Posted on 02/13/2007 2:53:16 PM PST by jjm2111
She had gone to Target with her brother and sister-in-law to buy a DVD player for their new house, and had decided to go off on her own. She was looking over women's blouses when a young girl brushed past her. The girl angrily demanded an apology. The woman was taken aback and refused, according to her account, and tried to turn her attention back to the rack of clothes.
[snip]
Sanchez said some store employees were present when the fight began and didn't try to intervene.
"They didn't do nothing, nothing whatsoever," Sanchez said. "The manager didn't respond when I told her about it. She said, 'We told our employees not to get involved so they won't get hurt.' "
Employees at the store declined to comment, though a spokesman for the franchise released a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
They weren't teenage chicks. They were bangers and the oldest was 20. The 16y/o was about her threat level. They were leading the 14 and 10 y/o. It's very likely they would have injured anyone that intervened, including stabing, or cutting their throats.
You were right to advise taking notes, because most could not handle the situation w/o getting into significant risk during the fight itself, and other legal risk, especially in MA. Bravery and heroism might apply to anyone who attempted to stop this criminal act, even though they'd never challenge 4 big guys. Ignorance and incompetence might also apply in this case
Stepping in to challenge the 4 bangers you posed would be stupid for most to attempt, not bravery. Stepping in requires that one know what they're doing.
That little ditty says more about you, than it does me. Enjoy yer white sheet.
You have assumed a hell of a lot, Bob. Assumptions are dangerous, especially for someone who would have people believe their words and logic on the web-radio.
Come back when you have facts regarding the real-life situations of your audience before you bloviate, FRiend.
Have a nice day.
LMAO! You just described me!
Back in my teens I earned a trip to the ER when I tried to stop three skinheads from beating the crap out of a guy I knew. Not a friend, just a guy I knew from school. Here's the hindsight of someone who has "been there, done that" AND has been a Target employee:
If you're afraid for your own safety when a situation like this melee arises, take a deep breath and scream as loud and long as you can. This accomplishes two things: It freaks out the altercators (at worst, it distracts them), and it immediately gets the attention of anyone in the vicinity. People come running when they hear ear-splitting screams, honest to God they do. I can pretty much guarantee a few of the onlookers who appear WILL be big enough and courageous enough to step in, if it's necessary. Sometimes the arrival of a crowd of witnesses is enough to stop an altercation.
I can't pin the blame on Target here. It is standard for ANY employer to advise their rank-and-filers not to get involved but to immediately summon security. CYA, pure and simple. Here's an example: When I worked at Target, we were not allowed to help customers change car batteries, flat tires, etc while on the clock. What we were allowed to do was punch out, lend a hand, then punch back in. Once proving to HR that we were unscathed, a timecard correction was made so that said Samaratin was paid for the good deed. Sounds crazy, right? It is. Sadly, it is the price of doing business in our litigation-happy society.
You are absolutely correct about that, but you miss the point that in THIS instance it was just a bunch of teenage girls. One may not have had to even touch them. Just a large man charging them yelling might be enough to get them to scatter. Most bullies are cowards and would retreat if it happened.
If someone lived in the neighborhood and feared a reprisal from male relatives, friends, etc., I wouldn't condemn them for not responding physically, but it seems to me that society in general, esp. in Blue States NEVER wants to intervene. It's always someone else's job. The police, the gov't, etc. Here, bystanders probably outnumbered the assailants by a large margian and no one did a thing.
I'm not lamenting individuals' actions, because I know very well what it's like to be afraid, but society's abdication of self-defense and defense of the innocent.
For the record THAT is a personal attack and I am offended but since I'm a member of a Designated Oppressor Group "presumably [I] deserve ... [my] fate".
There was a lawsuit, and I'm pretty sure they settled and the family was not allowed to discuss it. I may be mistaken, it's been awhile, but I followed the case since Megan was a former student of mine.
susie
Yep, lawsuit, settled by Walmart. Very quick google found it.
http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5337551&nav=1TjD
No! I'd toss in a hand grenade.
Thanks. Looks like Wally world had a security company. They'renot talking about what duties the security company had in it's contract. The article mentions negligence, which only applies if they had something specific in their contract, or knew the carjacker was a bad guy. It could be the security co. was negligent and Wally World just paid off the family, because they were nice. In general, no company is liable for such things as car jackings in their parking lot.
While I agree with you in theory, in reality it depends on what a jury decides. And we know how that can go.
susie
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.