But it's not that complicated. You give out vouchers to the people in line for the big ticket items which guarantees them the ability to purchase a given product at a given price Friday. You do it for the most popular items (laptop, TVs, etc). Other stores do this and it works much better than Wal-Mart's intentional madhouse.
Nothing stops you from arguing both.[/quote] Of course not. But it would be nice if people demonstrated comprehending the distinction by acknowledging it when they switch between the two. "Encourage" does not = "cause." "Failure to prevent with drastic measures" does not = "cause." C. Make everyone read a risk disclosure and sign liability waivers before they're allowed entrance into the parking lot.
Have you ever been to a sports game? a concert? any kind of 'arena' type entertainment? It is a physical, palpable thing. And, some people don't realize they are caught up in it until it's too late.
Security cameras. Neat idea. I wonder why market forces have not compelled Wal Mart to enact it. Possibly because it would force them to raise their prices to levels nobody wants to pay? THANK YOU!!! FUCK!!! I disagree. I refuse to blame a store for getting people riled up and then failing to keep them all on short leashes. If you're a grown fucking adult and can't be expected to behave yourself in an excited crowd, you should be living behind bars. I'd sooner lock up every customer in that store at the time than blame anyone who participated in no mob and stomped no bodies. If that is reality, than human civilization has allowed far too many of it's members to retain their freedom.
Don't be cute. It wouldn't be the tickets, but the controlled-access entrance that was the physical control. You cheapen the term by using it in this context. Cheap, temporary prices are not "inciting a riot."
Probably not. But, it is inciting a 'carnival' type atmosphere. First one there gets this great product at a great price. And if everyone wants it, everyone is going to fight to get it.
I'm sure you can quote me saying that. OR, the laws against physical assault could be enforced by those who are paid to do so, and anybody who cannot be trusted to interact with a crowd without stomping someone to death could be locked the fuck away rather than used as an excuse to nanny-state everyone into submission.
Neat! So, again, why isn't Wal Mart already doing this? Why aren't all these consumers refusing them any business until they do it?
Well, those people are too abysmally fucking stupid to be allowed outside without a helmet. Doesn't justify saddling merchants with unpaid babysitting duties.
And that, right there, is the essence of UA. What happens in his mind and what happens in reality have nothing to do with each other.
Only if you blame the store's promotions, rather than human greed and brutal stupidity, for the violence.
"They" being the short-bussers who can't handle a crowded sale without trampling someone? If it were up to me, they'd only have that opportunity to fuck up once, and that's if their disorder hadn't conveniently revealed itself in a more harmless manner earlier in life. There IS no absolute preventative that a free society should accept. You have to allow for people to prove their unworthiness before you crack down on them.
Are you for fucking real? Seriously? Maybe you haven't seen security camera footage lately. Half the time it's shit when it isn't aimed down at the tops of heads of a crowd of people. Not to mention the very well illustrated point that has already been made that you can't really demonstrate who, as you so desire, 'pulled the trigger.' The guy that knocked him over? The guy that stepped on his face first? Who? Was he dead after the third stomp, leaving everyone else that steps on him off the hook? How can you tell? You can't. Any lawyer worth the esquire could argue their client out of any legal punishment in this case. So, again, I ask - how do you prove this? It's easy to say that they should be locked up. Good luck actually accomplishing that. Oddly, Best Buy implementing it didn't cause costs to go up. Oddly, it would, without a doubt, be cheaper than a lawsuit or settlement. So yeah, I wonder why Wal-Mart hasn't enacted it? Couldn't be because they're just as idiotic as the people pushing their way into the store, could it? No! Can't be that! Present me with a good argument for Wal-Mart not having implemented this perfectly sane policy that isn't a practice in free-market masturbation lacking a basis in reality, and I'll concede the point. Cool, glad this made you happy. However, it not being a causal link doesn't change that both Wal-Mart and the crowd are liable. OK, so what if good ol' perfectly centered, responsible you were in that store? You made it in level-headed and calm. That's cool, getting arrested for just being around a mob? But inciting a mob, nah, that ain't worth it. And as has been repeatedly shown, you can't prove their unworthiness in this case. So what now? They get off scott free to shit up your great society once more. Your ideas would be great if the world actually worked the way you think it does in your head. It doesn't.
Which is exactly what is being advocated in this thread. But having security and/or law enforcement on hand to maintain order IS "deterrence" and is NOT "preemptive deprivation of freedom" Likewise, using a lottery system to defuse the need to rush in is a deterant measure which doesn't trample anyone's free will. and it's not at all inconsistent with responsible free will to expect an event organizer to take such reasonable measure to ensure order or be held at least partially libel if they fail to.
Personally, I agree with Albert, but I still can't help but hope that Wal*Mart gets sued out of existence.
WalMart (or any other store) isn't public property. If the business sets up security or some other means of controlling the access to their store, nobody's "freedom" is being "deprived". Don't like it? Shop someplace else. Which may explain why those folks were at WalMart today instead of Target or some other store with more security in place.
You couldn't pay me to shop on "Black Friday." Here is how you stop the crowd bullshit: - Have enough of the "hot items" on hand. That is the number one thing. If you advertise something for a great sale, HAVE ENOUGH ON HAND so that people don't feel they have to get there at 0 dark hundred and fight for the limited stock of the special item. - Instead of only offering the stuff at midnight, or 4 or 6 am through noon, make the sale for a few days. Or a few weeks. What's the fucking hurry? Stores bring this on themselves, as do people. Stores entice people in with the bargains, and fail to have enough of the product on hand (if they want to avoid someone buying too many, limit the number of a certain items a person can buy) and they have limited hours for the good prices. It's a recipe for disaster. People get trampled. One person shot another at a TOY STORE. Others get elbowed, fights break out, etc. It's insanity. Especially this season, where things are so grim that odds are prices will be lower than usual anyhow. As for the store clerk who had to work and miscarried when the stampede rushed through? And the one who died? I'd own what's left of the companies. Stores have trained people to act like animals. People's greed make them act like animals. Both are equally at fault. Bonz, who shops mostly online or waits until crowds die down. Ain't no bargain worth the bullshit of Black Friday.
No they don't. Because it all gets made up on the other stuff you buy and it gets made up by the hundreds who show up can't get the item yet buy other stuff anyway. Loss Leaders make huge amounts of money.
Yes, when they have 3, 4, or 12. If they have enough for EVERYONE... the loss they take on those individual items (which is what I said, that they lose money on those silly door buster items, not on the shopping sprees themselves) would be huge if everyone who wanted them could get them.
Even if they had enough they more then make up for it. I worked retail long enough as a manager to know this. I've worked in stores where stuff has been under priced all year long based on the assumption (usually correct) that people will used the money saved to buy extra stuff.
But as practiced by most stores, there's not enough loss leaders for everyone, and the stores expect people then get their shopping jones on by buying similar, more expensive items.
So, if I recognize that there is a human failing and I deliberately pander to that failing for my own profit, even at the risk of harm, I am without responsibility for what happens?
I assume you already know this but... the special items are loss leaders. Wal Mart has no fucking intention of selling a $40 video camera to everyone who will buy one at that price. It is a direct con designed to lure gullible people into the store where they will hopefully either buy the item at the regular price or buy something else. same principle - marketing. Manipulation. shoppers are, in the main, stupid. When I was taking economics, one of the other guys in the class worked part time as a stoker at the supermarket and when we discussed this sort of thing in class he gave us a great example: At the place where he worked the commonly sold boxes of salt for $.25. Occasionally they would put salt "on sale" on an end cap for "3 for $1" And when they did this they would almost double the amount of salt they sold that week over a normal week.
