Apple Store in Dallas Robbed...Knox Street

[MacFly123]

There's only like 4 MS stores so I'm guessing not many...

Spoken like a true... (insert word)

You can call me a fanboy all you want or whatever expletive you were going to say. It is simply an example of how lusted after and valuable Apple's products are in comparison to their crappy competitors cheap garbage!

 

[glocke12]

if you ever worked retail, when you're being trained they should teach you this.

even if you're working security, you aren't supposed to run after them.

the thief could easily lead you to an area where there's no one in sight, and i guess you can fill the rest in.

Must be recent. I worked retail in the late 80's/early 90's and we were never told this. I even remember Managers chasing down and tackling shoplifters.

 

[davidgrimm]

But how are they going to get their free bumper cases?

 

[lostngone]

Well!!!!

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Jaro65]

the thief could easily lead you to an area where there's no one in sight, and i guess you can fill the rest in.

You mean the part where I would kick the crap out of him? I completely understand the corporate policy, but as a customer, if I were in the store and someone next to me starts cleaning up the MBP's or iPhones from the table, it would be really hard to restrain myself from punching him right in the middle of his stupid face. I can't stand miscreants.

 

[rmbrown09]

But how are they going to get their free bumper cases?

actually..... as long as they restore and then get the case app, they just might. Then again the GPS might also lead authorities to them.

 

[markgo2k]

why dont more people see things this way?

Perhaps because most people don't think it's okay to shoot 5-year olds stealing candy bars.

Common law has a well-established concept for proportionate response.

Thieves may be despicable, but killing or crippling a thief (e.g. you push them and they are hit by a truck) would result in the punishment being well in excess of what the law would deliver if they were convicted.

 

[tflournoy95]

Perhaps because most people don't think it's okay to shoot 5-year olds stealing candy bars.

Common law has a well-established concept for proportionate response.

Thieves may be despicable, but killing or crippling a thief (e.g. you push them and they are hit by a truck) would result in the punishment being well in excess of what the law would deliver if they were convicted.

which would prevent people from stealing stuff.

maybe we should go middle ages and cut peoples hands off if they are caught stealing(that doesnt count for 5 year olds stealing candy bars) maybe we should castrate rapists. kill murderers. that kind of thing.

 

[griz]

You would think that Apple and their engineers could make a lock down function that when pulled out without the proper release would just render the machines non functional. Should just be a clip that is tied to a main component on the motherboard and when pulled out puts a nice gash in the board and tears out some vital parts.
Should also install tracking software that is automatically activated when moved outside of the store's Wifi signal. Activates the camera and sends picts to Apple headquarters.

 

[frankpuccino]

lol

The point is, I know I have a gun and am safe.

General,

You'd only be escalating the situation and making it worse.

I would not want to be in an Apple Store at the same time as you if you're the kind of person who would pull a gun in a crowded store over a petty larceny.

Frank

 

[bonzaminka]

Ahh.. I love living in Canada.

lol, And I love living in a place with gun laws.... Australia

Whats happening to the apple demography, we have the normal apple people that I know and love, discussing the finer points of the law and how the latest apple technology will help beat the crooks down, but there are these other apple people that are popping up all over the world, that of the dual winchester, make my day, two smoking barrels type people.

I don't know of any (and I mean ANY including myself) apple people who are physically able to take down 4 thieves, who by any margin mustn't really be contenders for Harvard or anything. Most apple people I know and love would bemoan the state of the education and welfare sector for producing people of such limited intelligence as these thieves.

Oh well, such is the state of the iOS newcomers.

(proper apple people would fix my spelling and grammar now, my excuse is that I'm antipodean)

 

[ColonelSmith]

Is that an Apple Policy or a law?

It's a policy for most retail stores. I used to work in retail at Hollister, you were told to never follow a shoplifter out of the store. We're supposed to let either the cops or loss prevention take care of it, and most of the time they're no where to be seen.

 

[dukebound85]

snip

I agree with lavem and tflournoy, once you try to steal you are stripped of rights, if something bad happens to you, who cares? I don't, even if you get killed in the attempt, its really not society's problem.

Stripped of his rights? I think you need to reevaluate the judicial system

 

[sprtnbsblplya]

This is how it should have went down:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/68ff621085/kick-ass-citizen-win

 

[1984]

Must be recent. I worked retail in the late 80's/early 90's and we were never told this. I even remember Managers chasing down and tackling shoplifters.

That was before criminals starting suing the stores for it... and wining. It's pretty sad what's become of the legal system in this country but what do you expect when we reward people for bad behavior all the time? Just turn on the TV for a few minutes. You break the law you get a reality show.

 

[Gonzo3333]

I guess that is why they have what looks to be "off duty" police officers in the Michigan Avenue store in Chicago. Not just one but two they stand right by the door and seem to be watching everybody.

 

[HLdan]

I agree with lavem and tflournoy, once you try to steal you are stripped of rights, if something bad happens to you, who cares? I don't, even if you get killed in the attempt, its really not society's problem.

At least one of the people you're referring to is a kid and that's the mentality of one, sadly. Well, that's completely wrong. A thief is not stripped of his rights, check the law. There are several reasons why people steal, and though I certainly don't condone it, it can be excused and if the thief is apprehended by the store and the not the police he can sue the store he stole from if he gets hurt in the process and the courts could rule in his favor.

The thief could have a bona fide mental condition such as kleptomania that's been logged and verified by a physician and at that point the courts could easily rule in his favor if the store chased after him and he got hurt in the process.

 

[tflournoy95]

Stripped of his rights? I think you need to reevaluate the judicial system

At least one of the people you're referring to is a kid and that's the mentality of one, sadly. Well, that's completely wrong. A thief is not stripped of his rights, check the law. There are several reasons why people steal, and though I certainly don't condone it, it can be excused and if the thief is apprehended by the store and the not the police he can sue the store he stole from if he gets hurt in the process and the courts could rule in his favor.

The thief could have a bona fide mental condition such as kleptomania that's been logged and verified by a physician and at that point the courts could easily rule in his favor if the store chased after him and he got hurt in the process.

i dont think he was literally saying that when you break the law, you are stripped of your rights. he was agreeing with my opinion.
and the part about it being completely wrong, thats not true because its an opinion. and its your opinion that my opinion is wrong.
nobody is really right or wrong in this situation.

what is kleptomania and why should that make it illegal to try to be a good citizen?

 

[snberk103]

I...The law should be on our side, if you choose to steal you should loose any rights to sue the people that try to stop you.

hell yeah. now thats common sense, ...

...
I agree with lavem and tflournoy, once you try to steal you are stripped of rights, if something bad happens to you, who cares? I don't, even if you get killed in the attempt, its really not society's problem.

Let me check to see if I understand correctly. You three, to varying degrees, believe that an American citizen can deprive a 2nd American citizen of their rights simply because the first citizen believes the second citizen is doing something wrong? And in this case, of property theft, the first citizen's (or anyone else's) rights to safety are not being threatened - so intervening to protect those rights are not required.

OK, so I'm not an American, but my understanding was that Humans were born with certain rights - and that, in theory at least in the USA, only the constitution and certain authorities specified by the constitution, could abrogate those rights. Not some citizen vigilante who doesn't like what someone else is doing.

Of course, what do I know. I come from socialist Canada where we never bothered with the PATRIOT act, FBI security certificates, etc etc

 

[HLdan]

i dont think he was literally saying that when you break the law, you are stripped of your rights. he was agreeing with my opinion.
and the part about it being completely wrong, thats not true because its an opinion. and its your opinion that my opinion is wrong.
nobody is really right or wrong in this situation.

what is kleptomania and why should that make it illegal to try to be a good citizen?

See, this is my point about your "Opinions", just the fact that you even asked me that question that I highlighted just shows that you don't understand the situation. Maybe what you state you're calling them opinions but what I am stating is the law, at least in the U.S., and when you get older you'll probably look at this in a more mature way rather than just saying that employes of a company should be free to chase criminals and apprehend them to retrieve property.

Kleptomaniacs have a mental illness and they can shoplift without even thinking about it and although they can still get into trouble they can be excused by the courts if the company in question that they ripped off caused the thief harm in the process if they touch him. There's several people with mental illnesses that have civil rights regardless what they do as long as they are being treated by a doctor. There are many reasons why companies and even small businesses can not and will not chase thieves and one big reason is they know they can be sued and their business can get closed down.

 

[GregoryHarbin]

In WHAT UNIVERSE would anyone shoot someone over Apple's property?

If it's Apple's policy, which it very well should be, to let shoplifters shoplift (it's why they have insurance), why is it YOUR responsibility to stop them with deadly force?

What on earth?

If you see someone cut in line, does that mean their life needs to be ended? What if they don't tip 20%?

Some people in this thread seem to be looking for a chance to shoot somebody.

I guess you have to justify carrying that rediculous gun.

 

[sprtnbsblplya]

Wow, you guys really took that one comment literally. Guess I should have been more clear.
I meant stripped of his rights to do stuff like sue the store/homeowner/person they're robbing, etc. Not stripped of all their given rights by our Constitution.
But the fact that they can sue a store for trying to retain their property, or if they break into a home and get injured on some dangerous object in the home they have broken into and can sue for their medical expenses, thats just crazy to me. They would never have been in that bad spot in the first place if they decided to not break the law.


I can't believe you're actually use the kleptomania argument in defense of all thieves. Sure, some people have it. Its a reason, not an excuse. And most thieves do not have a medical excuse for their lawbreaking, although I'm sure they would love to use that excuse. Most urban areas where Apple stores are located also have high levels of poverty, so with poverty you get desperation and people who "have nothing to lose". Those with nothing to lose are most commonly the ones going to do this, and I'm sorry but that is no excuse to steal from others. Of course if bystander attempts to stop someone with nothing to lose, that will most likely end badly.

 

[snberk103]

Wow, you guys really took that one comment literally. Guess I should have been more clear.
I meant stripped of his rights to do stuff like sue the store/homeowner/person they're robbing, etc. Not stripped of all their given rights by our Constitution.
But the fact that they can sue a store for trying to retain their property, or if they break into a home and get injured on some dangerous object in the home they have broken into and can sue for their medical expenses, thats just crazy to me. They would never have been in that bad spot in the first place if they decided to not break the law.
...

I will agree with you, up to a point. If someone breaks into your home, and hurts themselves on something that you would have 'reasonably expected' to put away had you been known company was calling, then they should not be able to sue the homeowner. However, too many people here are advocating an action towards an alleged criminal that is 'different' than they would act towards a non-criminal. And that is wrong imo- if there is no threat to a person's safety or liberty.

In your post above you say "I meant stripped of [some] his rights...". I would argue that taking away even some of a person's rights needs to be done with great reluctance. And the reason courts have been reluctant to diminish even an criminal's rights is that too often a victim or bystander has used excessive force to stop a minor crime. A person, even in the act of stealing a phone, still has the right to not be pummelled to a pulp. Their right to "Life" is not extinguished because they steal someone's property.

Perhaps the courts have gone too far one way or another trying to balance the competing rights - because I believe the property also has some rights - but my hackles rise when I see people (not saying you are among them) ready to deprive someone of their health or life in the interests of protecting a phone.

 

[ctdonath]

Over here (Netherlands) a employee can just stop a thief and take him inside until the police arrives.

Ah, but HOW are you going to "just stop" him? You think he's going to submit to your overwhelming strength or authority and humbly go sit in the corner awaiting the cops? Are you really ready to exert the physical restraint and harm necessary to, in fact, overpower him into submission? Do you have enough training/experience to exert physical dominance in a way which is both effective enough to stop him AND controlled/smart enough to not inflict criminally undue harm?

As for anyone being able to arrest: yes, we have that too. Thing is, there is a small and stark difference between "citizen's arrest" and "unlawful restraint". You'd better be right, and I'd bet you haven't even cracked a law book on the relevant subjects (much less _know_ the laws involved).

Yes, here in America anyone can stop and arrest a thief. Thing is, that's a much more complex act than most people realize - and the price of making a mistake is very high.

In this particular case, the phones were on and likely already being tracked before they left the building. Customers already paid the insurance premiums to cover the losses. And "there's no such thing as bad publicity"; the perps are probably already in jail and Apple has earned the money back from publicity from the story.

Showroom thefts happen. They're already dealt with in the bookkeeping and legal system. Floor staff are paid to help customers, not rescue a pittance in product at risk of their lives and lawsuits against the company.

 

[tflournoy95]

See, this is my point about your "Opinions", just the fact that you even asked me that question that I highlighted just shows that you don't understand the situation. Maybe what you state you're calling them opinions but what I am stating is the law, at least in the U.S., and when you get older you'll probably look at this in a more mature way rather than just saying that employes of a company should be free to chase criminals and apprehend them to retrieve property.

Kleptomaniacs have a mental illness and they can shoplift without even thinking about it and although they can still get into trouble they can be excused by the courts if the company in question that they ripped off caused the thief harm in the process if they touch him. There's several people with mental illnesses that have civil rights regardless what they do as long as they are being treated by a doctor. There are many reasons why companies and even small businesses can not and will not chase thieves and one big reason is they know they can be sued and their business can get closed down.

how rare is that disease? we shouldnt be able to stop any criminal just because of a select few? and im sure those people arent wearing medical bracelets when they steal stuff are they?

Let me check to see if I understand correctly. You three, to varying degrees, believe that an American citizen can deprive a 2nd American citizen of their rights simply because the first citizen believes the second citizen is doing something wrong? And in this case, of property theft, the first citizen's (or anyone else's) rights to safety are not being threatened - so intervening to protect those rights are not required.

OK, so I'm not an American, but my understanding was that Humans were born with certain rights - and that, in theory at least in the USA, only the constitution and certain authorities specified by the constitution, could abrogate those rights. Not some citizen vigilante who doesn't like what someone else is doing.

Of course, what do I know. I come from socialist Canada where we never bothered with the PATRIOT act, FBI security certificates, etc etc

its not exactly hard to figure out that someone is breaking the law if they are running out of a store with a bunch of crap under their arms.

Ah, but HOW are you going to "just stop" him? You think he's going to submit to your overwhelming strength or authority and humbly go sit in the corner awaiting the cops? Are you really ready to exert the physical restraint and harm necessary to, in fact, overpower him into submission? Do you have enough training/experience to exert physical dominance in a way which is both effective enough to stop him AND controlled/smart enough to not inflict criminally undue harm?

criminally undue harm? thats ridiculous. if you think its okay to go and rob a store maybe you deserve to get hit.
and its really not hard to restrain people.