Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Meiko

(1,076 posts)
44. Why?
Wed May 16, 2012, 02:05 PM
May 2012

Walmart should be able to control their assets. I don't think it's a million dollar screw up but it needs to be looked at.

The store should Meiko May 2012 #1
A but they do liberal N proud May 2012 #2
It depends on the system Forward2012 May 2012 #4
at the two wal marts I worked for Maine-ah May 2012 #35
"Attention, Walmart shoppers!" randome May 2012 #37
You hang-out near the phone and watch an employee enter the code. n/t Ian David May 2012 #20
It's Walmart's 'fault' perhaps. randome May 2012 #3
Wow, people like you disappointment! n-t Logical May 2012 #10
Why? Meiko May 2012 #44
Possibly so, however, they should subrogate against the boy and his family. Baitball Blogger May 2012 #22
The kid is a jerk and... Cave_Johnson May 2012 #5
I00% agree! This is NOT walmarts fault! Wish I was on the jury!! Logical May 2012 #8
no sympathy here... lame54 May 2012 #6
LOL, this was not walmarts fault! Jesus, people are not logical! Logical May 2012 #9
missing the point... lame54 May 2012 #12
I think your point is very clear liberal N proud May 2012 #13
and i'm not responsible for who wrongfully sues them... lame54 May 2012 #16
You're not responsible because you have no power one way or the other. Nuclear Unicorn May 2012 #23
Go Walmart lame54 May 2012 #32
So, because I don't support Stalinism I must be a Czarist Nuclear Unicorn May 2012 #36
Ok - I'll go with that... lame54 May 2012 #39
It means you're relying on a false dichotomy. Nuclear Unicorn May 2012 #40
you are standing up for the defendant... lame54 May 2012 #43
you are defending them qazplm May 2012 #18
Then let it play out in the courts and see what happens. Bake May 2012 #28
Well, now HERE'S a lawsuit that's destined to go a long way. Buns_of_Fire May 2012 #7
Your avatar causes me emotional distress. randome May 2012 #15
My team of lawyers has advised me to accept your settlement. Buns_of_Fire May 2012 #17
Your username mocks those with hemorrhoids. Expect a class action suit! Kaleva May 2012 #24
I will gladly serve as a class representative!! Bake May 2012 #29
Count your blessings. At least you didn't end up with AWSD... pinboy3niner May 2012 #31
Store-wide speaker systems are easy to use, it just LeftinOH May 2012 #11
why even sue? Blue_Tires May 2012 #14
Because there is money to be had Amaril May 2012 #30
As much as it pains me to admit, I agree obamanut2012 May 2012 #19
That Mitt Romney is getting out of control with his pranking. n/t Nuclear Unicorn May 2012 #21
They've got the money sharp_stick May 2012 #25
Have to agree that Walmart isn't at fault here - lynne May 2012 #26
This is BS, the definition of a frivolous lawsuit, hifiguy May 2012 #27
Stupid prank, stupid lawsuit. Remmah2 May 2012 #33
Wanting free money isn't a psychological disorder 4th law of robotics May 2012 #34
Plaintiff is a sad, opportunistic POS. -..__... May 2012 #38
Wal-mart has a burden of limited responsibility in providing a safe environment for customers jp11 May 2012 #41
I remember that incident. frivilous law suit. Liberal_in_LA May 2012 #42
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I have to side with Wal-M...»Reply #44