Well, here we go, another focus for the All-American Blame Game.
For those of you who have not yet heard, a WalMart store in Indianapolis is under investigation after a 5 foot mirror fell on a three-year-old boy, killing him. Here is a copy of the story below:
-------
INDIANAPOLIS (July 23) - A mirror at a store fell on a 3-year-old boy, killing him, officials said.
Christopher Antonio was apparently playing near the 5-foot-tall floor-mounted mirror in the children's section of a Wal-Mart when it fell Saturday.
The toddler was likely killed by the blunt force of the crash, said Marion County Sheriff's Lt. Michael DeHart.
"The mother was approximately 5 feet away from the child when she heard a loud crash," DeHart said. The boy's 5-year-old sister was also at the store, deputies said.
His mother and another shopper pulled the mirror off the boy, DeHart said.
Wal-Mart was cooperating with investigators, said Jolanda Stewart, spokeswoman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
"Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and the matter is under investigation," she said.
---------
And now the fight starts. Some people say it was "clearly" the mother's fault for not watching her child. The fact that she "heard" the crash leads people to reasonably assume that she was not watching her three-year-old. Others say that's what shopping carts are for.
I have even read as people blame the little boy - as if all three-year-olds know better than to ever leave their mothers' sides to go look at something else. And let's remember - this mirror had to have fallen with some force to kill the child on impact like that. Even if this child had pulled it - how much force could a three-year-old actually generate?
And, of course, there is WalMart. Was the mirror stocked correctly, should it have been in the children's section?
People make me sick. Every one who sits there blaming the mother should be ashamed of yourself for being stupid. First of all, it took two people to lift that mirror off the child, so we don't know for sure if she could have stopped the mirror from falling. And, even *if* the investigation concludes that the mother could have or should have been able to stop this tragedy - did she really deserve to have her child die as a consequence?
And, for those of you who are spouting off "WalMart is evil - sue them for this" - you should be ashamed of yourselves for being stupid. Whatever happened to "I'm sorry - what can I do to help you through this tragedy?" No, instead it's "Your child died? Sue every one!" Honeslty, I'm surprised the manufacturers of this mirror haven't yet been added to the list of lawsuit recipients. Who's fault was it? Oh, it must have been the child for bumping the mirror, or the mother for not standing up her child's butt, or the stocker for not making sure the mirror was secure, or WalMart itself for selling the mirror in the first place.
That is ridiculous. This was absolutely tragic. But instead of extending sympathies to who *they* belong - instead every one seems more inclined to point the fingers at every one else. People think something is wrong with society and want to blame Bush, Lack of Homeland Security, Social Security, Illegal immigrants, gay marriage, sex on TV, the media - hello? What's wrong with society today is obvious - the people that make up that society.
--------Update: 10:07 PM, July 26, 2006----------
Now, I have not yet been able to confirm this; however, allegedly the security cameras from that day confirm that the child was running and playing in the children's department. Supposedly, this camera shows the child pulling toys off the shelves, yanking on clothing and pulling some off the racks, and kicking the mirror. While I am most definitely not saying the boy killed himself, I would like to point out at if this is true, the mother was not seen stopping the boy or even seen in the camera with her child. Again, I am not saying it was solely the mother's fault - but this would confirm my belief that this was a no-fault accident - that there were bad choices made all around. I got this information from a message board on AOL News, but again, I haven't been able to confirm or verify it yet.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
You make some valid points in your piece but it is a little idealistic for me. Don't get me wrong I detest 'sue culture', it is the reason Medical Care in the US is so expensive. Doctors jack up their rates to cover the high possibility of a malpractice suit ruining their livelyhood, if you look at European countries where 'sue culture' is less prominent you find far cheaper healthcare. That aside, Walmart have a responsibility to their customers to provide a safe enviroment for their customers, the very fact that they provide a childrens section means that they have an obligation to cater for the safety concerns of those children. Anybody who has children, or spends time around children, will intstantly realise that the mother is not to blame. She didn't let her child hang about on the freeway while she was shopping, she left him playing in the Kids section, within earshot. Unfortunately, America is a Capitalist society, and in such a socio-economic environment 'money talks'. Without pinching Walmart for cash money and the ensuing courtcases and media storm, Walmart is under no pressure to be more vigilant in it's business practices. Walmart is not owned by people, it is owned by shareholders, it is a corporation, it's bottom line is a financial one, money talk is the only language it understands, it is not a person, it is an entity. It cannot empathize with the mother, it has no children, only employees. The only pain a corporation feels is financial loss and damage to it's public image, to these pains it responds, but it will not react out of empathy, sympathy or any of the plethora of human emotions available to us as individuals.
Ultimately the blame lies with Walmart, they should be sued, because that is the language required by an individual if they wish to be heard by a corporation. If Walmart pass the buck this has to be expected, again because this is the only language a corporation speaks. If Americans are prepared to live fat off the fruits of unchecked capitalism, then they must accept the money culture that comes with it.
"Walmart have a responsibility to their customers to provide a safe environment for their customers." - Normally, I would be inclined to agree with you - however, Walmart is not a babysitter.
The sad fact is, this tragedy happened through a series of bad choices made by all those involved - and had anyone of them made a different choice, the whole thing could have been avoided.
First, the mother could have been closer, or even could have been watching. The fact that she only "heard" the crash leads me to believe that at best - her back was turned. Maybe she was talking to someone or looking at something or maybe she was even looking for her child to see if he'd wandered off, I don't know. But her eyes were not on the boy at the time this happened.
Second, the stocking could have been bad. Maybe the mirror shouldn't have even been there. The mirror could have been standing or leaning on something unevenly - the details aren't clear as of yet.
Additionally, let's say this didn't happen. Say the child had been abducted. Would WalMart even be an issue? Would people be telling the mother to sue WalMart for lack of security? I highly doubt it.
I realize children will do the darndest things, and things happen in a split second no matter how good the parent or how close the parent might be to her child. But in this case - it was a tragedy that as of yet cannot have blame laid on anyone.
--------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
i mostly agree with the statement that there were bad choices all around. without much detail: wal-mart made a mistake, the mother made a mistake. wal-mart should have done things better, though it might have been a single bad employee or a manufacturing defect, or even a poor fluke altogether. a mother should know to keep better watch over young children because children are too young to know what is safe and what isn't.
the only flaw i see in my latter statement is that if the mother and the child had been under the mirror, it looks like both would have died. most likely, the mirror placement and secureness is the greater flaw. if that is the case, find out if it is wal-mart's fault, an employee's fault, or some other fault. in which case, emotional trauma and funeral money may be allowed. wal-mart should be large enough to compensate whether or not any one person was directly guilty or not.
I disagree with you when you say that Walmart is not a babysitter. It is, it has to be if it is to cater for families shopping. Walmart know this themselves. They can't afford a public image that says, 'once you're in our stores you're on your own buddy. Walmart: We don't care about your kids, if that's a problem A)leave em at home, B)Shop elsewhere.
If Walmart want families to shop there then the must act as babysitters for busy shopping parents. The fact that there was not even a member of staff of hand to lift the mirror off the child, or to prevent it happening in the first place indicates negligence on the part of Walmart.
Walmart needs to justify the massive amounts of profit it gleans annually. Corporations need to provide a super-service if they are to continue making super-profits.
It's obvious you didn't grow up in the 60's, with a mother like mine. We were told, before getting in the car to "stay by me, or I'll leave you in the store". Or the classic... "We'll talk about this when your dad gets home". Wal-Mart is a business. Responsibility for this has nothing to do with the profits they "glean" from their customers. They are responsible as citizens of the community to provide a reasonably safe shopping environment in their stores, and to take responsibility for injuries caused by their errors. They are not babysitters, childcare providers, wet-nurses, or your mother. If you have the desire to have children, take the responsibility to protect them, and keep them out of harm's way. That means watch them. This accident was tragic. A child's life has been lost. From what has been reported so far, Wal Mart didn't willfully cause the accident. It was an accident. The store manager will have nightmares over this for a very long time, I am sure.
You are right I wasn't a child of the 60s, and this is not the 60s we are talking about. This is the new millenium, where corporations like Walmart are getting fat off their family orientated brand identity. A brand identity that is now being asked to put it's money where it's mouth is. Corporations now, unlike in the 60s today companies are selling us far more than products, they represent far more than just a store. They have to meet the expectations they themselves have generated to make us sales. We the consumer never asked Walmart to be more than a store, they promise us, through brand identity and marketing, so much more, and in situations like this they have to follow up. It was an accident born out of negligence, that is why the manager should have nightmares about this, if this was a blame free incident he would sleep a lot sounder.
I'm not the author of the post you replied to, nor am I a child of the 60s, but the lack of personal responsibility is arguably one of the biggest problems facing modern American society. The 'victim' mentality not only has real costs in terms of other people constantly compensating the alleged victim, but it prevents the same 'victims' from becoming truly productive members of society. Rather than taking responsibility for making things happen, the victim is always relying on someone else to make things happen, and is self-disempowering. Granted, that's not necessarily the case with this mother, but the attitude is certainly reflected in the posts trying to blame WalMart for putting a mirror in their store.
Assuming that the kid knocked over the mirror by himself, then this is really nobody's fault, or possibly the mother's. Realistically, it's not possible to keep one's eyes on a child nonstop, and if he was 5 feet away, that's not exactly unreasonable. (And it's really not hard to knock over heavy objects which have a high center of gravity and a narrow base.. something like, oh, a mirror perhaps). A department store is not a nursery. From the plastic covering on pillows, to tools on the shelves, to the forklifts ever-more present in the world of 24-hour shopping, there are a million ways to be injured or killed in our everyday lives. It is encumbant upon parents to be mindful of these facts, not the world's responsibility to tranform into a padded cell.
As for Wal-Mart's profitibility, if you don't like it, stop shopping there. I manage to avoid them just fine.
I do not endorse the victim mentality, or sue culture across the board. But when it comes to corporations, who sell the public a brand iedntity which is divorced from the actuality behind their business practices I would encourage people to sue. Again I have to stress the WalMArt only understands one thing money talk. If this was not in a corporate store my attitude would be different. These corporations are talking over not just in America but also in Europe, and are responsible for maintaining the disparity between the 1st and 3rd world. This issue runs deeper than who's fault it is. I don't shop there, yet, but eventually when I have no option because it has swallowed up any other shred of variety in our cities, I would like to think that the customer is number one in more than a few advertising slogans and clever marketing ploys. Corporations lie to us consistently, their profits allow them to provide day care and specialized staff, if they are happy to feed fat off their customers wallets and are remorseless about shutting down peoples businesses, then I don't think it's too much to ask that they put a bit more back. I actually despise sue culture, where everybody yells sue at the drop of a hat, but it is the only real method by which people can force corporatoions to act. The media attention it generates makes it hard for corporations to duck the punch and public action usually results in other aspects of the corporations practices being highlighted, examined and somethings forces them to change for the better. It's the bigger picture, this is not just about the death of one child, it is about far more.
This incident is truly a shame. A young child has lost his life and a family will never be the same. I feel that the blame game is truly one of the easiet games to play because there are no rules; anyone can sit from the privacy of wherever they come from and pass judgement and admonishments. As a parent, a fairly young ( in my thirties ) and a child of the seventies I am looking at this through multiple lenses. Two years ago I was in Lowe's home supply in Victorville, Ca with my two children ages 2 and 4. I was standing in the aisle looking at window treatments. My two year old was in the cart, my four year old was standing on the other side of the cart. I was talking to a rep in the store, next to my children when we heard a crash and a scream. A bar/shelf had fallen on my son. He was not playing on it, he was not climbing or pulling on it, he happened to be standing near it, leaned and it fell. The rep and myself had to pull it off of his back. To this day Lowe's has done nothing. I was told by one of the managers that if he needed medical care they would be obliged to pay for the care. The next day I had to take my son to the emergency room, luckily it was minor but I had him examined. After contacting the claims deptartment many times and speaking to a rep I realized they were only interested in the blame game as well. Lowe's treatment of the situation was shameful and I no longer shop there. The bill was left to me to handle and not Lowe's like I was told by the manager. My point is one have empathy, the mother of the child will likely feel the pain of regret and grief until the end of her days. Two, Responsibility must begin somewhere and be upheld. No, stores are not nurseries but other countries seem to be more concerned in accomadating the many families that spend their hard earned money within thier establishments. The fact is mothers shop and they tend to have children. Children should be watched for numerous reasons however unless we can all afford nannies it is liteally impossible to eyeball a child 24/7. Lastly like so many other comments their needs to be a commitment to safety in shopping centers. Companies can take your money real fast but are lazy when it comes to considering us as humans with needs(n public bathrooms) and rights. No the blame game is too easy of a game to play. What we all need today is to think critically and ethically about these situations that impact one because it effects us all.
Well, disagree all you like - it won't make WalMart a babysitter.
WalMart has an obligation to provide a reasonably safe environment for their customers to shop in; this is defined by plowing the parking lot in snow storms and having some security to deter theft and armed robbery. That does not equate to being a babysitter.
Now, while I don't feel the blame lies on the mother's shoulders entirely - no one should expect WalMart to babysit their children so they can shop. WalMart associates have jobs to do - and while there are times it seems they don't do their jobs - their jobs don't include following children through the aisles.
Additionally, I don't know how many times I've gone to WalMart to watch kids run crazy while parents gab with their friends or stare at a television set. I've even been yelled at for stopping a child from climbing up the shelves by a parent who turns around and tells me to get away from her son.
And this incident does not reflect an attitude of "we don't care about kids" - it reflects the attitude that no where public is 100% safe for children if the parents don't also watch their kids.
----
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
I'm gonna stop being lazy and sign in in future, I've written a load of post here so I may as well tag them for you to keep track.
Anyway, It is actually possible to make Walmart act more like a babysitter, I've written it further down, but basically WalMart and major retail corporations like it can be forced to offer a super-service in ratio to it's super-profits. Only we, the consumer can make this happen, because without us there is no WalMArt. It is our right to expect more from Walmart than from a privately owned store, because we pay them more. If we are being forced into the retail hegemony, then the least we can demand is that it provide a vastly superior customer care program than the store that it wiped out. If this happened in the local cornerstore, then it would be a different argument, because I wouldn't expect an independant to be able to afford such stringent safety measures, WalMart can, so it has no excuse.
Actually we pay WalMart less, which is why people shop there, and how they make up for it in volume. If they're profitable, it's because people shop there. Anyway, WalMart is just a store. I'm sure they'll respond to public pressure in direct response to this incident and do some sort of safety review, but really, you get what you pay for. If you want your store to be a babysitter, then expect to pay for that as well. Personally, I don't really trust corporate entities to be responsible for my kids, but that's just me.
Why bother to feign interest in the subject of the original post, or to real life and real people in general. This is an I hate rich people posting and nothing else. The reason that it is disturbing is because of all of the supposed details that pretend to be thoughtful observations. There are I hate Walmart websites all over the place that one can comment on. But this site appears to be about thought and honest observation. (Besides, is this person actually suggesting that a person should entrust their child's well being to complete strangers? Especially really really rich strangers?)
Look fella, I realize that it has been fashionable to bash WalMart of late, but that was 'So last season', you are in with the 'I hate WalMart bashing' set... The tres cool bunch of assholes who backlash on everything. Yeah you go see a Michael Moore movie and are like "yeah Go Michael". Then some fashion critic disguising themselves as a political theorist tells you he's not cool any more, so you hate Michael Moore and everything you agreed with last week is so uncool. Many people who hate WalMArt, do so with very good reason, and know what they are talking about. It's fashionistas like you that are embarassing. What is your love affair with corporations about? Why do you have a problem with people hating them?
In fact, your whole comment was dripping with sentimentality. Entrust your child to strangers? really rich..? Get it together. It's called day care. "ooooh but what aboot the strangers??!!!"
All this prattling about real life and real people. On the grand scale of things this child's life means fuck all, if we are talking body-count. Especially when you consider the knock-on economic effect corporations are causing in the 3rd world. Can you tell me that you are okay with the fact that for the USA to continue consuming at the rate it does, the 3rd world needs to be kept the 3rd world? They are real people, they may not be American, but not one of their lives is less significant than that 3 year old. In fact if the 3 year old is all you are interested in then you really don't care about the real world at all. Do you think the death of 1 child is really important enough to justify this many reads and this much dialogue? There are thousands dying daily from starvation and poverty related diseases. That's the real world, not the world you live in where every little soul is precious, and yards of writing space can be dedicated to one single child, your world of strangers and boogeymen is a bit of a joke next to that of a 6 year old Somailian.
fanaile-drupal-org... First you ASSUMED that the mirror was merchandise and then you spent too much time speculating about whether it was properly 'stocked.' I've read several reports that stated that the mirror was not merchandise, but an improperly secured fixture in the store. It was placed there by Wal-Mart and done so dangerously. If anyone walks into a public accommodation, such as a Wal-Mart store, they have every reason to believe that the store will be safe. It appears this one was not.
Sue Wal-Mart until it bleeds just as that child bled. Sue Wal-Mart until it feels the pain and suffering that child's family is feeling. Too much of Wal-Mart's philosophy is about doing it faster and cheaper. Our children do not have to die to further that corporation's insane quarterly goals.
Assuming the mirror was a fixture is jumping the gun. I have also read the reports published so far by credible sources. None say that it was either merchandise, or a fixture, but simply a floor mounted mirror. The situation is still under investigation. Also, will a billion dollars bring him back? 2 billion? maybe 3 billion...
A billion dollars won't bring back the child, this touchy feely line of argument is redundant here. We are talking about preventing another child and their family experiencing this kind of tragedy to the best of Walmarts ability. As I stated above, we are talking about a corporation, a corporation is not a citizen, it is an entity, despite the Santa Clara ruling which gave corporations the same rights as a citizen. A corporation understands one thing; profit. That is it's sole objective, anything, no matter how beneficial it is to us as a society is only ever carried out to improve profit margins. Corporations speak one language, the language of commerce, so a childs life is merely a liability to Walmart as a corporation. The corporation couldn't give a rats ass if the manager can't sleep at night as long as they clean up the public relations nightmare as quickly and as cost effectively as possible. Make em pay, make them realise that not following up on their wholesome family value brand identity with reality based solutions will cost them financially, because a corporation has no emotions, it is not human it is powered by humans yes, but it a seperate entity where shareholders want profits, bottom line. Tragedies like this would be brushed under the carpet if it could be, a lawsuit makes this a little more difficult.
Actually, I live in Indianapolis and they have been showing the mirror, which is obviously a fixture, as well as where it was attached.
If it was improperly attached, then it is 100% Walmart's liability, and they should pay for transportation of his body back to his family in Mexico. Right now, local relatives are trying to raise money to do this.
My mother slipped in soap at a Walmart on Keystone and 71st about a year ago. By the end of the week, the Walmart lawyers were almost ringing the phone off the hook (we logged ten calls in one day) with confusing and contradicting information that my mom, who is in her early 50s, finally just gave up and decided not to sue.
Are you people retarded? Of course this is Wal-Mart's fault. They had something in their store that fell on someone and killed them. Period. If that was a floor mounted mirror it wasn't mounted right, if it was merchandise it wasn't stocked right, if it was a fixture it wasn't hung right. Plain and simple, your store needs to be safe, I work in a Library and we had a workplace inspection a few months ago and you wouldn't believe the things you cant do because of safety. Yes this is tragic and no ammount of money will bring this child back but Wal-Mart will pay for this one way or another, either through a nasty Civil suite or they will come to some sort of agreement out of court. I dont' love Wal-Mart but I don't hate them either and I am not on the "lynch Wal-Mart because they are the biggest company in the world bandwagon" I just think that stores need to be safe and that store wasn't.
I have to disagree. You can hear it in your words that you are on the hate Wal*Mart hate wagon. I have to assume that there has never been any accidents to happen in your life and you are very blessed. However, please tell me what good is really going to do to sue Wal*Mart? Do you have any idea of all of the good things that Wal*Mart does? A lot more than any other retail chain. But, I guess it all comes down to the might dollar.
It's not a question of band-wagons. You obviously have a poor grasp of corporations and what motivates them. If a corporation was an individual, it would be one that was incapable of empathy, incapable of being motivated by anything that didn't directly benefit it as an individual, in short it would be a clinical psychopath, and I'm not talking horror movie psychopath, I'm refering to the actual psychological condition. I wrote my thesis on the agressive use of persuasive technique in youth orientated advertising, so I have a very good frame of reference here. Corporations are soulless, and that's not a put down, that's just a fact, how can a business construct have a conscience? WalMart is not owned and run by one man or even a family, it is a business construct which is operated using humans, but funded via shares which are bought not for fun or to better the world, but to turn a profit. You are relying on emotive argument in the face of a non emotive entity.
I'm not part of any WalMart fanclub, I don't work for WalMart, and I don't even know anyone who does work for WalMart - but nothing is 100% safe all the time.
The only reason people are spouting "sue the store" in this case, though, is because WalMart is a huge corporation. If it had been a smaller, family owned business - sueing would be out of the question.
----------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
I do agree with that. It is about people thinking beyond the first world, and beyond the life of a single 3 year old. Basically any pressure that forces the public to pay attention and scrutinize corporations and their practices a little closer is encouraged. Otherwise they get away with murder and people will just turn around and say, "Hey what were we supposed to do? We didn't know" like willfully ignoring situations like this is justification for doing nothing.
Everyone, everyone, everyone who has kids has allowed their kids to wander a little, and every parent has looked away. Everyone, period. Show me a person who has children who has never allowed their child to wander a little bit, or who has never taken their eyes off of their child for a moment. Wal-Mart has to provide a safe shopping atmosphere for their customers. If they don't, then they have to be responsible for the consequences. If the kid ran out in the middle of a busy street, it's not Wal-Mart's fault. But if the mirror fell on the kid in Wal-Mart and killed him, sorry, but it's their fault, and they should be made to pay through the nose for a mighty long time.
Horrible tragedy...no one is at fault! If there is a parent out there that says that they keep an eye on their child(ren) 24 hours a day...I would love for them to take a lie detecter test. I don't blame the mother and I don't blame Wal*Mart either (or the mirror manufacturer)! Sue Wal*Mart? Why? To teach them a lesson? Do you think that Wal*Mart is happy that a little 3 year got killed in their store. No, they have learned from this. Sue for the money? As a parent there is NO amount of money that could replace one of my children. This was an accident. Accidents do happen in life. There is no way of avoiding them.
Fair enough, nobody is saying money would replace a child's life, but it is the only way to make a corporation up the ante on it's safety measures. You can bet that there will not be a neglected mirror fitting in any WalMart again if it costs them financially. It is a bit selfish to only think of you and your child and your loss, as if to say "My child is dead, no bringing em back, case closed" what about other people's children who may come after you and yours. Would you not be concerned about their safety. A lawsuit and a financial pinch are a wake up call to an organisation that can, unlike locally owned stores, afford to pay for total safety solutions, like staff who watch out for hazards, staff their solely top watch out for children, hell even just proper and total safety checks. You do realise that WalMart and other such retail corporations invest millions in super market design, which is engineered to sell you more goods. There is a whole industry called retail design which is systematically designed to maximize the persuasive effect of product placement in the store, every facet from music to lighting to shelf orientation; no stone is left unturned to sell us more goods than we actually need. So how's about they make the consumer number one and sales number two, like their brand identity suggests?
Also, if the money would make you feel dirty, then donate it to a charity for people who need it, say people who've lost children in accidents that were the result of negligence, but lost their cases because some hotshot corporate legal team managed to sweep it under the rug on a technicality and left them feeling beaten, let down by our modern society and minus a child just for good measure.
You're living in fantasy land if you think any retailer, regardless of it's size will hire employees to babysit your kids while you're busy being mezmerized by the stores scientific layout... get real. If your kid climbs on, or pulls on, or pushes on a store fixture, and it breaks off the wall and falls on him, Why is that Wal-Mart's fault? If every store had to be kid-proof, nothing would be sold, displayed, or merchandised below the level of 4 feet, except pillows and teddy bears. First find out who is really at fault, then punish them. If it's Wal-Mart, sue them for legitimate compensation. Either way, if you're a parent, and can't watch your child when you're shopping, put them in daycare, and pay for it out of your own pocket, not corporate funds...
Fella, we're not talking about punishment here. We are talking about communicating with an entity in a language it can comprehend. I'm not talking about revenge, I am merely saying that if retail stores like WalMart are putting locally run stores out of business then there is an onus upon them to provide a better solution. They have the resources, and it is only fantasy to believe they can't be made to use theose resources to ensure maximum consumer care, because members of the public like you are so apathetic. Just because you've given up, please don't discourage those who want corporations to provide a service in ratio to the massive profits they are making, we the consumer pay their salaries, without us they don't exist, they should work for our best interest, and they will have to if the apathetic masses would take the lazy thumb out and take a stand.
This could have happened anywhere. The fact that it happened at a WalMart does not make them any more or less "safe" than a family owned business. And if the apathetic masses would take the lazy thumb out - this wouldn't be an issue - parents would watch their children and not try to shirk that responsibility onto someone else's shoulders.
----
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
And the retailers they put out of business provided daycare-while-you-shop service? How many new employees per store does Wal-Mart need to hire to have one guardian for every unattentive shopper with children? Wal Mart takes every necessary step to ensure a safe shopping environment. Not to say some things might slip, or be overlooked. No retailer that opens his doors to the public can anticipate every potential problem. I've not given up, I just understand that society, and corporate america are not responsible for my or my family's safety. I am. I still have a choice if I don't think a store is safe to shop in. I don't go there.
Why not have jsut a handful of extra staff trained to spot parents who are oblivious, or hyper children who need supervision. Of course the store that existed before them didn't provide this, because they couldn't afford it. WalMart can. The point is that if Corporations are allowed to buy up America, then surely we should ensure that they are progressive and not modelled around a structure designed with a small business budget in mind.
Can you honestly tell me that WalMart couldn't provide free daycare to it's customers?
Can you justify them not providing this service when you think of the perverse amount of profit corporations this size make. (consider that the bottom 20% of the worlds earners live off 1 dollar per day when you mull over this)
I've been lazy too, so I'll tag my comments. First, let's quantify the requested handful. My hand has five fingers, so, we'll deal with that number.
5 new 8-hour per day employees per store for 24-hour operation would be 15 new employees per store.
15 employees per store would cost $45 per open hour of operation. (we'll pay them minimum wage, plus benifits, cause we're socially conscious).
With 5400 stores, open 24 hours, this would add $2,122,248,000.00 per year in added expense.
They made a whopping $11 billion in profit last year.
They will make more this year, and if they add on the babysitters, the $2 billion will come from somewhere... either higher prices, or lower wages in some other area.
It's not their fault that they're big. They grew because that's the American way. They need to be held accountable for their mistakes, but no more than any other company. Should they be forced to provide this service, when no one else is? Just because they're a big company?
You said it all when you said it's the "American way". That is a euphanism for unchecked capitalism, exploitation of the worlds poor, greed, xenophobia. The USA has consumed more natuarl resources since 1950 than the collective amount attibutable to the rest of the world since the dawn of written history. That is the American way, it is the wrong way. It allows Americans to live large, or xxxl for that matter, while the majority of the world starve in the toxic mess America leaves in it's wake. THis may suit you fine as it seems to fit the many Americans who spout such justifications as, "If you're not American, then you are gay" or "so..fuck em.", "Don't be hating" or the plethora of "if you're not with us, you're against us" bullshit I've encountered on forums accross the internet when you question the American Way.
Incidently, we were warned about all the problems corporations would cause, and the devastating impact the American Way would have on our planet and its constituents way back in the 60s from which you sprang. Obviously you were too busy sitting around with the fam screaming "Kick Charlies yellow rat bastard ass...YEEEHHAAWW...Ahmma gonna shoot me some dem China men down there in Vietnamia when I is old enough to bear arms."
"Maximum consumer care?" Living without the expectation that others should supply me with not only my sustenance but also my overall well being and safety is apathy? How does your mind work that you can replace the word reality with apathy? I can't call it a social mind because there is no such thing. But it is certainly a socially obsessed way of seeing things. Do you realize how creepy the term "maximum consumer care" is? It is you, having designated yourself as a "consumer" that is lazy. Let me guess, you do not produce anything that benefits others do you? I mean something that you created and distribute that might enhance someone's life? I have never met a "creator" that would use the phrase "maximum consumer care."
Apathy is accepting things 'the way they are', resigning yourself to the idea that you are powerless to change it. Some people like to think of this as a realist attitude, it is not, it is a fatalist one if anything. Think about your heroes, I can't speculate as to who they may be, but I assume that at least some of them stood up in the face of 'world reality' and said "NO, things can be made better than this and I'm prepared to at least try and make that happen." As far as producing "anything that benefits others", I am a graphic designer and I refuse to take on advertising jobs that clash with my personal ethics, I produce work regularly for a variety of charities without charge and I do my best to not support the Corporate American wrecking machine, which means sacrificing an extra few cents here and there through buying non corporate products at a slightly higher price. As far as designating myself a consumer, we live in a consumer society, in a consumer economy, wake up fella. Anybody living in the Western World who does not consider themselves a consumer has been watchin American Gladiators too long. The illusion of invulnrability is the number one contributing factor to the successful application of persuasive technique on a mass level to sell product. People walking around thinking that they are not consumers, that they are too clever or to dignified to be a lowly consumer. Unless you are a subsistence farmer living 100% renuabley, engaging in no form of trade, you are a consumer, the only variation is in what type of consumer you are. Are you a conscious consumer or an unconscious one. Maximum consumer care is basically a right we have to demand that organisations commanding such large volumes of our profit should thank it's consumers by providing a service which meets up to the nothing of a company doing all it can within reason for it's customers. Idealistic? yes of course it is, but it shouldn't be. We shouldn't be able to justify a company pulling in this much profit, that money has to come from somewhere, and it doesn't go back there. It goes into the already swollen coffers of a tiny percentage of already obscenely rich people at the top of the American foodchain: ie: The opposite end to New Orleans. These organisations and their major shareholders are slowly leeching the average American and keeping them sedated with lower prices, which is all that's needed when they already think they are supportring America, they are not, they are supporting a tiny percentage of America's rich, period.
The failed American Way economy works like this. Factories produce product, this requires resources/raw materials, to maximize profit product is mass produced, advertising uses persuasive techique to generate sales which boosts demand for product. As desire is manufactured for luxury or non essential goods, demand rises, more factories develop, existing ones expand. This provides jobs for the public, who now have more spending power thaks to their new jobs, and thus feed the demand for more factories, more product, more jobs. Sound good? Well the problem comes from resources, or more specifically the over consumption. Everything has to come from somewhere. This an unsustainable economic model. The only way it can continue for any significant length of time is if Amewrica becomes an island which sucks the resources from other countriues and ensures that the people in these stay where they are and are kep too poor, to ill-educated, and through religious control to humble to consume in the same manner as the US.
They have safety measures for children three and under. They're called shopping carts with child seats. Maybe this mom should have stuck her child in the seat and not her suitcase purse.
I agree with you 100%. This was an accident - and until the investigation concludes, it should be deemed as one. Based on what has been said so far, this could have happened anywhere that places mirrors on the floor - including someone's home.
This was horrible and tragic. Placing blame solely on the mother for not watching her child is ludicrous as that alone may not have prevented this - and placing the blame solely on WalMart for not having an associate at every aisle is stupid as there's no way to know that would have even prevented this.
-----
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
i think this is rude. no mother would kill their child at a wal mart!
"i think this rude, no mother would kill their child in wal mart!"
Yeah, well done......dipshit
Did you even read the post? Or did you just read the title and go off like a moron?
Reading is a critical skill. Try it sometime before jumping like a baffoon.
-----
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
The problem with our society is that people don't take responsibility for themselves and their decisions. We blame everyone else for our problems and the consequences of our decisions. If that "everyone else" happens to be a big, faceless "evil" corporation with money that we can sue for millions..... all the better. Did you ever stop and think that the profit that that company is making IS still benefitting the rest of us. I don't have much money... but I do invest some money in the stock market, and I do have a small 401K. If Wal-mart doesn't make a profit.... I loose money. When someone sues the "evil" corporation, it's people like me and you that end up not only paying higher prices for goods, but we loose value in our stocks and retirement accounts. Lawsuits aren't the only thing makes big corporations listen. They have insurance and lawyers on STAFF that handle this stuff daily. It's nothing new to them and actually doesn't bother them all that much. It's more of an annoyance than anything. What matters to them is their reputation. If their reputation suffers, they loose customers. When they start loosing loyal customers.... then they start listening. Without loyal customers... no company (no matter how big) can stay in business.
This was a child killed by the mirror, but it could just as easily been an adult or older child. What about a 9 year old shopping with his mother. He doesn't need to be holding onto Mom's hand or in a shopping cart. If the mirror was a store fixture or improperly stocked, it could have fallen on anyone. Someone larger than this poor toddler night not have been killed, but they sure would have been hurt. If a parent is blamed for taking his or her eyes off her child for one second, EVERY parent in the world would be blamed. Wal-Mart or any other store does not need to provide babysitting services, but they are absolutely required to provide a safe shopping environment for everyone. If this tragic accident was caused by negligence by the store, a legal suit is the proper procedure for punishing the responsible parties.
Let me get this straight. A mother is not to blame for taking her eyes off of her child, but Walmart is to blame regardless of the circumstances? Let's say it was a stocked mirror and a customer had recently pulled it out and replaced it, but in a precarious position. Walmart's fault?
For those of you blaming Walmart, ignore your hatred of them for their crass consumerism and ask if you feel the same way about the local hardware store that's been in the family for 120 years and is on their last leg because no one in the family wants to continue in the hardware business. Sue them for millions?
It should be investigated, but if it's not found that someone (WM or the mother) acted with reckless disregard for safety, then why don't we chalk it up to something that we've long forgotten about - a tragic accident.
Did you even notice the line which read - if this tragic accident was caused by negligence by the store -? Any corporation or individual that through negligence or disregard for safety injures or kills a person, the injured party has the right to pursue legal means to receive compensation. The operative word is negligence. By the way, have you children? Have you ever babysat for children. Your standards for never taking your eyes off a child are not realistic. Take it from someone who has raised four, made a few mistakes here and there and was lucky to have had only scrapes,bumps and lots of tears.
http://www.wndu.com/news/072006/news_51574.php This article says the mirror was in the children's clothing section of the store. 1) If it is in the clothing section, it hardly seems that it would be for sale. It's probably a fixture. 2) EVERYTHING in the children's clothing section of a store needs to be more secure, not less secure, than in most other areas of the store.
If you invite children into the area, you have a duty to make that area safe for children. Wal-Mart failed in its responsibility to have the children's clothing section of the store be reasonably safe for children. It has earned the inevitable negligence suit.
Without having all the details how can anyone place the blame on Walmart? Walmart employees cannot be in every aisle every second of the day. If you want them to continue to offer low prices you can't expect them to hire thousands of people to babysit customers and their kids. Anytime something like this happens it is a tragic accident. I don't think anyone can completely take the blame however the mother should have been keeping a better eye on her child. If I had turned my head and something happened to my son that is MY fault for not watching him. Sure we all do it but it is still your own fault to WATCH YOUR KIDS. People are so quick to blame walmart for everything. Maybe a customer left the mirror standing against a rack because they decided they didn't want it. Customers leave things in the WRONG places ALL THE TIME. Maybe Walmart should hire people so EVERY customer can have a personal ASSISTANT to follow them around to make sure they don't get hurt or leave stuff in dangerous places. COME ON people. You can't offer prices that low by having all that EXTRA payroll. EVERY BUSINESS IN THE WORLD IS IN IT TO MAKE MONEY. If we hire people to babysit you will be paying 10.00 for a box of cereal. Walmart has a responsibility to it's SHAREHOLDERS to turn a profit EVERY QUARTER. I am sure a detailed investigation will take place. Camera shots pulled, people interviewed. Walmart will end up paying regardless of who or what was at fault. That still doesn't make the mother any LESS at fault.
Listen it is terrible that the child has died and that is the most important fact here. Now i dont know about every wal-mart customer having a baby sitter, but should extremely heavy objects be secured safely?-- umm that would be a "Yes" Now as far as suing walmart: Well, before getting your crotch burned at Mcdonalds made you a a millionaire, lawsuits had a practical purpose. Listen it is possible that a company (or an individual) can do wrong. And you can't send a company to jail. So how can you punish a company? Money. Hey it aint pretty. Its not gonna bring the 3 year old back to life. But if i get drafted into jury duty for this case then i would yes BLAME Walmart. I know, I know, how Terrible of me. We should all be perfect creature that never blame or be angry or hate or any of that sh-t but guess what? We ALL do. So get off your high horse.
I like the view from my high horse, thank you very much. And if people are stupid enough to spout off "sue" before the facts are even made clear as to whether or not there was a fault to this accident - then the world should know that they're dumb.
------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
I think the only one really to blame here is the mother. This is a tragedy and i really do sympathize with her, but please tell me what those straps in the shopping cart attached to a seat in it is for. Sit his tiny butt down in there and slap his little tail end when he starts fighting and complaining about it. It seems to me that these day's people dont use enough of the little sense god gave us. When i was bad, my parents used my daddy's leather belt on me, and i'm here to tell you, i sat my butt down quick fast and in a hurry. People need to learn to use those belts more. If they did, the world wouldn't be in all the mess it's in now. As for this caseDon't blame walmart, the child wasn't their responsibility. Don't blame the child, He was 3 for crying out loud. As for the mother, just pray for her, heaven know's she needs the prayers.
all I have to say is, I've seen kids in my local Walmart breaking things. Kids who appeared to be under the age of five. I'm talking about stuff on the shelfs as well as the actual shelfs. Parents who don't even blink at the destruction. But unless someone actually has seen the event take place, I'm firmly in the "this is a trgedy" camp.
When I go into Walmart at 2:00 in the morning to buy a particular color of acrylic paint (for $1.00+ less) because I just have to finish the painting that I am working on, and then I grab some soy milk and veggie burgers (for $2.00 less) (note: that is 3 businesses that profited at 2:00 am) and then when I am passing the policeman at the door who watches me to my car, and to know that if I choose to sleep right there in the parking lot in my van if I wanted and the cops can't do anything about it (Walmart policy), I am just wondering if any of the walmart whiners could ever produce a scenario that could even touch this? Could they ever supply someone who is considered to be living in poverty this kind of luxury? The "safety" that Walmart supplies to a young and poor female is a situation you would probably not comprehend. It is a little more complicated than "rich people bad."
Dear Walmart Customers,
Settle down. Our accountants have determined that it's cheaper for us to pay the occasional settlement than to pay the wages it takes to hire compentent employees who are capable of managing the store so it's not a health hazard to our customers.
It's only one child. We've got billions of customers. We'll be ok, stop worrying about it and move on. It's morbid.
Walmart
FINALLY!!! a post from the big W.
Dear Mr. W.,
DON'T PAY!!!
Calculate the losses. They could be tremendous. It would be much, much cheaper if you went to China, and bought a new child. Hell, buy a bunch, and sell them on aisle 12 next to the diapers.
A Shareholder.
AMEN.
I have been watching this board for the past two days, and have made some replies to a few of the comments. I will make my last one here. In reading the comments, I have seen the hate for corporate America, the frustration driven by that hate, as well as the greed for income driven by the investments made in the very corporations that are so hated. We view this "entity" as a blind, greed driven machine that has only profits in sight. Because someone didn't check every single screw holding anything attached to a wall or fixture in the store, that store is to blame, and should be sued for millions to "teach them a lesson". That's bunk, very immature, and very shortsighted. As a result of this incident, I can assure you that every mirror located in, or around any children's area in every store has been removed. I know that because I worked for them. At a level of management that was close enough to see the top. Wal Mart, while they may seem cold and callous in their lofty corporate approach, is anything but that. They are concerned for the safety of their customers, and have divisions in the company whose sole purpose is to visit stores, look for possible hazards to customers, and get them fixed. They missed the mirror, and as a result, a tragic accident of the very worst kind happened... a life was lost. It was an accident. It was mistake, and restitution to the family will be paid if it was an oversight on their part.
I have one suggestion to those who would criticize WalMart... In the words of Sam, "come to work for us, and make us better". Or better yet, put your terrific ideas together, and open your own chain of stores and put them out of business.
Very well thought out and well written.
I agree with your last statement - if you don't like it fix it. I hate hearing people complain who take no real action to fix what they view is the problem.
As far as society's view of WalMart - I think that's just the American way. Hate those people who have money and do anything in your power to take that money away (even if just to give it to someone else). This happens all the time. If the store had been Target or KMart, I wonder if the response would have been the same? Probably verbatim because people only hate stores publicly when they see a chance for someone to sue.
-----
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
Here's a crazy notion, maybe what is needed is a more equal distribution of wealth. I know it sounds insane, but could it possibly that many Americans don't just harbour the blind directionless hate toward the rich for no reason. I know this may sound radical, perhaps far out, but could it be that some people feel that an individual with multiple billions of dollars in the singular possession is obscene and unnecessary when there are people in the US who don't even have a home let alone a bank account. The disparity between poor and rich might actually bother somebody and cause them to, oh I don't know, fall out of love with the American Way, over some petty grievance they may have over not even being able to afford medical care when, there are people who could literally buy their own private hospitals, multiple estates, private jets, and God knows what else, and still have more money than a team of shopaholics could spend in a life time spending 24/7 with no sleep. I would reckon it is perfectly fair to say that capitalism is not bad per say, but the unchecked Reganesque free for all capitalism we know today is actually regressive. People will argue with a cap on personal wealth, it will reduce people's drive for progress, but we need to stand back and take a good look, its a system that leaves a tiny percentage of a nation with most of the wealth and the majority without. It is a system which failed the trickle-downtheory promised by Regan/Thatcher and their gurus. It is a system that is killing our planet. Is this progress?
I don't know if we need to go that far for progress. Let's remember that this nation was built on the foundations of personal responsibility and individual freedom. Basically, if you want it, work for it, if you can buy it, get it, and if you work hard, get paid for it.
And for those who do not work hard and earn what they are given, 've never seen portrayed in a positive light because we all know it was just handed to them and we hate them for it. For example, I've never seen a positive story about Paris Hilton, who's only "job" has been to appear on a television show that exemplifies how stupid and unskilled she is.
As far as Reaganomics, every one was against them until they actually started to work. They are behind the times and they are outdated, because let's face it, they were 25+ years ago. And the gap between rich and poor has always been here, and it gets worse everytime someone spits out "take money from the rich and give it to the poor".
--------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
The only reason a corporation like this cares about customer safety is because they can't get away with this kind of incident without a backlash. If they knew that nobody would hear about the victims of corporate negligence they wouldn't bother. They are self serving in their safety concerns not humanitarian. Best example I can draw on is Coca Cola. In India it was discovered that their Coke was laced with pesticides 20 times or so beyond the legal safety limits set by America and Europe. They were not unaware of this, how could they be? Surely the same process used to produce cola for us here in the 1st world should apply to India? No, because India had no laws at the time governing contamination of soft-drinks. So Coca cola did not rectify the situation because they knew they were poisoning people, they did it simply because pressure groups and media like the BBC, highlighted their practices and pushed for action. The people who work for these corporations are the classic "Good people, who are made to do bad things".
While I agree this is a tradgic thing to have happen, I don't see how it's Wal-Marts fault. The mirrors there are not designed to be climbed on or a childs Playtoy. It's probably there so people can try on clothes and they can look in them to see how they look. I seriouly doubt those mirrors are that heavy that it took to people to pull it off the child, rather I was probably a panic thing and of course you are going to react and help get the child out as fast as possible. I'm sure there were probably numerous people around trying to help. Parents do need to watch their children. I know of an incident at a walmart where a person was shoplifting and tried to cut open a package but instead cut themself and very badly. They tried to sue wal-mart. How can that be walmarts fault? It's time to take responcibility for our actions and stop blaming walmart or other retail stores for accidents. I do feel for the mother and send my thought and prayers,
May I say, go to Walmart and just look. Look