Too bad it won't serve as a warning to criminals to stop breaking into Apple stores. I hope it wasn't some white guard, black criminal shooting. That will really cause a lot of negative feedback.
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
Unfortunately justified shooting or not it's always a problem for the shooter. I highly doubt the headshot was intentional. Unless he's an ex-special forces guy, he probably was just shooting wildly and got a lucky shot (well, lucky might not be the right word). When bullets started flying, he was probably terrified without enough composure to aim for the head. And if he came upon armed people, identified himself and they pointed guns at him, he has a very valid reason to shoot them. The mere presence of weapons puts the guard's life in danger.
It's odd that you judge his actions in the first part of your post, but then say that there's not enough facts in the second.
If it were only robbery you are correct. In fact the guard would be in jail now. But these guys shot at a guard. When you do that the crime changes from robbery to attempted murder. It is also a really stupid move because I'd bet a bunch any armed guard spends some time at the shooting range. Many of them are off duty cops or ex-military police or have gotten training some place.
Guard had every right to defend....Per SD News
According to SD news , camera shows the guard took over 10 rounds directed towards him before returning fire, over 40 shots fired by by all 4 present 1guard 3suspects, so I would think deadly force was indeed needed, and FYI he was not a "Mall Cop" he was working for a privet security firm that ear all licensed to carry guns....
According to SD news , camera shows the guard took over 10 rounds directed towards him before returning fire, over 40 shots fired by by all 4 present 1guard 3suspects, so I would think deadly force was indeed needed, and FYI he was not a "Mall Cop" he was working for a privet security firm that ear all licensed to carry guns....
Maybe a shot to the head was a bit much, but that's an occupational hazard for thiefs, no sympathy here.
The guard deserves a medal for protecting one of Steve's altars.
The guard deserves a medal for protecting one of Steve's altars.
If this "mall cop" also happens to be an off-duty police officer moonlighting at a second job, I'm not surprised at the outcome. Police officers are rightfully taught to shoot to kill. A wounded criminal can still kill an officer wheras a dead one cannot. Unfortunate outcome, but the simple truth is don't commit armed robbery.
Can you people read the story and stop making it out to be a simple robbery?
http://www.10news.com/news/27421748/detail.html
http://www.10news.com/news/27421748/detail.html
Interesting how a security guard is allowed to have a gun. Interesting to see what happens to him.
I haven't read the article but it sounds like the guard was shot at.
So for those saying the guard shouldn't have killed the crook? Should the guard just sit there and let the guy kill him? If some one must die, I vote the crook!!! Why shouldn't the guard defend himself?! If the crook didn't want to take that chance, he could at the very least not be shooting at the guard!!!!! Even better, don't rob a store.
And shooting to wound really is not feasible in that situation. You shoot the guy who has a gun in the leg, he can still shoot you. The only place to stop him without killing him is to get both hands or both arms.... while being shot at, do you really want to try for such small targets (not to mention even the legs are not big targets. Big target = torso which can very well be a shot that kills)? Sorry, but the only way to defend yourself in that situation is shoot areas that quite possibly will kill the guy as it will have to be something that renders him unable to do anything.
Shoot, if you shoot him anywhere there is always the possibility that he will die. Just cause it's not instantly lethal doesn't mean stuff doesn't happen. You just gave him a chance that some infection will come in, or more blood will come out before the paramedics an come and stop it, etc etc.
So for those saying the guard shouldn't have killed the crook? Should the guard just sit there and let the guy kill him? If some one must die, I vote the crook!!! Why shouldn't the guard defend himself?! If the crook didn't want to take that chance, he could at the very least not be shooting at the guard!!!!! Even better, don't rob a store.
And shooting to wound really is not feasible in that situation. You shoot the guy who has a gun in the leg, he can still shoot you. The only place to stop him without killing him is to get both hands or both arms.... while being shot at, do you really want to try for such small targets (not to mention even the legs are not big targets. Big target = torso which can very well be a shot that kills)? Sorry, but the only way to defend yourself in that situation is shoot areas that quite possibly will kill the guy as it will have to be something that renders him unable to do anything.
Shoot, if you shoot him anywhere there is always the possibility that he will die. Just cause it's not instantly lethal doesn't mean stuff doesn't happen. You just gave him a chance that some infection will come in, or more blood will come out before the paramedics an come and stop it, etc etc.
I'm amazed that so many people are basing their judgment of the "head shot" on 3rd person shooter games and CSI. In the real world, anyone with training will always be aiming for the center of mass, and where he actually hits depends more on luck than anything else.
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
How sad,
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it.
Exactly.
What a waste.
Yeah, because crime and wars didn't exist before guns.
Someone is extremely naive.
I was being sarcastic. They were not running away and unarmed. They opened fire on the security guard. The use of lethal force was justified.
A couple of the articles also mention that over 40 rounds were fired. That is a lot of shots being exchanged. The fact the security guard was able to defend himself and take down an armed suspect under that kind fire is pretty amazing. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
THANK YOU! It is hard enough making a head shot from 15 yards on the pistol range!
How about the whole incident being avoided by people being honest and working for what you want. In this case no robbery, no need for a guard, no guns, no death. Ideally we shouldn't need locks on our doors or guards in the first place (unrealistic I know).
I do think most people are good though. My local Apple store had a door lock malfunction one morning and a dozen people were inside roaming around looking at things before management came to open the store. Nothing was stolen.
I do think most people are good though. My local Apple store had a door lock malfunction one morning and a dozen people were inside roaming around looking at things before management came to open the store. Nothing was stolen.
As a former police officer, I can verify what you're saying--police are trained to "shoot to stop" not shoot to kill and always shoot for center-mass--the largest part of the body (the torso) which provides you the greatest likelihood of hitting your target and stopping the threat. I can almost guarantee that this guy did not fire off a purposeful headshot and everyone playing Monday morning quarterback judging this guy's actions has NEVER been in a situation like it. You don't understand it until you're in it and unfortunately the milliseconds you have to make your decision affect you for the rest of your life.
The San Diego news says the robbers were shooting at him, so I think his life was in danger. 40 rounds of exchanged fire.
Chula Vista is NOT La Jolla.
If you don't want to be shot, don't rob a store and better yet don't rob a store carrying a gun with other people carrying guns.
40 rounds of exchanged fire.Chula Vista is NOT La Jolla.
If you don't want to be shot, don't rob a store and better yet don't rob a store carrying a gun with other people carrying guns.
Last edited:
Read the articles in the links.
You are quite correct. Anyone with gun experience knows this. It's not a video game, it's not a movie. And the whole scene takes place in a matter of seconds. I'd like to see what the armchair cowboys would do in the real life situation.
+1
Especially when ~40 shots were exchanged in the gunfight. It sounds like the guard was shooting to save his own life.