Skip to main content

View Diary: Walmart Employees Kill Another Alleged Shoplifter (256 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I didn't say... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, JayRaye, mrkvica

    ...what was or wasn't appropriate, if you care to reread my original statment.  I have no idea how to best handle these situations.  I can say that many years ago I was stopped outside a store for shoplifting.  The store employee believed that I had taken a belt.  I had not.  He walked up to me, made his inquiry and left.  No physical restraint of any kind.  Perhaps these situations demand something different.  I couldn't begin to guess what that would be.  But these situations were clearly not handled well.

    I'm not always political, but when I am I vote Democratic. Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 05:25:50 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So what though? What does (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk

      it mean that a couple of situations were not handled well? We're talking a company with 9,000 stores. Think about how many people are busted for shoplifting at Walmarts every single day. So why does anyone here think that a couple of isolated data points can be so telling about Walmart's culture?

      •  It means people are dead (5+ / 0-)

        I don't care how many stores they have. They're killing people unnecessarily over a minor property crime.

        How many employees at Exxon/Mobil have murdered shoplifters? If you want to talk comparable numbers of locations - just look at gas stations.

        The answer is none.

        Do you want to know why? Because the policy is to call law enforcement. That's their job.

        Heck, if you're held up, you're supposed to hand over the cash drawer and be very cooperative, then call police when it's safe. If you can get a license number, good, but don't endanger yourself.

        In addition, these companies have insurance policies that cover the losses from shoplifting. They don't lose a penny. There is no reason to endanger anyone. Most shoplifting incidents can be handled at a much lower level on the violence spectrum - like off of it entirely.

        My opinion is that Walmart's policy is intended to scare people, in the mistaken belief that it will dissuade people from shoplifting. Since most shoplifting is the result of an obsessive-compulsive disorder, it's not going to be affected by such tactics, so the policy unnecessarily subjects customers to bodily harm - and puts the employees at risk. One of these days, an employee's going to chase down a person carrying a firearm, and lots of people will be injured or killed.

        •  You get all that information from (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk

          the fact that a couple of people have died after being busted at random Walmarts? Really? Are you aware that there are 9,000 Walmarts. How many shoplifters would you guess that Walmart catches every year? My guess is about 1.5 million, though I suspect that is low. Do the math if you'd like. So if they hire a bad guy once every million busts or so, what does that say about them, at all? You are also aware, I'm sure, that no company can possibly hire 2.2 million people (Walmart's actual headcount) and not hire any psychopaths?

          •  Math doesn't enter into it. Unnecessary death (6+ / 0-)

            is unnecessary, no matter how many stores they own.

            There is exactly NO scenario in which their employees should be killing customers. None. Period.

            We are governed by laws. We do not live in an anarchy where anyone can choose to kill or otherwise injure others just because they feel like it.

            •  I'm sorry that you don't get what (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bright, Sparhawk

              I am saying. Maybe you don't want to, or maybe you aren't good at math. I'll try again though.

              Say that you own a business, with 9,000 stores and millions of employees, and once in a while one of your employees kills somebody. I think you would realize that while that is sad and that you'd try as hard as you could to avoid it, that it was inevitable. It is only possible to have a 100% safety record if you have zero employees. Have a couple of million, and even if 99.999% of them are not killers, you have a problem.

              Don't you get that with a company that large, that all sorts of shit is going to happen, no matter how careful the company is in their hiring practices?

              •  The point is Walmart isn't trying to avoid it (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mamamorgaine, JayRaye, mrkvica

                Despite several deaths, several lost lawsuits and being told how to change their policies to avoid further instances, they have not changed their policies in that way.

                Thus, no, I'm not going to cut them any slack on this.

                If the "stuff happens" theory were accurate, we'd see stories in the many thousands per year, because there are millions upon millions of retailers throughout the nation. Most of them do not have the "try to apprehend" policy that Walmart has, and thus we do not hear about thousands of dead customers a year nationwide. Walmart is culpable for knowingly continuing to have a policy that leads to customers being killed by their employees.

              •  Get it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JayRaye

                through your head.  Statics and math do not matter here.  Someone died for cheap crap.  We do not give the death penalty for cheap crap.  It is a moral issue not a statics problem.

                •  It is indeed a moral issue, for the (0+ / 0-)

                  actual killer(s). For the company, it is not a moral issue unless it is in some way their fault this happened. The fact that it periodically happens is not, by itself, a moral issue. It is the direct result of having a very large footprint.

                  Walmart is so big you may as well think of it as a small country. If you learned that a few people have been murdered in a country, would you conclude that that country had an unusual problem with murder, or a moral issue amongst its leaders?

                  •  It (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JayRaye, mrkvica

                    should be a moral issue for the principals even if it is not a legal issue for them.

                    Check your 2nd argument.  The analogy does not fit the matter under discussion.  Wal-Mart is not a country.  Wal-Mart management is responsible for the actions of its workers.  Murders committed at Wal-Marts are matters for the local police.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site