Attempted Apple Store Holdup Goes Bad: Suspect Killed

[Eddyisgreat]

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.

You make it seem as if the criminal plead for his life and was shot execution style in the center of the store, track lights trained with every isight in the store focused on the event and broadcast live via uStream.

It was a SHOOT OUT, not premeditated murder.

 

[AppleScruff1]

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.

If the guy in the car had a gun and was shooting at you, would you shoot at his tires so he couldn't drive away but could keep shooting at you?
The criminals are at fault. They fired upon a man who was doing his job. He defended himself. One moron was killed as a result of his actions. Anyone with a half a brain that shoots at someone else who also has a gun might reasonably think that the person might shoot back.

Now lets get really simple. Why didn't the thieves just give up or run without shooting? Why did they bring guns in the first place?

 

[SandynJosh]

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?

Prom1's post was so unbelievably ignorant that I and most others here chose to ignore it. You were, incidentally, reading him right...

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

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.

They were possibly shooting at the guard from the car and you're suggesting that the guard shoots the tires instead?

 

[RalfTheDog]

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.

Body armor. Three to the chest, two to the head.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

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.

Passive defense is also an option. Having a family escape plan, installing a security system, pepper spray or even relocating to a safer neighborhood - these are all options too, amongst others. For some, being armed may be a good option. But it is not the only effective way to protect one's self and one's family. And frankly, you can't be prepared for everything, unless you adopt some sort of survivalist lifestyle (and then you're really only fooling yourself).

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.

This is my biggest issue with CCW. I can't tell you how many CCW holders I've met at gun shows or at ranges who boast about how prepared they are when the proverbial bad guy comes along because they have a gun. And yet few of these people have any sort of actual self-defense training. Simple firearms safety training gives you zero advantage over a criminal in a home-defense scenario. You're entering combat without any training. You ask such people about it and they are very self-assured about their abilities. But there is a reason that law enforcement personnel receive constant training in the use of their weapons. The vast majority of CCW holders have none of that training. And yet they insist that people like myself are cowards because I'm not ready to shout "say hello to my little friend" and start shooting.

 

[tkingart]

One of the reports states that the gunfire began when one of the suspects produced a handgun (they did not indicate whether or not the suspect began firing immediately) so by its very omission I'd "assume" that investigators are still trying to sort that detail out.) They may have brandished a weapon to deter intervention for all we know.

The Security Guard's gun would have been in a holster making it apparent that he was armed (or was it drawn?). Since a suspect "produced" a gun, and shooting did not begin until said gun was visible, the suspect's gun "may" have been concealed.

What I want to know is;

- Did the Security Guard "greet" the suspects with a gun pointed at them?
- Did the suspect "produce a gun" to show that he had one, or did he actually point it at the Security Guard.
- Did the Security Guard initiate the exchange of gunfire?
- Did the suspect(s) initiate the exchange of gunfire?
- With 40 rounds fired, there had to have been more than one exchange of gunfire (meaning the Security Guard/Suspect(s) reloaded), so who initiated the second exchange?
- How many shots did the Security Guard fire at the fleeing suspects?
- How many shots did the suspects fire at the Security Guard, before and at the time of fleeing?
- Were there any pedestrians in the vicinity of the exchange?

It is obvious that the suspects were fleeing and being shot at by the Security Guard while doing so- one of the suspects was shot in the side of the head with a bullet that had passed through the rear passenger window, and the other had a wound on their buttocks (supporting that the Security Guard was shooting at a car fleeing).

I do not condone violence, nor do I oppose what the Security Officer did, so long as he did not elevate a smash and grab into a dangerous and deadly shootout. It's one thing defending yourself and protecting others, it's another thing putting yourself and others at further risk by inducing a situation.

I believe the suspects were all in their mid 20's, and this is just sad. The point of my post is that there are too many missing details. If the Security Officer acted appropriately by "responding" to a situation, as opposed to making a bad situation worse, then the suspect created a situation that led to their death.

One possible reason I think people may be "defending" criminals, is because of situations where Police Officers use deadly force unnecessarily. Where I live, there was a teenager who was mentally handicapped that went on a rampage by breaking furniture at his house, the mother dialed 911 and the officer that arrived shot and killed that boy, even though he wasn't armed, and the officer got away with it. Another reason is, how ridiculous is it someone died over electronics? Maybe it's just me, but I think it's crazy when Apple is hiring "armed guards" to defend their stores. Violence begets violence, and it just seems a bit "Police State" to me.

I'm just bringing these things up to emphasize that there are a lot of details missing, and before jumping to conclusions, at least wait for more information to become available.

You know, just yesterday watching the news, a Radio Shack was running a deal where people that signed up for a year (or so) of Direct TV gets a free gun (a certificate for a free gun from a gun shop down the road.) For real.

 

[rtkane]

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.

He didn't take a life for a theft crime. He did it because the guy was trying to kill him. The fault lies with the guy committing the crime and bringing a gun. NOT to the man doing his job protecting himself.

 

[mfulton]

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. At 645am the mall was certainly mostly empty in the first place. Furthermore, from start to finish this entire event probably took no longer than a minute or two at most. It's not clear that the security guard even had a chance to call it in before the shooting started. Evacuation of the mall seems like an unlikely possibility.

2. A warning shot is something you would do BEFORE the real shooting started... once the bad guys are shooting at you there's pretty much no point in "warning" them about anything, is there?

3a. Why assume that the guard didn't know the backdrop? Which was nothing but storefronts, most certainly empty at that hour.

3b. You seem to make the contradictory assumptions that the guard was both untrained and yet also a sufficient marksman to make a headshot on a moving target at a range almost certainly much, much greater than 20ft.

Any firearms training that the guards take must certainly include some sort of basic marksmanship requirement, but even a skilled marksman is unlikely to make such a shot on purpose.

Don't forget the other guy got shot in the butt... I suppose you think that was the guard's way of sending a different message?

3c. It will no doubt be investigated... why would you think otherwise?

 

[WestonHarvey1]

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.

I'm obviously pro-gun and pro-self defense, but the bravado commenters really are silly little children. It's always sad when violence happens and someone dies, even if it was justified. The whole situation is sad as is any loss of human life. But sometimes it has to happen.

You won't find too many people who have killed in self defense that are happy about it. It's a life long trauma, regardless of it being perfectly justified and the happier outcome.

 

[roadbloc]

You're right. They only get stabbed.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=_kSaTceuKcyFhQfM1dzlCA

 

[Earendil]

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.

Excessive force is different than "Shoot first ask later". And since I don't think anyone is pushing for "kill first forget questioning", I'm not so sure shooting to injure is a bad idea.

I'd place large money on the average home invader being physically superior to the average human. Unless you are versed in a martial arts skill (and the invader isn't) then you have few options to equalize or gain the upper hand in this sort of situation.

A gun is certainly one way, and does not need to be deadly. I'm a relatively fit mail, and can cover the distance of an average room in 1-2 seconds. That is how long you are going to before my hands are on your if I am intent on subduing you.

That said, I don't own a gun (but live with my equally fit brother), and if I did I would not use the gun before announcing to the intruder my intent to use it if they did not leave immediately, even though doing so is strategically idiotic.

I also don't think death is justice for robbery. However if I ever decide to break into someones house in the middle of the night, I fully expect to get shot at and have large dogs go to town on my ares. To expect anything differently is rally stupid (around here).

And back to the subject at hand. If someone is shooting at you, you have (and instinct will tell you) that the next shot fired at you will end your life. Thus if you can't find cover before that shot is fired, but can return fire, you will. And I'll bet instinct won't let you fire a warning shot.

 

[Thunderhawks]

But your implication that there is no reasonable alternative to armed confrontation is absurd.

And the alternative is?

" Hello, who goes there?"
Would you kindly leave please, I am warning you. I am getting really cross if you don't.
Let me show you where the money is.

Wait, I'll keep my dog with me.

See you later, thank you for stopping by.

Really?

Armchair after the fact evaluation while thinking through the scenario with lots of time.

Real time, heart racing, survival instinct, him or yopu.

HIM if you can!

 

[Mal]

"Hooked on phonics"

Oh the irony, readers ....

Guns breed guns ... fact.

Actions have spoken ....

I'm quite sure it's been scientifically proven that guns are, in fact, incapable of breeding, or even copulating, for that matter.

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.

Yep.

Technically, if there was any concern in the guard's mind that the robbers posed a threat to the safety of anyone around or where they might travel to in the immediate future, he was perfectly justified in firing at them. Of course, in this case any outrage at the guard is misdirected, because as has been noted many times, he was being fired on, and simply returned equivalent force. I'm glad he had the better aim or luck (whichever it was).

jW

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I'm obviously pro-gun and pro-self defense, but the bravado commenters really are silly little children. It's always sad when violence happens and someone dies, even if it was justified. The whole situation is sad as is any loss of human life. But sometimes it has to happen.

You won't find too many people who have killed in self defense that are happy about it. It's a life long trauma, regardless of it being perfectly justified and the happier outcome.

Quite a few of the posters in this thread seem unwilling to accept this reasoning, preferring instead to joke about it and act as if it were all a big game. You better be careful, pretty soon someone might accuse you of showing sympathy. A horrible thought.

 

[LagunaSol]

And yet they insist that people like myself are cowards because I'm not ready to shout "say hello to my little friend" and start shooting.

Over-exaggerating the counterargument does the debate no favors.

You still haven't provided us with your list of reasonable alternatives to armed defense in the case of an armed home invasion robbery.

 

[mfulton]

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!

I've read several accounts as well, and none have mentioned the idea that the guard was in the store. The police have stated that the guard's report to them says he was in his vehicle.

If the guard was inside when they broke in, why didn't the firefight take place inside the store? It was outside on the sidewalk and in the parking lot.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/14378178/shooting-reported-at-otay-ranch-town-center

 

[Blue Fox]

I'm obviously pro-gun and pro-self defense, but the bravado commenters really are silly little children. It's always sad when violence happens and someone dies, even if it was justified. The whole situation is sad as is any loss of human life. But sometimes it has to happen.

You won't find too many people who have killed in self defense that are happy about it. It's a life long trauma, regardless of it being perfectly justified and the happier outcome.

I agree completely. Self defense kills are excruciating to deal with, and you always find yourself second guessing yourself, even though they would have killed you without hesitation. If reports are true that 40 shots were exchanged, then obviously the armed suspect didn't care much about killing anyone, and would have done so without thinking about it. If there were Apple Employee's inside, who knows what the outcome could have been if the suspect would have made it inside. Bravo to the security officer for potentially saving someone else's life.

 

[linux2mac]

At least the Apple Store hired gun took action as opposed to Wal-Mart's and Best Buy's security policy to not chase fleeing thieves. What kind of security is that - to just let the thieves run off with merchandise? Give me a break.

 

[Dr McKay]

 

[ouimetnick]

Folks. It clearly says shots were exchanged. So if an armed guard was being shot at, he has every right (I think) to shoot back to protect himself.

 

[roadbloc]

Over-exaggerating the counterargument does the debate no favors.

You still haven't provided us with your list of reasonable alternatives to armed defense in the case of an armed home invasion robbery.

Outlaw guns. Gun crimes are very rarely heard of in Britain. You have a higher chance of avoiding someone slashing a knife at you than you do a speeding bullet from a distance away.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Over-exaggerating the counterargument does the debate no favors.

Implying that being unarmed is cowardice or stupidity doesn't either.

You still haven't provided us with your list of reasonable alternatives to armed defense in the case of an armed home invasion robbery.

I have above - and furthermore I don't think it is necessary for everyone to be armed at home. If you think that's cowardice, so be it. But the majority clearly disagree.

You are far more likely to die in a car accident than in an armed home invasion, so why don't you install a roll cage in your car and wear a crash helmet?

 

[Hastings101]

If some armed dirtbag breaks through my window to steal my stuff and threaten the safety of my family, he gets to say hello to my little friend: the classic American Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolver (3" barrel).

That's just the way it is. And should be.

I disagree. I don't think anyone's life is worth taking over losing some stuff. Now if they threaten to harm someone that's a different story.

 

[vipergts2207]

Over-exaggerating the counterargument does the debate no favors.

You still haven't provided us with your list of reasonable alternatives to armed defense in the case of an armed home invasion robbery.

Probably because there aren't any. Aside from maybe jumping out a window, which is no longer a viable option if you have a family or are higher then two or three stories.