I need a Hallacic opinion, please

[zachor_ve_kavod]

You probably have heard this story.  Last Friday, an eager crowd of shoppers were waiting at the entrance to Walmart, waiting for the doors to open so they could get a good deal.  When the doors were opened, there was an immediate rush that resulted in the trampling of a 34 year old employee.

Now I'd be interested in knowing two things:  What would justice look like in this case under American criminal law; and more importantly, what would be justice under Jewish law.

Say the crowd consisted of 500 people, are they all guilty of a crime?  Is Walmart guilty of a crime (manslaughter perhaps, for creating a situation of recklessness that resulted in death)?  I'm sure by the way that Walmart will lose big time in civil court.

But what would the Rabbis tell us?  What would be justice in this case and how could it be achieved?

Muman, I'm looking for your opinion on this in particular.

[muman613]

You probably have heard this story.  Last Friday, an eager crowd of shoppers were waiting at the entrance to Walmart, waiting for the doors to open so they could get a good deal.  When the doors were opened, there was an immediate rush that resulted in the trampling of a 34 year old employee.

Now I'd be interested in knowing two things:  What would justice look like in this case under American criminal law; and more importantly, what would be justice under Jewish law.

Say the crowd consisted of 500 people, are they all guilty of a crime?  Is Walmart guilty of a crime (manslaughter perhaps, for creating a situation of recklessness that resulted in death)?  I'm sure by the way that Walmart will lose big time in civil court.

But what would the Rabbis tell us?  What would be justice in this case and how could it be achieved?

Muman, I'm looking for your opinion on this in particular.

Shalom Zachor,

As you know my opinion is only an opinion. I would be interested in some other opinions also.

There is a Torah mitzvah of building a parapet, which is a fence around the roof of a house. This mitzvah does support your contention that Walmart is responsible in some way of not providing enough security or creating a situation which may result in the loss of life. It could be argued that Walmart was not aware that so many people would arrive but that would not satisfy this mitzvah. One could also apply the mitzvah of placing a stumbling block before the blind, in which case Walmart would have transgressed this by advertising the DVD player for such a great price {a stumbling block for the poor}.

I dont think that they would be guilty of the capital crime {under Jewish law} of murder. Once again I will point out that in Biblical times the courts did not often mete out the punishment of Death, although it was an option in many cases. The court did not want to give one death sentence in 7 years or else it would be considered a bad court.

http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-category/the-jewish-legal-system/?p=3058
The Talmud in Tractate Makkoth 7a says the following: “A sanhedrin (high court) that executes someone once in seven years is considered destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azaria says once in seventy years [is considered destructive]. Rabbi Tarphon and Rabbi Akiva say, ‘If we were in a Sanhedrin, we would never execute a person’, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, ‘They are causing murder to increase in Israel’ [by eliminating the deterrent of capital punishment].”

We should also note that the burden of proof in the Jewish court is much greater than in American courts. We had no concept of circumstantial evidence. In the Jewish court there needed to be 3 witnesses who testify against the defendant. Without three eye-witnesses there would be no application of the death penalty.

The Bible says, “On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness” (Deuteronomy 17:6). The Rabbis tell us that in order for a person to be executed, the witnesses must be valid (there are many laws about the validity of witnesses, such as the witness must be male, adult, observant of religious practice, and the two witnesses may not be related to each other). Additionally, they must warn the offender, specifying exactly the sin he is about to commit and the punishment for it. If the potential offender ceases with the warning, he is exempt from the death penalty. It is only if he is brazen and continues saying “I don’t care, I will do it anyway”, that he will get the death penalty. (There are some exceptions, though). As you can see, it is very difficult for all of these conditions to be met.

So in conclusion I understand your concern... It would seem that the one who is guilty is one who pushed down the door and actually trampled the victim. I am sure there are many involved and I doubt that many witnesses will come forward. I dont know if video evidence is admitted into a Jewish court, we would need to ask a Poskim about this. I think Walmart bears some responsibility according to my understanding of Torah law, but again I will defer this decision to someone with more understanding.

Thank you,
muman613

[zachor_ve_kavod]

Thanks Muman.

[Haim_Ben_Shimon_3JFB]

Just a small correction, its supposed to be two witnesses to kill someone in Jewish court. I think the only people that are responsible are the first few. How many i m not sure but think about it how many people does it take to trample someone to to death i think not more than five so the first five or so buyers may be should be held responsible. Not sure just thinking.

[Lisa]

Muman, I'm not nearly as observant as you are, but with all due respect, I disagree with your example of how Walmart placed a "stumbling block" before the poor people by advertising low priced DVD players. 

The fact is, people have free will.  I personally don't care how cheap a DVD player or any electronic gadget is.  I would never in a million years break down a door and trample another human being to death just to get a bargain.  I think it's safe to say that no one on this forum would do such a thing either. 

So by saying that Walmart is partially to blame, it seems to me like you're excusing the behavior of those savages.  And that's really what they are. 

[q_q_]

Muman, I'm not nearly as observant as you are, but with all due respect, I disagree with your example of how Walmart placed a "stumbling block" before the poor people by advertising low priced DVD players.  <snip>

And women should be covered from head to toe so as not to place a stumbling block before men ;-)

[zachor_ve_kavod]

Muman, I'm not nearly as observant as you are, but with all due respect, I disagree with your example of how Walmart placed a "stumbling block" before the poor people by advertising low priced DVD players. 

The fact is, people have free will.  I personally don't care how cheap a DVD player or any electronic gadget is.  I would never in a million years break down a door and trample another human being to death just to get a bargain.  I think it's safe to say that no one on this forum would do such a thing either. 

So by saying that Walmart is partially to blame, it seems to me like you're excusing the behavior of those savages.  And that's really what they are. 

But Lisa,

People are savages.  That's the whole point.  I know this, you know this, and Walmart knew this.  Shouldn't the store be held accountable (at least to some degree) for creating a situation of high risk?  I forget the passage exactly, but it is said in the Torah, that when there is a murdered person and nobody knows who did it, the elders of the nearest towns have to make a declaration that their hands did not shed his blood.  In other words, they have to be able to say that they did everything they could to ensure that this person would not be killed.  I don't think the Walmart management can honestly make that statement.

[Lisa]

But Lisa,

People are savages.  That's the whole point.  I know this, you know this, and Walmart knew this.  Shouldn't the store be held accountable (at least to some degree) for creating a situation of high risk?  I forget the passage exactly, but it is said in the Torah, that when there is a murdered person and nobody knows who did it, the elders of the nearest towns have to make a declaration that their hands did not shed his blood.  In other words, they have to be able to say that they did everything they could to ensure that this person would not be killed.  I don't think the Walmart management can honestly make that statement.

Walmart is in business to make money by selling cheap goods.  Are you saying that because of their cheap goods, they're responsible for the death of that man?  What do you think they could have, or should have done that would have averted such a thing?   

I'm familiar with the Torah passage you are referring to.  But I don't think that applies exactly in this situation.  We KNOW that the savage mob of shoppers was responsible for that man's death, and for that pregnant woman's early labor.  It was all recorded on the video camera. 

But, if you want use that passage of the Torah as an example.  Here's a better way to do it. 

You can more accurately say that our government bears some responsibility for the many rapes, murders, drunk driving accidents and other thefts committed by illegal aliens, since they turn a blind eye to the quality of people flooding into America.  So in that sense they can't declare that they had no responsibility for the death of innocent Americans. 

You can use the same example for domestic criminals whose jail sentences are shortened by sympathetic judges. 

[zachor_ve_kavod]

But Lisa,

People are savages.  That's the whole point.  I know this, you know this, and Walmart knew this.  Shouldn't the store be held accountable (at least to some degree) for creating a situation of high risk?  I forget the passage exactly, but it is said in the Torah, that when there is a murdered person and nobody knows who did it, the elders of the nearest towns have to make a declaration that their hands did not shed his blood.  In other words, they have to be able to say that they did everything they could to ensure that this person would not be killed.  I don't think the Walmart management can honestly make that statement.

You can more accurately say that our government bears some responsibility for the many rapes, murders, drunk driving accidents and other thefts committed by illegal aliens, since they turn a blind eye to the quality of people flooding into America.  So in that sense they can't declare that they had no responsibility for the death of innocent Americans. 

You can use the same example for domestic criminals whose jail sentences are shortened by sympathetic judges. 

I can't argue with that.  I happen to believe that the government does bear some responsibility for the crimes commited by people who have been released from prison.  I especially believe that in the case of Israel, which lets arab prisoners free as a sign of good will.  Also, by not transferring the arabs out of Israel, every murder that occurs can be blamed in part on the government.

As for Walmart, there are steps that can be taken so things like this don't happen.  This could have been very easily avoided.  The fact that Walmart did not bother to create a safe environment makes them morally if not legally responsible.

[Lisa]

As for Walmart, there are steps that can be taken so things like this don't happen.  This could have been very easily avoided.  The fact that Walmart did not bother to create a safe environment makes them morally if not legally responsible.

Can you be more specific?  What should Walmart have done that would have prevented these savages from being savages? 

[zachor_ve_kavod]

As for Walmart, there are steps that can be taken so things like this don't happen.  This could have been very easily avoided.  The fact that Walmart did not bother to create a safe environment makes them morally if not legally responsible.

Can you be more specific?  What should Walmart have done that would have prevented these savages from being savages? 

Well, there are many methods that they use in big venues such as concerts or ball games.  You can put up velvet rope barriers that people have to walk through like they do at the bank.  Or put up turnstyles.  They needed to narrow the access to the entrance so there wasn't such a big push.  If they could have set up some type of system where customers could only enter single file, a big rush would have been impossible.  Then once people were let in, they could have controlled how many could be in the store at one time.  I'm not an expert on this, but I've been in very large venues before.  I once went to a concert where there were 500,000 people in Toronto.  There were no injuries there as far as I can remember.  Now it can be said that people from Toronto are not like people from New York.  Torontonians tend to be very reserved and patient.  But in that situation, they had planned it out very well.

At the very least, having realized that there was a huge mob of people at the door waiting to rush in, security could have gone out into the crowd and said over loudspeaker that the store would not be letting anyone in until everyone backed up.  Then security could have let people in an organized fashion.

[Raulmarrio2000]

Are these people Jewish? If not, I don't think Jewish Laws about murder would apply to them. Anyway capital punishment can only be applied by a Sanhedrin in EY. If they are Gentiles outside EY, Noahide Code applies to them. And the laws about the requirements of witneses for Noahides is slightly different. Anyway, there is no Noahide binding court now either. So Torah penalties won't be applied to them.

[zachor_ve_kavod]

Are these people Jewish? If not, I don't think Jewish Laws about murder would apply to them. Anyway capital punishment can only be applied by a Sanhedrin in EY. If they are Gentiles outside EY, Noahide Code applies to them. And the laws about the requirements of witneses for Noahides is slightly different. Anyway, there is no Noahide binding court now either. So Torah penalties won't be applied to them.

You're right.  I'm just questioning hypothetically.  My brother and I were arguing about this last night, about who is morally responsible for this.  I really wasn't completely convinced about this situation.  Usually what I do when I'm trying to find stable moral grounds to base an opinion, is look to the Torah.  Whether or not Torah law is applicable is not really my point.  The Torah is more than just a legal code, in my opinion.  To me at least, it is a light in the darkness.  When I don't know where I'm going (philosophically) I look to it.

[q_q_]

Are these people Jewish? If not, I don't think Jewish Laws about murder would apply to them. Anyway capital punishment can only be applied by a Sanhedrin in EY. If they are Gentiles outside EY, Noahide Code applies to them. And the laws about the requirements of witneses for Noahides is slightly different. Anyway, there is no Noahide binding court now either. So Torah penalties won't be applied to them.

You're right.  I'm just questioning hypothetically.  My brother and I were arguing about this last night, about who is morally responsible for this.  I really wasn't completely convinced about this situation.  Usually what I do when I'm trying to find stable moral grounds to base an opinion, is look to the Torah.  Whether or not Torah law is applicable is not really my point.  The Torah is more than just a legal code, in my opinion.  To me at least, it is a light in the darkness.  When I don't know where I'm going (philosophically) I look to it.

Putting a stumbling block before the blind is i'm sure about trying to fool somebody.

Selling goods at low prices is not doing so.

It's not about removing things that can provide a temptation for bad. We don't force women to cover themselves head to toe.

We don't do as the arabs and blame the woman for getting raped.

[zachor_ve_kavod]

Are these people Jewish? If not, I don't think Jewish Laws about murder would apply to them. Anyway capital punishment can only be applied by a Sanhedrin in EY. If they are Gentiles outside EY, Noahide Code applies to them. And the laws about the requirements of witneses for Noahides is slightly different. Anyway, there is no Noahide binding court now either. So Torah penalties won't be applied to them.

You're right.  I'm just questioning hypothetically.  My brother and I were arguing about this last night, about who is morally responsible for this.  I really wasn't completely convinced about this situation.  Usually what I do when I'm trying to find stable moral grounds to base an opinion, is look to the Torah.  Whether or not Torah law is applicable is not really my point.  The Torah is more than just a legal code, in my opinion.  To me at least, it is a light in the darkness.  When I don't know where I'm going (philosophically) I look to it.

Putting a stumbling block before the blind is i'm sure about trying to fool somebody.

Selling goods at low prices is not doing so.

It's not about removing things that can provide a temptation for bad. We don't force women to cover themselves head to toe.

We don't do as the arabs and blame the woman for getting raped.

Are you suggesting that my saying that Walmart bears some of the responsibility for this is morally equivalent to muslims saying that women are responsible for getting raped because of what they were wearing? 

[muman613]

Muman, I'm not nearly as observant as you are, but with all due respect, I disagree with your example of how Walmart placed a "stumbling block" before the poor people by advertising low priced DVD players. 

The fact is, people have free will.  I personally don't care how cheap a DVD player or any electronic gadget is.  I would never in a million years break down a door and trample another human being to death just to get a bargain.  I think it's safe to say that no one on this forum would do such a thing either. 

So by saying that Walmart is partially to blame, it seems to me like you're excusing the behavior of those savages.  And that's really what they are. 

Lisa,

I clearly say that the ones who bear the responsibility are the ones who actually trampled the man. But it is true that the people who came to Walmart that morning were apparently attracted by the 'super sale' which they were having. I am not trying to say that Walmart is responsible for the death of the individual. But I am saying that there is some reason to believe that the situation could have been avoided had Walmart been aware that this may happen. Didnt people get trampled last year under similar circumstances?

I am not aware that 'placing a stumbling block before the blind' requires the need to deceive anyone. I believe it is referring to every situation where one creates a situation which is dangerous to another who is not very wise {the blind}.

Here is a quote from the site : http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/placingstumbling.html

The Bible states (Leviticus 19:14): "You shall not curse the deaf nor place a stumbling block before the blind; you shall fear your God - I am your Lord." In Hebrew, the sin of placing a stumbling block before a blind person is referred to as lifnei iver lo sitten michshol (before the blind do not place a stumbling block), or succinctly as lifnei iver.

This verse is somewhat perplexing: Why single out blind people for this law? Was placing stumbling blocks before blind people a prevalent practice in ancient times? Furthermore, there are a large number of laws in the Bible that deal with causing injury to others, blind or not. This may explain why the Talmud felt the need to give the verse a more profound meaning. Thus, the word "blind" is interpreted metaphorically to represent any person or group that is unaware, unsuspecting, ignorant, or morally blind, and individuals are prohibited from taking advantage of them or tempting them to do wrong. It is interesting to note that there is a dispute as to whether the verse should be interpreted literally at all. Apparently, some sages felt that there was no need to have a special law against causing blind people to stumble since there are a sufficient number of laws protecting all individuals from malicious harm (see Minchas Chinuch, 232:4). Others believe in the principal that Biblical verses maintain their literal meaning even when the sages use the oral tradition to add additional connotations.

The principle of lifnei iver prohibits one from giving bad advice to another person. Thus, one should not advise another party that it is in his interest to sell his field in order to buy a donkey, when his true intention is to buy the field for himself. By concealing the ulterior motive of his advice, he has violated the principle of lifnei iver (Midrash Sifra, Leviticus 19:14). In fact, the Midrash explains the reason the verse ends with the warning about fearing God: Human beings do not know whether advice proffered to them by friends is good or bad. Often, advice is given with an ulterior motive. Only God knows the true motive of the advice giver.

In addition, the above verse is considered to be a prohibition against helping or causing another to sin. Thus, placing any kind of prohibited temptation in front of someone would not be allowed. For example, providing an individual with a prohibited food, e.g., wine to a Nazirite (who takes a vow which prohibits him from drinking wine, cutting hair, or ritually contaminating himself by coming into contact with the dead), would be a violation of this commandment (Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 22b). Rabbi Ashi, who owned forests, was permitted to sell wood to heathens who were fire-worshippers only because the majority of purchased wood is used for kindling, not for idolatry (Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 62b). However, to sell the wood directly for the purpose of allowing pagans to practice their idolatrous practices would be prohibited. Lending someone money without having any witnesses present is also a violation of lifnei iver since it might ultimately tempt the debtor to deny that he or she borrowed any money (Babylonian Talmud, Baba Metzia 75b). If one person lends another money with interest, the borrower and the lender have also violated lifnei iver since each one enables the other to commit the sin of usury (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 75b). The Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Moed Katan 17a) also prohibits one from hitting an older son because of lifnei iver. An older son might angrily retaliate and strike his father, which is a very serious sin.

more... http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/placingstumbling.html

I said it could be argued that Walmart was not aware that the people would react to this sale like animals. According to biblical law it seems to me that they are guilty of this. Also it is true that this case would never come before the Jewish court because those involved are not Jewish, and as a result we are just talking hypothetical cases.

It is clear that the ones responsible for the death are the ones who physically trampled the man. They should be tried and convicted of murder here in American courts.

[q_q_]

Are these people Jewish? If not, I don't think Jewish Laws about murder would apply to them. Anyway capital punishment can only be applied by a Sanhedrin in EY. If they are Gentiles outside EY, Noahide Code applies to them. And the laws about the requirements of witneses for Noahides is slightly different. Anyway, there is no Noahide binding court now either. So Torah penalties won't be applied to them.

You're right.  I'm just questioning hypothetically.  My brother and I were arguing about this last night, about who is morally responsible for this.  I really wasn't completely convinced about this situation.  Usually what I do when I'm trying to find stable moral grounds to base an opinion, is look to the Torah.  Whether or not Torah law is applicable is not really my point.  The Torah is more than just a legal code, in my opinion.  To me at least, it is a light in the darkness.  When I don't know where I'm going (philosophically) I look to it.

Putting a stumbling block before the blind is i'm sure about trying to fool somebody.

Selling goods at low prices is not doing so.

It's not about removing things that can provide a temptation for bad. We don't force women to cover themselves head to toe.

We don't do as the arabs and blame the woman for getting raped.

Are you suggesting that my saying that Walmart bears some of the responsibility for this is morally equivalent to muslims saying that women are responsible for getting raped because of what they were wearing? 

It is logically equivalent.   And it's immoral.

Not morally equivalent.. It's morally rather different
But it's still morally wrong to blame the woman or the shop.

There is a big difference morally between a woman dressing revealingly, and getting raped.   And a shop selling goods cheaply and having a thieving stampede barge in.   The woman has suffered more.  (the woman has gone against G-d in dressing revealingly, but I wouldn't consider her even partly responsible for what the rapist does).   The shop though has just priced good cheaply.  That is not a crime in jewish law (unless it under-prices goods at a loss to knock out competition).  The shop did nothing wrong there.  So in that sense, it's even worse to blame the shop than to blame the woman!  In the other sense of who was harmed more, it's worse to blame the woman.
It's bad to blame the shop or the woman.

[Dr. Dan]

Unless no video tape shows exactly who ended up doing the murdering (each person who trampled the dead person), nobody can be charged with murder. However, that particular Walmart and the security guards should be held responsible for a negligant homicide, in my opinion.

[muman613]

Are these people Jewish? If not, I don't think Jewish Laws about murder would apply to them. Anyway capital punishment can only be applied by a Sanhedrin in EY. If they are Gentiles outside EY, Noahide Code applies to them. And the laws about the requirements of witneses for Noahides is slightly different. Anyway, there is no Noahide binding court now either. So Torah penalties won't be applied to them.

You're right.  I'm just questioning hypothetically.  My brother and I were arguing about this last night, about who is morally responsible for this.  I really wasn't completely convinced about this situation.  Usually what I do when I'm trying to find stable moral grounds to base an opinion, is look to the Torah.  Whether or not Torah law is applicable is not really my point.  The Torah is more than just a legal code, in my opinion.  To me at least, it is a light in the darkness.  When I don't know where I'm going (philosophically) I look to it.

Putting a stumbling block before the blind is i'm sure about trying to fool somebody.

Selling goods at low prices is not doing so.

It's not about removing things that can provide a temptation for bad. We don't force women to cover themselves head to toe.

We don't do as the arabs and blame the woman for getting raped.

Are you suggesting that my saying that Walmart bears some of the responsibility for this is morally equivalent to muslims saying that women are responsible for getting raped because of what they were wearing? 

It is logically equivalent.   And it's immoral.

Not morally equivalent.. It's morally rather different
But it's still morally wrong to blame the woman or the shop.

There is a big difference morally between a woman dressing revealingly, and getting raped.   And a shop selling goods cheaply and having a thieving stampede barge in.   The woman has suffered more.  (the woman has gone against G-d in dressing revealingly, but I wouldn't consider her even partly responsible for what the rapist does).   The shop though has just priced good cheaply.  That is not a crime in jewish law (unless it under-prices goods at a loss to knock out competition).  The shop did nothing wrong there.  So in that sense, it's even worse to blame the shop than to blame the woman!  In the other sense of who was harmed more, it's worse to blame the woman.
It's bad to blame the shop or the woman.

I disagree... A shopowner needs to be considerate of its customers and provide a safe environment for them. It could be asked whether there was reason to believe a dangerous situation was created by the sale and the lack of appropriate security. If I ran a stadium which didn't have adequate access to the large # of people entering/exiting and a stampede occured, I would think I am guilty of creating an unsafe environment.

I am not saying that this is the absolute fact in this case. But it is something to consider.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

Walmart is not responsible.
   Even though the shoppers are not responsible in the sense that they should and would be killed (by a court), they do bear guilt, expecially if they continued knowingly running over the guy. Also as a whole American society and the media bear guilt- with the whole hype of "black friday", it's a retarted system. But no one would be guilty of manslaughter though, and this is a thing where G-d will give each person what they deserve (and not a human court).

[zachor_ve_kavod]

Are these people Jewish? If not, I don't think Jewish Laws about murder would apply to them. Anyway capital punishment can only be applied by a Sanhedrin in EY. If they are Gentiles outside EY, Noahide Code applies to them. And the laws about the requirements of witneses for Noahides is slightly different. Anyway, there is no Noahide binding court now either. So Torah penalties won't be applied to them.

You're right.  I'm just questioning hypothetically.  My brother and I were arguing about this last night, about who is morally responsible for this.  I really wasn't completely convinced about this situation.  Usually what I do when I'm trying to find stable moral grounds to base an opinion, is look to the Torah.  Whether or not Torah law is applicable is not really my point.  The Torah is more than just a legal code, in my opinion.  To me at least, it is a light in the darkness.  When I don't know where I'm going (philosophically) I look to it.

Putting a stumbling block before the blind is i'm sure about trying to fool somebody.

Selling goods at low prices is not doing so.

It's not about removing things that can provide a temptation for bad. We don't force women to cover themselves head to toe.

We don't do as the arabs and blame the woman for getting raped.

Are you suggesting that my saying that Walmart bears some of the responsibility for this is morally equivalent to muslims saying that women are responsible for getting raped because of what they were wearing? 

It is logically equivalent.   And it's immoral.

Not morally equivalent.. It's morally rather different
But it's still morally wrong to blame the woman or the shop.

There is a big difference morally between a woman dressing revealingly, and getting raped.   And a shop selling goods cheaply and having a thieving stampede barge in.   The woman has suffered more.  (the woman has gone against G-d in dressing revealingly, but I wouldn't consider her even partly responsible for what the rapist does).   The shop though has just priced good cheaply.  That is not a crime in jewish law (unless it under-prices goods at a loss to knock out competition).  The shop did nothing wrong there.  So in that sense, it's even worse to blame the shop than to blame the woman!  In the other sense of who was harmed more, it's worse to blame the woman.
It's bad to blame the shop or the woman.

It is not logically equivalent.  The victim of the muslim rapist is the woman.  The victim in this case is the man who was trampled to death, not the store.  Walmart was the location of the event, not the victim of the event.  If I had said that the clerk who was trampled brought it on himself by working there, then you could make that comparison.  If Walmart bears some responsibility for this, it is not because they priced their goods cheaply, it is because they created an unsafe situation at the door.  That situation at the door could have been easily rectified ahead of time, (See my reply to Lisa on how).  I don't think that Walmart was criminally negligent, but somebody getting trampled to death was foreseeable and preventable.  Walmart will be held responsible in a civil suit, I'm sure.

[q_q_]

Are these people Jewish? If not, I don't think Jewish Laws about murder would apply to them. Anyway capital punishment can only be applied by a Sanhedrin in EY. If they are Gentiles outside EY, Noahide Code applies to them. And the laws about the requirements of witneses for Noahides is slightly different. Anyway, there is no Noahide binding court now either. So Torah penalties won't be applied to them.

You're right.  I'm just questioning hypothetically.  My brother and I were arguing about this last night, about who is morally responsible for this.  I really wasn't completely convinced about this situation.  Usually what I do when I'm trying to find stable moral grounds to base an opinion, is look to the Torah.  Whether or not Torah law is applicable is not really my point.  The Torah is more than just a legal code, in my opinion.  To me at least, it is a light in the darkness.  When I don't know where I'm going (philosophically) I look to it.

Putting a stumbling block before the blind is i'm sure about trying to fool somebody.

Selling goods at low prices is not doing so.

It's not about removing things that can provide a temptation for bad. We don't force women to cover themselves head to toe.

We don't do as the arabs and blame the woman for getting raped.

Are you suggesting that my saying that Walmart bears some of the responsibility for this is morally equivalent to muslims saying that women are responsible for getting raped because of what they were wearing? 

It is logically equivalent.   And it's immoral.

Not morally equivalent.. It's morally rather different
But it's still morally wrong to blame the woman or the shop.

There is a big difference morally between a woman dressing revealingly, and getting raped.   And a shop selling goods cheaply and having a thieving stampede barge in.   The woman has suffered more.  (the woman has gone against G-d in dressing revealingly, but I wouldn't consider her even partly responsible for what the rapist does).   The shop though has just priced good cheaply.  That is not a crime in jewish law (unless it under-prices goods at a loss to knock out competition).  The shop did nothing wrong there.  So in that sense, it's even worse to blame the shop than to blame the woman!  In the other sense of who was harmed more, it's worse to blame the woman.
It's bad to blame the shop or the woman.

It is not logically equivalent.  The victim of the muslim rapist is the woman.  The victim in this case is the man who was trampled to death, not the store.  Walmart was the location of the event, not the victim of the event.  If I had said that the clerk who was trampled brought it on himself by working there, then you could make that comparison.  If Walmart bears some responsibility for this, it is not because they priced their goods cheaply, it is because they created an unsafe situation at the door.  That situation at the door could have been easily rectified ahead of time, (See my reply to Lisa on how).  I don't think that Walmart was criminally negligent, but somebody getting trampled to death was foreseeable and preventable.  Walmart will be held responsible in a civil suit, I'm sure.

hmm.. I read that it occurred in an area full of blacks, and they barged in like that, I figured that like last time, they were stealing..

so you blame them for not forseeing that and having no crowd control facilities in place.

I don't think it was foreseeable.  We rarely hear of human stampedes in the west..  For many, the first time we heard of it was a few years ago involving arabs and the kabba in mecca, a stampede is probably an annual problem there. At that time nobody had heard of a human stampede!!! The reaction in the west was amazement.

Another time I heard of it was the blacks in new orleans that wanted to go on a rampage there after the hurricane.

I'm sure that big shops in america have done sales many times, for years, without any problems like that. (and without turnstyles. Just regular doors)   

British Football stadiums indeed put measures in, like turnstyles.. And Teenage Music Concerts probably do too.  That may be largely to ensure nobody pushes in without buying a ticket. Alot of the time you have somebody at the turnstyle and you insert the ticket in there. It may be largely for that. Though it -may- have the secondary effect of preventing a stampede. But crowds there are often drinking and are more rowdy.
note- do you think this crowd would have formed an orderly queue at a turnstyle? they may have stampeded towards the turnstyle, even jumped over it.

One doesn't expect a human stampede at a shop. Sale or not.

[zachor_ve_kavod]

Are these people Jewish? If not, I don't think Jewish Laws about murder would apply to them. Anyway capital punishment can only be applied by a Sanhedrin in EY. If they are Gentiles outside EY, Noahide Code applies to them. And the laws about the requirements of witneses for Noahides is slightly different. Anyway, there is no Noahide binding court now either. So Torah penalties won't be applied to them.

You're right.  I'm just questioning hypothetically.  My brother and I were arguing about this last night, about who is morally responsible for this.  I really wasn't completely convinced about this situation.  Usually what I do when I'm trying to find stable moral grounds to base an opinion, is look to the Torah.  Whether or not Torah law is applicable is not really my point.  The Torah is more than just a legal code, in my opinion.  To me at least, it is a light in the darkness.  When I don't know where I'm going (philosophically) I look to it.

Putting a stumbling block before the blind is i'm sure about trying to fool somebody.

Selling goods at low prices is not doing so.

It's not about removing things that can provide a temptation for bad. We don't force women to cover themselves head to toe.

We don't do as the arabs and blame the woman for getting raped.

Are you suggesting that my saying that Walmart bears some of the responsibility for this is morally equivalent to muslims saying that women are responsible for getting raped because of what they were wearing? 

It is logically equivalent.   And it's immoral.

Not morally equivalent.. It's morally rather different
But it's still morally wrong to blame the woman or the shop.

There is a big difference morally between a woman dressing revealingly, and getting raped.   And a shop selling goods cheaply and having a thieving stampede barge in.   The woman has suffered more.  (the woman has gone against G-d in dressing revealingly, but I wouldn't consider her even partly responsible for what the rapist does).   The shop though has just priced good cheaply.  That is not a crime in jewish law (unless it under-prices goods at a loss to knock out competition).  The shop did nothing wrong there.  So in that sense, it's even worse to blame the shop than to blame the woman!  In the other sense of who was harmed more, it's worse to blame the woman.
It's bad to blame the shop or the woman.

It is not logically equivalent.  The victim of the muslim rapist is the woman.  The victim in this case is the man who was trampled to death, not the store.  Walmart was the location of the event, not the victim of the event.  If I had said that the clerk who was trampled brought it on himself by working there, then you could make that comparison.  If Walmart bears some responsibility for this, it is not because they priced their goods cheaply, it is because they created an unsafe situation at the door.  That situation at the door could have been easily rectified ahead of time, (See my reply to Lisa on how).  I don't think that Walmart was criminally negligent, but somebody getting trampled to death was foreseeable and preventable.  Walmart will be held responsible in a civil suit, I'm sure.

hmm.. I read that it occurred in an area full of blacks, and they barged in like that, I figured that like last time, they were stealing..

so you blame them for not forseeing that and having no crowd control facilities in place.

I don't think it was foreseeable.  We rarely hear of human stampedes in the west..  For many, the first time we heard of it was a few years ago involving arabs and the kabba in mecca, a stampede is probably an annual problem there. At that time nobody had heard of a human stampede!!! The reaction in the west was amazement.

Another time I heard of it was the blacks in new orleans that wanted to go on a rampage there after the hurricane.

I'm sure that big shops in america have done sales many times, for years, without any problems like that. (and without turnstyles. Just regular doors)   

British Football stadiums indeed put measures in, like turnstyles.. And Teenage Music Concerts probably do too.  That may be largely to ensure nobody pushes in without buying a ticket. Alot of the time you have somebody at the turnstyle and you insert the ticket in there. It may be largely for that. Though it -may- have the secondary effect of preventing a stampede. But crowds there are often drinking and are more rowdy.
note- do you think this crowd would have formed an orderly queue at a turnstyle? they may have stampeded towards the turnstyle, even jumped over it.

One doesn't expect a human stampede at a shop. Sale or not.

If it had been my store, I would have thought the following:

"I know that black Friday is the craziest shopping day of the year, and my prices are low, so I should expect a very large turnout.  What else should I be concerned about for tomorrow?  Do I have enough staff?  Do I have enough merchandise?  What will happen if I don't have enough merchandise?  People may get upset.  People may fight over products.  It has happened before.  Come to think of it, my customers may be worried about getting the product they want and at a good price.  There may be quite a crowd.  What can I do about that?  If I leave it, someone might get hurt.  I'd better try to somehow get people to proceed in a calm fashion through my store.  Single file lineups at the door might be a good place to start.  It might even be a good idea to hire security.  This is a potentially dangerous situation.  I certainly don't want to put any of my staff in harm's way.  etc."

Doesn't this seem like a reasonable line of thinking?  If you think that this type of thought process is asking too much of a proprietor, then we will have to agree to disagree.  What troubles me more than the issue of whether Walmart bears some of the responsibility for the trampling of their employee, is the suggestion you made that my belief that Walmart is partly responsible for this is comprable to believing that victims of muslim rape somehow had it coming.  That is an inapt comparison, I think.

[muman613]

<snip>

If it had been my store, I would have thought the following:

"I know that black Friday is the craziest shopping day of the year, and my prices are low, so I should expect a very large turnout.  What else should I be concerned about for tomorrow?  Do I have enough staff?  Do I have enough merchandise?  What will happen if I don't have enough merchandise?  People may get upset.  People may fight over products.  It has happened before.  Come to think of it, my customers may be worried about getting the product they want and at a good price.  There may be quite a crowd.  What can I do about that?  If I leave it, someone might get hurt.  I'd better try to somehow get people to proceed in a calm fashion through my store.  Single file lineups at the door might be a good place to start.  It might even be a good idea to hire security.  This is a potentially dangerous situation.  I certainly don't want to put any of my staff in harm's way.  etc."

Doesn't this seem like a reasonable line of thinking?  If you think that this type of thought process is asking too much of a proprietor, then we will have to agree to disagree.  What troubles me more than the issue of whether Walmart bears some of the responsibility for the trampling of their employee, is the suggestion you made that my belief that Walmart is partly responsible for this is comprable to believing that victims of muslim rape somehow had it coming.  That is an inapt comparison, I think.

Zachor,

You and I think very much alike. I believe that one should consider the possible outcomes of our actions. I have said I dont put the blame for the death on Walmart, but I think that there is a certain amount of responsibility Walmart has for providing the circumstances.

Also let us make it clear that human stampedes are not as rare as some members here want to make it appear. Doing a quick search on wikipedia reveals that this occurs quite frequently, and not only in black neighborhoods.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stampede:

    * 10 October 1872: 19 women and children were killed in a stampede and resulting stairs collapse in a synagogue in Ostrów Wielkopolski during the feast of Yom Kippur. Failure of gas lighting engulfed a synagogue balcony in darkness, causing panic among the women.
    * May 30, 1883: 12 people were killed and dozens injured after a woman tripped on the stairway at the Brooklyn Bridge, which had been open for eight days at the time. The crush was exacerbated by fears the bridge was about to collapse. [3]
    * June 16, 1883: Over 180 out of 1,100 children died in the Victoria Hall disaster in Sunderland, England when they stampeded down the stairs to collect gifts from the entertainers after the end of a variety show.
    * May 18, 1896: 1,389 people were killed and 1,300 injured in the Khodynka Tragedy, a crush of those desiring to get presents during the coronation of Russian Tsar Nicholas II.
    * January 11, 1908: 16 children were killed in the Barnsley Public Hall Disaster in Barnsley, South Yorkshire, England, when someone in the hall shouted 'Fire!'
    * December 24, 1913: 73 people were crushed to death in the Italian Hall Disaster in Calumet, Michigan. This event is considered the legal source for the often-cited First Amendment limitation of "shouting fire in a crowded theater."
    * March 3, 1943: Bethnal Green 173 people were killed as people tried to get into an air-raid shelter at Bethnal Green underground station, east London. Anti-aircraft fire reportedly frightened the crowd, causing them to run for the shelter. When a woman carrying a baby tripped on the stairs, others fell over her, triggering the crush. [2]
    * January 1, 1956: 124 people were killed during the New Year panic and stampede at Yahiko Shrine, Yahiko, central Niigata, Japan.
    * December 3, 1979: 11 people were killed during a crush at a The Who concert at Riverfront Coliseum in Cincinnati. The incident led to a reduced use of festival seating at US venues. The event was later referenced on an episode of WKRP in Cincinnati.
    * October 20, 1982: at least 66 people were killed in the Luzhniki disaster
    * May 29, 1985: 39 people were killed in the Heysel Stadium disaster
    * April 15, 1989: 96 people were killed in the Hillsborough Disaster at a football stadium in Sheffield, England.
    * January 13, 1991: At least 40 people were killed at a soccer match in Orkney, South Africa.
    * January 1, 1993: 21 people were killed and 48 injured as huge crowd celebrate the New Year's Day at Lan Kwai Fong of Hong Kong.[3]
    * October 30, 1993: 73 student fans injured, six critically, by a crowd crush shortly after a football game at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Camp Randall Stadium.
    * May 1994: 270 people were killed at Jamarat Bridge in Mecca during the stoning of the Devil.
    * October 16, 1996: 82 killed, 147 injured on a steep stadium stairway prior to a World Cup qualifying match between Guatemala and Costa Rica in the Estadio Mateo Flores in Guatemala City.
    * March, 1998: 70 people were killed when fans at Nepal's national soccer stadium stampede for the exits during a hailstorm.
    * April 1998: 119 people were killed at the Hajj in Mecca.
    * May 30, 1999: Niamiha disaster: 53 people died in a stampede at the Nemiga metro station in Minsk, Belarus.
    * April 11, 2001: 43 people were crushed in the Ellis Park Stadium disaster.
    * May 2001: 126 killed at a football match in Accra, Ghana after police fire tear gas at rioters.
    * February 6, 2003: 21 people were killed in the stairway exit to E2, a nightclub in Chicago, after a pepper spray use on an upper-story dance floor.
    * February 20, 2003: 100 killed in The Station nightclub fire, many of them trampled.
    * February 2004: 251 people were killed at Jamarat Bridge in Mecca during the stoning of the devil.
    * January 2005: 265 people were killed as Hindu pilgrims stampede near a remote temple in Maharashtra, India.
    * August 31, 2005: 1000 people were killed in a Baghdad bridge stampede
    * December 2005: 42 people were killed as flood relief supplies were handed out to homeless refugees in southern India.
    * January 12, 2006: 345 killed at Jamarat Bridge in Mecca during the stoning of the devil.
    * February 4, 2006: 74 people were killed in the PhilSports Arena stampede in the Philippines. The place was the location of the first year anniversary of ABS-CBN's Wowowee.
    * September 12, 2006: Fifty-one killed and more than 200 injured at a stampede in Ibb Governorate, Yemen.[4][5]
    * June 2, 2007: 12 people were killed during a stampede at the end of a football game between Zambia and Republic of Congo in Chililabombwe, Zambia.[6]
    * October 3, 2007: At least 14 women were crushed to death at a train station in northern India.[7]
    * November 11, 2007: 3 people were killed and more than 30 injured at the Supermarket Carrefour in Chongqing, China when the shop was offering 20% discounts on cooking oil.[8]
    * March 27, 2008: 8 people were killed and 10 injured at an Indian temple crush during a pilgrimage.[9]
    * June 20, 2008: At least 12 people were killed and 13 injured at a Mexico City nightclub stampede during a police raid. [10]
    * July 13, 2008: 23 people died in the al-Mureikh stadium stampede disaster, during a graduation ceremony at Omdurman, Sudan.
    * August 3, 2008: At least 162 people were killed and 47 injured in a stampede at the Naina Devi temple in Himachal Pradesh in mountainous northern India after a rain shelter collapsed, which worshipers mistakenly took to be a landslide.
    * September 14, 2008: At least 11 people were killed when a riot was dispersed by tear gas during a football match in Butembo, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
    * September 30, 2008: 147 people were killed during the Chamunda Devi stampede at the Chamunda Devi temple in Jodhpur, India. The tragedy may have been triggered by a rumor that a bomb was planted in the temple complex. [11] Local authorities, however, blamed steep, slippery slopes leading to the temple.[1][12]
    * October 2, 2008: About 20 children died.[4]
    * November 28, 2008: Jdimytai Damour died and at least four were injured when a stampede of shoppers broke down the door of a Wal-Mart in Valley Stream, New York, just before the store opened for its Black Friday sales. [5]

It seems that some of these occured out of panic, some out of the want to get gifts or discounts, and some at sports events...

[cjd]

My friends you are trying to apply civilized law and logic to creatures that are slightly better off in mentality then animals. Often I wonder if humans living among creatures like this would be safer going into the ape cage in the Bronx Zoo. The store ran the same sale in countless other places in the country where humans live and no problems were present. Only in a place where you see 99.9 black faces in the video do you see a sad thing like this taking place. This is the way animals like this operate. They did not even flinch when they stampeded one of their own to death. Moreover they became irate when they were expected to leave the store when it needed to be closed for the investigation. I detest Wallmart but I think its sad that they will now be made to pay exorbitant amounts of money to put this issue to rest. The only way they had any chance of controlling the animals would have been to have large numbers of armed guards with visible weapons. That is the only thing savages like that understand. The lesson here is never stand between a [censored] and a cheap TV.