Mom sues Wal-Mart

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Dec 22 2004, 11:23 AM

If everyone is responsible for their own actions, then why doesn't the government allow them access to more dangerous weapons, like automatic guns? Because the government, while holding you responsible for your actions, also feels the need to protect people from themselves. Thats why they provide old age pension, unemployment insurance, healthcare, education, etc. Because individuals are NOT responsible for every aspect of their lives. The government holds many of your basic rights and needs as THEIR responsibility.

Wal-Mart probably shouldn't be responsible. If they did everything within the law, and the law failed this girl, then its probably the law's fault. You believe that nothing can be done, and these tragedies are just a side-effect of freedom? Pretty poor side effect from her point of view (or was).

And btw, if you seriously think you 'choose' to eat at McDonalds, actively and without unconscious bias thats been programmed into you, then I heartily disagree. If you go because its 'good', then you have terrible taste in food, and if you go because its 'cheap' or 'convenient', check out Safeways, they've got much better, healthier, equally convenient food. Maybe you go to McDonalds for other reasons... but I'm sure its because you just love their cooking so much, that must be it.

Being responsible for my actions has nothing to do with not being able to buy automatic weapons. It has to do with protecting others from my actions. The reason those types of weapons are illegal is so that someone who is inclined to do so can't (in theory) go get a machine gun and shoot up a city street, it has nothing to do with not holding people accountalbe (ie not being responsible for their own actions). If I circumvent the law and get that gun, you can bet I'll be held responsible. That's what laws are for, to protect the public, and to ensure that people are held responsible. Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean I won't do it, but it makes sure that there are consequences if I do, hence I am being held responsible for my own actions.

Also, the government holding may of my basic rights and needs as their responsibily is just that, My rights and needs, not my actions. Those are still mine, and I'm responsible for them.

And BTW, who the hell are you supposing to know why I go to McDonalds? Sometimes it's cause I don't feel like cooking, sometimes it's cause I don't want to get out of my car, sometimes it's cause I'm hung over and a sausage McMuffin is tasty as hell. I can assure you it has nothing to do with their commercials.

[Agamemnon]

Being responsible for my actions has nothing to do with not being able to buy automatic weapons. It has to do with protecting others from my actions. The reason those types of weapons are illegal is so that someone who is inclined to do so can't (in theory) go get a machine gun and shoot up a city street, it has nothing to do with not holding people accountalbe (ie not being responsible for their own actions). If I circumvent the law and get that gun, you can bet I'll be held responsible. That's what laws are for, to protect the public, and to ensure that people are held responsible. Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean I won't do it, but it makes sure that there are consequences if I do, hence I am being held responsible for my own actions.

So, basically laws are meant to punish crimes, not prevent them. That doesn't sound appealing, or true. Death-penalty pushers push it (in some cases) because they believe there's a deterrance aspect. If you know you'll die, you won't kill another. The law is not there to simply handle the arrangements after the fact, its supposed to assist in preventing these things... through legislation. What's the difference between shooting up a street with a machine gun or a handgun? You can buy the handgun legally... which mystifies me. A shotgun/rifle I can see a little easier, as they are legitimately used for hunting

Also, the government holding may of my basic rights and needs as their responsibily is just that, My rights and needs, not my actions. Those are still mine, and I'm responsible for them.

Fine, but the government stipulating that you ARE or ARE NOT allowed to purchase and own and handgun means that they can change and adjust your 'basic rights and needs'. You seem to think those things are static and unchangeable. I'd suggest a change is in order, and possible.

And BTW, who the hell are you supposing to know why I go to McDonalds? Sometimes it's cause I don't feel like cooking, sometimes it's cause I don't want to get out of my car, sometimes it's cause I'm hung over and a sausage McMuffin is tasty as hell. I can assure you it has nothing to do with their commercials.

Wow, you're sensitive about people speculating on your eating habits.

Funny, your argument here reminds me of a quote, "The greatest achievement of the Devil was in convincing the world he did not exist". I think thats apt here, but clearly we have different opinions on a variety of issues.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally posted by SuperNilson@Dec 22 2004, 05:42 PM
I can't believe they sell guns at Wal-Mart....

They used to sell guns at Canadian Tire not all that long ago Jordon. Not too much of a stretch from Wal Mart really. Auto parts, lawn mowers, 12 guage Winchester pump action, fertilizer.....

[Frank the Tank]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Dec 22 2004, 05:23 PM

If everyone is responsible for their own actions, then why doesn't the government allow them access to more dangerous weapons, like automatic guns? Because the government, while holding you responsible for your actions, also feels the need to protect people from themselves. Thats why they provide old age pension, unemployment insurance, healthcare, education, etc. Because individuals are NOT responsible for every aspect of their lives. The government holds many of your basic rights and needs as THEIR responsibility.

Wal-Mart probably shouldn't be responsible. If they did everything within the law, and the law failed this girl, then its probably the law's fault. You believe that nothing can be done, and these tragedies are just a side-effect of freedom? Pretty poor side effect from her point of view (or was).

And btw, if you seriously think you 'choose' to eat at McDonalds, actively and without unconscious bias thats been programmed into you, then I heartily disagree. If you go because its 'good', then you have terrible taste in food, and if you go because its 'cheap' or 'convenient', check out Safeways, they've got much better, healthier, equally convenient food. Maybe you go to McDonalds for other reasons... but I'm sure its because you just love their cooking so much, that must be it.

I'm missing on where you are getting the fact that I am comparing handguns to automatic weapons? Sorry. Anyhow, I'm all for tougher gun legislation, I seriously have no need for any guns whatsoever in society. I don't think my point is particularily radical, I just want people to be accountable. We are continually brought down to the level of the stupidest person in society, because they have the ability to sue at will and blame the world for everything. I'm just tired of it. Just because I want people to be accountable doesn't mean I think you should be able to go to 7-11 and buy an M-16.

Wal Mart followed the rules to a "t" and yet these parents are trying to hold them responsible. She obviously wanted to kill herself very badly as she knew how to work the system by lying on her background check and her death, as unfortunate as it was, seemed to be inevitable. I fel bad for her parents, but Wal Mart did nothing wrong except be the store she happened to go to.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Dec 22 2004, 12:22 PM

So, basically laws are meant to punish crimes, not prevent them. That doesn't sound appealing, or true. Death-penalty pushers push it (in some cases) because they believe there's a deterrance aspect. If you know you'll die, you won't kill another. The law is not there to simply handle the arrangements after the fact, its supposed to assist in preventing these things... through legislation. What's the difference between shooting up a street with a machine gun or a handgun? You can buy the handgun legally... which mystifies me. A shotgun/rifle I can see a little easier, as they are legitimately used for hunting

Fine, but the government stipulating that you ARE or ARE NOT allowed to purchase and own and handgun means that they can change and adjust your 'basic rights and needs'. You seem to think those things are static and unchangeable. I'd suggest a change is in order, and possible.

Wow, you're sensitive about people speculating on your eating habits.

Funny, your argument here reminds me of a quote, "The greatest achievement of the Devil was in convincing the world he did not exist". I think thats apt here, but clearly we have different opinions on a variety of issues.

Yes laws are created to prevent crimes, hence the protecting people. Does that mean the government is not holding me responsible for my decions, NO.

Secondly, stipulating what I am and am not allowed to do does not make it impossible for me to do those things and doesn't infring on my free will at all. I can still choose to do things, and that is why I am resposible. There would be no responsibility for my actions if there were not consequences, such as jail time. If everyone was allowed to do whatever they pleased with no consequences, that would be the exact opposite of taking responsibiltiy for your actions.

Again, laws are there to make sure people are held responsible for their own actions, not to try to take that away.

And as far as eating at McDonalds goes. Fine you want to believe that you do everything because the comercials tell you to that's cool. I like to believe that I am intelligent enough that I can make an informed decision and do whatever I want. If I want to eat food that is bad for me, I can do that, I can also not do it. If you have to do it, that's just sad for you.

Also, I'd like to know where I said that bit about static and unchaging. I never said anything along those lines and it's irrelevant anyway. But hey, if the comercials told you to put words in my mouth, I guess it isn't your fault.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Dec 22 2004, 11:22 AM

So, basically laws are meant to punish crimes, not prevent them. That doesn't sound appealing, or true. Death-penalty pushers push it (in some cases) because they believe there's a deterrance aspect. If you know you'll die, you won't kill another. The law is not there to simply handle the arrangements after the fact, its supposed to assist in preventing these things... through legislation. What's the difference between shooting up a street with a machine gun or a handgun? You can buy the handgun legally... which mystifies me. A shotgun/rifle I can see a little easier, as they are legitimately used for hunting

It all comes down to parents actually giving a crap about their child. I will not kill anyone becuase
A ) I know it is wrong.
B ) It was the way I was raised.
C ) I have respect for human life.

None of this stems from "Well, if I kill someone, I might get the death penalty, so I better not do it." That has nothing to do with it.

The law is there to punish people.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by arsenal@Dec 22 2004, 06:40 PM
It all comes down to parents actually giving a crap about their child. I will not kill anyone becuase
A ) I know it is wrong.
B ) It was the way I was raised.
C ) I have respect for human life.

None of this stems from "Well, if I kill someone, I might get the death penalty, so I better not do it." That has nothing to do with it.

The law is there to punish people.

Soo... what about the families that are broken and the parents don't care about their kids? There are a whole lot of impovershed situations where single mom works 60 hours a week to support the family, and isn't able to be there to set her kids straight. Those kids don't have the upbringing required to make the correct decision. That's why the government is forced to act as a surrogate so often, to protect us from ourselves and others. Apparently some people think bringing a murderer to justice is as good as preventing the murder. I'd suggest focusing more on prevention and less on punishement might go a long way.

I guess I'd suggest that you had a decent upbringing, as did most of us. But, being on the compute and savvy typers, I've a feeling most of us were silver-spoon-fed compared to lower socio-economic tiers. They may not have the same simple choices between right and wrong that you do. Or maybe they have no morals or spines. I prefer the former.

Also, one of the strongest arguments in favour of the death penalty is that it will deter people from murdering, not 'they get what they deserve'. At least, thats what a rational pro-Death Penalty advocate would probably say. There are a lot of psychos out there too.

I'd argue the law is there to both prevent and punish, and that they are equally important.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Dec 22 2004, 06:37 PM
Yes laws are created to prevent crimes, hence the protecting people. Does that mean the government is not holding me responsible for my decions, NO.

Secondly, stipulating what I am and am not allowed to do does not make it impossible for me to do those things and doesn't infring on my free will at all. I can still choose to do things, and that is why I am resposible. There would be no responsibility for my actions if there were not consequences, such as jail time. If everyone was allowed to do whatever they pleased with no consequences, that would be the exact opposite of taking responsibiltiy for your actions.

Again, laws are there to make sure people are held responsible for their own actions, not to try to take that away.

And as far as eating at McDonalds goes. Fine you want to believe that you do everything because the comercials tell you to that's cool. I like to believe that I am intelligent enough that I can make an informed decision and do whatever I want. If I want to eat food that is bad for me, I can do that, I can also not do it. If you have to do it, that's just sad for you.

Also, I'd like to know where I said that bit about static and unchaging. I never said anything along those lines and it's irrelevant anyway. But hey, if the comercials told you to put words in my mouth, I guess it isn't your fault.

Clearly you and I have very different ideas on the extent and depth of corporate influence over our everyday lives. No need to be snotty about it.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Article

DALLAS, Texas (AP) -- Near the end of her short life, Shayla Stewart, a diagnosed manic-depressive and schizophrenic, assaulted police officers and was arrested for attacking a fellow customer at a Denton Wal-Mart where she had a prescription for anti-psychotic medication.

Given all those signs, her parents say, another Wal-Mart just seven miles away should have never sold her the shotgun she used to kill herself at age 24 in 2003

So are all Wal-Mart stores supposed to send 'Do not sell to this boy/girl' signs to every other Wal-Mart store everytime some incident happens? I remember when I was little I (disobeying a direct 'Don't touch anything!' order) totally wrecked a huge glass display at Wal-Mart in Westbrook. Maybe I should waltz into Wal-Mart today and crash into something, hurt myself and sue on the basis that 'Wal-Mart should've known i'd be prown to accidents.'

The justice system is supposed to be in place to prosecute and punish those that break the law. It's not designed to run a babysitting service for people that need a flashing neon sign to tell them that coffee is hot. Or people that need some guy to brief them on the implications of eating at McDonalds before they eat, sit and watch them eat, and then debrief them on the consequences of what they just did. Or parents that rely on employees getting 6 bucks an hour at Wal-Mart to spot signs of suicidle behavior in their daughter.

But, as I said before, our justice system allows for this kind of garbage to go through the courts and sometimes win. So why not give it a try?

[ricosuave]

man, i cant take crap like this anymore.

what happened to evolution? what happened to mankind?

i do NOT like where society as a whole is now, and where its going...

i especially loathe people that cant/wont take responisibility for their actions.

rico

[Looger]

get used to it, RicoSuave.

in general i think our perspectives change more than the societal objects they observe, but something tells me lawsuits like these in the 1950s would have been thrown out immediately.

the legal system is the first line of defence for society against itself, and we are losing.

[Savvy27]

I think you guys are being a bit dramatic. There was never a time in history that stupid people didn't try to blame things on everything but themselves. To worry about society going down the toilet because a couple of distraught parents are lashing out is pretty funny.

Personally I think the whole mess is the girls fault (or her illness). I find it hard to blame the parents that their mentally ill daughter killed herself, or blame walmart for following their protocal. Personally I think that maybe a check should be done on whether a person has a history with mental illness if they are buying a dangerous weapon but thats just me I guess.

Agamemnon - I understand your point about the impact corporations have on us. There is a reason after all why so many people in big advertising firms have experience in psychology. But I don't really agree with the idea that they had anything to do with this girl shooting herself.

By the way I love the fact that people who want to go back to living in the 50's are spouting off about "idealism"... nothing is more idealistic than truly believing that society was much better off.

As for the debate regarding personal responsibility, I think that both sides need to recognize that the right answer does not lie at one extreme or the other. Logic and reason are needed, thinking in absolutes is why we're talking about this and not how great the Flames are doing.

[Looger]

Originally posted by Savvy27@Dec 24 2004, 01:44 AM
To worry about society going down the toilet because a couple of distraught parents are lashing out is pretty funny.

symptoms man, symptoms.

not causes.

i'm not sure where i said that society was going down the toilet BECAUSE people are suing each other for dumb crap.

people are suing each other for dumb crap BECAUSE they can. BECAUSE it works. that is all.

as for my supposed nostalgia for the 50s, not sure where you're getting that. one small aspect of society does not a lovefest with a decade make.

i like SOME music from the 1940s, does that mean i think schools should be segregated?

for someone posting against dramatics it's a little ironic.

[Savvy27]

Well I certainly hope your not in favour of segregation . I wasn't only directing that comment at you, just generally at all the people that strike me as overly nostalgic.

I understand your point. Basically I'm just trying to say that I think there are going to be a lot of missteps along the way but society is progressing to a better state.

On the topic of frivolous lawsuits I don't even think its a societal problem, I mean if you ask people honestly I think the vast majority would think that someone winning a case because their coffee was hot is absurd. I think its the judges that aren't doing their job. They are simply following the letter of the law and applying it to all sorts of situations even if it isn't logical. They should be interpreting the law and applying it to every situation in a way which is best for our society, and I don't think they are doing that.

Its up to the governments to figure out a way of detering judges from allowing this to happen. Unfortunately most administrations are more concerned with selecting judges that support their idealogies than finding the best judges available (that goes for ALL administrations). I guess I don't really know the answer, I've given up on the idea that society will always be doing the right thing, I just look for good in individuals.

I'm actually laughing right now trying to figure out what argument was used in the coffee trial. It reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Kramer sneaks a coffee into a theatre in his pants and end up spilling it all over himself, then sues because it burned him.

[4X4]

I don't see how arguing in favour of personal responsibility led to the assumption that automatic weapons should be readily available to the general populace. As mentioned above, Canadian Tire sells long arms. I haven't heard about anyone in canada sueing them over a suicide conducted with any of their products.

The notion that the government is somehow responsible for individual's decisions baffles me. Really, Wal-Mart sells other lethal weapons... Chainsaws, knives, baseball bats. Granted, these itmes are harder used to inflict death upon your own person, but the fact remains that all of these items have been used to kill in one way or another.

As far as I'm concerned, this is natural selection at its finest.

As for you amagamon, you need to wake up & realize that consciousness is a responsibility. Relating advertising to eating fast food does not compare to poor parenting/crappy neighbourhoods leading to a hoodlum lifestyle.

This is a frivolous lawsuit. This lawsuit is a thinly veiled attemt to capitalize on a tragic situation. Money won't bring her daughter back. Pay for the funeral maybe, but that isn't WalMart's responsibility, or the government's responsibility.

You can call it dramatic all you want, but if crap like this is rewarded in court, it won't be long before car dealerships & brewers will be responsible for DUI deaths. Or architects and builders for jumper's deaths.

Take responsibility for your own actions. That is an obligation you were born with.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by 4X4@Dec 25 2004, 06:37 PM
As for you amagamon, you need to wake up & realize that consciousness is a responsibility. Relating advertising to eating fast food does not compare to poor parenting/crappy neighbourhoods leading to a hoodlum lifestyle.

This is a frivolous lawsuit. This lawsuit is a thinly veiled attemt to capitalize on a tragic situation. Money won't bring her daughter back. Pay for the funeral maybe, but that isn't WalMart's responsibility, or the government's responsibility.

I was basically arguing that guns shouldn't be sold at Wal-Mart, as a gun-control issue. If you think its cool to sell handguns/shotguns/rifles at Wal-Mart, power to you, there's a big lobby in favour of that. I think its the governments responsibility to create legislation to make it a lot more difficult to obtain firearms. We've all seen instances where they can be easily purchased at gun shows.

The lawsuit may be frivilous, just as the one in Super-size me (above example) against McDonalds may be. We differ on where the responsibility lies, with the girls parents for not watching her every move, or Wal-Mart (condoned by the government) for selling her the gun. I don't really care which side of the fence you fall on, its an old argument.

[4X4]

I must have misunderstood your argument. It came off as though you thought this woman had a case. I agree that firearms are a little too easily obtained. I'm just lashing out at the idea that corporations and/or governments are somehow responsible for individuals' decisions.

[InTheSlot]

All I have to say is,

Guns aren't the problem, people are. Sure a gun's only real purpose is to hurt others or something in general, but a gun sitting there on a table is harmless until someone picks it up and uses it. In other words, it requires use by a person in order to become dangerous.