Well part of the blame for the high number of people in prison is our silly war on drugs. Of the 2.2 million American's incarcerated, 21.2% of them are in for non-violent drug offenses.
Last edited:
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
Well part of the blame for the high number of people in prison is our silly war on drugs. Of the 2.2 million American's incarcerated, 21.2% of them are in for non-violent drug offenses.
Wow - this is the craziest thread ive ver read here
A guard is outnumbered 3 - 1 and is getting shot at and then you guys criticise him for killing one of them in self defence and fear for his own life????
No wonder this world is such a mess and ridden with crooks with such attitudes.
The Guard deserves a medal in my view. If the crooks were unarmed then maybe I would raise concerns about the guard however if crooks are going to arm themselves then they deserve to be shot at.
If members of the public were killed in this story I wonder if the Guard would get so much stick.
As for dialling 911 in a middle of a shooting whilst outnumbered - get real!!
A guard is outnumbered 3 - 1 and is getting shot at and then you guys criticise him for killing one of them in self defence and fear for his own life????
No wonder this world is such a mess and ridden with crooks with such attitudes.
The Guard deserves a medal in my view. If the crooks were unarmed then maybe I would raise concerns about the guard however if crooks are going to arm themselves then they deserve to be shot at.
If members of the public were killed in this story I wonder if the Guard would get so much stick.
As for dialling 911 in a middle of a shooting whilst outnumbered - get real!!
Most police here in the UK only have a small stick to protect them, if someone fires a gun at them they have to try and hit the bullets with their truncheon, its like a small fast and dangerous game of rounders/baseball.
Most rounds will penetrate a standard drywall (two pieces of drywall separated by 2x4's. I personally tested a special round on a test section of wall we built to take out to the range. The round (Glaser) is designed to fragment so as to not penetrate walls. They do. They might not pass through a body and through a wall, but if fired directly at the wall they will go right through - and you don't want to be on the other side.
There are some some other "safety" rounds, but I suspect the wall will lose against those too.
I can almost guarantee the suspects were not using these rounds. Aside from their expense, I doubt they cared enough to even consider such a thing.
Even if one takes cover (while still trying to stop the threat), there's no guarantee it's bulletproof; you're not going to stop and analyze it while taking rounds. Certainly as a prior LEO, he would have had barricade training, which would help, but that's still not the same as a real fire fight. With the stress of being fired upon and returning fire, it's hard to say how much thought would go into finding one kind of cover verses another - and I'm not qualified to say. I would imagine it's highly variable.
Exactly, that is what these people want.
No guns, no protection, give the criminal what they want and you "should" be fine. Don't worry it they beat you or kill you. They will get a stiff jail term of no more then a few years in jail living off your tax dollars.
Someone points a gun at someone and pull the trigger during a robbery and you ask me about my "conscience"???
Are you serious? I have little to no sympathy for a thief and if you compound this by fact that he decided to use a gun during the robbery then I would say he should die in the most painful of ways.
Apple should invest in some tougher glass or have armed guards at all of it's street facing stores.
I like how nobody is talking about the manager who had his/her life saved by the robbers.
I like how nobody is talking about the manager who had his/her life saved by the robbers.
The press seems to be converging on the following points:
* The security guard and the store manager were INSIDE the store when the break-in (smash in?) started - initial reports had the guard outside in an SUV
* The offenders drew weapons almost immediately
* Unclear who actually pulled a trigger first, but the guard shooting was justified in the eyes of the police
* The action inside the store is on videotape (haven't heard about the outside)
* All suspects are now IDed
Also, the dead suspect was a paroled felon with a long criminal history and gang ties. Not a standup member of society.
However, if the guard pursued the actors outside and fired the fatal shot there, there may still be trouble.
There are still glaring inconsistencies in the reports that I've read, more may come out yet.
* The security guard and the store manager were INSIDE the store when the break-in (smash in?) started - initial reports had the guard outside in an SUV
* The offenders drew weapons almost immediately
* Unclear who actually pulled a trigger first, but the guard shooting was justified in the eyes of the police
* The action inside the store is on videotape (haven't heard about the outside)
* All suspects are now IDed
Also, the dead suspect was a paroled felon with a long criminal history and gang ties. Not a standup member of society.
However, if the guard pursued the actors outside and fired the fatal shot there, there may still be trouble.
There are still glaring inconsistencies in the reports that I've read, more may come out yet.
According to police statement, the guard opened fire inside the store after one man pulled a gun and fired at him.
Really? You don't think his point was of import? You can't just, for one instant, take a step back, and admit that it's a PROBLEM, and NOT A GOOD THING. No??
To all the whining UK posters, the US unfortunately didn't get the chance to deport all our criminals to a continent in the south pacific. 
Our criminals were able to breed and keep their young here.
As for the dude that got the head shot, good riddance. Crime doesn't pay and it shouldn't be rewarded either. The guard did a justice and saved tax payers money on a trial.
Our criminals were able to breed and keep their young here.As for the dude that got the head shot, good riddance. Crime doesn't pay and it shouldn't be rewarded either. The guard did a justice and saved tax payers money on a trial.
To all the whining UK posters, the US unfortunately didn't get the chance to deport all our criminals to a continent in the south pacific.
I don't know where to begin....
The media...I swear. The only thing riddled with holes are these news articles (all of them!) Btw this new article isn't new, it was supposedly published yesterday.
So read this:
then...
I thought the security guard was uninjured? how many rounds did he take? what about the store manager? how did they avoid close proximity gunfire?
then in the very same article...
So were the suspect(s) greeted with an already drawn weapon and began to fire? I thought the security guard said he opened fire when a suspect produced a gun.
The Security Guard was definitely within his right to open fire, but I must say that the security guard is one helluva lucky guy, I mean 40 rounds fired at him and not one hit him or the manager in close proximity? does anyone have a statistic on the chance of not being hit by 1 bullet in this situation?
I can't imagine a 58 year old dodging bullets like Keano Reeves in the Matrix. I wonder if he had a bullet proof vest on. He still should not have pursued the vehicle as it was leaving the crime scene running and gunning at it (the vehicle was apparently riddled with bullet holes.) Being a retired former deputy sheriff he should have known this. They do mention that they are going to determine whether or not to take Administrative action against the security guard, maybe because he chased down a fleeing vehicle shooting at it.
It is really strange how the latest linked article differs from the original two articles linked on this post. It was said in those two original articles that the suspects (2 males) broke the window and started grabbing things when confronted by the security guard, one suspect produced a gun and the guard opened fire. If the surveillance video (none of us have seen) shows they broke the glass and started shooting almost immediately, why were rounds/shells only found outside of the store? the updated story gave no mention of the "backside wound" on one of the suspects who apparently had two guns (one of which was stolen), and that the female was in the car the entire time. So all three walked up to the window and smashed it, all of them pulled out guns firing at the security guard and not one hit in close proximity? wow! we have ourselves a bulletproof guard!
The problem is that I suppose the media just can't get the story straight. I never trusted the media, and this is a good example. This story still seems itself, riddled with holes. I suppose what we're reading is hearsay, that until a full investigation is completed we're just reading bits and pieces of second hand information.
There's an older version of the article written by the same AP author, but it said the names of the robbers have not been released. This is a newer article to reflect that and other additional information. Articles get updated all the time with newer and more accurate information. So what if they didn't know at first who fired the first shot, but unless they purposely lied about what the police statement says, it was the suspect who fired first.
"Taking rounds" does not necessarily mean actually getting riddled with bullets but can refer to being shot at. The aforementioned article says the store manager took cover during the shooting.
It's actually pretty high, especially with inexperienced shooters. Many references and examples of this from other posters in the thread. Notice not all of the 40 rounds came from the robbers.
You do not know if they weren't still shooting at him as they were fleeing.
If the distance isn't very large these factors don't matter at all.
this
When a person enters a store you are guarding and opens fire shooting them down is morally justifiable. Also aim for the central mass.
The details do not matter. Simply having a gun while committing a crime is enough. In fact not putting your hands up, liike for example keeping one hand inside a jacket when confronted durrig a crime is enogh to justify shooting.
So wh shot first is moot. It does not matter all the guard needed was good reason to believe the robber had a gun.
Basically when you smash the glass in a store front and have a gun in your pocket you are saying to yourself. "I don't care if I die, it's worth the risk to get a free Macbook or whatever." If you've never met one of these people, they are so stupid they don't even understand they are stupid. You've got to figure that shooting at a security guard has to be a really dumb move. Before the robber shot all he was in for was breaking a window, nothing was stolen. But as soon as he aims a gun there are only three outcomes (1) he hits his target and will be in jail for life, (2) he misses and gets 25 years or (3) he's dead by return fire. The smart move would be to accept a wrist slap for busting a window. But like I said, zero brains, literally. They can't predict the result of their actions. And all that risk for an Apple computer.
What are the stats for south america and south Africa?
Anyway, stabbings here are grossly hyped by the media and others should take It with a grain of salt.
Conversely, in the states you don't hear about the vast majority of killings because its a frequent occurrence day after day.
Uk media's knee jerk reaction to stabbings is a joke to be honest. When you Bear in mind how Non prevalent they are.
Last edited: