Thought of that when i wrote it. It just seemed so appropriate...at first anyway. It turns out the guy had a gun soo. My lesson for today is that MacRumors doesnt necessarily put all the important details in the summary 😀. I mean if your going to post an article and say, Guy gets shot in the head, you might want to let people know that he had it coming.
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.
Attempted Apple Store Holdup Goes Bad: Suspect Killed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thought of that when i wrote it. It just seemed so appropriate...at first anyway. It turns out the guy had a gun soo. My lesson for today is that MacRumors doesnt necessarily put all the important details in the summary 😀. I mean if your going to post an article and say, Guy gets shot in the head, you might want to let people know that he had it coming.
You're totally out of your mind. Stop watching CSI. The "wanna be hero" mindset when someone pulls a gun on you is calling "fighting to survive" and this security guard in this case its called "HE WAS DOING HIS JOB!"
I agree. Also since the mall was closed this may have been an armed night security guard, the article does not state that the daytime "mall cops" carry guns.
Read the entire article. He was not a "mall guard". He was hired by Apple specifically to guard that Apple store. I assume he was not your basic minimum wage guard.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Don't be sad! Seriously this is a very very good thing and has nothing to do with iToys. It is all about the removal of the criminal element from society in a manner the doctors and lawyers can't reverse.
Many people seem to want to support the criminals in this case, frankly I think they have mental health issues. It is pretty clear that tolerance and attempted reforms of criminals lead to tragic instance for society as a whole. The earlier the criminals are eliminated from society, forever, the better off we are.
fredoviola said:
Don't be sad! Seriously this is a very very good thing and has nothing to do with iToys. It is all about the removal of the criminal element from society in a manner the doctors and lawyers can't reverse.
Many people seem to want to support the criminals in this case, frankly I think they have mental health issues. It is pretty clear that tolerance and attempted reforms of criminals lead to tragic instance for society as a whole. The earlier the criminals are eliminated from society, forever, the better off we are.
Most of these armed guard firms hire Cops, former Cops, former military, etc. You can just sign up and get a gun handed to you.
Nobody questions that.
Most of the next dozen or so killings that followed in the subsequent minute, however, could have been.
Seems you think because the first was not preventable, the rest were not either. Odd reasoning.
How do you think all the illegal immigrants survive then?
They get help from the government.
Anybody who was born here can have the chance to be an educated person with morals, they just need to find help, but since they're too lazy to find it, they become scumbags, luckily one got killed
In the grand scheme of things, it's a bad situation and we can all pity the criminal from the moment he was born into a tough life (and that's making generous assumptions about him).
At the moment such a person turns violent, there is simply nothing left to cry over. His death right then is fine and appropriate.
At the moment such a person turns violent, there is simply nothing left to cry over. His death right then is fine and appropriate.
What a joke. You compare someone running out of a supermarket with a loaf of bread, to robbing an Apple Store for high end electronics with GUNS, and USING THEM.
So, I suppose in the liberal-mind, the life of the security guard is worth less than whatever righteous cause has motivated the criminal scumbag.
My guess is that Beatles is wearing black today, and he is mourning the passing of one from his voting block.
I actually only own a shotgun. I keep it at the house. If an intruder were to enter, the sound of cocking it would likely be enough of a deterrent I feel.
My wife owns a handgun that her father gave her. It is back in NY . We will be picking it up when we travel this summer. But I need to find how to transport it back as there may be laws and licenses may not go state to state. I'm thinking after we target shoot with hers, I may get one too and we could shoot together. A friend of mine goes shooting in the desert. That is the nice thing here in AZ. You can go outside of town and find some barren desert to target shoot. I mean the desert makes it easy to see there is no one else around behind your target. Just don't shoot the saguaro. They are endangered.
I had to do something similar with a belligerent boyfriend and his girlfriend outside my apartment years ago. I didn't own a shotgun back then but I called the cops. While I waited I held a golf club and listened. I was going to run out and distract him but luckily it was only verbal arguing from that point on. So I didn't have to. This guy had started out being physical but it didn't escalate to what you describe.
Give me a break.
By the way, people saying he should not have shot him in the head... Well you are right, he should have shot him in the chest... But if you EVER shoot a gun, your only aim is to kill the person.
You should not be shooting a gun without the goal of killing them. That is very basic and fundamental handgun training. It is not a video game, you don't wing a guy or shoot the gun out of your hand. If you reach the point where you need to fire a handgun at someone else than you must try to kill them.
Otherwise you are "Doing it wrong."
You should not be shooting a gun without the goal of killing them. That is very basic and fundamental handgun training. It is not a video game, you don't wing a guy or shoot the gun out of your hand. If you reach the point where you need to fire a handgun at someone else than you must try to kill them.
Otherwise you are "Doing it wrong."
I'm not taking sides on this, just stating what the article said. People aren't reading the article and just assuming it all took place inside the mall. Most of it was outside.
And if it isn't, you just told him where you are, what you have, and gave him (in his mind) good reason to drop you first. You ready to follow thru when making that threat to him?
I doubt they have any cash... I trie to pay with cash once and the person looked at me like I was some sort of alien being.... and said uh wait right here for a minute.
Frankly, nobody in this thread really knows what they are talking about when it comes to the events in the OP, and that includes you and me. You don't know how the firefight played out, or how much training the guard had. At this point it's all pure speculation, and unless you can produce a visual timeline of the incident it is impossible to either criticize or defend the decisions of the guard, apart from the fact that it is likely that the guard fired in self-defense.
Police are always trained to aim for center mass. Judging from the article, the guard was firing at a fleeing car and the head shot to the driver was not aimed. Aimed shots to the head of a fleeing driver exist only in Hollywood films.
I think that's an extremely bloodthirsty outlook, and I do not want my community to become a shooting gallery. I support gun ownership and I'm not against the principle of keeping firearms from self-defense. However, more guns (kept for this puprose) does mean more shootings. And I do not want more shootings.
Most concealed carry owners do not have any actual training besides basic firarms safety, and are more of a danger to themselves and the community than anything else. Why do you think police officers undergo intensive and ongoing training in the use of firearms?
Trying to de-humanize people in order to justify killing them is an incredibly slippery slope. The exact same "reasoning" has been used to support slavery and genocide.
Pathetic...
WOW, there's way too many of you that have sympathy for the robbers. ARE YOU ***** KIDDING ME?!?!! THEY WERE CONSCIOUSLY COMMITTING A CRIME AND THEY DESERVED TO BE SHOT! ...and why does it matter where he got shot? I bet many of you have never even shot a gun and you sure as hell haven't been in the same position as the mall cop. Good for the mall cop that took him out, good for him.
WOW, there's way too many of you that have sympathy for the robbers. ARE YOU ***** KIDDING ME?!?!! THEY WERE CONSCIOUSLY COMMITTING A CRIME AND THEY DESERVED TO BE SHOT! ...and why does it matter where he got shot? I bet many of you have never even shot a gun and you sure as hell haven't been in the same position as the mall cop. Good for the mall cop that took him out, good for him.
The article stated that 40 shots were fired between the robbers and the guard. I would say that constitutes "life in danger". I doubt that the security guard actually meant to aim at the head of the perp. More than likely he was aiming center mass (which is taught to Police, etc. due to it being the largest and easiest target to hit at any distance) and got lucky. One in the computer will put a man down no matter what calibre he was using.