Quote:
Originally Posted by ExistenceNow
I don't mean to be unnecessarily callous, but this poor man's death hasn't cost them anything yet so they don't really have any reason to shell out a bunch of money for cameras.
Now, if they end up having to pay a large settlement to the family, perhaps they will decide to, or perhaps their insurance company will force them to.
|
That's because they managed to slip by the bad PR.
If the national news wasn't busy bashing Trump/democrats etc, and the local news wasn't busy talking about how it's 55 degrees in one neighborhood, and 57F down the road from there, and someone's dog was found and returned to it's owner, the word could have been more widespread and 'some' people would avoid a venue where something like this has happened with no resolution, lack of security, cameras, etc.
If it were to happen again soon, they'll make changes because people will avoid the venue and finally impact their bottom line.
It reminds me, when I used to live in Wallingford/Green Lake (Seattle), there were accidents and collisions with pedestrians at least once a month at this awkward intersection outside my window. I called the city about it and they said, until a quota is met (say 5 accidents/deaths/injuries in one month) they will not make any changes.
It's kinda crazy to think about how X amount of people have to die before changes happen.