It doesn't matter. Even if he wasn't, that doesn't make it any less tragic.
If he was told to stand clear of the mob and chose not to, how is that managements fault? Now, I know we all want to run and judge the evil people at Wal-Mart and punish them for their evil deeds... but maybe just maybe this isn't the managers/stores fault, and until facts come out, I would like to err on the side of management.
It doesn't mean the employee deserved to be hurt, or that the crowd that killed him was any less responsible for his death.
The crowd... yes. But how can you prove who is responsible? If there is a way to prove which person acted to hurt this person, then yes, they should be punished. But assuming the company didn't tell the person to fend off the hoards all on his own, I would assume find out who was really responsible rather than punish the business.
Excuse me? We've just seen that very thing happen.
It never happened before, at least not to the best of my knowledge. And even now, we should not expect Wal-Mart to go out of its way to account for every possibility. Forseeable consequences for their decisions, yes... Random acts, no. Businesses can not and should not be liable for EVERYTHING.
If the people weren't running, that employee would not have died.
Yes. And if bars didn't have to stop serving booze at 2am in California, chances are there would be less drunks on the roads at that time... If someone is hit by a drunk driver around 2am, should they file claim against the State of California? Policies are set... If they are negiligent, then yes, the negligent party should be penalized... but because a tragedy happens we should not run to penalize Wal-Mart.