortar that binds our society so tightly … oh well I’m going to be off to myself waiting for the comeback of common sense and responsibility for your own actions to come back and I will be waiting forever.

  28. kwsventures says:

    I heard Keith Olbermann say the Wal Mart killing was Bush’s fault. Everything is Bush’s fault. After January 20, who are you going to blame, Keith? With a democratic congress and President, your blame Bush TV show is dead.

    • SinisterMatt says:

      @kwsventures:

      Well, of course it is, after all, Bush causes hurricanes and tornadoes to form at will and by a wave of his hand. /sarcasm.

      (I’m not a fan of most of Bush’s policies, but I find it really ridiculous how certain segments of the population blame him for everything, including things that no human is capable of causing on his or her own).

      Maybe Olbermann will move over to blaming Democrats and recognizing that the Republicans really aren’t as bad as he thought previously. Actually, if he did I think that he would probably burst into flames.

      People sue over everything and anything. It’s greed and entitlement gone amok. Now the question remains, how to fix it?

      Cheers!

  29. BrianDaBrain says:

    For crying out loud, people. There is NO reason to sue cops because there was a mob situation. None at all. It would be a stretch to call this a stretch. It’s the stampeders’ fault for the stampede, not the cops’ fault for trying to stop it, even if they ultimately failed.

    Stupid, stupid assholes and their frivolous, ridiculous lawsuits. Sorry, but few things rile me up like stupid lawsuits.

  30. Boulderite says:

    I am so tired of people not taking responsibility for their actions!

  31. kaptainkk says:

    The people are to blame but you can’t sue for being stupid, so the next best thing is blame WalMart. It’s that simple! Sue them for enticing shoppers with $3 DVDs and a plethora of other useless crap!

  32. MrsLopsided says:

    I also suspect it’s a l-o-c but video & pictures (before during and after the rush) will show if they are faking or not. I wonder if they got up & shopped after being knocked down. It would be amusing if they provided receipts to prove they were there.

  33. Corporate-Shill says:

    I was in the crowd and got hurt.

    I was in the crowd and got hurt.

    I was in the crowd and got hurt.

    Of course I am on videotape 1500 miles away at the time of the incident, but I will claim I was hurt if I can pocket some quick bucks.

    Oh shucks, wonder how many others have the same thought?

  34. QuanikaJulisa says:

    This is almost as infuriating as the death. The shoppers who participated in the stampede are suing the police? The only people who should be suing are the family of the person who was killed; they should be suing Walmart for all they can. And everyone in that stampede should sit in a jail cell for a couple days. Forget about video tape, look at the cash register receipts! 99% of those people probably used credit cards.

  35. maestrosteve says:

    They are suing because they hurt their ankles walking on top of a dead guy.

    Wouldn’t it be interesting, since nobody can really be identified by the Walmart video, if they in turn were arrested because now they are recognized on the video as part of the crowd of people involved in the death of the Walmart employee?

  36. SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor says:

    I completely agree with them. When stuff like this happens, the police need to be there stopping it. Period.

    They should have rode in their on horses wielding batons, smacking people on the back of their heads till they drop. Then if that doesn’t work bring in the water cannons and tear gas. Completely serious here.

    But then they’d be suing for police brutality, so I guess we can never win.

    • GirlCat says:

      @SpruceStreetPhil: Part of the problem is that the cops were stretched thin that night monitoring all the other Black Friday sales in the county. L.I. is a densely populated, shopping-center heavy place. I’m not a big police fan, but if they’d gone in in riot gear, they would have ended up with a shitload of lawsuits.

  37. Froggmann says:

    I say the police should charge anyone jumpping on the suit with murder. They are all responsible.

  38. impetus says:

    Dear God, not coffee!!

  39. concordia says:

    You know, I’ve been thinking about this ever since I’d read an article about sherrifs being present at a Best Buy during the Xbox 360 launch.

    Riddle me this: why are police being retasked to cover security for a private enterprise? Shouldn’t they be out elsewhere, preventing real crime?

    If the Best Buys, the Walmarts and Targets of the world want security, hire security. Don’t make the police officers (that my tax money fund) stand around *your* facility, protecting *your* financial interests.

  40. jpdanzig says:

    I agree totally with geekgrrl77 — if anyone should get sued, it’s Walmart.

    The tragedy occurred as a direct result of their not providing adequate security to handle the crowds on their premises attracted by their “doorbuster” promotion.

    It was NOT the police’s fault, nor should blame fall on the crowd, most of whom had no idea what was occuring just inside the doors of the store.

    But yes, this mindless consumerism has gotten completely out of control and more than ever suggests — it is TIME FOR ALL OF US TO TURN OFF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND STOP BUYING CRAP FROM THE SPONSORS WHO PUT PROFIT AHEAD OF ALL OTHER CONCERNS.

    • GuinevereRucker says:

      @jpdanzig: I’d have to agree. I read a book on this years ago called “Culture Jam” by Kalle Lasn about how much people are affected by commercials and media – it’s all around us, every day.

      It’s amazing how the love of money has caused so many problems in our country, from corporate greed and extortion to shoppers who kill each other for a deal they saw on TV.

      Just a friendly reminder that money can’t buy you happiness :) Oh, and don’t go shopping on Black Friday, ever. It’s stupid.

  41. HogwartsAlum says:

    That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

    If those two were standing in front of me and told me they were going to sue, I’d bitch-slap them until they couldn’t stand up.

    Idiots.

  42. erin_w (formerly femme_dork) says:

    I wonder if they were among the crowd that continued to shop, even though the store was supposedly closed because someone bloody died.

  43. newfenoix says:

    What caused this whole mess is the pathetic attitude of PEOPLE. “OMG! A sale!” Honestly, how freaking stupid can people get. I live in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex and I see this stupidity all of the time. The difference is that here in Texas, you shove, you get shoved back.

  44. synergy says:

    I guess it’s too much to ask for some self-restraint in a non-bread line.

    There’s plenty of blame to go around, so I’m not saying “consumers” are the only ones to blame.

  45. XianZhuXuande says:

    Bullshit… the police are as overstaffed as can be on these days. Companies like Walmart need to actually pay off-duty police officers to come in and work specifically for them. The on-duty police officers are definitely running around the city like chickens with their heads cut off.

    Walmart is the one to blame here.

    But that doesn’t matter-the injured are only looking for free money.

  46. newyorker08 says:

    I’ve been to this Walmart and believe me…the shoppers there are behaving unruly. I am a retail veteran and will not want to work there (unless the owner is me). Sympathized for the poor employee there having to deal with these customers and long line days in and out.

  47. The-Joker says:

    Well how about blaming the worker for being there? If i was a worker at the biggest retailer in America and it was Black Friday, i wouldn’t be thinking of standing right next to the entrance of the store right before the door opens would i?

    I think if every tax payer in America donated 1 dollar to this man’s family, everything would be settled…