Apple Store in Dallas Robbed...Knox Street

[tflournoy95]

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.

i think in this situation its pretty obvious that these guys were doing something illegal

Sticking to this case I think even a 1st grader can tell you who is the bad guy here and who isn't.

+1

ill chase a thief that steals from me....even if it could mean i would end up dead.

+1

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.

know how to shoot and be the first to pull the trigger. only the bad guy gets hit.

and if the bad guy pulls a gun its very legal for you to pull yours and shoot by they way. cuz its a very big threat to your life if somebody points a gun at you.

its illegal (as it should be) to shoot somebody if they dont have a gun or some other dangerous weapon.

and sorry bout posting twice.

 

[dukebound85]

An armed person entering a store and through force taking thousands of dollars of equipment certainly warrants a CCW holder to draw.

No, it doesn't.

I suggest you re-educate yourself on the responsibility of a CCW. I mean, I know as I have been through the process.

To put it simply...no life was being threatened. There is an establishment, called the police, whose duty is to tackle this....not some citizen who holds a CCW who would escalate the situation far more by drawing for a robbery that posed no threat of harm to individuals

A CCW's purpose is for self defense and self defense alone, not so citizens can be renegade cops to prevent crimes that aren't threatening the lives of other people.

Hey you may disagree and that's fine...you will just open yourself up to legal trouble that can be quite serious...

 

[tflournoy95]

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.

No, it doesn't.

I suggest you re-educate yourself on the responsibility of a CCW. I mean, I know as I have been through the process.

To put it simply...no life was being threatened. There is an establishment, called the police, whose duty is to tackle this....not some citizen who holds a CCW who would escalate the situation far more by drawing for a robbery that posed no threat of harm to individuals

A CCW's purpose is for self defense and self defense alone, not so citizens can be renegade cops to prevent crimes that aren't threatening the lives of other people.

Hey you may disagree and that's fine...you will just open yourself up to legal trouble that can be quite serious...

in the situation that the general was talking about there would definitely be a threat to you and all the other people in the store. because he was armed. so shooting the armed person would be in self defense.

its not being a renegade cop to protect yourself, your family, and other helpless individuals.

 

[Beric]

An armed person entering a store and through force taking thousands of dollars of equipment certainly warrants a CCW holder to draw.

QFT. You can't know if that armed person will shoot you or another bystander.

 

[smakdown61]

i think in this situation its pretty obvious that these guys were doing something illegal



+1



+1



know how to shoot and be the first to pull the trigger. only the bad guy gets hit.

and if the bad guy pulls a gun its very legal for you to pull yours and shoot by they way. cuz its a very big threat to your life if somebody points a gun at you.

its illegal (as it should be) to shoot somebody if they dont have a gun or some other dangerous weapon.

and sorry bout posting twice.

Just don't shoot the guy in the back and you won't have any problems. You shoot a guy in the back, even if he's armed, you can be charged with manslaughter. If you're a cop, and you shoot a guy in the back, you are instantly dismissed.

 

[gianly1985]

isnt naive synonymous with stupid?

.....

.........

(and I'm the non-native English speaker)

and so you think we should protect the criminals? we should make their life easy and convenient?

Yes.
Got me.

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?

Because you can't just punch anybody in the face just because you feel like it. Try punching my dad while he's parking in a forbidden lot or smoking weed or having sex in the middle of the kid's park or something illegal like that and I'll sue the hell out of you.
You can't make justice on your own. Self-defense is another story. Professionals are another story, that's why they exist.
In western countries not even judges can condamn a killer or a pedophile to get beaten, mind you an apple store robber. In most western civilized countries the maximum punishment is lifetime jail. Not even a judge can do more than that, after 2-3 grades of judgement (months or years). And YOU think you can decide in like a couple of minutes who deserves to be beaten or maybe get killed during a chase? That's crazy. You cannot do that. The hell with "sticking to this case". There's no "sticking to the case". There cannot be exceptions or you end up in a slippery slope. Co-operate with law enforcement, defend your person and your family, defend your house, but THAT'S IT. Nothing more. Or I won't feel safe with YOU around.

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.

Yeah, let's stone 'em to death.

I don't wanna make jokes about a couple of countries you could live """happily""" in, if you like this kind of street justice so much.
Sure, your way of thinking doesn't belong to western civilization constitutions.
Ancient Roman law 2000 years ago was already more advanced than that.

 

[dukebound85]

in the situation that the general was talking about there would definitely be a threat to you and all the other people in the store. because he was armed. so shooting the armed person would be in self defense.

its not being a renegade cop to protect yourself, your family, and other helpless individuals.

I forgot to mention in my post that the situation in question makes no reference to being an armed robbery....(at least of what I have read)

Now even if armed, let's play this scenario out
1) Theifs come in and say hypothetically armed
2) Their intention is to take merchandise and leave
3) A gungho cowboy decides to take his CCW and threaten use
4) This leads to a massive escalation in tension between customers and thieves
5) Chances of a gun fire went up immensely as the original intent of the theives was to just take the products and leave
6) The CCW holder just put everyone else at a much greater risk and a lot higher probablity of a stray bullet hitting one


All over apple stuff. Give me a break. This is NOT analogous to a hostage situation or a break-in of a home. Let the professionals handle this aka the cops/swat, whatever

Meanwhile you better not be putting my life at greater risk due to your perceived heroics/machoism

The sheer ignorance by some of these "cowboys" about CCW use is appalling and quite disturbing

 

[chewbaccacabra]

Well they certainly knew the thieves stole iphones.

Anyway, here is a video of recent SUSPECTED shoplifting event that got way out of hand. I smell some big payouts here.

http://consumerist.com/2010/08/vide...on-deaf-customer-for-not-showing-receipt.html

 

[snberk103]

isnt naive synonymous with stupid?

No, it's not. Naive means you have a lack of experience. So, you act in a certain way that may be bad for you because you have no experience with the situation. Stupid is a bit more active. You act in a certain way that is bad for you, even though you should know better i.e. you have known better. One term is merely a factual description. The second implies an insult.

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?
...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.

First of all, it's the 'alleged' criminal. Until they are convicted in a court of law, they are presumed innocent. If you want take advantage of the protections the law provides, then you must be prepared to extend those protections to others. I agree that an alleged criminal should not be able to sue for harming themselves in the act of a crime. But, they should also be protected from the unlawful acts of others. Assaulting or killing someone is unlawful, except where your own safety (or the safety of others) is threatened. A smash and grab of some phones does not exactly threaten anyone's safety.

ps We care if anybody dies, that is why we are a compassionate society. At least we are in Canada.

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.

Oh, sorry - my mistake - you must be the fastest draw in the West.

An armed person entering a store and through force taking thousands of dollars of equipment certainly warrants a CCW holder to draw.

Actually, unless you've read some news coverage we've missed, there is no mention of a gun during this robbery, so if you drew you would be drawing on an unarmed person. Or you may be mistaking a remote control in their hands as a weapon, and shoot an unarmed person (It's happened. Except this was a highly trained police officer, who mistook the remote for a gun and killed them. But of course your training would prevent that from happening.)

What makes places that ban guns so safe is that criminals don't need to bring guns to work. They smash, they grab, they run. People are safe. No shoot-outs. No untrained, desperate, scared, criminals waving guns around just to steal 8 phones that are useless to them.

 

[euclidjr]

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.

Actually, that's not the law in Texas. You most certainly can shoot someone in Texas for property theft - given the proper circumstances.

Section 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code provides:

DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Basically, theft at night gets you shot. That's not the case, here of course, but your general rule is incorrect. Seeing as we don't really know all the facts surrounding this theft at the Knox Apple Store, it's pretty much impossible to opine as to whether deadly force by a CCH would have been ok.

For the record, the Knox Apple Store sucks and has sucked for years. After numerous instances of fail at the Knox location, I've given up and now go to Northpark or Willow Bend. Also, these phones have probably already been sold on Craigslist - they have no intention of using them.

 

[dukebound85]

^^ concerning property....that usage of "other means" and "reasonably believes" means you better be damn sure of what you are doing before you pull a trigger on someone if you want to avoid any potential serious liability

I also assume that refers to personal property and not property of others

 

[tflournoy95]

QFT. You can't know if that armed person will shoot you or another bystander.

if they got a gun, why would you not assume that they will use it?

.....

.........

(and I'm the non-native English speaker)


Yes.
Got me.




Because you can't just punch anybody in the face just because you feel like it. Try punching my dad while he's parking in a forbidden lot or smoking weed or having sex in the middle of the kid's park or something illegal like that and I'll sue the hell out of you.
You can't make justice on your own. Self-defense is another story. Professionals are another story, that's why they exist.
In western countries not even judges can condamn a killer or a pedophile to get beaten, mind you an apple store robber. In most western civilized countries the maximum punishment is lifetime jail. Not even a judge can do more than that, after 2-3 grades of judgement (months or years). And YOU think you can decide in like a couple of minutes who deserves to be beaten or maybe get killed during a chase? That's crazy. You cannot do that. The hell with "sticking to this case". There's no "sticking to the case". There cannot be exceptions or you end up in a slippery slope. Co-operate with law enforcement, defend your person and your family, defend your house, but THAT'S IT. Nothing more. Or I won't feel safe with YOU around.


Yeah, let's stone 'em to death.

I don't wanna make jokes about a couple of countries you could live """happily""" in, if you like this kind of street justice so much.
Sure, your way of thinking doesn't belong to western civilization constitutions.
Ancient Roman law 2000 years ago was already more advanced than that.

naive sounds a lot like ignorant and stupid to me.

for the first paragraph, we are talking about a (theoretical) armed robbery. not some dude smokin a joint.

im not a fan of stoning poeple. i was saying like if they were running away and ran into traffic who cares? hes a criminal, im not gonna lose any sleep over it. if a guy pulls a gun and tries to rob a place and another guy feels threatened and shoots him, who cares? guy shouldnt have been trying to pull off an armed robbery.

and you do realize that the ancient romans got taken over by uncivilized barbarians right? that advanced law did them a whole lot of good didnt it?

 

[dukebound85]

if they got a gun, why would you not assume that they will use it?

Most never intend to use it but rather have it's purpose as a display of force

naive sounds a lot like ignorant and stupid to me.

for the first paragraph, we are talking about a (theoretical) armed robbery. not some dude smokin a joint.

im not a fan of stoning poeple. i was saying like if they were running away and ran into traffic who cares? hes a criminal, im not gonna lose any sleep over it. if a guy pulls a gun and tries to rob a place and another guy feels threatened and shoots him, who cares? guy shouldnt have been trying to pull off an armed robbery.

/snip

Repeat this with me....Having a CCW does not entitle you to street justice. It is for self defense when there is immediate harm if no action is taken.

I really do suggest you go through CCW training once you turn 21 so you can adopt the proper mindset

 

[MacModMachine]

Most never intend to use it but rather have it's purpose as a display of force



Repeat this with me....Having a CCW does not entail you to street justice. It is for self defense when there is immediate harm if no action is taken.

I really do suggest you go through CCW training once you turn 21 so you can adopt the proper mindset

oh....i thought it was so you can gun people down that piss you off

 

[tflournoy95]

I forgot to mention in my post that the situation in question makes no reference to being an armed robbery....(at least of what I have read)

Now even if armed, let's play this scenario out
1) Theifs come in and say hypothetically armed
2) Their intention is to take merchandise and leave
3) A gungho cowboy decides to take his CCW and threaten use
4) This leads to a massive escalation in tension between customers and thieves
5) Chances of a gun fire went up immensely as the original intent of the theives was to just take the products and leave
6) The CCW holder just put everyone else at a much greater risk and a lot higher probablity of a stray bullet hitting one


All over apple stuff. Give me a break. This is NOT analogous to a hostage situation or a break-in of a home. Let the professionals handle this aka the cops/swat, whatever

Meanwhile you better not be putting my life at greater risk due to your perceived heroics/machoism

The sheer ignorance by some of these "cowboys" about CCW use is appalling and quite disturbing

dukebound, you quoted somebody who was talking about an armed robbery.

No, it's not. Naive means you have a lack of experience. So, you act in a certain way that may be bad for you because you have no experience with the situation. Stupid is a bit more active. You act in a certain way that is bad for you, even though you should know better i.e. you have known better. One term is merely a factual description. The second implies an insult.
First of all, it's the 'alleged' criminal. Until they are convicted in a court of law, they are presumed innocent. If you want take advantage of the protections the law provides, then you must be prepared to extend those protections to others. I agree that an alleged criminal should not be able to sue for harming themselves in the act of a crime. But, they should also be protected from the unlawful acts of others. Assaulting or killing someone is unlawful, except where your own safety (or the safety of others) is threatened. A smash and grab of some phones does not exactly threaten anyone's safety.

ps We care if anybody dies, that is why we are a compassionate society. At least we are in Canada.


Oh, sorry - my mistake - you must be the fastest draw in the West.

Actually, unless you've read some news coverage we've missed, there is no mention of a gun during this robbery, so if you drew you would be drawing on an unarmed person. Or you may be mistaking a remote control in their hands as a weapon, and shoot an unarmed person (It's happened. Except this was a highly trained police officer, who mistook the remote for a gun and killed them. But of course your training would prevent that from happening.)

What makes places that ban guns so safe is that criminals don't need to bring guns to work. They smash, they grab, they run. People are safe. No shoot-outs. No untrained, desperate, scared, criminals waving guns around just to steal 8 phones that are useless to them.

we have been talking about a hypothetical armed robbery. thats why the word if has been used a lot.

 

[snberk103]

...
naive sounds a lot like ignorant and stupid to me.

...

This comment would be naive if your first language is not english, and if your first language is english then it would be.....

 

[tflournoy95]

Most never intend to use it but rather have it's purpose as a display of force



Repeat this with me....Having a CCW does not entitle you to street justice. It is for self defense when there is immediate harm if no action is taken.

I really do suggest you go through CCW training once you turn 21 so you can adopt the proper mindset

most people might not intend to use a gun but i would much rather be protected for the few who are willing to use it.

its not "street justice" when you are afraid for your life because somebodys waving a gun around.

and i definitely will be taking that class when i turn 21. im thinkin i'll carry the glock 38. http://www.glock.com/english/index_pistols.htm what do you think?

 

[tflournoy95]

This comment would be naive if your first language is not english, and if your first language is english then it would be.....

wow this whole naive thing is making me feel like a jackass.

 

[snberk103]

...
we have been talking about a hypothetical armed robbery. thats why the word if has been used a lot.

Actually, I was responding to The General's comments "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.
[and]
An armed person entering a store and through force taking thousands of dollars of equipment certainly warrants a CCW holder to draw."

Which don't actually mention "hypothetical". I assumed we were talking about the situation where the The General might have been in the store that was robbed (so hypothetical in that regard) but that the theft was otherwise unchanged.

And.... Just to save a 2nd post. Here are some numbers.

In Texas, the best info I can get is that for every 100,000 people 11 people die of guns, per year. Or, for a state with nearly 25 million that is 2750 people per year. Half are suicides. The other half are nearly all homicides. If the Texas numbers are similar to Washington State, then 12% are criminals being shot in the act of a crime, and the other 88% are Spouses (domestic disputes), Family, Friends, Acquaintances.... in that order.

An armed society does not make people safer.

 

[gianly1985]

if they got a gun, why would you not assume that they will use it?

Just compare the number of armed robberies to the number of armed robberies in which somebody is actually killed by a gun.

naive sounds a lot like ignorant and stupid to me.

There's an app for that:

http://appshopper.com/reference/american-heritage®-dictionary-fourth-edition

for the first paragraph, we are talking about a (theoretical) armed robbery. not some dude smokin a joint.

Same applies, you're not a judge, you can't do 5-minutes trials and punishments. Or "who cares if he get killed" statements.
ALLEGED criminals is the key word, for starters.
"We're in a western civilization where, for everybody's safety, administration of justice is restricted to judges and law enforcement" is the second key "word".

im not a fan of stoning poeple. i was saying like if they were running away and ran into traffic who cares? hes a criminal, im not gonna lose any sleep over it. if a guy pulls a gun and tries to rob a place and another guy feels threatened and shoots him, who cares? guy shouldnt have been trying to pull off an armed robbery.

Says who?
Are you a founding father who wrote a constitution or something?
You're nobody to say that, and we choose to live in a system that doesn't work like that (luckily).
We have laws, trials, etc.
Not this bad_guy/good_guy blabbering and machos and cowboys and 5-minutes trials. We (again, luckily) tend to be more SPECIFIC and accurate about crimes and punishments. So, as far as I'm concerned, you're not even allowed to make "who cares" statements about alleged criminals.

and you do realize that the ancient romans got taken over by uncivilized barbarians right? that advanced law did them a whole lot of good didnt it?

You're oversimplifying like 15-20 centuries of history a bit. Just a bit....(and fail to realize that the heritage of Roman law system and thought still lives on at the basis of most western societies)

 

[Pigumon]

wow.

Post like this make me really wanna question how old you are? Seriously. It's common sense not to chase anyone outside of a store, especially in the honor of multi-billion dollar corporation. You're not looked at as a hero, you're look at as an insubordinate employee of the company's code of ethics and you will be fired, at least here in america. Any other country that condones employees of chasing thieves is a stupid country and their law is stupid as well. Those countries are not in favor of the safety of employed individuals.

When someone does a hit and run on you in their car, or walks up to you on the street and stabs you and steals your money, and you're ready to cry out to all the people around you "why aren't you helping me, somebody stop him!", you can go ahead refrain from yelling and die peacefully in the knowledge they are just following your twisted idea of "common sense" in a country that values "don't be a hero" over helping your fellow man.

 

[Matthew Yohe]

Alright folks... We get it. You're all a bunch lawyers who know the laws on concealed carry. Congrats. Now let's move on.

Obviously the "right thing" happened here, as there were no injuries. It appears that Apple's protocol in place for theft is working as expected.

 

[snberk103]

When someone does a hit and run on you in their car, or walks up to you on the street and stabs you and steals your money, and you're ready to cry out to all the people around you "why aren't you helping me, somebody stop him!", you can go ahead refrain from yelling and die peacefully in the knowledge they are just following your twisted idea of "common sense" in a country that values "don't be a hero" over helping your fellow man.

There is small difference between interfering in the theft of a small amount of property, vs getting stabbed. And as for a hit and run, the most I would do is try to get the license plate of the car that was running. If there was an injury, I wouldn't even do that as the first priority would be to arrange for medical help to arrive.

 

[X38]

"outskirts of Dallas"? Funny way to describe Highland Park. Click the map link to the store - that's on the "outskirts" of Dallas kind of the same way the Empire State Building is on the "outskirts" of NYC (and so on)...

Not important, just amusing.

 

[Beric]

Alright folks... We get it. You're all a bunch lawyers who know the laws on concealed carry. Congrats. Now let's move on.

Obviously the "right thing" happened here, as there were no injuries. It appears that Apple's protocol in place for theft is working as expected.

Obviously the "right thing" did not happen, or there would have been no thefts.