You calling your own country right and each other country stupid because they are different in fact makes you the guy here who looks like 12...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Store in Dallas Robbed...Knox Street
- Thread starter cforand1293
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You calling your own country right and each other country stupid because they are different in fact makes you the guy here who looks like 12...
Our legal system is pretty messed up if you can't even chase after thieves stealing company property due to fear of lawsuits. It makes me pretty sad.
You would be sadder if the work out guy who posted above you was allowed to judge_dredd (or "to spiderman-ize", as he said) you just because he "thinks" you're doing something illegal.
I somehow prefer the "omg a multi-billion dollars CE company lost 8 IMEI-blacklisted phones worth nothing" kinda sadness.....if sadness at all.
Sticking to this case I think even a 1st grader can tell you who is the bad guy here and who isn't.
Seems like iPhone's would be the worst things to steal because of their required connectivity. I assume they probably turned them off after they fled but I am sure the store knows the serial numbers/sim card numbers of their display merchandise. They will also have to change the software since they all have demo software on them.
ill chase a thief that steals from me....even if it could mean i would end up dead.
I'm sure half the people in the store thought of tripping the thief.... 2 minutes after they were gone. In a case like that people's natural instinct is to freeze and watch. Unless you have trained for that scenario, it will be over before you can rationally think of what to do. That's why people in uniform train endlessly - so they don't to think about what to do....
I agree that the protection of a thief's rights may have gone too far, in some cases. For instance, I don't think a business owner should have to insure that someone breaking a window or crawling down a chimney is protected from the ordinary hazards of those actions (i.e. If during a break-in you cut yourself on the glass, or fall down the chimney or get stuck in the chimney that's your bad luck, and not the business owner's.) However, I wouldn't condone setting up traps or booby traps. If for no other reason that other innocent people can easily get hurt by accident. I think the reason the law comes down so hard on people who try to restrain a thief is that too many "good samaritans" took the opportunity to thump the thief for no good reason.... until the alleged thief goes through the court process, any "punishment" delivered is just plain assault. So, if you want to be protected by the law you should extend those protections to others.
Generalize much? You do realize that the American way is not always the best way of doing things. So, in countries where thieves don't carry guns and citizens know how to practice restraint then perhaps restraining the thief is possibly an option.
If they were smart, they would probably have a job, eh?
I think a lot of people are forgetting that there wasn't just the thieves and the employees present .... there were bystanders too. Even if there was no opportunity for the thief to sue the employee, do you want the bystanders getting hurt because the thief is desperate to get away. Current policy encourages the thief to run away as quickly as possible, knowing that all they have to do is get away before the cops show up. If they thought they were being chased by employees or bystanders they could very likely get desperate and start using a weapon (and missing and hitting bystanders); take a bystander hostage if they felt cornered; push a bystander down to the ground to get away from a pursuer (earlier in this thread I linked to a news story about a 99 year old man who broke his hip when pushed by a thief being pursued by a store employee.); Car-jack someone; etc etc
Employees are NEVER suppose to chase after a thief. The main reason is just for SAFETY issues. A friend of a friend back in high school worked at CVS. He chased after a thief into the streets. The thief became afraid and frantic, so he pulled out a knife and stabbed him to death. All of this over mouthwash and toothpaste. If your in Massachusetts, you've probably heard of this incident over at Longwood.
The point is, you never know if the thief has a gun, a knife, a needle with HIV/AIDS or if the thief will fight back. Companies rather use their insurance to cover stolen products then a loss life. If you want to play hero, do it at your own risk, but as far as playing security when your job description is a specialist, it's not worth it. It's not about being a coward, it's about knowing that there are unknown variables that may be be endangering to you and everyone else.
Sorry, but anyone who calls someone a coward because they let thieves run away should think twice before doing so.
The point is, you never know if the thief has a gun, a knife, a needle with HIV/AIDS or if the thief will fight back. Companies rather use their insurance to cover stolen products then a loss life. If you want to play hero, do it at your own risk, but as far as playing security when your job description is a specialist, it's not worth it. It's not about being a coward, it's about knowing that there are unknown variables that may be be endangering to you and everyone else.
Sorry, but anyone who calls someone a coward because they let thieves run away should think twice before doing so.
Yeah, me too, but it's probably different if it's personal. As long as nobody in that situation was at risk of being injured by the thieves, doing nothing was probably the best way to keep things that way. Even if they subdued one of the robbers, if his fellows were armed and loyal (not likely, but meh), choosing to stay with him (or her), it could turn into a hostage situation or worse.
I just hope they had those things LoJacked or similar- technology conquers all!!
Ok, you have a gun, your safe. You chase the thief who also may have a gun. He may shoot you, miss and hit someone else. Could this happen? It could. But probably not. Point is, your setting up the situation to be more dangerous than it needs to be.
Apple has so much money that this is really nothing to them. Extremely minor, isolated issue with theft of a few iPhones in a store. You guys are making it seem like it's a big problem.
Lesson from this? Figure out better security attached to the iPhones so it doesn't happen again.
Total loss of 8 iPhones for Apple: about $1600
How much is that for Apple? Nothing
What drama...
Lesson from this? Figure out better security attached to the iPhones so it doesn't happen again.
Total loss of 8 iPhones for Apple: about $1600
How much is that for Apple? Nothing
What drama...
And of course we know that the thief has taken gun safety courses, so knows when it's safe to shoot at you without putting the innocent bystanders behind you at risk. And of course the thief is a crack shot, so will actually hit what they are aiming for. And after being chased for 3 blocks has their adrenalin under control and isn't shaking (or course you have taken all those courses too, and you know how to shoot steady after sprinting for 3 blocks).
Remind me to never stand behind you.... because that is where you are dangerous.
Knox got robbed noooooo!!!! See the us govt keeps the best stuff in that fort of corse the robbers only took apple stuff. Lol
I'm glad u and yr family dident get hurt
I'm glad u and yr family dident get hurt
They may have (just as they might here in Missouri), but ...
It's still illegal to shoot someone over property theft. It's only considered legal if it's in response to a direct threat of harm (or arguably, any time someone is breaking into your HOME - because the "Castle doctrine" recognizes you have a right to defend your own dwelling from intruders, who can reasonably be considered as representing a threat to your safety/life). Even then, you're going to have legal problems if it looks like the person you shot was fleeing (or was actually outside your property, out in the yard) at the time you shot them.
The whole thing stinks, IMO, because educated thieves are quickly figuring out that in today's society, we're all about "leaving everything up to the police" -- when in all actuality, the police, 9 times out of 10, simply arrive at crime scenes AFTER the fact and collect evidence, take a report, and so forth.
I'm not advocating stopping property crimes with lethal force (guns), but I'm saying - stores shouldn't be firing dedicated employees who chase down and stop thieves. The idea that employees can/will do this is a good deterrent that we're pretty much throwing away with all the concern over lawsuits, dependence on insurance reimbursements for losses, etc.
It's still illegal to shoot someone over property theft. It's only considered legal if it's in response to a direct threat of harm (or arguably, any time someone is breaking into your HOME - because the "Castle doctrine" recognizes you have a right to defend your own dwelling from intruders, who can reasonably be considered as representing a threat to your safety/life). Even then, you're going to have legal problems if it looks like the person you shot was fleeing (or was actually outside your property, out in the yard) at the time you shot them.
The whole thing stinks, IMO, because educated thieves are quickly figuring out that in today's society, we're all about "leaving everything up to the police" -- when in all actuality, the police, 9 times out of 10, simply arrive at crime scenes AFTER the fact and collect evidence, take a report, and so forth.
I'm not advocating stopping property crimes with lethal force (guns), but I'm saying - stores shouldn't be firing dedicated employees who chase down and stop thieves. The idea that employees can/will do this is a good deterrent that we're pretty much throwing away with all the concern over lawsuits, dependence on insurance reimbursements for losses, etc.
Really? Use of a ccw is not permitted in this case and the fact you think so is alarming. You can't just shoot the gun if you have a permit...
Unless my life or someone else's was threatened, I would never use a CCW...much less for act that was merely a robbery of a store I couldn't care less about
isnt naive synonymous with stupid?
and so you think we should protect the criminals? we should make their life easy and convenient? way i see it is criminals should think about the consequences before they try to rob an apple store or really any crime like that. why should criminals be able to sue if they get hurt while committing a crime?
you cant get sued if you are trying to save someones life and they die, why should you get sued for trying to apprehend a criminal?
why should we care if someone dies trying to rob an apple store? or any store. its their choice and they should suffer the consequences. whether they get run over or shot. they should have thought about that before they tried to rob the place.
I don't think you guys get it. He wouldn't be able to get a shot off in the first place, so your comments are nothing but FUD.
An armed person entering a store and through force taking thousands of dollars of equipment certainly warrants a CCW holder to draw.
The funny part is I have my CHL. I was not carrying at the time, but I had just gone to dinner and left my weapon in the car and walked over to the apple store after dinner. The thought never crossed my mind to pull a weapon. It happened way to fast. They were out of the store in seconds. Once it did happen I just want to check on my family. It did make me see just how fast a situation can change, but there is no way any item is worth a life.