• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arrests over China Wal-Mart death

Okay, but do you think they should be held liable? I don't see how Walmart is responsible for the actions of these specific employees. Even if they gave the guards the most basic of guidelines (guard the store) that does not translate into tacit approval of irrational and excessive violence. Does Walmart have to include a beating clause in its security policy?

Walmart Security Policy.

Section 1: Walmart security guards are not permitted to-

a. hastily and wrongly accuse people of stealing and
b. proceed to beat them to death before conducting an investigation which would confrim or disconfirm the veracity of their accusations.


I don't think Walmart (or any company for that matter) should be held liable for what they don't tell people to do; only what they do tell them to do.

I think there's a very legitimate reason for the policy that Kandahar is getting at - it incentivizes companies to set strict rules about what their employees can or can't do, and gives them a reason to really enforce it.

I can definitely envision a scenario where Wal-Mart would be held liable here. If they had a policy saying things like "preventing shoplifting is the most important part of your job, be diligent, if people get away you will lose pay, etc." and that failed to set strict rules about what they couldn't do, they would probably be liable.

It's very unclear as to what their internal rules are, but going off of what I know about Wal-Mart's policies, it seems likely that they had strict rules in place to prevent this.
 
In a previous case where Wallmart employee killed a suspected shoplifter, Wallmart paid 750,000 to the guys family. Not sure how Chinese law works or if they have changed their training, but it a precedent against them. I also saw various other articles about people being injured or killed by Wallmart employees in relation to shoplifting. Given Wallmarts size its not statistically that bad, but it doesn't exactly help their case either.

Sprawl-Busters Newsflash Blog - Anti-Sprawl news since 1998.
 
In a previous case where Wallmart employee killed a suspected shoplifter, Wallmart paid 750,000 to the guys family. Not sure how Chinese law works or if they have changed their training, but it a precedent against them. I also saw various other articles about people being injured or killed by Wallmart employees in relation to shoplifting. Given Wallmarts size its not statistically that bad, but it doesn't exactly help their case either.

Sprawl-Busters Newsflash Blog - Anti-Sprawl news since 1998.

A settlement is not a confession of guilt no matter how much one wants it to be. Its often the most savvy business move as it saves time, money, a negative publicity.
 
It's very unclear as to what their internal rules are, but going off of what I know about Wal-Mart's policies, it seems likely that they had strict rules in place to prevent this.

I worked at Wal-Mart way back in 2002. They told us never to accuse a customer of shoplifting, and to get a supervisor if we suspected any funny business. But I have no idea if that was a company-wide policy, a nation-wide policy, or just the specific store I worked at.

I also remember a couple years ago, the NYT published part of Wal-Mart's (very lenient) shoplifting policy: If someone is caught stealing $25 or less, and they haven't been caught before, then stores are supposed to let them go with a warning. But again, I don't know if that policy is the same in other countries.
 
Last edited:
A settlement is not a confession of guilt no matter how much one wants it to be. Its often the most savvy business move as it saves time, money, a negative publicity.

That is true. However, assuming a similar suit was brought, it would increase the chance that Wallmart settles again. I suspect that the Chinese government will actually push for a settlement, as they would not like to upset their extremely lucrative trade.
 
I think there's a very legitimate reason for the policy that Kandahar is getting at - it incentivizes companies to set strict rules about what their employees can or can't do, and gives them a reason to really enforce it.

Yes, but NOT telling an employee what NOT to do is NOT a tacit approval of that act.

I'm NOT sure if I could have worded that better...:2razz:

I can definitely envision a scenario where Wal-Mart would be held liable here. If they had a policy saying things like "preventing shoplifting is the most important part of your job, be diligent, if people get away you will lose pay, etc." and that failed to set strict rules about what they couldn't do, they would probably be liable.

I'm sure they would but I don't agree that they should. Does Wal-Mart need to tell its janitors NOT to use baby-oil to clean the isles, lest someone falls and hurts themself?

It's very unclear as to what their internal rules are, but going off of what I know about Wal-Mart's policies, it seems likely that they had strict rules in place to prevent this.

I'm sure you're right, which is why I said to Kandahar that Wal-Mart probably doesn't permit deadly beatings as part of its security protocol.
 
How do you expect Walmart to prevent isolated incidents of violence? Why should they be liable?

In the common law idea of property, which is of course different to the corporate one, you are expected to keep a reasonable level of supervision of your agents behaviour when it comes to your property. Failure to do so can leave you liable.

The question becomes, in such incidents, whether there was such reasonable supervision. If an employee randomly beats up a customer outside the store that is one thing, if there is a culture of ignoring or encouraging similar behaviour then that is something very different. Obviously this is academic as we are talking about china but if your question did seem a little broader, about ideals, to me.
 
Last edited:
Hey, she should have known better than to mess with communist security guards.
Yeah, because all Chinese are communist. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom