Apple picking: How Apple’s iPhone and iPad became objects worth killing over

“Around midnight on April 19, 2012, Hwangbum Yang, a 26-year-old Korean immigrant and aspiring chef, finished work as a cook at an upscale Manhattan restaurant. He rode the No. 1 train uptown to the Bronx and started walking home in the rain,” Gerry Smith writes for The Hiuffington Post.

“He was two blocks from his house when a man holding a gun approached him, according to police. The man — whom police would later identify as Dominick Davis — demanded Yang’s iPhone,” Smith writes. “When he refused, Davis shot him once in the chest. Yang died on the sidewalk.”

Smith writes, “Yang was still wearing the iPhone’s white earbuds when paramedics arrived, investigators told his sister. Davis had left his wallet untouched, but had taken his iPhone. Police later found the phone for sale on Craigslist for $400… Yang’s murder stands as a chilling example of a modern-day crime wave sweeping the country, sometimes with deadly consequences. From New York to San Francisco to Washington, D.C., police have reported a surge in thefts of smartphones and tablet computers — iPhones and iPads in particular. The spike in robberies has grown so pronounced that police have coined a term for such crimes: Apple picking.”

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Lynn Weiler” for the heads up.]


  1. “BAN ALL GUNS!!!” I scream, knees jerking all over the place.

    Oh, but, wait, in NYC they already are banned. So, let’s do something that Lib/Dem/Progs never do: let’s think for a second about the issue instead of just feeling about it.

    Loathsome nanny state mayor Bloomberg, has made it virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain, possess, or carry firearms lawfully within New York City.

    So, how could this horrible crime have happened? Yang should have died by knife or bat or by some other dastardly method instead, right?

    Here’s a bit of logic — the use of which, of course, will instantly confound the Lib/Dem/Progs — if law-abiding citizens are prevented from protecting themselves by moron lawmakers, then only the criminals will have guns, and said criminals will know that the general population are a bunch of unarmed sitting ducks and therefore act accordingly.

    Lib/Dem/Progs, I now return you to your fantasyland of Bloombergs, Maddows and Morgans where illogical bullshit flows like the Great Flood.

      1. I deal in reality. 270 million guns aren’t going away. In places where concealed carry is law, gun crime is lower than where they are “banned.” “Banned” for lawful citizens, not the criminals, you see. Criminal = law breaker. Hence, laws do nothing in this case except get law-abiding citizens killed.

        So, yes, an arms war is more appropriate. Had someone been armed, the people who died around Gabby Giffords would likely be alive today. Fewer or no deaths would have occurred in that movie theater. Maybe none or far fewer of those kids would have died in Newtown.

        1. sigh! I’m sure if there were a dozen folks in that movie theatre carrying pistols and they all started shooting where they thought the gunner was standing that there’d probably be many more injured or dead from wild shots. As for the Giffords case, there were several “civilians” who were armed (this was Arizona, right?) and there were no fewer deaths or injuries because of that. You just can’t whip out a Glock and start shooting the minute someone else does. Too much collateral damage.

          And why have there been many injuries and deaths at schools where there are security guards or others packing heat? It’s because there weren’t enough of them, right? So to hire more we have to raise “revenues” and have a bigger government, right? Oh, wait…

        2. Odd thing is, those 270 million guns are concentrated in the hands of 35% of the country. The gun lobby has done such an excellent job of stoking your paranoia and fears that you’ll spend any amount of money to be the idiot with the most guns. The rest of the country apparently believes in law and order as part of a functional society.

    1. I can see that from your perspective that guns are the ONLY answer to almost any problem you perceive. Teaching your children to respect other’s belongings and to never even consider reaching out to take something that doesn’t belong to you has no chance in your world. If the schools and churches would teach morality, the population would never consider guns as a solution other than for the police or military.

      Make sure that all the weak scared people have assault weapons and the world will become a safe place, right?

            1. Now you show us that your reading skills are subpar. I never said anything like that. I am willing to defend myself and advocate that others also do so but not with deadly force. Justice is sorely needed in our society but vengeance is a destructive force.

      1. 3l3c7ro, I agree, the casual disregard for life and disrespect for the property of others is a family failing. That said, I can be responsible for teaching my children. I CANNOT be aware of or responsible for what everyone else teaches or fails to teach their children. Its partially the job of churches, but they can only support what is learned at home with the family.

        Having a gun and knowing how to use it is alot like advanced first aid, and wilderness first responder stuff. We learn it, we know it, we practice and prepare for the time its needed, and hope it never is. You know, the old hoping for the best, but expecting and preparing for the worst.

        Police and military being armed IS NOT the solution. They are at best, minutes away. They only bat cleanup and crowd control in 95% of any violent situation. The criminal holding a gun in your face won’t politely wait for the police to show up. Given the choice, I never want to be robbed at gun point, but I would much rather have the means to protect myself rather than hope someone else would step up to do the job, or that police might show up in time to summon an ambulance so I don’t die.


        1. The problem with the ‘gun in every hand’ solution is that some people are not great judges of when they are truly in danger and also some people are not great at aiming and are likely to hit innocent people. If we work for true justice, the wrong doers will get picked up from our turning them in and not turning a blind eye.

          1. you mention people who are not great at aiming. In my post I said we practice. Thats the kind of gun control I want to see. If someone is issued a concealed carry permit, the law needs to be that the permit/firearm holder is at the range practicing every month for 4-5 hours so his or her skills stay sharp. No practice hours, permit revoked.

            1. Again, doesn’t matter how much honor I try to instill in my children, there are always going to be people who don’t hold those same values, and will hurt or kill others.

              If attacked and threatened by any of those less honorable people, I want to be the last man standing.

              Yes, its rather selfish to think I’m important enough to stick around, and self serving to say I want to be alive and know my yet to arrive grandchildren. Its even arrogant of me to think that someone else is not entitled to take from me something I have worked hard to obtain, but there you have it.

              Being non-violent doesn’t mean cowering to evil and allowing ourselves to be slaughtered by those who do not share the same outlook.

            2. I advocate that the society adopt these values rather than sinking to the lowest common denominator of using guns as a solution to poor societal values. Our schools and churches need to instil the deep respect we must have for each other and their belongings.

              In my travels around the world, I have noticed that the poorer the nation, the more that they erect walls and install bars on the doors and windows of their homes. The ‘good’ people live in ‘prisons’ and the ‘bad’ people roam free.

            3. 3l3c7ro,

              The Lib/Dem/Prog fantasy world is which you live gets rational people killed.

              I doubt you’ll be able to understand my statement, but many here will, so hopefully it’ll have some good effect.

              We can dream of endless orchards and warm campfires around which we all sing Kumbaya, but then we have to wake up, open the door and go out into the real world. Your unicorn tears don’t work there, honey.

              Conservatives offer solutions that make people work for results. Liberals offer pie-in-the-sky fantasies that simply end up costing way, way too much and just make everyone miserable (taxpayers get fleeced and those the Libs are trying to “help” — read “lock in their votes” — get indentured, stuck on the gov’t teat).

              Wake up.

            4. Yes, build a conservative world that will stall any progress to a better world. Don’t think of the best solution but the one that your limited mind can comprehend. Ignore the real problem and focus on a myriad of ‘solutions’ that complicate life.

            5. 3l3c7ro,

              What you fail to realize is that conservatism is the path to the better world you and I both want.

              Fiscal conservatism, to be precise. What you do in your home and/or bedroom, as long as you’re of legal age and not harming anyone, is of no concern of mine.

              I espouse a world where people who can work, do work. They don’t look for government handouts. They don’t angle for “disability.” They don;t live off food stamps. Those that cannot work are taken care of via charities, to which Republicans and Conservatives are proven to give markedly more. (Lib/Dem/Progs are excellent as spending other people’s money to “help” – read “make dependent in order to lock in Lib/Dem/Prog votes. See: Obama.) I propose a world where the Constitution is followed and government power is limited. I see the federal government doing national defense, food safety, air and water safety, and a few other things, not being a horrible faceless nanny to bunch of indentured servants.

              In health care, for example, I would create and foster COMPETITION, not government control. Obamacare will kill so many people needlessly, watch and see. It’s precisely to wrong thing to do. The federal government has far exceeded what the founders intended.

              I favor individual FREEDOM over socialism. You know, what America was built upon.

              Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

      2. I agree that a child raised properly will respect life and others.

        The problem is I can only teach my kids these things and there are plenty of people who never learned and will never teach their children these things.

        I carry a gun. I consider it no different than carrying a spare tire in my car in case of a flat or having a flashlight for a power outage.

        1. Now, try educating others about a secure society based on the qualities that we admire in ourselves and others. It is slow and difficult but is ultimately the only way to achieve peace in the world.

          1. I agree if we are going to make a real difference it starts with our children and the values we instill in them.

            Until then I find it sensible to arm myself in case.

  2. Jesus H. F***ing Christ man. What a f***ed up situation to be in. My condolences to the family of Mr. Yang.

    That’s why gun laws are necessary. If Mr. Yang had a concealed weapon that motherf***er Davis wouldn’t be alive today. I would shoot him myself, applying the coup-de-grace if I had the chance to throw the switch on the electric chair or put my finger in the trigger to put a bullet through his cranial cavity like bin Laden.

    Scum like that should be eliminated like rats from the street.

      1. Proof? You have none. More likely that Dominick Davis would have fallen to a better trained Yang, if the laws I back — permitted concealed carry after proper training — were in effect. And the world today would be a better place. Instead, it is a worse place due to Lib RINO Bloomberg’s empty-headed illogical stupidity.

    1. There’s nothing preventing scumbags from shooting you in the face with your method.

      This isn’t MSNBC: We’re talking reality here, not some fantasy or wish of what you hope would happen.

      1. You discuss prevention. The only way to prevent something, is to avoid it. What is in your control? While you have it, your iPhone, and yourself.

        Don’t let them know your are there or just put your iPhone and ear buds in your pocket, when on the street.

        This action, while completely in your control, is non-confrontational, non-tempting, and more than likely prevents you from getting shot in the face.

      2. Reality is where you try to whip out your gun and shoot the guy who’s got a barrel in your chest before he pulls the trigger.

        You live in a Hollywood movie world where good guys triumph because they can suspend the laws of physics and slow down the world while they can do the impossible.

    2. Bull. Life essentially meaningless to the criminals, there is a strong chance he would have been killed even after handing over what the robber demanded. You know, dead people can’t identify their attackers.

  3. Remember, if it’s not an iPhone, it’s a gold watch, ring, wallet. The iPhone is an object to fence, and this is in no way Apple’s fault.

    I suggest, take the martial art philosophy, examine your surroundings and behave appropriately. Avoiding the criminal is part of the equation.

    I hope the perp get’s what’s coming.

  4. About 5% of the population here in Oregon has a concealed handgun license. We are a very polite society. You never know which little old lady on mass transit has a .45 auto in her purse.

  5. Another senseless killing. The victim erred in not surrendering his iPhone, but that was no reason to kill him. I’m afraid the white earbuds advertised the fact that the victim had an Apple product, best to get an aftermarket black set which are less visible.

  6. The ONLY good defence is a strong offence. Absolutely true. However, you must take an offensive position in order for a carry license to be effective. In other words, you must shoot first – Even before you see a weapon. If you see a weapon, it’s too late to draw and fire. Even a geriatric criminal will shoot first.
    Yes, criminals will always have guns, but arming the populace will not prevent it, and will likely end up killing innocents.

    1. See the video I posted above. The only “people” who got shot were the criminals in there robbing and terrorizing lawful citizens. Granted, accidents will happen, but as I said above:

      Had someone been armed, the people who died around Gabby Giffords would likely be alive today. Fewer or no deaths would have occurred in that movie theater. Maybe none or far fewer of those kids would have died in Newtown.

      Best to have strong laws that create the climate for law-abiding citizens to only carry firearms they have trained with, taken proper safety courses for, etc.

  7. iPhone or wallet,he was a crime victim. The bad guys always want what you have. It’s easier then getting a job and earning a living. There’ll always be bad guys and they will always do bad things. A phone in one pocket and a gun in the other is perhaps a way to even out the odds. I have no problem handing someone my phone if it will save my life. I also have no problem using the gun in my other pocket if possible. No hesitation on my part. None at all. Because once you cross that line, I consider it too late for you to go back. And I want to make certain that you don’t ever get the chance to do it again to me or anyone else.

  8. 3l3c7ro said I am willing to defend myself and advocate that others also do so but not with deadly force.

    When deadly force is the language and currency of the aggressor, and said aggressor is drunk with power and adrenaline from the crime he is about to commit, only deadly force, or something just slightly but not much less will persuade the aggressor from backing down.

    1. The police talk people out of using deadly force many times and most police officers may use their weapon only once or less in an entire career. What is the true language and currency of peace keeping then?

      1. How do the police talk them down? By pointing out the fact that the criminal is outgunned 20 to 1, the swat team is standing by, and police cars are blocking every means of escape, and the dogs are just waiting to be set loose.

        They do it with superior force, all of which means nothing if the said prep has already killed his iDevice toting victim, or had 5 minutes alone without resistance to shoot up a mall, school, or theater.

        Face it, the police are always going to arrive too late. They only respond, NOT prevent.

          1. guess we do the civil thing and agree to disagree.

            Should you ever have the misfortune of being attacked and robbed, I hope and pray that a gun carrier will come to your aid before the police arrive and have to inform your wife and kids that they are now widowed and orphaned, but don’t worry, we are doing all we can to find who did this.

            1. Look at any country in history that went from having citizen owned firearms to strict controls and bans. It was ALWAYS for the greater good, and protection of the people. Once the guns were gone, violent crimes had sharp/ huge increases. Criminals had no fear, they knew there would be no opposition to their crimes.

            2. Where did you get the idea that I said anything about firearms control? People who are feel secure will find that there is no need for firearms and will put them down on their own. The world is crying out loud for true justice and when we start striving for it, we can have peace.

      2. Most police never use their weapons since they arrive far after the crime has happened. There is no need to draw a weapon on the crying survivors, or the stunned onlookers.

        No disrespect to law enforcement, but when the call goes in, they are already a day late and a dollar short. The fact is, the police cannot be everywhere, and where ever they are, well, no gun toting criminal is going to pull out his weapon and attempt a robbery in front of an officer.

        In the early days of our country, a person was responsible for their own protection and safety. Not to be too political, but we never expected a government agency to step in and take responsibility for our protection and well being. We provided for ourselves.

  9. I feel sorry for the man.

    I carry a gun and I feel that anyone who points a gun at you is already past the point of reasoning. Giving the person all your belongings may still get you killed.

    One way or another in that situation I would have to pull my firearm. I’d rather die armed trying to defend myself vs. Standing there unarmed.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.