Decius wrote:
Hijexx wrote:
Wal-Mart LP's Kill Suspected Shoplifter
Man held down on burning pavement until he died
Two observations:
1. Most retailers do not advise security guards to get in physical skirmishes with shoplifters. (Read the last post on that link, from Maco dated 8/15.) Shrinkage is not worth the legal costs associated with accidentally killing a shoplifter. If WalMart's policy is to chase people down they actually are responsible and you can bet a wrongful death suit will be forthcoming. WalMart will settle the suit. This is an example of why you face potential legal problems if you kill a robber who has broken into your house (depending on the circumstances). If it wasn't a tort, WalMart could kill anyone who refused to leave after being asked to by a security guard.
2. There is widespread press coverage right now because some nutjob walked into a WalMart in Arizona and killed two employees. Google says 317 stories. Press coverage of this incident, where a poorly trained Walmart employee killed a shoplifter, is extremely hard to find. A spattering of local news coverage. No national coverage. Some blogs, mostly lefties who don't like Walmart.
Why did one story get lots of coverage and the other got almost none? There seem to be two options.
1. People simply wouldn't be interested in reading this WalMart story. Its not newsworthy. The random shooting story IS newsworthy.
Why?
A. Completely innocent victims are more sympathetic then someone guilty of stealing a bag of diapers?
B. People who are gainfully employed are more sympathetic then people who are poor?
C. Random deaths at the hand of crazy people are more scary then random deaths at the hand of poorly trained security guards?
D. Insane killers are more interesting to read about then cases of extreme negligence resulting in death?
2. This story would be interesting to the reading populace, but it hasn't been run because the Newspapers are not interested in running it.
Why?
1. Newspapers don't like to run stories that aren't in the interests of a large advertiser?
2. Newspapers don't want to focus attention on the Security Guard, who was simply operating out of ignorance and doesn't deserve to be at the center of a national brewhaha.
Am I missing any? Which reason is the most compelling?
This incident makes me nauseous - it reminds me of the woman that left a man to bleed to death in her windshield after hitting him with her car.
To address your (rhetorical?) questions Decius, I think that the issue is that people who are poor/shoplifters/homeless are not valued in society. They play a devalued role.
The rules of society are different for people who are devalued than those who are valued. Of course, I'm stealing this theory from Wolf Wolfensberger (NYU professor). His theory is that if you are a person who does not have valued social roles, then you are subject to abuse, neglect and possible death. The general rules of society do not apply to you. The fact that this incident occured, and the fact that it isn't on the front page of the newspaper both tend to confirm his theory. There is an assumption in society that those who do not have valued roles (as defined by society) are less valuable and perhaps even deserve death-making.
