NationStates Jolt Archive

A woman is suing Walmart because they hired a registered sex offender who ended up molesting her daughter in the electronics department. Granted, the sex offender is a scumbag who shouldn't be allowed into society, but is Walmart really responsible here? After all, the guy wasn't on the run from the cops, he was a guy with a criminal record who was looking for work. Walmart had no way to predict that he would molest a kid in their store.

Lawsuits like this have the effect of making employers less likely to hire people with criminal records. They just don't need the extra exposure to being sued. There are plenty of ex cons out there who are actually looking to get honest work and straighten out their lives, and this lawsuit makes things harder on them.

The lady should sue the judge who failed to sentence the kid-toucher to life or at least a very long prison term that would have kept him away from kids.


http://www.courttv.com/trials/wal-mart/background_ctv.html

Got a link? Need more information. First and foremost why the woman let her apparently very young daughter run wal-mart alone. Second the age of the daughter, thirdly what she wants from Wal-mart.

Good lord...I'd sue. I don't think sex offenders should be working jobs where they deal with the public.

-snip-

Of all people, you're one of the last I'd expect to defend Wal-Mart in a case like this, where they're totally responsible.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Of all people, you're one of the last I'd expect to defend Wal-Mart in a case like this, where they're totally responsible.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Hallelujah, amen!

how in the heck did he get the girl alone?

I have dealt with Walmart before, they have cameras everywhere. Once someone stole something from my husband's company, and they had video of him from the time he was in the parking lot, through the entire store, and then finally when he paid, and also footage of him getting in his car, with the tag number. It wasn't a sting opperation, they just watch EVERYONE!

how did they not notice a child and a man going wherever they went and not think that was strange?

anyway, child molesters need jobs too I guess, and it's not like he was working at the Toys R US, but still. Who let's their kid run around Walmart unsupervised?

Who let's their kid run around Walmart unsupervised?


Lots of incredibly irresponsible people.

I wouldn't sue wal-mart. I'd just kill the guy. Slowly, probably while still in the store. I'd have to think of some horrifically ironic way.

Yeah, killing's so much better than sueing a corporation that obviously didn't care about the safety of others when they hired the guy.

the law spells out just who can and cannot hire a registered sex offender for what job.

that list does not include working in the electronics department in walmart

walmart does not have a special obligation to go above the law and refuse to hire sex offenders.

Lots of incredibly irresponsible people.

I wouldn't sue wal-mart. I'd just kill the guy. Slowly, probably while still in the store. I'd have to think of some horrifically ironic way.
bad idea killing him in the store... they would have footage of your crime.

(and if I remember correctly it is admissable.)

http://www.courttv.com/trials/wal-mart/background_ctv.html

Sorry folks. I forgot the link before.

bad idea killing him in the store... they would have footage of your crime.

(and if I remember correctly it is admissable.)

Honestly wouldn't care. Read the link, the guy "touched" her briefly once, no further details. Where? Was it even sexual?

Sick bastard playing pocket pool infront of her is nasty though.

the law spells out just who can and cannot hire a registered sex offender for what job.

that list does not include working in the electronics department in walmart

walmart does not have a special obligation to go above the law and refuse to hire sex offenders.

Well then I guess she won't win. So what? She has a right to sue and see how it goes. Besides, she'll be the one losing thousands of dollars on lawyers fees.

the law spells out just who can and cannot hire a registered sex offender for what job.

that list does not include working in the electronics department in walmart

walmart does not have a special obligation to go above the law and refuse to hire sex offenders.

Right. And, if they did, SOMEONE somewhere would want to sue them too. :p So, either way they get sued. Isn't the system great?

Of all people, you're one of the last I'd expect to defend Wal-Mart in a case like this, where they're totally responsible.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
I don't see how Walmart is responsible for this. They hired a guy who had a criminal record, but plenty of companies do that. Walmart didn't molest the girl, the scumbag in electronics did.

Believe me, I blame Walmart for alot. Our expanding trade deficit, anti-union tactics, and the exploitation of workers and taxpayers are some of the crimes they're guilty of, but they didn't molest this girl.

I don't see how Walmart is responsible for this. They hired a guy who had a criminal record, but plenty of companies do that. Walmart didn't molest the girl, the scumbag in electronics did.

Believe me, I blame Walmart for alot. Our expanding trade deficit, anti-union tactics, and the exploitation of workers and taxpayers are some of the crimes they're guilty of, but they didn't molest this girl.

I guess so. I think my total hostility towards Wal-Mart in this case stems from my hatred of the corporation itself.

I'd like to see them get sued successfully, frivolous or not.

how in the heck did he get the girl alone?

I have dealt with Walmart before, they have cameras everywhere. Once someone stole something from my husband's company, and they had video of him from the time he was in the parking lot, through the entire store, and then finally when he paid, and also footage of him getting in his car, with the tag number. It wasn't a sting opperation, they just watch EVERYONE!

how did they not notice a child and a man going wherever they went and not think that was strange?

anyway, child molesters need jobs too I guess, and it's not like he was working at the Toys R US, but still. Who let's their kid run around Walmart unsupervised?
it only takes a minute. he probably molested her right there in the electronics department. without more details we have no way of knowing if anyone could have noticed and interfered

everyone lets their kids run around walmart. everyone lets their kids run around everywhere. we seem to have dropped the idea of parental supervision of children.

not that im blaming the mother for her child being molested. that blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the guy who did it.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/wal-mart/background_ctv.html

Sorry folks. I forgot the link before.
oh lord

id have to say that what the mother is doing is more damaging to her child than what the man did. she is now 16 years old and has had to relive this fairly minor incident over and over again until it probably IS very traumatic to her. when the man was found guilty, the mother should have let it go and let her child deal with it in therapy to whatever extent she needed it.

how in the heck did he get the girl alone?
That's a good fucking question. Especially since he worked in the eletronics department. The electronics department isn't the fabrics department where you could dsiappear and never be heard from again. The electronics department is in the middle of the store and more or less entirely open to the adjacent isle depending which store you go to. Not only is it entirely open, but there is always half a dozen people in there wondering around, and it's only like 30 by 40 feet anyway. And there are always people at Wal-Mart, even in the middle of the damn night.

If it was something like "he was caught having consensual sex with an adult in the electronics department after it had happened," he would deserve a fucking medal.

Lots of incredibly irresponsible people.

I wouldn't sue wal-mart. I'd just kill the guy. Slowly, probably while still in the store. I'd have to think of some horrifically ironic way.

I don't know if anyone pointed this out yet, but according to the story, he is already dead.

Dropped dead after a prison basketball game...hmmmm.

Prison basketball can be dangerous for child molesters.

Actually prison anything can be dangerous for child molestors.

Tragic that.

That's a good fucking question. Especially since he worked in the eletronics department. The electronics department isn't the fabrics department where you could dsiappear and never be heard from again. The electronics department is in the middle of the store and more or less entirely open to the adjacent isle depending which store you go to. Not only is it entirely open, but there is always half a dozen people in there wondering around, and it's only like 30 by 40 feet anyway. And there are always people at Wal-Mart, even in the middle of the damn night.

According to the story, the surveillance tape showed that he touched the girl, started masturbating in front of her through his pants, stopped when another customer came by, then when they left, he started touching himself again.

For him, a quick feel of a ten-year-old girl was enough to get him up.

Too bad he's dead.

Personally I think they are sueing the wrong people, They are sueing wal mart because the corporation has lots of money and will probably settle out of court, Its a money grab.
However the sex offender should be locked up. (If he wasnt already dead) For being a repeat offender, Its not my opinion he should have got a second chance in the first place, that being said where is he ment to work I would have thought a busy public place would be the safest place for a sex offender to work.

Maybe they should sue, the people that deemed he was no longer a threat to society and released him, maybe the Judge that gave him insufficiant gaol time, the government for not controlling his mind maybe sue god through the church for creating him.

The blame is souly on the sex offender, ofcourse if the parents were looking after their children it could have been prevented.

According to the story, the surveillance tape showed that he touched the girl, started masturbating in front of her through his pants, stopped when another customer came by, then when they left, he started touching himself again.

I'm prety sure it said "he touched himself in the groin," they are going to have to be a little more specific for me to jump to "masturbating through pants."

I want to see the video tape.

A woman is suing Walmart because they hired a registered sex offender who ended up molesting her daughter in the electronics department. Granted, the sex offender is a scumbag who shouldn't be allowed into society, but is Walmart really responsible here? After all, the guy wasn't on the run from the cops, he was a guy with a criminal record who was looking for work. Walmart had no way to predict that he would molest a kid in their store.

Lawsuits like this have the effect of making employers less likely to hire people with criminal records. They just don't need the extra exposure to being sued. There are plenty of ex cons out there who are actually looking to get honest work and straighten out their lives, and this lawsuit makes things harder on them.

The lady should sue the judge who failed to sentence the kid-toucher to life or at least a very long prison term that would have kept him away from kids.


http://www.courttv.com/trials/wal-mart/background_ctv.html

I have nothing against Wal-Mart, but they were trying to be fair to a criminal. I suppose that is commendable, but in this case, the results were pretty bad.

Also, they might have known that he was still committing crimes. From the story: "A key issue in the case involves a three-month leave of absence that Randall supposedly took in 1999. Massey alleges that the former Wal-Mart employee took leave after he was arrested outside another South Carolina Wal-Mart for exposing himself to two girls.

If true, the incident could undermine Wal-Mart's claim that the retailer did not know Randall was a sex offender and that he lied on his employment application. Probation records show that Randall informed a probation officer that he was seeking counseling for his sexual deviance through Wal-Mart."

So he was doing it while working for Wal-Mart, and even being arrested for it while working for Wal-Mart.

So yes, she should sue.

I'm prety sure it said "he touched himself in the groin," they are going to have to be a little more specific for me to jump to "masturbating through pants."

I want to see the video tape.

Well, I guess that we could suppose that after touching a little girl, he was reminded that his groin needed touching...:(

I guess so. I think my total hostility towards Wal-Mart in this case stems from my hatred of the corporation itself.

I'd like to see them get sued successfully, frivolous or not.
they probably will get sued successfully, but like most frivolous claims, it just gets thrown out in appeals. like the woman who sued mcdonald's for not warning her that her coffee was hot. it has little effect except making the populace as a whole dumber.

Well, I guess that we could suppose that after touching a little girl, he was reminded that his groin needed touching...:(
When you have itchy balls..

everyone lets their kids run around walmart. everyone lets their kids run around everywhere. we seem to have dropped the idea of parental supervision of children.
are you kidding? children don't do anything by themselves anymore. part of the reason children are so fat these days is that they don't walk to school or wherever, they get driven everywhere.

parental supervision is just a political correct term for making sure children don't build character, and to build character you have to get into trouble as a kid. i'm not saying that molestation does that, but i think the cost of making sure this never happens is too high. the cost is a society where everyone is a character clone. you have to take the good with the bad, and acknowledge that this unfortunately does happen in a very very few cases.