Just because the security guard didn't get hit doesn't mean they weren't shooting at him while fleeing.
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
Just because the security guard didn't get hit doesn't mean they weren't shooting at him while fleeing.
That's what many people do now in Craig's List and eBay to be able to rob while avoiding getting shot.
P.S.: Dude, you seriously need to work on your grammar! It's worse than some first grader's.
I was typing that on my iPod during class. I didn't have time to re-read.
And that's my biggest point--you should have as many of the things you mention as options--prevention of entry should be primary in terms of an alarm, a barking dog, even stickers in the windows saying the house is alarmed (because most criminals will just look for an easier target). But secondarily you have to prepare for a physical confrontation with someone that gets into your house. A pistol isn't the only way to protect your family, no, but in the right hands it's really the only thing that will work at a distance that gives you stand-off defense capabilities. If someone is crazy enough to break in and physically assault you, you'll most likely lose and victims statistics will bear this out. If you hear someone coming up the steps, what do you do if that's the way out?
Bottom line--you have to do what you are comfortable with to provide protection to your family, and if a gun doesn't play into that, then so be it. You must find a way to provide active defense because passive defense will only work on non-violent crimes--someone robbing you will just take your stuff, sure, but someone wanting to rape your daughter won't be deterred by asking them to leave (and pepper-spray is more of an active defense really, not passive, so that's at least a plus--it's definitely not fun to be sprayed with from personal experience).
You're not a coward unless you don't do ANYTHING to protect those you love. If you sit there and watch your kids get murdered because you're too much of a pacifist to beat their head in with a bed post or whatever, then yeah, you are (and I'm not directing this to you specifically, just a general comment).
I find these points to be mostly irrelevant. "Producing a gun" is an implied threat, and while it's not usually enough to cause any law enforcement professional to open fire immediately, it's certainly enough force to justify it. I'd suspect if the suspect didn't open fire immediately, neither did the guard, who likely would have been trained to shout for them to drop their weapon while simultaneously leveling his own weapon at the suspect.
Actually, there's no reason to assume that, and plenty of reason to guess that might not be the case. Assuming a fairly standard clip of at least 9 rounds plus one in the barrel, 4 guns would go through 40 shots fired in one clip. It's entirely likely that each gun held more, as well, meaning that most likely at least one gun involved did not empty the clip.
In addition, I can tell you from experience that it takes only a few seconds to empty a 12 round clip. Even taking more time to aim, it wouldn't even have taken a full minute for the guard to fire 10 or more times with as much precision as he could under the circumstances.
jW
That link also states the driver was the one who died, while a few others state the passenger was the one who died. Like I said, journalism at it's finest!
If he was outside the store, then it makes more sense. I can totally see the gunmen shooting at the officer, and shooting while driving away...hence why they were shot in the car.
While I agree with you totally, we don't know at what point in the gun battle the criminal in the car developed his "half a brain."
I don't understand how anyone can have an ounce of compassion for armed criminals who fired the bulk of the bullets, and maybe killed their own accompanist. Besides the officer, there were other innocent people nearby, and let's not forget all the Apple products that might have gotten damaged. These animals couldn't have cared less about what damage or murder they might do. It's not like this was a store full of Zunes!
<sarcasm alert>
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.
I saw somewhere Walmart did a study that showed if they had security personal patrolling parking lots in golf carts, that it could deter parking lot crimes by as much as 100%, yet Walmart still did not provide that type of security. There have been several deaths and many crimes in Walmart parking lots, and they continue to do nothing to protect their customers.
Note: I do not believe that the security patrols were said to need guns, that their presence alone would have been enough of a deterrent.
If you choose to pull out a gun, you must do so with the intent to kill the other person. Warning shots are a danger to others. Shooting at an arm or a leg is a danger to others. Keep the gun in a safe place or kill. There is no other choice that is not a threat to others.
The man who lives two houses down the street is a very nice guy. His doctors put him on sleeping meds that caused him to sleepwalk. He walked into the house across the street and started cooking breakfast. The owners of the house called the police and everyone is happy, no one died.
About a year ago, there were a number of home invasions where I live. The people who were doing it came to my house, backed their van up to my door, then started to kick it in. I pulled the door open and had a katana on the first guys throat before he knew what happened. (Not easy, the katana is a two handed sword.) They informed me they had the wrong house and left quite quickly. No one died and I did not have a bunch of blood to clean up. I would call that a win/win.
Death is not always the answer.
That's it exactly. That's why gun ownership is not to be taken lightly, or with the presumption that you're the one who has the advantage.
It's like any other self-defense techniques--if you aren't intent on severely hurting or crippling your opponent, don't waste your money on classes or shooting ranges. Run away. The half-speed martial art or casual target shooting will get you badly hurt so don't delude yourself.
The only thing this kind of thinking validates is that the person advocating it knows nothing about firearms.
--It's one thing to call your shot when you're calm, at rest, and aiming at a fixed target at 7 yards, which statistically is a realistic range for a defensive shooting. Not the same when you AND the bad guy(s) are probably moving, the distance might be greater than 7 yards, you're being shot at, your heart rate is significantly elevated, and you're experiencing an adrenaline dump resulting in your fine motor skills going down the toilet. Just as with any type of physical skill, (sports, playing a musical instrument, etc) your proficiency goes down significantly if you have to perform under stress. You might be an outstanding shot at the range, but under the conditions above, unless you train extensively, it's a different story.
--Even if you were lucky and/or skilled enough to make a shoulder/leg shot in a defensive situation, you do realize that your target could just as easily bleed to death, right? Hit the femoral artery in the leg or the subclavian/brachial artery in the upper arm/shoulder and the bad guy is in pretty bad shape.
--Police officers and responsible armed civilians are trained to shoot to stop the threat. This generally means aiming for Center of Mass (CoM), and continuing to shoot until the threat is neutralized. CoM provides a relatively large and quickly identifiable target area to aim for, and contains the vital organs. Neutralizing the threat means just what it says - if someone is shooting at you or charging you with a knife, you shoot until the threat is gone. And in many cases it can take more than just one or two shots, unlike what you see in the movies, before the threat is neutralized.
It's silly and unrealistic to think shooting out a leg or arm when the other person is shooting at you is a good idea or an effective means of defending yourself.
--If you live in the United States, chances are you probably live in a jurisdiction that allows for the legal carrying of concealed firearms by responsible civilians who have undergone an extensive background check in most cases. There are only a handful of states that DON'T allow for this. So if you're implying that a mall cop is not responsible enough, insufficiently trained, etc etc, to carry a firearm, just remember it's just not the mall cop who may have lethal force at his/her disposal. For all you know, the mall cop might be a real cop moonlighting as private security. And despite this, we don't have shootouts on every street corner. Hundreds of thousands of law abiding civilians go about their daily business with a legally concealed weapon and do so responsibly.
--Finally, less-than-lethal means less-effective. Tasers and pepper spray have a limited range, don't always neutralize the target, and you'd better hit what you're aiming at with the first shot because that's all you might have before running out of pepper spray or having to reload a fresh taser cartridge. If you're going to engage with martial arts, you'd better be in pretty damn good shape, have years and years of training, and be able to get within arm's length of your assailant. If someone is shooting at you with a gun however, I think you'd be pretty stupid and overly confident to engage with a "less-than-lethal" means of force.
Last edited:
Hey, here is an idea. We should make it illegal to break and enter to steal and then to shoot at a law enforcement officer. Surely that will work, right?
So what if he was shooting at the guard and innocent bystanders who could've gotten killed, right? :/
Yes because outlawing guns will work. The day the law goes into effect I'm sure all the criminals with guns will go down to the local PD and turn in their weapons. I mean making possession of something illegal has always worked hasn't it? That's why prohibition in the 1920's worked and also why no one has any marijuana today.
When you make something illegal to have, all you do is create an unregulated black market for that product. As long as someone is willing to pay for something, someone else will be willing to supply it. Why do you think our drug war is still going to today with no end in sight? You can't make something go away by saying "no, you can't have that" and then the civilians will be the ones with no way to defend themselves while the criminals do whatever they want because they have a gun.
I agree for the most part. Everyone is ultimately at least partly responsible for their own safety, and the safety of others around them. If you refuse to defend yourself, you have to accept the potential consequences. If you don't take any precautions for your own safety and find yourself in trouble, you bear part of the blame even though the criminal always bears the vast majority of the responsiblity.
Conversely, if you keep a gun for home defense and shoot your wife because you thought she was an intruder, that is your fault. If you confront an intruder, exchange shots and hit a neighbor though a wall, that's your fault too. If you surprise an armed robber and shoot him in the back as he flees down the street, you have only yourself to blame when you find yourself in jail.
People have a right to protect and defend themselves - but they also have a duty to do so in a responsible manner. Firearms are not for everyone, and even among gun owners I know plenty who keep theirs locked in the safe.
I am a fan of the Persuader. "I'd like to persuade you to leave my house now Mr. Bad Guy."
That is correct. Hence the part about me saying there is a little more to it. But yes you can shot at a fleeing felon, however you have to have a little more articulation then he is just a felon fleeing.
Nothing I wouldn't agree with here. You pull the trigger, you are responsible for whatever results.
What a terrible injustice. His needs weren't being met by society
and he paid for it with his life. 100 billion in the bank.
and he paid for it with his life. 100 billion in the bank.