Sidebar Sidebar
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

diazj3 said:
If the guard shot them outside the store, while they were in a moving car leaving the scene as the evidence suggests, then certainly there will be charges against the guard. Once the criminals are out the crime scene and running, it becomes a police matter. No private individual is to chase and shoot them.
Click to expand...

Try telling that to a body guard. Plus, different states have different laws. Security guards can give chase, whether they can shoot or not, is grey.

There's conflicting stories so we don't know for sure what happened, aside from the basic details that check out with multiple sources.
 
iBmx said:
Fully automated weapons had to have been used
40 SHOTS FIRED!!!!!
Click to expand...

Don't count on it. The average 9mm double stack holds 13. Multiply that by 3 (guard + 2 suspects), and include one in each chamber....you don't even need a reload.

Fully automatic weapons are used in less than 1% of crimes nationwide.
 
SandynJosh said:
Here in the U.S.A. the gun nuts also ignore the statistic that shows if you own a gun it will more likely kill someone in your family than a stranger.
Click to expand...

Same with your hair dryer or your swimming pool. What's your point?
 
tkingart said:
The article states that one of the male suspects "produced a gun" and the Security Guard opened fire on them. Please read the articles I'm referring to.
Click to expand...

In that case, the correct assumption would be the suspect pointed his firearm in the direction of the guard. At that point there is an imminent threat of serious injury or death to the guard which justifies the use of deadly force to stop the implied threat. The suspect doesn't have to fire first. It is assumed a firearm isn't brought to bear unless it will be used. In self-defense, that is the assumption you must take.

That's what I was taught when I took the CA training course [for guards, private detectives, and other security personnel]. (I am none of the aforementioned, but as a new firearm owner I took it upon myself to train and qualify on a range.)
 
bwrairen said:
Don't count on it. The average 9mm double stack holds 13. Multiply that by 3 (guard + 2 suspects), and include one in each chamber....you don't even need a reload.

Fully automatic weapons are used in less than 1% of crimes nationwide.
Click to expand...


I think iBmx was being sarcastic....I hope.
 
gr8tfly said:
In that case, the correct assumption would be the suspect pointed his firearm in the direction of the guard. At that point there is an imminent threat of serious injury or death to the guard which justifies the use of deadly force to stop the implied threat. The suspect doesn't have to fire first. It is assumed a firearm isn't brought to bear unless it will be used. In self-defense, that is the assumption you must take.

That's what I was taught when I took the CA training course [for guards, private detectives, and other security personnel]. (I am none of the aforementioned, but as a new firearm owner I took it upon myself to train and qualify on a range.)
Click to expand...

They never said the suspect pointed or started firing his gun, they merely stated he "produced a gun", that could also mean he "brandished one", like pulling a gun into view from your coat or pants to scare the Security Guard from intervening. But they did say the Security Guard opened fire. I assume if the thief pulled his gun out, aimed at the officer and began firing, they would have said that?

In any case the Security Guard broke the law when he gave pursuit of the vehicle leaving the scene of the crime, still shooting at it.
 
tkingart said:
They never said the suspect pointed or started firing his gun, they merely stated he "produced a gun", that could also mean he "brandished one", like pulling a gun into view from your coat or pants to scare the Security Guard from intervening. But they did say the Security Guard opened fire. I assume if the thief pulled his gun out, aimed at the officer and began firing, they would have said that?

In any case the Security Guard broke the law when he gave pursuit of the vehicle leaving the scene of the crime, still shooting at it.
Click to expand...

You're so quick to split hairs and second guess the meaning of "produced a gun", but you're so sure of yourself that the guard "broke the law". So why don't you show us why you're so certain the guard pursued ..."the vehicle leaving the scene of the crime, still shooting at it."? Because that little detail isn't included in any of the news reports I can find. How is it you know this for certain? Maybe the police missed a suspect...
 
tkingart said:
They never said the suspect pointed or started firing his gun, they merely stated he "produced a gun", that could also mean he "brandished one", like pulling a gun into view from your coat or pants to scare the Security Guard from intervening.
Click to expand...

This kind of thinking gets people killed.

When a person (ESPECIALLY a criminal in the middle of committing a crime) "produces" a firearm, you don't stop to ponder if he really intends on using it. You react according to your training and you will be correct in doing so. The presence of the firearm is enough.
 
gr8tfly said:
In that case, the correct assumption would be the suspect pointed his firearm in the direction of the guard. At that point there is an imminent threat of serious injury or death to the guard which justifies the use of deadly force to stop the implied threat. The suspect doesn't have to fire first. It is assumed a firearm isn't brought to bear unless it will be used. In self-defense, that is the assumption you must take.

That's what I was taught when I took the CA training course [for guards, private detectives, and other security personnel]. (I am none of the aforementioned, but as a new firearm owner I took it upon myself to train and qualify on a range.)
Click to expand...

Assumption? Is that how the law is considered..assumption? For all we can ASSUME, the security officer felt empowered to take on police action through pride of the criminals actually executing their plan on his watch, rendering him not as effective as one may believe. Assumptions, I'm afraid will be chewed and spit out in a court of law. And of course forensics will show angles and trajectories of shots.
 
bwrairen said:
This kind of thinking gets people killed.

When a person (ESPECIALLY a criminal in the middle of committing a crime) "produces" a firearm, you don't stop to ponder if he really intends on using it. You react according to your training and you will be correct in doing so. The presence of the firearm is enough.
Click to expand...

+1

They train for this stuff and know what they're doing.

mdlooker: Substitute "assumption" for "reasoning." From that article, I reasoned...etc. I'm not implying the two are interchangeable, but that maybe Gr8tfly could have used a better word.
 
Was it Paul Blart?
Kevin_James_in_Paul_Blart:_Mall_Cop_Wallpaper_2_800.jpg
 
For all of you tree hugging liberals who wish this crook would be sitting with a therapist right now discussing why mommy did not hug him enough as a child hence his actions while sipping a cup of tea. Had one of your loved ones been held hostage and killed and he was going to kill another would you still condemn the guard?

We need to buy that guard a drink and charge the crooks parent for the cost of the spent ammo. Ammo is not cheap today.
 
ProwlingTiger said:
+1

They train for this stuff and know what they're doing.

mdlooker: Substitute "assumption" for "reasoning." From that article, I reasoned...etc. I'm not implying the two are interchangeable, but that maybe Gr8tfly could have used a better word.
Click to expand...

To keep things in perspective, the security officer is a retired cop. He put his life on the line for most of his adult working life so I have a whole lot of respect for that. I hope this investigation finds him innocent in his actions because he absolutely had good intent behind his actions. He's worked too long for some stupid Apple product essentially end his life. Same for those ignorant robbers! Freakin in their 20's with guns hitting a computer store-Plain ignorance. It's just tragic all the way around.
 
I heard that the security guard was armed with apple's newest product. It's called the iGun. It comes standard with several high-capacity iMagazines and Steve Jobs , designed the iAmmo all by his iSelf.

I can tell we have a lot of iWeenies in this thread thinking that it was so sad that the armed robbers had to die for their crimes. My response to that is I really am not interested in knowing how society failed them or that their mommies and daddy's didn't hug them enough when they were little.

Good for the guard. It does seem like an awfully high number of rounds fired? Oh well, marksmanship skills in America have been going downhill for decades now. And that is one of the real tragedies in this story. The other day I was called a bleeding heart :D If the ones who called me that only had a clue. Go Glock. Support the NRA and Gun Owners of America!
 
H&K MP5N said:
For all of you tree hugging liberals who wish this crook would be sitting with a therapist right now discussing why mommy did not hug him enough as a child hence his actions while sipping a cup of tea. Had one of your loved ones been held hostage and killed and he was going to kill another would you still condemn the guard?

We need to buy that guard a drink and charge the crooks parent for the cost of the spent ammo. Ammo is not cheap today.
Click to expand...

Well, said. Well, said indeed. I do like the part about charging the next of kin for the ammo!!! Excellent touch.
 
stabsteer said:
Unless the robber was shooting, there is no way he should have shot him in the head.

Shoot him in the ***** leg! He's not gonna get away.

Another ***** moron cop/guard.

No wonder they make $8.50 an hour...idiots.


How many stories like this do we need to hear?

And it's only gonna get worse as the separation between rich and poor grows, and the ***** idiot GOP makes matters worse...
Click to expand...

Really? As I stated earlier, a security guard wouldn't fire first and there's no way he fired 40 shots. Shoot him in the leg? Where does this logic come in?
 
roadbloc said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can only say that it's been documented that the average person, not trained, tends to miss even at close range. I would rather an untrained person with a gun than an untrained person with a knife. If you're close enough to stab me it's hard to miss, some statistics show that there is more error with a gun.
 
Ok at the bare minimum they were two criminal in the store going to steal lets assume 6 ipads and 6 iphones, all of the ipads lets assume 16 gb wifi only and the iphones lets assume 16gb demos only that could be say jailbroken and work fine... so a total of 6 ipads x 499 = 3k and 6 iphones roughly 599 x 6= 3600 for a grand total of roughly $6600 divide that by two criminals for a total of 3300 (or in this case if you add the gateway driver $2200 a piece) gee thats not that much more than any macbook other than 13 macbook, 13 macbook pro and 11 inch air.
well with that said it seems scary just leaving the apple store with a product. yes there are guards near the store but they don't follow you to your car. granted a 15 inch macbook pro is not an idevice but has pretty good street value and just as easy to sell. it is just as easy for a thief to rob you in the parking lot if not easier than robbing a store. Makes you think a little.

as stated above all the number are an assumption.
 
mdlooker said:
Assumption? Is that how the law is considered..assumption? For all we can ASSUME, the security officer felt empowered to take on police action through pride of the criminals actually executing their plan on his watch, rendering him not as effective as one may believe. Assumptions, I'm afraid will be chewed and spit out in a court of law. And of course forensics will show angles and trajectories of shots.
Click to expand...

It's assumption because we don't have all the facts. Making the assumption I did, I stated what the possible, legal, and life saving response could have been.
 
Last edited:
mdlooker said:
Yea there are many facts and peripheral contributors that are not mentioned so there's no way to actually determine. At first look/read, one would think wow but many contributors. To have over 40 shots fired- smh! In a mall, for Apple products??? To carry that many rounds for hard/software just seems ... lol wow
Click to expand...

I carry a 50 round box of ammo with me. Dont see the big deal with 40 total. A Glock 17 with a mag in the gun and an extra magazine is 34+1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back