Murder at Lululemon in Bethesda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quite frankly no matter how Lululemon handled it....NO one would ever imagine in a million years that anyone would do something like she did! So I say give it a rest about now trying to prove that it was a preventable crime if it hadn't been for Lululemon policy or management. If they had done things differently it may not have happened there but it probably would have happened! This woman had mainline RAGE. She was murder waiting to happen. No one just woke up and decided that this is different than anything else that had ever happened to them and so today this incident deserves murdering someone over. It doesn't work that way. Unless this woman took responsibility at some point for her rage and anger and got some help....she would have murdered someone else somewhere.

AGREED!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I lost a little sympathy for her family based on her brother's question, "Why did you fight that girl?" This wasn't simply a fight. The question should have been, "Why did you kill Jayna?", or along those lines. This wasn't just a girl and this wasn't a fight.

I would imagine that he was still trying to process that his sister even MIGHT have killed a co-worker, and that at the time he asked the question, his sister had admitted to the police that she and Jayna had argued (and had perhaps admitted that there had been a physical fight (perhaps only admitting these after they confronted her with information that people in the Apple store reported having heard the voices of two women arguing). Based on the (very) little we know of Norwood's brother, I don't have a problem with his question as it's been reported to us. I think he was legitimately struggling to comprehend what happened, was slowly coming to understand that his sister had probably killed a co-worker, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quite frankly no matter how Lululemon handled it....NO one would ever imagine in a million years that anyone would do something like she did! So I say give it a rest about now trying to prove that it was a preventable crime if it hadn't been for Lululemon policy or management. If they had done things differently it may not have happened there but it probably would have happened! This woman had mainline RAGE. She was murder waiting to happen. No one just woke up and decided that this is different than anything else that had ever happened to them and so today this incident deserves murdering someone over. It doesn't work that way. Unless this woman took responsibility at some point for her rage and anger and got some help....she would have murdered someone else somewhere.

Fine, now imagine that it was your daughter working alongside Norwood. Are you telling me that you wouldn't find fault with Lululemon's actions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quite frankly no matter how Lululemon handled it....NO one would ever imagine in a million years that anyone would do something like she did! So I say give it a rest about now trying to prove that it was a preventable crime if it hadn't been for Lululemon policy or management. If they had done things differently it may not have happened there but it probably would have happened! This woman had mainline RAGE. She was murder waiting to happen. No one just woke up and decided that this is different than anything else that had ever happened to them and so today this incident deserves murdering someone over. It doesn't work that way. Unless this woman took responsibility at some point for her rage and anger and got some help....she would have murdered someone else somewhere.

Fine, now imagine that it was your daughter working alongside Norwood. Are you telling me that you wouldn't find fault with Lululemon's actions?

The reason we have courts (both criminal and civil) is because when it's our daughter (/son/spouse/parent), we lose all sense of perspective. If my child died, I'd look far & wide to find someone to pin responsibility on. However, I think that a number of the ideas I'd come up with would be irrational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quite frankly no matter how Lululemon handled it....NO one would ever imagine in a million years that anyone would do something like she did! So I say give it a rest about now trying to prove that it was a preventable crime if it hadn't been for Lululemon policy or management. If they had done things differently it may not have happened there but it probably would have happened! This woman had mainline RAGE. She was murder waiting to happen. No one just woke up and decided that this is different than anything else that had ever happened to them and so today this incident deserves murdering someone over. It doesn't work that way. Unless this woman took responsibility at some point for her rage and anger and got some help....she would have murdered someone else somewhere.

Fine, now imagine that it was your daughter working alongside Norwood. Are you telling me that you wouldn't find fault with Lululemon's actions?

What if Lululemon had fired her and she came back the next day while the store was open and started shooting at people? Would the store still be at fault? I mean, honestly, I of course feel for the family and cannot even imagine the amount of pain that they're in. But it just doesn't seem possible that Lululemon could be held liable for this woman's actions. People are transferred and given second chances all the time. Unless you conduct an in-depth mental screening of your employees that is 100% guaranteed to weed out people with psychotic tendencies (not that such a tool exists), and then hire and keep someone employed despite the results of that screening showing lots of red flags, then how can you as an employer be held liable for this horrendous crime?

[Anonymous]

Given what we know now I really hope that stores will crack down on any sign of criminal behavior. But, I'm pretty sure that if anyone had suggested that petty theft made an employee a danger to other employees before this happened most people on this board would have shot them down. It also sounds like Lululemon didn't have real proof that she was stealing--is that right?

[Anonymous]

Playing devil's advocate here. I will give you that I would not have thought stealing cheesy overpriced yoga clothes would have led to murder, but I digress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quite frankly no matter how Lululemon handled it....NO one would ever imagine in a million years that anyone would do something like she did! So I say give it a rest about now trying to prove that it was a preventable crime if it hadn't been for Lululemon policy or management. If they had done things differently it may not have happened there but it probably would have happened! This woman had mainline RAGE. She was murder waiting to happen. No one just woke up and decided that this is different than anything else that had ever happened to them and so today this incident deserves murdering someone over. It doesn't work that way. Unless this woman took responsibility at some point for her rage and anger and got some help....she would have murdered someone else somewhere.

Fine, now imagine that it was your daughter working alongside Norwood. Are you telling me that you wouldn't find fault with Lululemon's actions?

What if Lululemon had fired her and she came back the next day while the store was open and started shooting at people? Would the store still be at fault? I mean, honestly, I of course feel for the family and cannot even imagine the amount of pain that they're in. But it just doesn't seem possible that Lululemon could be held liable for this woman's actions. People are transferred and given second chances all the time. Unless you conduct an in-depth mental screening of your employees that is 100% guaranteed to weed out people with psychotic tendencies (not that such a tool exists), and then hire and keep someone employed despite the results of that screening showing lots of red flags, then how can you as an employer be held liable for this horrendous crime?

People have a right to their opinion and to me is seems like ALOT MORE PEOPLE are holding Lululemon responsible other than you...are the you pp who keeps defending lululemon? They failed on their policies and procedures to deal with this type of issue. Circumstances built up to this event that did have something to do with the company! Ugh so many catyy catty people on here. Let people make comments without being so argumentative!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quite frankly no matter how Lululemon handled it....NO one would ever imagine in a million years that anyone would do something like she did! So I say give it a rest about now trying to prove that it was a preventable crime if it hadn't been for Lululemon policy or management. If they had done things differently it may not have happened there but it probably would have happened! This woman had mainline RAGE. She was murder waiting to happen. No one just woke up and decided that this is different than anything else that had ever happened to them and so today this incident deserves murdering someone over. It doesn't work that way. Unless this woman took responsibility at some point for her rage and anger and got some help....she would have murdered someone else somewhere.

Fine, now imagine that it was your daughter working alongside Norwood. Are you telling me that you wouldn't find fault with Lululemon's actions?

What if Lululemon had fired her and she came back the next day while the store was open and started shooting at people? Would the store still be at fault? I mean, honestly, I of course feel for the family and cannot even imagine the amount of pain that they're in. But it just doesn't seem possible that Lululemon could be held liable for this woman's actions. People are transferred and given second chances all the time. Unless you conduct an in-depth mental screening of your employees that is 100% guaranteed to weed out people with psychotic tendencies (not that such a tool exists), and then hire and keep someone employed despite the results of that screening showing lots of red flags, then how can you as an employer be held liable for this horrendous crime?

People have a right to their opinion and to me is seems like ALOT MORE PEOPLE are holding Lululemon responsible other than you...are the you pp who keeps defending lululemon? They failed on their policies and procedures to deal with this type of issue. Circumstances built up to this event that did have something to do with the company! Ugh so many catyy catty people on here. Let people make comments without being so argumentative!

I'm the poster who asked the question above and I didn't ask it to be catty, and I haven't posted anything in defense of lululemon. I was simply asking a question to point out the thin line between liability and non-liability. I'm not a lawyer so it was just a question with no sub-text. I don't know why you're charging me with being argumentative when I just asked a simple question.

[Anonymous]

What if Lululemon had fired her and she came back the next day while the store was open and started shooting at people? Would the store still be at fault? I mean, honestly, I of course feel for the family and cannot even imagine the amount of pain that they're in. But it just doesn't seem possible that Lululemon could be held liable for this woman's actions. People are transferred and given second chances all the time. Unless you conduct an in-depth mental screening of your employees that is 100% guaranteed to weed out people with psychotic tendencies (not that such a tool exists), and then hire and keep someone employed despite the results of that screening showing lots of red flags, then how can you as an employer be held liable for this horrendous crime?

People have a right to their opinion and to me is seems like ALOT MORE PEOPLE are holding Lululemon responsible other than you...are the you pp who keeps defending lululemon? They failed on their policies and procedures to deal with this type of issue. Circumstances built up to this event that did have something to do with the company! Ugh so many catyy catty people on here. Let people make comments without being so argumentative!

I'm the poster who asked the question above and I didn't ask it to be catty, and I haven't posted anything in defense of lululemon. I was simply asking a question to point out the thin line between liability and non-liability. I'm not a lawyer so it was just a question with no sub-text. I don't know why you're charging me with being argumentative when I just asked a simple question.

Because it makes no sense for you to say that there is NO POSSIBILITY that Lululemon had something to do with the build up of the event. How do you know that? Your comment was argumentative to me because it was on top of a bunch of other argumentative posts about how the store had nothing to do with the situation. I will not say you are not entitled to your opinion but I am also not going to say the the store absolutely did not or did have something to do with it. And many people here think they are the ones who cthink they are the smartest people alive and otnly their opinions are right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What if Lululemon had fired her and she came back the next day while the store was open and started shooting at people? Would the store still be at fault? I mean, honestly, I of course feel for the family and cannot even imagine the amount of pain that they're in. But it just doesn't seem possible that Lululemon could be held liable for this woman's actions. People are transferred and given second chances all the time. Unless you conduct an in-depth mental screening of your employees that is 100% guaranteed to weed out people with psychotic tendencies (not that such a tool exists), and then hire and keep someone employed despite the results of that screening showing lots of red flags, then how can you as an employer be held liable for this horrendous crime?

People have a right to their opinion and to me is seems like ALOT MORE PEOPLE are holding Lululemon responsible other than you...are the you pp who keeps defending lululemon? They failed on their policies and procedures to deal with this type of issue. Circumstances built up to this event that did have something to do with the company! Ugh so many catyy catty people on here. Let people make comments without being so argumentative!

I'm the poster who asked the question above and I didn't ask it to be catty, and I haven't posted anything in defense of lululemon. I was simply asking a question to point out the thin line between liability and non-liability. I'm not a lawyer so it was just a question with no sub-text. I don't know why you're charging me with being argumentative when I just asked a simple question.

Because it makes no sense for you to say that there is NO POSSIBILITY that Lululemon had something to do with the build up of the event. How do you know that? Your comment was argumentative to me because it was on top of a bunch of other argumentative posts about how the store had nothing to do with the situation. I will not say you are not entitled to your opinion but I am also not going to say the the store absolutely did not or did have something to do with it. And many people here think they are the ones who cthink they are the smartest people alive and otnly their opinions are right.

Oy

[Anonymous]

There is definitely more than one poster pointing out that to blame Lululemon is simply an effort to make sense of this heinous crime. I understand the desire to do so...we all want to feel like our decisions and the decisions of those around us can control EVERYTHING. However, that is not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is definitely more than one poster pointing out that to blame Lululemon is simply an effort to make sense of this heinous crime. I understand the desire to do so...we all want to feel like our decisions and the decisions of those around us can control EVERYTHING. However, that is not the case.

Is that YOU AGAIN? Ok fine if you want to keep going and believe that your opinion is the absolute right one... answer me this....how do you know 100% that Lululemon had nothing to do with it and that there is not some information they have been keeping about it away from the public? Answer me with a logical well thought out response if you are so set in your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is definitely more than one poster pointing out that to blame Lululemon is simply an effort to make sense of this heinous crime. I understand the desire to do so...we all want to feel like our decisions and the decisions of those around us can control EVERYTHING. However, that is not the case.

Yes, but there seems to be one person hell bent on lululemon's liablity. She is the poser that cites "opinion" in nearly every post. It goes back for pages. I think she must be emotionally connected to the case (victim or defendant's side I'm not sure).

[Anonymous]

How did the much smaller woman that Brittany is even do this to the victim?