Attempted Apple Store Holdup Goes Bad: Suspect Killed

unlinked said:
Could you provide a url for the stats you are referencing?
Click to expand...

U.S. Department of Justice study http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf estimates 1.5 million defensive uses annually. Numbers seem to vary from 0.8M to 3.0M depending on how you squint at things. Consensus is that the numbers are large, most of the time just displaying the thing is enough to stop the attack, and you have to actually have one to be able to display it.
 
cdallen said:
Don't hate the bearer of bad news... Be the grown up one that looks to the solution and not the problem.
Click to expand...
You weren't bearing bad news, you were being stupid.

That is assuming you honestly believe such nonsense. I suspect you're just stirring the pot. No one is that ignorant, are they?
 
Lord Blackadder said:
If you want to get technical, police are always trained to fire multiple shots at center mass. At no point are they ever told to fire just one shot - with the important exception of police marksmen, but that doesn't apply here. That is why the use of firearms is termed "lethal force". Properly used, firearms will kill - not wound. Aiming for a limb or the head with a service handgun is extremely bad practice when a torso shot is possible.

"One Shot One Kill" is a tagline for movies and video games. It has no place in a serious discussion of this incident.



The criminals are not subhuman, even if they are ultimately largely responsible for their own deaths. If you dehumanize them, you are dehumanizing yourself.
Click to expand...

Three to the chest, two to the head (If you can). Remember, some people have body armor.
 
rtkane said:
Seriously? You're comparing UK car driving skills with US car driving skills? How hard is it for you guys to drive a car when you don't need to have a gun in your hand to wave around at people who piss you off??? We are FAR more talented drivers than you non-gun-waving pansies.

(that's a just a joke, by the way!)
Click to expand...

Plus, can they drive in the UK while eating a Whopper, driving with the left knee and updating their facebook status on their smart-phone? We americans are gifted.
 
andiwm2003 said:
it's only sad in a general sense that a life was lost but I do not feel too sad about the robber as a person. He made his choice and a very bad one at that. He intentionally planned on shooting and killing other people just to make a few bucks on stolen apple stuff. Our compassion should be directed to the millions of people who actually deserve it.
Click to expand...

It is a common theme with unsuccessful criminals that they cannot properly foresee the possible consequences of what they are doing. Committing a robbery unarmed is one thing: The possible consequences are either money, or getting caught and a prison sentence. Taking a gun to the robbery is pointless unless you plan to use it. If you don't use it, the only thing it can achieve is a longer sentence if you get caught. But a person without foresight would take it with a vague feeling of "just in case" as if that gun could magically save them. The possible consequences are now: Killing someone, which means even if you make your way out, the cops are now _really_ interested in catching you, and if they catch you, which is quite likely, there is a _severe_ sentence. Or as it happened, you get killed.

Quite possible that the criminals would have escaped had they been unarmed. Quite likely that the guard would have not decided to shoot a criminal who is running away in the back. Yes, bad choice.


ctdonath said:
What's the point of a security guard who doesn't?
"Stop! or I'll say 'Stop!' again!"
Click to expand...

Depends on your intention. Priority should be to keep the customers safe. Would you rather three armed robbers getting away with 100 iPads, or a gunfight in which a robber dies and a customer gets badly injured, if it happens when the store is open? An unarmed security guard who keeps some stupid people from causing trouble and makes everyone feel safe is worth his money.
 
Last edited:
Isn't better to aim at the chest to avoid the chances of missing (larger target area)? Anyways, this news post made me very happy, I wish more criminals were killed rather than wasting tax payer money in courts and prisons. Hopefully, the guard gets treated as the hero he is and not charged with any crap like "excessive force".
 
I was about to say damn no need to gun shots to stop apple store burglaries. But since the burglars were armed. It is what it is.

MacRumors said:



123733-otay_ranch_store.jpg


Apple's Otay Ranch retail store
San Diego 6 reports that an attempted holdup at Apple's Otay Ranch retail store in Chula Vista, California went sour this morning, with one of the robbers reportedly having been shot and killed by a mall security guard.NBC San Diego reports that two other suspects, one of whom had also been shot, have been arrested. The incident happened shortly before 7:00 AM this morning, before the store had opened for business.

Article Link: Attempted Apple Store Holdup Goes Bad: Suspect Killed
Click to expand...
 
40 rounds is a lot. I don't get how anyone can not defend the guards actions. seems pretty open and shut to me.

I never was in the military but my best friend was and served in afghanistan. every day in our emails id tell him shoot first as questions later. probably not the right thing to do but at the end of the day, they were looking to kill him while he was there for support (canadian).

he came home alive and so did the guard today
 
wizard said:
It really doesn't matter in my mind if they where armed or not
Click to expand...

A dangerous opinion, and one that you may someday discover does not jive with the law of the land.

wizard said:
the important thing is one is dead and hopefully the other is dying. There is no justification for crime and people that take that route should enjoy a very short life.
Click to expand...

"Crime" in general deserves death? What kind of justice system is that?

urbanj said:
40 rounds is a lot. I don't get how anyone can not defend the guards actions. seems pretty open and shut to me.
Click to expand...

40 rounds between three handguns is nothing, especially if the criminals were firing indiscriminately. It's impossible to criticize the guard's actions without further information. Based on what we know he seems to have acted appropriately, though if he killed the robber by firing at a fleeing car (assuming he wasn't being fired at) it may change things.
 
Very little facts in the case yet. One thing you can bet on is these robbers are stupid. Some security guards are cops. Reality is you point a gun at a cop they shoot to kill. This isnt the movies where they shoot 'em in the leg. Too many of their brothers have died & I bet you didnt hear about that on MacRumors.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
Properly used, firearms will kill - not wound. Aiming for a limb or the head with a service handgun is extremely bad practice when a torso shot is possible.
Click to expand...

I hate to belabor the point, but properly used, firearms will stop, not necessarily kill. Police are not trained to kill--they are trained to stop. Death may be a result or only a wound, but killing is not what they're taught at the academy.
 
Last edited:
nonameowns said:
Which is better? A dead criminal or a wasted space for a sore loser in prison?

Dead is better.
Click to expand...

I just can't understand this view. It is quite bizarre to me.

I try to be better than that- Give them a trial, put them in prison and try to balance punishment and rehabilitation. Hoping for their death isn't progress and is bringing yourself down closer to their level.
 
macquariumguy said:
You weren't bearing bad news, you were being stupid.

That is assuming you honestly believe such nonsense. I suspect you're just stirring the pot. No one is that ignorant, are they?
Click to expand...

Its common knowledge... Common fact available for all to see... That is for those that want to see.

I wasnt trying to stir the pot... I'm sorry if i upset you. No need to cry - just don't reply.
 
How the UK would have done it ...

When the officers first arrive they will make an immediate assessment. If an armed containment is deemed necessary to isolate an armed suspect from the public, then two of the crew will deploy leaving one to control the incident, calling for further armed support and liaising with the local senior police officer. All these officers are personally armed with 'Glock' 17 self-loading pistols and two of the officers have access to 'Heckler and Koch' MP5 carbines.
_______________________________________________________
How America dealt with it ...

"Hey buddy ... step away from the window .. or I'll shoot you in the .. *BANG! BANG! BANG!* ... head"

"Paul Blart ... at your service, Sir!"

________________________________________________________

Scary, huh?

'Nuff said!
 
I know this article says the robbery ended badly -- but it could have ended in a far worse way. From what I understand these guys threatened the guard by brandishing guns or actually fired upon him first (I don't have the whole set of facts here). This could have ended really badly if the guard lost his life instead of the jerks who decided to try an armed robbery on a retail store.

My sister in law survived an armed robbery in retail and she was very shaken by it -- she did not think the guy was going to let her live and she had bad dreams about it for some time to come and fears about going back to work after that. These people don't have the right to do that to others and while I am sad that they made the choices they did, those choices that they made have consequences. I do not sit here wishing that they just would have gotten away with the robbery rather than one of them getting killed and the rest arrested. Would it have been if all had gotten arrested and none killed? Sure it would -- but you make the decision to threaten the lives of others and you are deciding that those material things you wish to steal are worth risking your life. Any one of them could have decided to give up the robbery after the guard showed up -- but they did not -- they chose to fire on him.

To all those who say "the guard should not have aimed at the guy's head" -- I just want to say that when shooting, these guys are taught to aim for the center of mass. The reason they are taught that is because it increases the chances of hitting the target somewhere without hitting an innocent bystander. It is far more likely this guard was aiming for the center of mass and ended up shooting the guy in the head than it is likely that he actually aimed for the head of a moving target with a pistol and managed to hit that target in the head -- that sort of thing only happens with sniper rifles or in the movies. Real-world gunfire exchanges with pistols are not at all like the movies -- I doubt this guard was taking aim to kill the guy with a shot in the head -- I am pretty sure he was trying to do anything he could to stay alive. Now if the guard says otherwise, then he is either exaggerating and bragging or is an incredible shot.
 
rtkane said:
I hate to belabor the point, but properly used, firearms will stop, not kill. Police are not trained to kill--they are trained to stop. Death may be a result or only a wound, but killing is not what they're taught at the academy.
Click to expand...

Again the first rule of a gun is, never point them at another person unless you are prepared to take their life. There is no such thing as winging a person, that is for movies and for people who don't know how to use a weapon.
 
mattwolfmatt said:
I'm as pro gun rights as anyone, but this sounds like a problem for the security guard. Unless that guard's life was in danger, there was no reason to shoot anyone, especially in the head.
Click to expand...

You did read the article right?
The guard told police a gun battle started when one suspect produced a handgun.



mattwolfmatt said:
The placement of that shot was no accident
Click to expand...

You may be pro 2nd but you seem to know nothing about shooting. Do you know how hard it would be to shoot a moving person in the head? I shoot a lot, a whole lot of lot, I train to shoot, I practice shooting at moving objects, with a handgun, and it ain't easy. To say that the shot placement was no accident is asinine. I would bet that it was an accident in that the guard was probably shooting for center mass, like he was trained in all likelihood and one went high, or low, or off the right or left, get it, head moving?

john
 
Last edited:
urbanj said:
40 rounds is a lot. I don't get how anyone can not defend the guards actions. seems pretty open and shut to me.

I never was in the military but my best friend was and served in afghanistan. every day in our emails id tell him shoot first as questions later. probably not the right thing to do but at the end of the day, they were looking to kill him while he was there for support (canadian).

he came home alive and so did the guard today
Click to expand...

Remember: This is "Mac Rumors". Not, reality. :apple:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top