Attempted Apple Store Holdup Goes Bad: Suspect Killed

[hobo.hopkins]

Only in America.... Bad form unless it was in defence. How about non lethal take downs, fair courts and appropriate justice, such as jail with community service, get criminals doing something constructive for society and trying to get them back on track?

The right to carry guns and to kill absolutely baffles me. Surely shooting and killing is a worser crime than stealing? The threat of being shot/killed sounds too authoritarian/totalitarian for me.

I can't believe the mentality of people on these forums sometimes! Each to their own I guess... Democracy and all...

It was in defence. And no one has the "right" to kill, it's a necessary evil that has to be allowed in certain instances. You'd have to be a dunce to not see that lethal force is sometimes required.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

OMG.. I'm with Felt. "Security Guards" shouldn't carry guns, and if they do there should be training and good sense that goes into using it. Shooting the suspects in the head is criminal.

1) Obviously the security guard was trained or he wouldn't have the skill to hit the thief in the head. This was not a point blank shooting, it was done during a fire fight.

2) Shooting suspects in the head is criminal IF the criminal is fleeing or makes an motion he is surrendering, or has surrendered. However, self-defense is never illegal. When under attack the correct measure to take is to find a safe harbor and barring that shoot to kill. Based on the facts here the guard took the correct and necessary step, regardless of the sad outcome.

 

[mattwolfmatt]

As the story says: "A private armed security guard interrupted the burglars and at some point, gunfire was exchanged with the two male burglars, who were also armed, Facicci said."

The burglars were shooting at him also. So the security guard acting in self defense. It wasn't like they were unarmed and while they ran away he shot them.

From the article:

A private armed security guard interrupted the burglars and at some point, gunfire was exchanged with the two male burglars, who were also armed, Facicci said.

Only in America, can you have the intention to hurt/kill others, but until an x amount of people are hurt/shot or raped, then charges can be pressed allow criminals to make multiple attempts until they have a good successful one before they are official caught/punished. What the hell did he think would happen robbing a store while being armed? Cops would give him lollipops? Come on, people that rob banks shouldn't be "surprised" that they were shot. He knew the consequences of armed robbery.

I feel I must defend my original post from page 1 . . . when I posted that, there was no mention of gunfire in the article. This story has been updated since I posted my question of whether the guard had the right to do what he did. And as I said, there are facts we don't know yet.

Don't jump all over someone for not reading the article, when the article you are referring to wasn't posted yet.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Why did they say "went bad"? As robberies go killing the robber is about as good as it gets.

It was either the guard or the robber, and if the robber wins, other innocent people may get shot too. You may not understand it, unless it happened to someone close to you.

If the robber had a gun, he planned to use it if necessary. He was not going to have any consideration for whoever he shoots, as long as he could get away with his crime.

 

[Starflyer]

REAL police are hesitant to fire upon a fleeing suspect, why the **** is a mall cop shooting people in the head who are running away without any stolen property?

Yes, they were running away and unarmed. Read the article before making such an idiotic post.

 

[AppleScruff1]

...Eh, shoot back? But not in the head... A head shot, geez... That wasn't meant to stop him, that was meant to kill him...

What is your firearms experience? How many times have you been shot at? Do you think the security guard make a Hollywood head shot?

 

[morespce54]

Anybody responsible for guarding should have a gun. If the person isn't qualified to carry a gun, they he/she isn't qualified to guard anything and shouldn't be a guard.

When you're exchanging gunfire with a criminal, the main goal is not to wound; it is to remove the threat to your life completely. Let's say the guard shoots the guy in the arm, the guy's going to be so pumped up on adrenaline that he's not going to even know he's shot, giving him plenty of opportunity to take another shot.

Ask yourself this: If it were your life he was guarding, what would you want the guard to do?

Maybe you're right, maybe not... I mean, I doubt the guys went in in Kevlar suit saying "we take the loot, not matter what. If someones try to stop us, we kill him". In a bank robbery maybe they would but I doubt they were ready to kill somebody only for a few iPads...

But that's just me.

 

[brentsg]

OMG.. I'm with Felt. "Security Guards" shouldn't carry guns, and if they do there should be training and good sense that goes into using it. Shooting the suspects in the head is criminal.

Having been about 5 feet from an armed robbery, mid-day in a popular mall where I live.. I say it's justified.

I don't care if it's noon or 6:45AM, people who decide to carry (and use) guns to commit a crime deserve what they get.

 

[IMPMAC]

Did he use an iGun?

 

[twostep665]

Only in America.... Bad form unless it was in defence. How about non lethal take downs, fair courts and appropriate justice, such as jail with community service, get criminals doing something constructive for society and trying to get them back on track?

The right to carry guns and to kill absolutely baffles me. Surely shooting and killing is a worser crime than stealing? The threat of being shot/killed sounds too authoritarian/totalitarian for me.

I can't believe the mentality of people on these forums sometimes! Each to their own I guess... Democracy and all...

I work in a Jail. I am in a room by myself with 144 inmates (many of whom are in for murder, rape, etc). I can tell you from experience that most of the time the community service, constructive for society stuff DOES NOT WORK. I can't tell you how many repeat offenders I have come through

 

[redvettez06]

I'm as pro gun rights as anyone, but this sounds like a problem for the security guard. Unless that guard's life was in danger, there was no reason to shoot anyone, especially in the head. The placement of that shot was no accident.

That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.

If there are a lot of facts that you don't know, how do you know that the headshot was no accident?

 

[tylersdad]

Only in America.... Bad form unless it was in defence. How about non lethal take downs, fair courts and appropriate justice, such as jail with community service, get criminals doing something constructive for society and trying to get them back on track?

The right to carry guns and to kill absolutely baffles me. Surely shooting and killing is a worser crime than stealing? The threat of being shot/killed sounds too authoritarian/totalitarian for me.

I can't believe the mentality of people on these forums sometimes! Each to their own I guess... Democracy and all...

Yes, it makes perfect sense to use some form of non-lethal force when somebody is shooting at you with intent to kill. Did you read the article? The guard was fired upon.

 

[trekkie604]

Breaking a glass window means you can shoot someone in the head? Wow... He may be a criminal but that doesn't mean the security guard should've shot him.

 

[Stella]

The suspect was killed? Good.

Western society is far too soft on crime.

I feel sorry for the security guard for what he has been through / will go through.. but not the suspect.

American Tax payers money has been saved for the suspect's jail time, who will probably re-offend again after he gets out.

 

[twostep665]

Yes, they were running away and unarmed. Read the article before making such an idiotic post.

If they were running away and unarmed then the security guard was in the wrong.

Tennessee v Garner says that you cannot shoot an unarmed fleeing felon in the back.

 

[bad03xtreme]

Good for the guard darwinism at it's best.

 

[MacLawyer]

New Ad

Mac...a computer to die for.

 

[tylersdad]

Maybe you're right, maybe not... I mean, I doubt the guys went in in Kevlar suit saying "we take the loot, not matter what. If someones try to stop us, we kill him". In a bank robbery maybe they would but I doubt they were ready to kill somebody only for a few iPads...

But that's just me.

And in the heat of the moment with fractions of a second to decide, he's suppose to consider the possibility that this guy just wants a free iPad and probably won't shoot to kill him?

I don't think so.

 

[monaarts]

Breaking a glass window means you can shoot someone in the head? Wow... He may be a criminal but that doesn't mean the security guard should've shot him.

Then what justifies being shot? If someone raped a family member of yours, they deserve to just be put in jail and get out in a few months, right? This is justified, nuff said!

- Joe

 

[kas23]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)

These guys knew there was going to be a component of danger in their heist. Hence, they brought loaded guns with them. If they did want to run the risk of being shot and killed, they should've stayed home in bed.

It just amazes me how many idiots are on this board crying foul because a person in law enforcement killed a criminal who was trying to not only rob a store, but also trying to kill him.

 

[Luph67]

The problem with stolen Apple products would be no Applecare.

Anyway, these mall cops should carry Taser Apps on their iphones.

Don't they sell Applecare in their stores in the form of boxes? Maybe not, I don't know, but I've seen a bunch of them laying on shelves at Target before.

 

[topmounter]

Maybe you're right, maybe not... I mean, I doubt the guys went in in Kevlar suit saying "we take the loot, not matter what. If someones try to stop us, we kill him". In a bank robbery maybe they would but I doubt they were ready to kill somebody only for a few iPads...

But that's just me.

Feel free to sympathize with the crooks, but this does not sound like a case of "Han shot first".

 

[Blakjack]

Me neither. I wonder if the suspects were armed...or at least how smashing glass doors escalated into gunfire.

Obviously u didnt read the article. I have no sympathy for people who do stupid stuff like this. At the end of the day, u deserve what u get and the only people who really get *****ed at the end of the day is the family of the criminal who decided to do something stupid and got killed in the process. Its hard times for everybody right now, but thats no excuse.

 

[Fraghax]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

That security guard shoots better than the LA police. Lol

 

[nwcs]

This is a silly debate here. Having known trained officers and military people and being related to some I can tell you one thing: they are taught to neutralize the threat. They certainly don't want to but if you hesitate you die. Chest shots are preferable because it's easier to target but head shots sometimes happen. People should be thinking about the guard who will undoubtedly need time to work through this ordeal.