Should Black Friday be banned?

[Evandril]

People in a 'shopping frenzy' tend to spend more money, if you calm them down, you're going to lose sales *shrugs* Of course, if, instead of passing nation wide laws that will effect *ALL* retail stores, we go after the one chain that's shown itself most culpable for endangering people...

Then again, they'd just apply for a government bailout, with the way things are going at present *sighs*

[Greenday]

Then again, they'd just apply for a government bailout, with the way things are going at present *sighs*

They'd get it too. The government is willing to hand out to anyone who doesn't deserve it.

[smileyeagle1021]

They'd get it too. The government is willing to hand out to anyone who doesn't deserve it.

and hates to give it out to those who do

[crashhelmet]

I think people are missing key points here. This is all caused by the materialism and greed our society promotes.

Stores open earlier so that they can have more hours of revenue generation. Shoppers get there early so that they can hope to be the first to get or get it while it's still in stock. Can you imagine how many people there would be if it didn't open until 10am? You'd probably have cases of multiple tramplings in individual stores.

Unfortunately, it's never going to end. Not as long as companies continue to release the ticklewiiruxpinpatch and parents continue to worry that they'll scar little Timmy for life if they don't get it for them.

Don't hold the stores accountable. Hold the shoppers accountable for their lack of maturity, common sense, and "humanity."

CH

[AFPheonix]

Unfortunately, that's not going to actually solve any problems like the one encountered by that poor Wal-mart greeter.

Again, humans can be herded really well, we turn into sheeple when we're in groups. It's not hard to figure out crowd control, especially when thousands of stores across the country do just that without an issue.

[kamn]

Holding the customers accountable wouldnt do much. If I recall correctly (and I may be completely wrong here), the shoppers didnt even realise they stepped on someone. Not before bursting the doors, not while having their feet on his chest, not when exiting the damned store, never.

Holding the store accountaable seems feasable and somewhat moraly right. They did it by lack of control (involuntary manslaughter?), by creating the craze, and partly becouse it happened on their ground. (I dont mean that they should be accountable becouse it happened on their ground, but it to be a circumstance of importance).

[Seshat]

But let's look at the specific case of the recent Wal-mart death:

- Wal-mart advertised a "door-buster sale" in which only the first 5 through the door would get a insanely cheap TV
- They allowed a mass of shoppers to gather at the doors, and provided no security at the point of entrance, nor paid for police presence
- The plan was to unlock the doors and allow everyone to rush in at once,

Incitement to riot.

- They appointed one man to unlock those doors.

Criminal negligence, manslaughter.


Actually applying those laws to this situation, and making it DAMN clear that precedent WILL be applied in future, should solve the problem.

If, in the future, stores arrange for proper crowd control, and for a barrier of a type that doesn't endanger a person when the barrier is lifted, then the criminal negligence and manslaughter charges won't apply.

If they manage the 'limited supply of deep discount items' in a way which doesn't incite and encourage riot/mob behaviour, then the incitement to riot charge won't apply.

But the way it was done there - I'd deem all three charges to apply.


Edit to add: mob psychology is a separate branch of human psychology. People act VERY differently when they're in a mob situation. Anyone wilfully creating a mob should either study mob psychology, or get a specialist in!