Thieves Rob Apple Store in Massachusetts and Get Away With $13,000 Worth of iPhones

[JeffyTheQuik]

Sorry but those "demo" phones aren't worth that much. They were never meant/made for retail in the first place so how can you put a retail $$$ on them. If this was a box of new retail phones I could see them being worth that $$$ amount.

I think that would make the cost of the display models go up.

Retail phone gets its software from the software image, so the cost is amortized over the quantity of phones sold, including all of the phones that are eligible for the upgrade, but these have software specialized for the display models, so the options are less, like 30 phones per store, rather than 350,000,000 phones in the wild. (these numbers are SWAG).

 

[CE3]

I'm sure Apple has insurance policies to cover this kind of idiocy. And they can probably brick any iOS or Mac device stolen from their stores - not just the display models.

 

[EightyTwenty]

What are you guys talking about? Those urban youths dindu nuffin'.

 

[ILikeAllOS]

Haha, and recently we found Apple was removing security cords.

Well I guess this story proves that the security cords are useless after all so might as well get rid of them

 

[44267547]

And not one person attempted to stop them? What the hell is this world coming too? Amazing, even though the devices are worthless too them after leaving the store.

Why would any competent person try and stop these criminals? Unless your a Law Enforcement Officer. You have no idea what they are capable of doing or weapons they may possess . It's property versus safety.
[doublepost=1477110428][/doublepost]

It may sound odd initially, but if you think about it, you never want to stop a smash 'n' grab kind of crime. In this time of crime, people are safe as criminals are targeting 'stuff' (money, property, etc.) and are trying to exist as quickly as possible. If you prevent or inhibit that, you don't know how they will react. If they are desperate and dumb enough to face felony prison time for a few dollars (these phones are essentially useless as people have already pointed out), then they may be willing to react violently to anyone trying to stop them. That endangers everyone in the store that wasn't in danger before.

I carry a firearm daily, but I would make no effort to stop these people. In doing so, I'd put innocent lives at risk. One or more of these people could have had a firearm as well; then what happens? Bullets start firing all over the place and I've never seen an Apple store that isn't packed with people unless it's closed. Even (trained) security officers will want the thieves to exist the store and get away from everyone else before attempting to stop them.

I share your views. Being a concealed carry holder, you would only engage with a firearm If the threat was posing great bodily harm or death. In this case, fleeing criminals would not justify a deadly force situation, unless one of suspects would engage in a hostile situation.
[doublepost=1477113021][/doublepost]

It's not about the financial value, it's about the morality, robbery itself needs to be stopped on site as much as possible, so that less and less dare to even think about it.

Even if you only want to talk about it in the financial standpoint, there are a lot of financial consequences after they flea away -- the investigation costs.

Your wrong on many levels. A 'Robber' does not always need to be stopped, at least not by the untrained general public. If the someone from the public would engage a fleeing criminal, then its best to let them go,
Any information can be provided to 911, which can be forwarded to Law Enforcement.

If a member of the Public would engage, it could potentially worsen the situation and jeopardize other innocent bystanders. There is a term called 'Due Regard', which basically means if you act in a hostile situation, take consideration for the other lives around you.

These criminals want to get away and anyone preventing them, other than law enforcement, could risk the safety of others. It's not the responsibility of the general public to engage these criminals, being they may lack the training and skills needed to engage. Safety first. Always.

 

[alphaod]

Employees and "loss prevention" cannot stop thieves unless they are 100% sure or you may get sued. Which is why when you shop at many places like Walmart or Best Buy, you can refuse to let them check your receipt.

For membership locations you cannot refuse since it's part of the membership agreement.

 

[mwd25]

They'll get away with it, because they'll sell them on craiglist as NIB, the buyers are the ones that lose out

Which would work great........until you actually go to hand it to the person buying it and its not even in a box.......let alone a new unopened box still wrapped in plastic. You can say its NIB, but it actually has to be for you to sell it. These are phones ripped right off the counter that are display models. They wont "look" new, wont have a box, headphones or charger and will be locked by Apple, thereby making them useless. So, if you mean by "getting away with it" that they wont be caught??? Sure....maybe, will they make even $10 by selling them, I think not.

 

[sevoneone]

Sadly this smash and grab tactic is nothing new. The store I worked at from 2008 - 2011 was hit like this at least 3 times while I was there. We were in a really safe/upscale area, but the open air mall sat right on a major freeway with only about 25 feet and a short chainlink separating it from the access road behind the mall. A driver would drop off 4 - 5 thieves, drive out and stop on the shoulder right behind the mall and text his buddies. They would basically grab all the items on the front two tables they could in 10 seconds and b-line out of the store, out the back and over the fence. I'd say not even 2 minutes from grab to gone.

 

[44267547]

Employees and "loss prevention" cannot stop thieves unless they are 100% sure or you may get sued. Which is why when you shop at many places like Walmart or Best Buy, you can refuse to let them check your receipt.

For membership locations you cannot refuse since it's part of the membership agreement.

In Loss Prevention, you are partially correct, a Loss Prevention investigator needs selection of the product, concealment, Constant observation of the suspect during the whole time they are inside the store with the concealed item, and then allowing the suspect to physically exit the store with the intent of not paying for the item(s) stolen.

Where you are wrong, is if the above listed factors are met, the receipt is NOT required, even if the shoplifter pays for one item and steals the other, which could be concealed on their person. The caveat is the Investigator has to be 100% certain the item is stolen/concealed, if they are wrong and accuse the alleged shoplifter of stealing, then yes, the Customer could potentially file a suit. This is known as a 'Bad Stop.'

If the Investigator is even slightly unsure of their findings or observations, then they are to abort the investigation. Reviewing video is key after this and releazing the shoplifter will return to steal again, until they are caught.

 

[FriednTested]

"none of the thieves are yet to be identified"

So all of them have been identified.

 

[MrNikeFresh808]

They will most likely get away with it, there is a place in downtown Boston that they can sell the phones too. All this places checks for is that the product works, charges and has no water damage.

 

[2298754]

They will most likely get away with it, there is a place in downtown Boston that they can sell the phones too. All this places checks for is that the product works, charges and has no water damage.

Cex? They do need your ID, so even if they get burned, they have your information.

 

[Synchromesh]

I know that store in the Natick Mall. I used to live about 10 mins away from it in the next town over. If Natick police is anything like Framingham police (where I used to live) none of those phones will ever be recovered. Some of the laziest useless cops I ever saw.

 

[rizzo41999]

Yikes, I go there LOL

 

[JamesPDX]

This is Grand Larceny in MA. That it was carried out by a mob of thieves and the nature of this crime could result in a FISA warrant. I'd treat it as a DHS concern. I'm sure the biometric analysis from the security cams are already tracking them down. If you steal a cell phone, you're probably a terrorist. Red Ball.

 

[adib]

And then Apple deactivated them remotely thus leaving the thieves with a handful of paper weights.

Or a good number of spare parts – screen, battery, and enclosure.

 

[bennyf]

"none of the thieves are yet to be identified"

So all of them have been identified.

Good catch. Most people could care less about such precision in language.

 

[0388631]

One of the things Google copied from Apple was the ability to perma-lock and wipe your phone. I forget the specifics with password guessing, but the Android OS also limits attempts and puts time between attempts the more you try. IMEI and MEID/ESN are black listed on networks that use either technology. There's only a small amount of countries that down follow these blacklists. In theory, stolen goods can be flashed to another carrier but I assume it's a long process and doesn't guarantee success. The phones are worth next to nothing unless they're scrapped for parts. These days, attempting to flash an Android phone to another carrier can sometimes flash the entire system and make the phone unusable.

 

[44267547]

This is Grand Larceny in MA. That it was carried out by a mob of thieves and the nature of this crime could result in a FISA warrant. I'd treat it as a DHS concern. I'm sure the biometric analysis from the security cams are already tracking them down. If you steal a cell phone, you're probably a terrorist. Red Ball.

I'm assuming your post is a complete joke. Right?

How could a warrant be applied to any one of these suspects if they have not been identified? In order for a warrant to be active, the suspect has to be identified first, following what the warrant is active for.

Also, a FISA warrant only applies to those who are considered to be 'Foreign Spies', which these local criminals stealing iPhones would not likely be categorized as a foreign spy.

DHS concern? Why? I can guarantee the Department of Homeland security will not be included or even remotely interested in a local criminal case with stolen demo iPhones.

Biometric cameras? Now you have me laughing. I think you need to cancel your cable subscription. It's affecting your sense of reality.

 

[Floris]

13,000 worth of iPhones? So .. 2.


jk

geesh, quite a heist. the guts on them.

 

[HallStevenson]

The police said this appears to be the 2nd time they've done this. If they were unsuccessful in moving the phones stolen the first time, why would they repeat this ? Seems to me whatever they're doing with them worked.

 

[JamesPDX]

I'm assuming your post is a complete joke. Right?

How could a warrant be applied to any one of these suspects if they have not been identified? In order for a warrant to be active, the suspect has to be identified first, following what the warrant is active for.

Also, a FISA warrant only applies to those who are considered to be 'Foreign Spies', which these local criminals stealing iPhones would not likely be categorized as a foreign spy.

DHS concern? Why? I can guarantee the Department of Homeland security will not be included or even remotely interested in a local criminal case with stolen demo iPhones.

Biometric cameras? Now you have me laughing. I think you need to cancel your cable subscription. It's affecting your sense of reality.

Hey! I'm trying to cord-cut over here!

 

[6836838]

And then Apple deactivated them remotely thus leaving the thieves with a handful of paper weights.

And thousands of pounds worth of spare parts.
[doublepost=1477317661][/doublepost]

Smart enough for that plot. Too dumb to know about activation lock?

Just smarter than you, as they have thousands of pounds worth of spare genuine parts.
[doublepost=1477317755][/doublepost]

$13000 is the loss in potential revenue to Apple but actual out of pocket loss is much less. As to the thieves, they've risked felony prosecution for those items that are now potential paperweights.

Not really. The people buying them never intended to buy a new phone. It doesn't cost 13,000 to replace the demo phones.

 

[LeeHP]

I wonder if this particular store has security guards. The big one in Delaware (Christiana Mall) has Delaware State Troopers guarding the place. You don't want to mess with those guys.

Anecdote - I remember one Holiday season where I noticed that the Apple Store had two huge DE State Troopers guarding the place (guns and everything). The jewelry store directly across from the Apple Store had a single guard (looked like a skinny high school student) with a can of pepper spray. I thought that was kinda funny.

I work 5 minutes from there. No guards, it's fairly upscale mall.

 

[\-V-/]

And thousands of pounds worth of spare parts.

$13000 worth of iPhones is like 15-20 iPhones. So more like ... 8 pounds.