Teen ordered to pay nearly $1,000,000 to Wal-mart

Dustin Walls pleaded guilty Monday to starting a fire in the 24-hour Walmart in September 2010. Surveillance cameras reportedly caught Walls setting shelving units on fire in the cosmetic's section around 2:50 a.m. Several bottles of shampoo ignited and cans of hairspray blew up. The store was closed for days as a crew worked to fix damage to the building.

The prosecutor said that the nearly $1 million fee shows that the state is "looking out for our merchants or crime victims of any kind."

Evidently, "of any kind" includes a corporation that reported $6 billion in profits in the quarter ending January 31. To put that into perspective, money Walls will have to repay Walmart represents less than .02 percent of what the company earned in just three months.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2011/04/dustin_walls_walmart_fire_fee.php

________________________________________________

The tone of the article irritates me. Just because a company makes a ton of profit does it mean that their property should be able to be destroyed?

Court made the right call. Hope this kid is paying for a long time...

You can't get out of a debt that is caused by a judgment for a felonious act. Kid will get his paycheck garnished for the rest of his life.

Gonna be hard to get a job with that on his record anyway.

there's people who slip up, and then there's people who actively seek it out... this kid is clearly among the latter.

I'm not sure how many paychecks this youngster is ever going to receive. I guess they can garnish his prison wages...

Walmart restocks at night...

...or the shelves are stocked. Whichever comes first.

I doubt they'll ever get it, though. I imagine there will be an insurance claim by Wal-Mart and the kid spends some time in jail for causing that much arson damage.

will never want to have a job. It's a hopeless amount. Setting a more reasonable amount will drive home the lesson without creating a person who will want to live on public assistance the remainder of his life.

WalMart's insurance should pay up.

... deny him the assistance...

If you break $100 of my stuff you should pay me $100.

You might be able, over a decade or two, to get thousands of dollars in repayment. And a reasonable person might be able to live with that if it is less than 25% of his paycheck. But I can't imagine having all of my life's wages garnished and basically working for nothing for 40-50 years. There is no incentive for him to pay it off. The same thing happens between creditors and debtors with business lines of credit.

Cause $10M in damage to the administration building of our local university (building was out of commission for four years). They were ordered to pay back the $2M deductible (not sure why the court thought that the insurance company should also not be compensated). They were also sent to jail for 30 years, but released after less than a year. I doubt they will ever pay more than a few hundred dollars.

Ultimately society gets to pay the $10M. The $2M upfront and the the rest through higher premiums to the insurance company. Also the $10M does not begin to cover the ineffeciencies and inconviences experienced by the staff and students at the university.

As in the WalMart case, it wasn't like a mistake was made. These were malicious attempts to start fires which not only destroy property and cause great inconvenience, they can also lead to injuries and even death.

Letting our two go after 10 months was ridiculous and sends the wrong message.

But $1M is an unattainable goal. Jail? Absolutely. But the reimbursement needs to mean something.

He needs kids to qualify.

And to him, any amount is prohibitive. Even the lost wages of employees would probably be insurmountable.

The kid has condemned himself to a life of nothing.

Move out of state or leave the country to start over after his incarceration. The businesses that he harmed will get next to nothing. It's a lose-lose all the way around, because I suspect there will be no reimbursement or rehabilitation.

How would that compensate the company and still allow the kid to live on what he makes? Or would it be a cooperative venture between Wal-Mart and the courts - force the kid to work for the minimal Wal-Mart position for ten years so maybe he would appreciate how bad off the company leaves their workers and he can yearn for something better?

a million bucks....at minimum wage....how many lifetimes will that take?

cruel and unusual punishment.

Not that Walmart does not deserve resitution....but a lifetime of debt and prison time if he can't pay it?

that is why you don't commit crimes. The garnishment rate is 25% of take home pay. Lets just view that as a stupid tax for the rest of this guy's life.

The prison time is a separate issue. You don't think that individuals should go to jail for arson?

Your post fills me with a mix of anger, disgust, and contempt that you can't possibly begin to understand. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to do something dumb so your entire life can be reduced to a shitpile. Or perhaps you'll get the distinct pleasure of being his next robbery victim when he can't possibly earn enough to make ends meet legally anymore. Would that be like a 'tax refund'?

Fuck him and the rest of his shitty life.

That said, it really is a statement of opinion, so there really isn't much further to say about it either. Perhaps you have a reason for hating arsonists, or criminals in general, or whatever. I had a lot of friends who could have been (weren't, mind you, but I never would have been surprised if they had turned into) firebugs, but it was a passing phase. A dumb part of life. You don't turn into a suddenly intelligent, world-smart and savvy person the day you turn 18. For many, it takes until the early-to-mid 20's.

I do know this -- unless you've seen lives torn apart by these so-called 'justices', you have no idea what it ~really~ means. Me, I've witnessed the misery so-called justice causes, the dreams shattered by it, and the lingering effects it has on all those around the affected persons.

I would agree that the poster above was being harsh but we don't give a pass to arsonists and criminals because they're young and impulsive.

Arson, however, is not on the list. He's lucky no one was killed or he would be looking at a very long prison sentence to boot.

Sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for him either. Arson is a very serious crime and a harsh penalty was in order.

this person needs help. People who commit crimes usually spend sometime behind bars and hopefully get some kind of mental help (unfortunately this does not usually happen). Paying huge amounts to Walmart will not get this person better or make him see the error of his ways. It will frustrate him and maybe make him more dangerous and bitter.

It's the incentive plan.

What a bitter and nasty statement.

The arsonist should do time in jail, yes.

Some *reasonable* financial retribution, yes.

$1 million? A poor person can't pay that.

The arsonist should go to court and file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. No assets. No income. Big debt.

A BK court would rule the judgement to be an non-collectable debt and would block anyone on trying to collect on the judgement.

Otherwise every deadbeat dad or anyone with a large fine would do so.

That, of course, assumes that he can find a 40 hour per week minimum wage job and never takes a day of vacation.

Of all the potentially flammable substances in the cosmetic section, that's one I would not have thought would burn.

;)

Seriously, that is surprising (and a bit frightening - I'll rinse extra-carefully from now on!)

shampoo is from China it probably has some nitroglycerin or depleted uranium or something in it.

Edit: Shampoo is basically just oil. So I'm guessing it would probably ignite.

You know what else ignites? Tortilla chips. Seriously



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6VdQPbqIFk

:hide:

That's how they 'earn' profits.
It should be illegal but it isn't.

Care to elaborate? Have a link? Anything?

The question is - is this an appropriate punishment for a 17 year old? Personally I think it's too much. Leaving a young person with an insurmountable obstacle, you're just asking for them to go out in a blaze of glory.

They should at least have set some benchmarks for reducing his debt obligations, like:

- cut the $1million to $500K if he completes high school.
- cut from $500K to $250K if he completes trade school or college.
- cut another 10% off his outstanding obligation for each year of continued good behavior and successful employment. Giving him a path to being clear of his debt by age 30 at least gives him some hope.

Break $100 worth of stuff, pay $100...

Certainly, the actual cost of responding, replacement, and repair needs to be paid for (easily in the 10's of thousands of dollars), but what is the punishment? There needs to be a real "price" to pay for acting like that, no? We have to options for those that do things like this: jail time or financial penalty. Which one do you think would be best suited for this case?

I think he should do 5 years and pay 25% on the full replacement/repair/response cost until it is paid in full...

It's not like there are mitigating circumstances or this was an accident. He walked in and set the fire in a building with people in it. Fuck him...

I think some jail time will make a bigger impression than a fine he will never be able to pay will.

It's already established that the sum total of his life will be an economic negative. Jail time in the U.S. will guarantee that he becomes an anti-social psychotic (arson was a clue he was on that path in the first place) and accustom him to a level of violence incompatible with society.

There's only one way I can think of a winning outcome in this case -- make him CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation. That way, he can pay off his judgment out of his first year's wages. Society makes out better too, considering that his arson was less destructive than what many CEOs decide to do on a day-to-day basis. Real executive material here.

Good to know.

:rofl:

The fact is that they are not going to get $1 million from this kid. Telling him he owes $1 million doesn't get $1 million from him.

And a million bucks does seem excessive, but that idiot kid NEEDS to know that actions have consequences. And not a slap-on-the-hand consequence.

I like your ideas.

there goes the entire store's inventory....

I still think that the kid needs something that will really make him consider what he did. A million bucks to a kid who has none is not a concept that will make an impression.

Don't any of you think that perhaps something like working with burn victims would be a much more suitable punishment instead of ruining his entire life? After his jail sentencing, of course -- that goes without saying, I'd think.

Personally, I think a suitable punishment would be paying the store employees' lost wages, but I'm not the court. I do hope they sue him.

Walmart or not, these are not punitive damages--they are ACTUAL damages.

A dumb 17-year old kid isn't an 'arsonist' by setting a few shampoo bottles on fire anymore than a person is a Professional Hitman because they hit someone with a car late at night. But whatever, this is America. Don't fuck up because our vengeance is NEVER enough.

How about we take him outside, douse him in oil, then throw those little snap-cracker fireworks on him. After that we'll drag him through the street and bungee-cord him by his penis off a bridge until he manages to fly back up and slam into the railing, at which point we'll take him to the center of roof of the WalMart building and crucify him on a pile of ruined merchandise and run an electric current into him until the oil we doused him in alights. Then, finally, we can have him shot by every person who was inconvenienced by his dumb antic, tape it for posterity, and show it at Halftime of the Super Bowl for those who may have missed it.

Would THAT be enough for you?

Arson - the act of intentionally or recklessly setting fire to another's property

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arsonist

You can argue that the sentence is too harsh, but you can't argue that he isn't an arsonist.

Sometimes I have a tendency to overweigh some words in my mind, words for whom the definitions don't seem to fit right. Arsonist is one of them; I consider an arsonist a 'serial arsonist'. A guy who burns down 20 churches is an arsonist, not a kid that set a fire once. Again, that's on me though.

Whether he kills one person or twenty.

does setting one fire make you an arsonist? Does telling one lie make you a liar? Does breaking one law make you a criminal?

Calling him "an arsonist" sort of implies that he will set more fires. If he lives to be 57 and doesn't light any more fires, is he still an arsonist? Then why should he be labelled "an arsonist" now, sorta presuming he will set more fires? How many years is the arsonist label valid? Can he get rid of it by donating blood at every opportunity?

Maybe that's me though. 23 years ago when I was 26 I set a brush fire. I had a bucket of water there to stop it and about two minutes in it seemed like it was getting out of hand so I threw the water on it. This was similar to throwing a bowling ball at a charging rhino. The rhino (fire) stumbled a little bit and then kept right on charging. After about five minutes, it was like there was a little piece of the sun I had brought down into my woods (it was a fairly large brush pile). And I had no running water, no phone, and no car. The spring was 1/4 mile down the hill. The nearest village (of 70 people) was about five miles away. I could just imagine it turning into a 500 acre forest/grass fire and people asking me "what the hell were you thinking?" I spent about an hour running around with a shovel throwing dirt on smoldering grass and leaves before all the brush was finally burned up and the fire died down. Fortunately for me, a deciduous forest does not take off like a pine forest. Leaves sorta smolder instead of igniting like pine needles, and there was not a lot of dry brush nearby. But for a while there, it really looked like I had screwed the pooch. With a little bit of wind, I might still be considered an arsonist.

As if it even needs to be said, a person doesn't qualify as an arsonist only if someone dies.

Try to light books on fire. Light toilet paper on fire in bathrooms and throw them in the garbage cans. Usually a slap on the wrist, or nothing.

Don't mess with the profits of Corporate America, there will be no vengeance like a corporation's vengeance.

Your interesting fantasies about his penis aside, I'll let the court deal with him.

And, was that driver in your scenario drunk? Did he hit that pedestrian intentionally? Poor comparison.

The kid is an arsonist. I need to know more facts about your driver before I call him a murderer. He wouldn't be considere a pro hitman unless he was paid for job.

As for the $1 Million - he caused the damage; why should someone else have to pay?

life & having his lifetime employment prospects ruined will certainly "make an impression".

they may as well kill him now.

the store was closed "for a few days". which tells me the sprinkler system didn't go on over the whole store.

could easily be sold at a reduced price but still probably more than walmart paid for it to any number of 'auction/liquidators' that always buy the returned items people take back to stores and can't be put back on the shelf for any number of reasons. Retail stores rarely throw things in the dumpster unless they are really broken, the manufactures take them back to be refurbished and sold OR they are sold off to such liquidators.

in the details of the story that suggests that the store lost its entire inventory.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_sprinkler_system



That judgement sends a message to us all: Don't fuck with Walmart.

Because it fucks with them.

...with a half-million in outstanding debt?

No, no one pays 1:1 financial restitution, especially when there are entire companies that exist for this purpose (insurance). Also, the 1 million in damages is storewide, not what he caused -- the FIRE SYSTEM caused that. Does an entire store need to become doused in water for a small section of a potential fire? I think not. It was a cost-cutting fire approach that WalMart took on their own. A single guy sneaking a cigarette in the bathroom could have set off the same chain reaction. Should he be fined a ~million~ dollars for lighting a cigarette?

I think a year or two working for Wal-Mart would be fair. They pick up his housing if he doesn't live at home, they provide edible food, and the rest is wage-free. By 19 he's in the clear and the whole thing is behind him. 11 years for setting some shampoo bottles on fire is cruel and unusual. You don't 11 years for manslaughter half the time.

Which would be just as much damage as smoking a cig in the Wal-Mart bathroom plus some cheap wholesale shelving and burnt Chinese made shampoo. True.

worked and caused the majority of the damage....he's responsible for that, though...

The hand-wringing is a bit over the top on this thread.

If he stays out of trouble, he can and will seek modification of the order in the future.

Apparently, the majority of the damages came from the fact that the sprinkler system came on, ruined lots of merchandise...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

My favorite.

the kid caused a million dollars in damage the kid pays.
The ones I feel the sorriest for are the kids parents, he was a minor at the time
and it would be a shame if they were held responsible for their sons idiotic actions.

:crazy:

filed a claim. As a former business owner I can tell you if I knew
who the perpetrator of vandalism was I would never file an insurance claim until
after a verdict was rendered.

Arson in a populated building is a very serious offense.

The judges choice was probably jail or have 25% of his wages garnished for life. If I'm the little arsonist, I'd choose the fine.

I was wondering if he was getting off without time. I hope he serves at least some time.

from now on everything you make a portion will go to Walmart. Good thing nobody was killed.

...could ever dream of, including...

...the theft of billions of dollars in just wages and benefits to their own employees

...the HUGE cost to local communities in the destruction of local businesses and socially/economically important downtown areas

...the HUGE costs in local and global pollution from tankers carrying products made on the other side of the world, as well as from increased automobile/truck use--costs that include the loss of our planet*

...three wars for oil in progress, at a cost of trillions

...the theft of billions of dollars from the slave laborers in foreign countries who manufacture the products sold at WalMart, and the violence and destruction of lives that often occurs in these slaveshops

...and the possibly irreparable cost to our democracy of Walmart and other filthy corporations bribing politicians, funding rightwing "think tanks," busting unions, controlling government decisions on our laws, tax codes and wars of aggression--all accomplished with money they shouldn't have, that they stole from the people who create their wealth.

While none of this excuses vandalism--especially potentially dangerous-to-humans vandalism such as starting a fire--where is the proportion, fairness and justice here, in this absurd fine against a 17 year old, versus the total lack of justice for WalMart's enormous thefts, destruction of the planet and destruction of the common good?

That's what strikes me about this fine--the utter, off-the-charts imbalance between this 17 year old and Walmart. Right around the corner is "debtors prison" and chopping off hands and heads for petty theft. The kind of society that Walmart owners/execs have actively tried to create is NOT FAR from these horrors.

We only have to consider what would have happened to this 17 year old if his parents were billionaires, to put this fine in perspective. Not only could they have afforded to pay their errant son out of trouble, if he was slapped with such a fine, chances are he never would have been convicted and there never would have been a trial. THAT is what is happening here: The thieving, society-destroying bastards who own and run Walmart are never accountable for their enormous crimes--they are privileged people above the law--while the poor fill the prisons for petty crimes, and are bled dry by every manner of corporate evildoer, and almost never know justice because they can't afford justice.

So, here is a notion of what real justice should have been for this youth: He should have been required to take all the local fire department's CPR classes and pass them, and he should have been required to spend six months as a gofer for the fire department crews, at the end of which time the local fire department would vote on his rehabilitation. If they find him worthy, that's the end of his sentence. If not, he gets to be their gofer for three months increments until they deem him worthy and has to create a plan for his next move: finishing high school, going to college, getting training for a job or getting a job.

This is not ideal in an extremely unjust society--because his options are likely very limited, and he would probably end up in the military as "cannon fodder" for corporate oil wars. But it is at least a NOTION of what to do with a troubled and possibly desperate poor young person. Million dollar fines or jail are absolutely worthless measures in dealing with this human CHILD, and they can be less than worthless--they can damage him forever. Psych counseling might also be helpful but the shits running things, for Walmart and brethren, are cutting all those programs so they don't have to pay taxes and to bust our progressive society and turn it into a "third world" country.

And here is a notion of what real justice would look like for WalMart: Pull their corporate charter, dismantle them and seize their assets for the common good. Monster corporations like this should not exist.

-----------------------------

*(The World Wildlife Fund gives us less than 50 years--at present levels of consumption and pollution--less than 50 years to the death of the planet! I'm not kidding. That's what they said. End of life on earth. Fini. And guess who does MOST of the consumption and pollution? The USA. And guess who is one of the main drivers of that utterly unsustainable consumption and pollution? WalMart. This is a crime that deserves severe punishment and the best punishment for these sort of bastards is taking their power and money away from them.)

End of life on earth."

I couldn't find that on their web site. A link to their prediction would be helpful.

Thanks

(article on WWF report)
"Earth 'will expire by 2050'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste

Quote in one of my replies below.

Absurd.

Earth 'will expire by 2050'

Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be colonised.

Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.

A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.

(MORE)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste

...and put peoples' lives at risk. Would you have recommended the same penalty if he had torched a Planned Parenthood facility?

I wanted to see if folks could get over their Walmart hate...

But it's a crushing debt for a 17 year old.

Please think a moment about 17 year old boys. They tend to play with fire. I know. I raised a bunch of boys. They think they are immortal and "nothing will happen." You've got to take age into consideration in this case. Also, we don't know that he meant to "torch" the place. That's an assumption on your part. And he'd probably be in jail if prosecutors and judge thought that he was a serious arsonist or felon. More likely, he was just messing around and didn't think of the possible consequences, or was momentarily angry at something, and, again, didn't think of what might happen.

"Would you have recommended the same penalty if he had torched a Planned Parenthood facility?"

No, but something similar. I don't believe in jail, in most cases. Jail in current conditions is a useless, torturous punishment, that creates criminals--inflicted these days by private, for-profit corporations. The jail system is extremely expensive, extremely corrupt and extremely inhumane. It needs to be dismantled and a whole new notion of justice introduced, aimed at using the money we now lavish on horrible incarceration to HELP people--to give them hope, and a sense of dignity and true self-worth. With the money we use to imprison someone ($35,000/year) we could pay them a decent salary! --AND pay for rehab, and restitution if needed. And for about three quarters of the people in our prisons--mostly drug offenders--that's all they really ever wanted: to do something useful and make a decent living. They really shouldn't be in prison at all.

As for a Planned Parenthood arsonist, it would depend on intention, to some extent, and on the accused. For an adult (over 25, in my opinion) and a long time anti-abortion activist, for instance, with intent to "torch the place," the chances of community service type rehab working are a lot less. But if there is any hope of rehab, then, yes, I would like the person to be given a chance. Maybe confinement with intense psych counseling for a period, and gradual re-introduction into normal life, in half-way house or a prison/job situation. Throwing people in prison for 30 years merely creates a dependent of the state--someone nearly incapable of reforming and who has been turned into a social cripple, if not worse. Only the strongest of personalities and characters, going in, can endure our prison system and come out a better person. Most are broken. The goal should be that the person can function again in society and not get so angry or despairing that they try to hurt people.

I like crime-appropriate punishments that help restore the person and the broken sense of community. For instance--if billionaire corporations would only be made to pay their taxes, and if we weren't wasting billions of dollars on more and more prisons--we would have money for a CCC-type jobs program and be able to pay offenders fair wages for their work on the many, many projects that our society needs--from office work, to education, to construction. Serious offenders--like an adult arsonist with intent to torch the place--might be placed in a work program right away, with supervision and a lot of counseling. Then, say, 10% of their wages go to the owners of the clinic that they set fire to. Perhaps they could even specify not for abortions, but for prenatal checkups for poor mothers who want to have their babies--if that was their motivation. The goal should be respect, dignity and healing.

You don't cure an anti-social person by placing them in the worst possible anti-social situation: prison. Especially current prisons. And you don't cure society by locking people up and throwing away the key--by letting them "rot in prison"--or by stigmatizing them for life. The goal REALLY needs to be to "cure"--to heal, to make whole--not to cut people out of society and literally forget them--turning them into permanent pariahs or lepers--as we do now, but to bring people back into society and to demonstrate to them (and to ourselves) that we have a society worth joining.

For worse crimes--not just endangering others, with intent to do harm, or thoughtlessness (many youth crimes), or damaging property, or thievery--the solutions are, of course, more difficult. What do you do with murderers? What do you do with mass murderers, like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld? What do you do with master thieves like the owners and execs of WalMart? What do you do with the war profiteers? With torturers? We have SOME truly dangerous people in prison, but not all.

Well, I'll tell you what my fancied punishment was for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I would put those electronic anklets on them and sentence them to a lifetime of emptying bedpans in a veterans' hospital. I might even put a webcam on them to teach our children what really happens in war and that unjust war and mass murder and torture are not tolerated by our society.

Our society seems to me to get sicker and sicker every day. And our prison system and our so-called justice system are part of the illness that we see too much of, having to do with violence solving problems and with revenge. Our purpose should not be revenge. It should be healing.

There is a world of difference between a stupid, youthful prank and putting peoples' lives at risk (the store is open 24 hours a day - there were people inside). At 17, a person is old enough to understand that. In my opinion, this kid has serious mental health issues and should be evaluated from that standpoint.

As far as jail goes, your priorities are wrong. The top priority in a criminal situation is protecting society from continued crime by the person in question. Rehabilitating the person is a secondary priority. As a practical matter, this means isolating them from society, i.e. putting them in prison while the rehabilitation is ongoing. I'm not willing to take the chance that some alternative approach is unsucessful and a criminal keeps committing the same or worse crimes. The fact that you don't believe in prisons tells me that protecting innocent people from criminals isn't as important to you as the welfare of the criminal. I think you are very naive in your view of prisons and very cavalier about the safety of your neighbors.

Not requiring that the arsonist make restitution because it's WalMart would send a terrible message - it's OK to damage property if the owner has deep pockets; if you disagree with them; or maybe you're just pissed off at them. Sorry, but that is pure bullshit. There is no justification for making someone else (WalMart or its insurance company) pay for the damage done by this individual. Property insurance covers accidental damage, not deliberate destruction. Actions have consequences and this kid is learning it the hard way. Whoever failed to teach him that at a younger age did him a huge disservice.

Your generalizations are the sort of thing we hear from prosecutors, judges, cops, prison wardens and the whole police state apparatus--as they hit the poor, the uneducated, the unprivileged, the abused, the lost, the jobless, the forgotten, the damaged with more and more draconian punishments--which most often target the young, the poor and the black.

"There is a world of difference between a stupid, youthful prank and putting peoples' lives at risk." -- badtoworse

Do you know anything about teen boys and young men at all? Their "stupid, youthful pranks" almost always involve "putting peoples' lives at risk. That's what they are hardwired to do. That's why their car insurance rates are top of the charts. And their learning curve of responsibility goes all the way up to age 25, according to the actuarialists. Add in underprivileged, abused, lost, jobless, forgotten and damaged--the condition of many poor youth--and the expectation that they can achieve a perfect sense of personal responsibility by age 8 is absurd.

You severely narrow your view to yourself vs. this 17 year old fuckup in the Walmart. I'm trying to broaden our view--both of him and his irresponsible action AND of the system that is geared to come down on him like a ton of bricks. CLEARLY not even our draconian system of injustice deemed him a further risk to "peoples' lives" or they would have jailed him--stupidly, in my opinion (based on what facts we have) but that is their autopilot response to a poor fuckup. The "system" found him NOT a further danger. So instead, they found another way to destroy his life by putting him in debt to Walmart for one million dollars--an amount that is so staggeringly off the wall that what we are looking at is NOT an appropriate punishment but rather an EXAMPLE. Justice must deal with an individual, not a group. He is the accused, not his community--not all the kids like him. This draconian punishment is Walmart's "pound of flesh." It is Walmart's "lesson" to poor kids. It is Walmart's revenge.

Furthermore, the only difference between this kid and George W. Bush--who was a total fuckup throughout, and long past, his AWOL in the Texas National Guard--is MONEY. He got bailed out, time and again, and was finally given a national baseball team, then a whole country! Not every wild and dangerous teenage boy in a grownup body is poor. But the one's who are poor don't get baseball teams given to them--and don't get given the U.S. military to use for their arson pranks.

I'll make you a bet. How much did Walmart give to the Bush-Cheney campaign? I'll bet you five bucks that they were "Bush Pioneers" which required a minimum $100,000 contribution, and that, all told, it was a million. Now there is some perspective. There is a wider view. Why would Walmart give a million dollars to the Bush-Cheney campaign? So they can get away with bloody murder--literally in Iraq, to steal the oil to fill the tankers to ship their cheap, sweatshop-made crap to the suckers who buy it in the USA--a hundred million slaughtered in the first weeks of bombing alone--and in all the "little ways" that they cheat, squeeze, rob, pollute and curtail the lives of millions of people.

A decent society would treat this 17 year old fuckup no differently that a billionaire's son gets treated. We are NOT a decent society--and I am trying to suggest ways that we could become one, as to our disgraceful "prison-industrial complex."

i am absolutely the first to say that a harmful, violent person should be isolated from the community, with the safety of others as the first consideration. You are generalizing and jumping to conclusions here as well. I want both "small-time" murderers and other violent offenders, and Big-Time murderers, torturers and country-destroyers--the ones who give the orders--to be prevented from inflicting violence on others. But the safety and well-being of a community is a MUCH BIGGER issue than just preventing violent crimes. It is a very complex social and economic problem, and merely incarcerating people does not solve it, and often makes it much, much worse. As a matter of fact, Walmart has been a major offender in destroying healthy communities--the "villages" that raise the child--the outsourcing of jobs that their product line represents being just one example of the corporate wrecking crew that has hit this country, in community after community.

As I said above, this youth is NOT an "example" and should never be treated that way in the justice system. He is an individual. I also think that his learning a sense of personal responsibility is very important--at whatever age he has to learn it. But the "system" that deals with him and other offenders is also, of necessity, subject to DESIGN. The design is not arbitrary or accidental. It is crafted by law and by the political climate. And right now it is distinctly aimed at punishing the poor--often in life wrecking and community wrecking ways--and exonerating the rich. 75% of the people in our prisons are poor non-violent offenders--mostly drug charges--with draconian sentences meted out--10 years, 20 years, 30 years--for basically NOTHING, when you compare it to the crimes of the rich. This system has devastated black communities in particular--turning massive numbers of young black men into unemployable non-voters--and furthermore packing them into overcrowded, violence-ridden, inhumane prisons that are snakepits of crime including the crimes of the "authorities." Frankly, I consider it to be a slow-moving genocide.

We need to turn this around. We desperately need to turn this around. We need to stop treating human beings like landfill. Most of the people in our prisons have one main problem: poverty. Poverty dictates their incarceration, because they don't have the money for fancy lawyers. They then become the justification for police state profiteers. They shouldn't be in prison. At worst, they were trying to make a bit of money in a Depression economy (40% to 50% unemployment in black communities) by selling drugs--which, in other circumstances, would be considered that great spirit of American entrepreneurship. We have criminalized behavior for the poor that is HONORED among the rich--selling toxic crap to consumers.

Do you have any perspective yet? Can you see beyond your upbringing and your myopic view of justice?

I hope so. I am "law and order" through and through. I believe in "law and order" for the rich as well as the poor. I believe in "personal responsibility" for the rich as well as for the poor. But that is NOT what is happening in our society. I don't know if we have enough of a democracy left to alter course. I tend to think that Americans have a pretty ingrained sense of justice and a passionate desire for good government but it is being muffled and thwarted in numerous ways. Maybe it will shine through, in the end. If not, we will go the way of every other society that has sanctified imprisonment as the first solution to its problems. History is not on our side.

You're trying to excuse this kid because it's Walmart and you find fault with society for punishing criminals. I think you have a good heart, but I also think you are naive. I guess I'm a cold hearted scumbag.

We're not going to find common ground on this one, but it was nice exchanging views.

Also probably no jail time,no one was injured.

His $10 an hour earnings?

I'm not sure what I think about this. What he did was very dangerous and could have killed many people, but he has no chance of paying the award. A $20,000 fine would probably hurt just as bad, and would give him a chance at a future life. It would also probably net Walmart more in the end.

The amount can be debated, but he wronged the store.

he will have to work harder.

btw, I suspect that 1 million will be easier to attain if we get hit with significant inflation in the future.
1million dollars is yesteryears 100k dollars.

Well, then, I like the article writer already.

to the crime & amounts to a life sentence of debt servitude & poor employment prospects for someone who isn't even an adult yet.

"Several bottles of shampoo ignited and cans of hairspray blew up." A couple of days to repair the damage = nowhere near $1 million in damage. More like painting the ceiling & replacing a shelf.

walmart doesn't need the kid's money & in any event, will never collect it from him. it's just an excuse for more surveillance state crap.

could have cause more than a few thousand dollars, nearly a million I doubt it but it was what Walmart reported, not a 3rd party not audited by the state walmart said it cost a million, that is what they were awarded.

It also sends a very clear message that corporations are taken care of while we all know if we are injured/hurt/killed by a corporation's fault/etc we have to spend thousands of dollars in court suing them for years on while fighting up hill to prove our damages which often aren't easily calculated based on health issues etc.

starting a fire, a few thousand dollars and if he was to pay anything 'extra' it should be to the city/community for their services in putting out the fire NOT a private company which should have insurance.

Wallmart should have sued him to try and claim the million dollars and only if they were denied an insurance claim so as to not profit by the fire from insurance payout PLUS a possible judgement.

Now if there was a deal to payback the alleged costs for a lighter sentence so be it if he chose that but to 'give' walmart this judgement against him is insane.

Wal-Mart sells lighters, and the hair spray is explosive. LOL! And if he got hurt on their property, he could sue their insurance company. I am not an attorney, but I sure have heard of some outrageous lawsuits in my time, and it wouldn't surprise me. Like robbers who break into someones house and they get shot, and sue the homeowner.

File bankruptcy and move on with your life. Oh, and that means quit burning other people's shit.

the court that let him pay for it at $20/ month of some similarly ridiculous rate. Meanwhile my friend had to find a new car. This guy will just pay over time and hopefully when he's older the money won't be so much. In 40 years $1,000,000 could be the price of a car.

If it were up to me, he would get 6 months in jail and have to pay $50K. The combination is more than enough to get his attention and yet give him a chance at a life.

to be punished, since he will have no money for the rest of his now very shortened live with no money for food....

Oh I get it. He goes on welfare forever and his life time earnings are taken from him and give to Wal Mart, (an amount that would probably not keep a super store in toilette paper)Wal Mart takes the loss off its income tax, Wal Mart collects insurance and no one ever vandalizes of shop lifts from Wal Mart ever.

But, Lady Justice falls into a black depression and leaps to her death from the top of the Justice building.

Yes, I agree the kid was a punk and did something stupid (and deserves some jail time), but are people in this thread really cheering restitution of almost a million against a minor?

I know the 'moral relativity' card is worn out, but there is no way the punishment fits the crime here...If Wal-Mart or some mega-corporation was engaged in fraud, theft, or dumping carcinogens in our backyards, would the fine from the Justice Dept. or EPA even be a million then??

As an aside: 10 or 11 years ago, a family member was engaged to a woman who worked at Wal-mart as a cashier, along with her mother who was a mid-level manager...Believe me when I tell you they both robbed the place blind -- They regularly worked the returns/customer service desk, and pretty much kept any returned item they wanted from themselves, especially electronics, TVs and other high-dollar stuff...They kept this ruse going to the tune of 70 grand (and as you know, that is a LOT of inventory they made disappear) before upper management caught on...

So after the arrests and firings, guess what? Wal-mart agreed to drop the charges as long as they agreed to return the stolen shit or monetary equivalent for the stuff they already sold...Mother-and-daughter stole $70,000 from Wal-mart and didn't spend a day in prison and have clean records...

(My cousin thinks Wal-mart did the deal because the mother had dirt on the manager or something, but I never got that full story...And no, he didn't marry the girl

Wally-world, also.

Disgusting.

If some "Young Republican" set fire do the democrat headquarters?

Would you be so blah?