Attempted Apple Store Holdup Goes Bad: Suspect Killed

[DeepIn2U]

What would you do if someone was shooting at you?

REGARDLESS!

1. Mall should've had evacuation the moment the first gunshot was fired!
- they have walkie-talkies & other staff.
2. Of course lives where at danger so retaliation fire was permitted.
- this should've been warning shots; let the REAL police stop them. Either way you need to protect the innocent.
3. Standards for using a Firearm need to be investigated.
- First EVERY body that upholds the law NEEDS to know what the backdrop is (if you ask then you should NOT own a gun)! Second NOBODY that cannot target a limb at less than 20foot range - non moving- should be licensed!
- There are Limbs, a body cavity that is a LOT LARGER than a HEAD to target and a lot higher % of success rate with less fatality by at least 50% if penetrated vs Head shots.
^ This needs to be investigated. UNLESS a HOSTAGE was held or life in danger no headshots are required.

RENT-A-COPS do NOT need guns ... if so then the Mall is bad and Apple should NOT have a store there.

All in all this is BAD press!!

 

[mfulton]

http://www.geek.com/articles/apple/apple-store-san-diego-shooting-today-ends-in-one-death-2011044/

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Shooting-Reported-at-Otay-Ranch-Town-Center-119181734.html

Apple hired the officer, not the mall. The store was not open at 7am when the smash and grab occurred. The robbers broke through the glass in front. The officer was inside the store. The criminals pulled their guns out first. Shots were fired. One gunman was shot in the butt. The other was shot in the head. Since the guy shot in the head was in the car when he died, my guess is the guard had nothing else to aim at.

One of the handguns used was stolen, which irks me. If you are going to own a gun, and I have several, lock them up.

The STORE MANAGER was in the store, not the guard. The guard was in his own vehicle in the parking lot when the event started.

 

[LagunaSol]

But I've had two rifles in my safe for years, and there's still only two. What am I doing wrong? They're not ugly. Do I need to give them soft music, candlelight, what?

Oh. The Enfield is gay, right? I should have guessed.

I'm looking to cross-breed my S&W revolver with a 1911 semi-auto. Any takers? What's the stud fee?

I'm not strictly against the principle of keeping firearms for self-defense. But your implication that there is no reasonable alternative to armed confrontation is absurd.

Your argument would hold more weight if you would provide some "reasonable alternatives to armed confrontation."

A man breaks through your window and enters your house. He has a gun. You:

A:
B:
C:

I'm all ears.

That much power and a 3" barrel means your ceiling has a lot more to fear than any dirtbag. You better put on a helmet first, there's great danger the gun barrel is going to lay your forehead open too.

That's why I go to the range and shoot it every chance I get. I've yet to hit the ceiling at the range.

(You've obviously never shot a 3" .357 revolver - the recoil is not what you think.)

The .357 Magnum is a pretty comfortable gun to shoot, even with a short barrel, if you practice. Over-penetration is a much bigger concern with the .357 than recoil. Plenty of innocent people have been shot and killed by bullets travelling through walls.

I keep mine loaded with .38 for home defense. No need to blind and deafen myself with a .357 load, not to mention the over-penetration danger you mention. I save the .357 for hostile bear/mountain lion when hiking/camping.

Here's hoping I never have to use either caliber against human or animal. But if it comes down to that, I'll do so without hesitation and without regret.

 

[AwakenedLands]

The STORE MANAGER was in the store, not the guard. The guard was in his own vehicle in the parking lot when the event started.

I've read about 5 different stories on this, and each were stating the guard was in the store talking to the manager. Journalism at it's finest!

 

[LocoStrange]

A worthless criminal died. Whats the problem again? My taxes wont go to waste keeping his worthless ass alive in prison.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Vermin fits. What would you call them?

Humans. Why do we need to pretend they are something else?

I think the point is that many other people in this thread are blaming the guard for all that. While the people you are against are blaming the criminals.

There have been few statements questioning the guard's actiuons. And frankly, if he did shoot up a fleeing car (assuming he was not being fired at at the time), then I think that is one action that should be questioned.

"Blaming" the criminals is one thing. Pretending they are "subhuman" or some such and/or rejoicing in the killing of one of them is disturbing, whether or not the killing is justified.

 

[LagunaSol]

And what if he's intent not on stealing something, but murdering you, raping your wife or abducting your children?

If an armed person breaks into your house, you must assume all of the above. The guy who stops to inquire as to intent is the dead guy. And possibly said wife and children too.

 

[AppleScruff1]

REGARDLESS!

1. Mall should've had evacuation the moment the first gunshot was fired!
- they have walkie-talkies & other staff.
2. Of course lives where at danger so retaliation fire was permitted.
- this should've been warning shots; let the REAL police stop them. Either way you need to protect the innocent.
3. Standards for using a Firearm need to be investigated.
- First EVERY body that upholds the law NEEDS to know what the backdrop is (if you ask then you should NOT own a gun)! Second NOBODY that cannot target a limb at less than 20foot range - non moving- should be licensed!
- There are Limbs, a body cavity that is a LOT LARGER than a HEAD to target and a lot higher % of success rate with less fatality by at least 50% if penetrated vs Head shots.
^ This needs to be investigated. UNLESS a HOSTAGE was held or life in danger no headshots are required.

RENT-A-COPS do NOT need guns ... if so then the Mall is bad and Apple should NOT have a store there.

All in all this is BAD press!!

This happened at 7AM, the mall wasn't open for business. No warning shots, if someone shoots at you and you return fire, you shoot to stop them. Period. The man killed was in a car. What part of the body is visible?

 

[SandynJosh]

We're not talking about a home owner, we're talking about a security guard who's gone through at least minimal training for such situations. Drastically different situations.

Of course, Captain Obvious, that's why I made that distinction!

 

[electronboy]

An armed robber who brought a loaded weapon and used it against police was shot and killed. No innocent people were harmed. It didn't go "bad" or "turn sour". This story has a happy ending.

Had the armed suspect wanted a happy ending to his day he could have chosen not to commit a felony AND arm himself with a deadly weapon.

 

[iStudentUK]

Hopefully you will never experience a home invasion. But if you do, I'm sorry to tell you, but all that idealism will go out the window. Your only thought will be survival. It is an unimaginably terrifying experience. You will not be thinking "Maybe he's a nice robber".

If someone breaks into a house that isn't an excuse for a "shoot first ask later" policy. If an unarmed person breaks into a house without any intent to cause harm the homeowner should be able to threaten serious force and use reasonable force.

There have been a couple of cases in the UK recently of homeowners using excessive force when confronted with an intruder who wasn't really of any real threat. They were quite rightly convicted.

 

[MarkG21]

REGARDLESS!

1. Mall should've had evacuation the moment the first gunshot was fired!
- they have walkie-talkies & other staff.
2. Of course lives where at danger so retaliation fire was permitted.
- this should've been warning shots; let the REAL police stop them. Either way you need to protect the innocent.
3. Standards for using a Firearm need to be investigated.
- First EVERY body that upholds the law NEEDS to know what the backdrop is (if you ask then you should NOT own a gun)! Second NOBODY that cannot target a limb at less than 20foot range - non moving- should be licensed!
- There are Limbs, a body cavity that is a LOT LARGER than a HEAD to target and a lot higher % of success rate with less fatality by at least 50% if penetrated vs Head shots.
^ This needs to be investigated. UNLESS a HOSTAGE was held or life in danger no headshots are required.

RENT-A-COPS do NOT need guns ... if so then the Mall is bad and Apple should NOT have a store there.

All in all this is BAD press!!

1. This was at 7am. Mall was (probably) closed.

2. Am I reading this right? Somebody shoots at you and all you should do is fire warning shots and wait for the police?

 

[rtkane]

Are you suggesting that every person who doesn't arm themselves against such exigencies is a coward or foolish?

No, but I am suggesting that the availability of options is a positive. I see from another post you don't discount an armed response, but you do seem to move towards a non-armed response as a preference when confronting an unknown intruder. I have a S&W 9mm in a safe under my bed (locked safely but easily accessible to me alone) and you'll bet your life that if someone broke into my house that's the first thing that would come out. I can always choose whether or not to de-escalate, but without having the option in my hand, I can't go the other way around and escalate if the intruder comes up the stairs with a knife or gun. And on top of this, I'm a former instructor in the PR-24 side handle baton, have had hand to hand training at the police academy as well as a couple of years of martial arts training, so I'd probably be better equipped physically to fight someone, but I'd STILL rely on a sidearm as a first choice when someone is coming up the stairs in the dark.

If you don't have a way to defend yourself, whether it's a bat under your bed or a gun, then yes, it's foolish. Castle laws are created because nobody should be forced to retreat in their home while someone does whatever they want. It's your sanctuary, and if people don't stand up for their property, themselves, and their families, then we're giving criminals a free pass to do whatever they want.

My only advice, though, is that if you have NOT had any weapons training that you leave the gun in the safe because you're more likely to have it used on you than to use it on someone else. If you have a gun, get trained on it.

Oh, and just a funny sign to lighten the mood:

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

I keep mine loaded with .38 for home defense. No need to blind and deafen myself with a .357 load, not to mention the over-penetration danger you mention. I save the .357 for hostile bear/mountain lion when hiking/camping.

People who keep huge guns for personal home defense have no clue what they are doing. You're so right 357's are meant for larger targets not some guy trying to home invade you. My 9MM is perfect and if some guy in body armour come to break into my house... he's an idiot because I have nothing that would merit him stealing from me with body armour on in the first place.

Also the guy saying handguns were made to kill humans is mis-informed. The 50 caliber handguns available were mostly made with the intent to carry while hunting in case something like a bear attacks you.

 

[SandynJosh]

This happened at 7AM, the mall wasn't open for business. No warning shots, if someone shoots at you and you return fire, you shoot to stop them. Period. The man killed was in a car. What part of the body is visible?

The criminal low life DIED in the car. No one yet knows where he was when he was shot, although "in the car" is a good guess. With forty shots fired, one of his buddies may have shot him. No one knows for sure whose bullets went where.

 

[rtkane]

REGARDLESS!

1. Mall should've had evacuation the moment the first gunshot was fired!
- they have walkie-talkies & other staff.
2. Of course lives where at danger so retaliation fire was permitted.
- this should've been warning shots; let the REAL police stop them. Either way you need to protect the innocent.
3. Standards for using a Firearm need to be investigated.
- First EVERY body that upholds the law NEEDS to know what the backdrop is (if you ask then you should NOT own a gun)! Second NOBODY that cannot target a limb at less than 20foot range - non moving- should be licensed!
- There are Limbs, a body cavity that is a LOT LARGER than a HEAD to target and a lot higher % of success rate with less fatality by at least 50% if penetrated vs Head shots.
^ This needs to be investigated. UNLESS a HOSTAGE was held or life in danger no headshots are required.

RENT-A-COPS do NOT need guns ... if so then the Mall is bad and Apple should NOT have a store there.

All in all this is BAD press!!

Warning shots? Really??? I hope to god that you never have to face a situation like this because if the person responsible for your protection enacts all of your items in the list above, they'll be dead, you'll be dead and so will others.

 

[RalfTheDog]

The .357 Magnum is a pretty comfortable gun to shoot, even with a short barrel, if you practice. Over-penetration is a much bigger concern with the .357 than recoil. Plenty of innocent people have been shot and killed by bullets travelling through walls.

357 frangible?

 

[Eddyisgreat]

On the other hand, scores of people on this thread can hardly contain their joy at the fact that someone was shot and killed in a firefight during a robbery. People are posting smilies and vapid one-liners from video games and movies about shooting people, as if it's all a big game. And yet that part doesn't seem to bother you one bit.

Wait wait wait HOLD UP.

You're telling me that I should be disturbed that the people are happy because an armed gunman, who entered the premises to ROB and (if necessary) KILL innocent people at a shopping mall, is dead?

U seriously just ask me that? You said it all right here:

...the fact that someone was shot and killed in a firefight during a robbery.

So let me ask you again. I should be disturbed that people are happy because an armed gunman, who entered the premises to ROB and (if necessary) KILL innocent people at a shopping mall is dead from a shootout that was the direct result of their actions?

No. Just so we're clear, no. I'm not disturbed that people are happy. I'm not disturbed that these people are gleeful that an individual with the intent to rob and kill is no longer on the face of the earth. Why should society cater to those who clearly have disregard for the lives of others. I play by the rules. Everyone else plays by the rules. Why shouldn't (or didn't) they? Tough childhood? That sucks.
Why should you, I, or anyone else have to die because of it?

 

[vipergts2207]

Are you suggesting that every person who doesn't arm themselves against such exigencies is a coward or is somehow foolish?

It is a bit foolish to not have a way to defend yourself isn't it? You only get one life, there are no do overs.

Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.

What exactly are your alternatives to shooting back at someone who is shooting at you? You said there are others so what are they?

 

[AppleScruff1]

The criminal low life DIED in the car. No one yet knows where he was when he was shot, although "in the car" is a good guess. With forty shots fired, one of his buddies may have shot him. No one knows for sure whose bullets went where.

Do you think maybe he was shot in the head and then ran to the car to get away?

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Warning shots? Really??? I hope to god that you never have to face a situation like this because if the person responsible for your protection enacts all of your items in the list above, they'll be dead, you'll be dead and so will others.

I love all the crazy stuff he just made up there. "Backdrop"... backstop?

I really love the limb targeting idea. Who does that? I think these people think bullets are magic. They think it's like the movies where the bad guy just drops dead or goes flying backwards. Often times, even after a hit to a vital area, the bad guy doesn't even know he's been hit, and will live long enough to kill you. That's why you don't waste time aiming for limbs. Also, if you aim for limbs, you WILL miss, and hit bystanders.

 

[DeepIn2U]

http://www.geek.com/articles/apple/apple-store-san-diego-shooting-today-ends-in-one-death-2011044/

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Shooting-Reported-at-Otay-Ranch-Town-Center-119181734.html

Apple hired the officer, not the mall. The store was not open at 7am when the smash and grab occurred. The robbers broke through the glass in front. The officer was inside the store. The criminals pulled their guns out first. Shots were fired. One gunman was shot in the butt. The other was shot in the head. Since the guy shot in the head was in the car when he died, my guess is the guard had nothing else to aim at.

One of the handguns used was stolen, which irks me. If you are going to own a gun, and I have several, lock them up.

There are tires to shoot at - Van doesn't travel far or fast with flat tires.
Again if his own life is at risk - there should be another exit from the store - fire hazard if there is not. The article doesn't state that the driver is extremely short. You still could see shoulders above the dashboard/steering wheel.

Criminals need to be punished but taking a life for a theft crime is just as ridiculous as carrying guns to steal products. Both are at fault for the attempt & outcome.

Man if there was no credit/money/barter/trade (and the need to have greed/own people with these) in this world a lot of potentials issues would be solved.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Wait wait wait HOLD UP.

You're telling me that I should be disturbed that the people are happy because an armed gunman, who entered the premises to ROB and (if necessary) KILL innocent people at a shopping mall, is dead?

U seriously just ask me that? You said it all right here:


So let me ask you again. I should be disturbed that people are happy because an armed gunman, who entered the premises to ROB and (if necessary) KILL innocent people at a shopping mall is dead from a shootout that was the direct result of their actions?

No. Just so we're clear, no. I'm not disturbed that people are happy. I'm not disturbed that these people are gleeful that an individual with the intent to rob and kill is no longer on the face of the earth. Why should society cater to those who clearly have disregard for the lives of others. I play by the rules. Everyone else plays by the rules. Why shouldn't (or didn't) they? Tough childhood? That sucks.
Why should you, I, or anyone else have to die because of it?

Some times people need to kill other people. This is sad but true. Anyone who is happy that they killed another person is at best a sociopathic monster.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

I love all the crazy stuff he just made up there. "Backdrop"... backstop?

I really love the limb targeting idea. Who does that? I think these people think bullets are magic. They think it's like the movies where the bad guy just drops dead or goes flying backwards. Often times, even after a hit to a vital area, the bad guy doesn't even know he's been hit, and will live long enough to kill you. That's why you don't waste time aiming for limbs. Also, if you aim for limbs, you WILL miss, and hit bystanders.

You aim for the area that will:

#1 have the best chance of hitting without collateral damage
#2 will stop the assailant (most people when the endorphins kick in can take a few bullets and still run at you and attack/kill you even when wounded.)
#3 KEEP YOU ALIVE

Torso is the best place to aim.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

If someone breaks into a house that isn't an excuse for a "shoot first ask later" policy. If an unarmed person breaks into a house without any intent to cause harm the homeowner should be able to threaten serious force and use reasonable force.

There have been a couple of cases in the UK recently of homeowners using excessive force when confronted with an intruder who wasn't really of any real threat. They were quite rightly convicted.

In the US, most states adhere to the Castle Doctrine. So we'd consider them quite wrongly convicted. If you violate someone's home, the assumption is that you are there to cause harm. The homeowner is not responsible for taking the time to figure out what you meant by breaking into the house.

It truly is shoot first, ask later. And that's the way it should be. I shouldn't have to die just to make some sophisticated Europeans feel better.