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)
Attention, Walmart shoppers! This ad is for you! Woo hoo!
Post a comment
Comments:
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!
You know the police aren't obligated to help you. I read that somewhere, I forgot where but it opened my eyes.
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.
I guess no one is every responsible for their own actions anymore...just sue someone else...
what a load of crap!
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!
@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.
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.
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.
Yeah cause I'm sure 3 or 4 cops can control 2000 mad people. What were they supposed to do, start shooting everyone?
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.
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.
@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.
wtf is wrong with our country?
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.
@morganlh85: well, really, if they only shot one person, it would probably make an example and shut everyone else up :)
@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.
@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.
@morganlh85: So you suggest they have a limit, and then turn people away? Then they would be sued for discrimination.
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!
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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)
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
@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)
@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)
@Scoobatz: That's what I'm saying. They are soooo getting blacklisted. Ooops, someone's breaking into your house? We'll be there soon... see you in 3 hours!
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!
@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
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.
@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.
... wait... the shoppers who trampled and ignored the (now dead) employee are suing? My goodness.
@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.
Bullhonky. If ya wanted the cops to "control" you, you'd be suing for police brutality.
@sinfuly Delicious: This isn't necessarily a "load of crap." I suspect that the victims' lawyers have more of the facts than you or I do and that they are better equipped to determine who might be (at least partially) at fault.
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.
what a load of crap.