Should Walmart be sued for letting its employee be trampled?

[Pube Truth]

You would make a great lawyer Flyntz, I can wait to hate you and you're black soul. 

you are black soul?

you're better than this, Nick

i read this and I was like, oooooohhhhhhhh shit! I'm gonna do some damage! and then i was too late. but still.... what the fuck Nick?
also, yes Flyntz, it does take more effort, which is only a small portion of why i hate it when it happens.

[Shire Le Buff]

My typing creates forward momentum and it actually takes less energy to keep that momentum going and type the longer word than it does to slow down and type the shorter word. If you people studied the sciences you'd know this.

I've heard that the family is trying to sue Walmart for actually tying to create this kind of mania for its deals through its advertising. Wouldn't every store that had some sort of Black Friday sale be responsible for the one man's death if that were the case?

[Larry Flyntz]

the family is trying to sue Walmart for actually tying to create this kind of mania for its deals through its advertising.

That sounds like a loser of a case to me.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

1. My typing creates forward momentum and it actually takes less energy to keep that momentum going and type the longer word than it does to slow down and type the shorter word. If you people studied the sciences you'd know this.

2. I've heard that the family is trying to sue Walmart for actually tying to create this kind of mania for its deals through its advertising. Wouldn't every store that had some sort of Black Friday sale be responsible for the one man's death if that were the case?

1. Yeah, I hate correcting grammar. I feel so...British when I do it. My inner Grammar Gorilla must have surfaced.

2. I can see the reasoning behind this case and some of the language used. But it feels too thin. I have no idea what the statutes might be for something like this and Walmart might just settle to avoid any more publicity, but I think they would be better off using some different tact.

[Rhino......................]

I've never understood the whole "blame advertising for people's behavior" angle. The same argument was (I think; correct me if I'm wrong) used to keep tobacco companies from being able to advertise their products on billboards, and now they don't anymore. Now, I understand that cigarettes is a special case, because cigarettes can kill and Big Tobacco is Evil and all that, but how can that type of thinking even be accepted anywhere? People aren't mindless drones. An advertisement, no matter how enticing, can't make anyone do anything.

[FAGGOT WATCHIN TRON]

I want to disagree with you, but I can't think of a funny way to do it, and since it would only be for humour's sake, I won't bother.

The truth is, Dave is totally right. Nobody can truly make you do anything you don't want to do, not even a very slick advertising exec with a six figure salary. That's not to say some people aren't more susceptible to advertising than others - I can't count the number of times I've seen something (primarily food) advertised and then almost immediately gone out and purchased that food...or at least I would have if I could afford it. But ultimately it wasn't the advertisement, or even the company itself, that MADE me buy the food. It was my own stupid food oriented brain and weak will power! And my love of delicious flavour. People are just retarded and don't want to take responsibility for their own actions because that would require, well, taking responsibility! It's way easier to blame things on others, especially giant faceless organizations like Wal Mart. I mean, Wal Mart is evil, but not for that reason.

[Pube Truth]

And my love of delicious flavor.

[Larry Flyntz]

Yeah, I think the advertising angle is a sure-fire loser in court (not to mention a really bad argument otherwise).  If Walmart was irresponsible in any way, it wasn't in advertising its products, it was in not responding properly to the hysteria that forseeably ensued.  Of course, these folks will try to argue that the hysteria wouldn't have ensued without the advertisement (which may, as a pure issue of causation, be true - these people wouldn't have known about the deals without seeing them advertised), but it's also true that this wouldn't have happened if Walmart simply didn't exist.  Proving causation without anything else just won't get you very far.