Tragedy leads to no camping at Cottonwood, AZ Walmart

Dog Folks wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that this particular WalMart shares, at least, some of the blame?

According to RV Newsletter: "Cottonwood WalMart officials have met with local police to "discuss solutions to extended camping" in their lot."

Extending camping? Why was WalMart allowing this in the first place?

Overnight is one thing, "extended camping" is another

Once again, the devil lies in the details. I would venture to say that the suburban probably moved every day or so. Though most people would say that is "extended" camping, it may not be in the eyes of the law. Kind of like the people that move their car a couple of spaces every couple of hours in the two hour parking zone. How many overnights would be allowed under a no extended camping rule? Would one day in and one day out to the Home Depot then back again to Walmart be extended camping? Say you are very strict with the old suburban, should that strict enforcement be extended to the Prevost parked next to them, or does the rule not apply to them? Get too selective you will end up with a big discrimination lawsuit on your hands that you will most likely lose. At the very least, you risk having the truth twisted into extremely bad publicity.
On a much less serious scale (no gunplay involved, hopefully) we face this issue daily. Quiet hours, no campfires, pet rules, no climbing on rocks etc. etc. etc. is tested almost daily. Zero tolerance doesn't work and neither does a laissez faire devil may care attitude. Having and enforcing policies is not anywhere nearly as easy as most posters make it out to be.