Dad uses Find My iPhone, kills son’s knife-wielding iPhone thief during scuffle

“A father killed a violent thug who robbed his son of his iPhone at ­knifepoint. Derek Grant traced Patrick Bradley using an app that revealed the gadget’s location,” Grant McCabe reports for The Daily Record. “Grant confronted Bradley, who stabbed him in the eye. Grant then repeatedly stabbed Bradley, who died later of cardiac arrest. Grant yesterday admitted culpable homicide at the High Court in Glasgow.”

“The tragedy began on August 30 last year when Grant’s son, politics student Jordan, 20, was robbed by Bradley in Greenock on the way home from work. Jordan went home and told his dad, who discovered the iPhone was nearby using a Find My iPhone app,” McCabe reports. “Grant then left his home in the town’s Wellington Street with Jordan and his two younger sons Lee, 17, and 16-year-old Jamie. They spotted Bradley, who had a significant record for violence, and Grant told him to hand back the phone. Bradley, 29, instead lashed out and knifed Grant in the left eye.”

“He retaliated and repeatedly stabbed Bradley with a knife he had taken from home because he feared for his safety. Father-of-four Grant was arrested and later said: ‘I wish to declare for the record that at the time of this ­incident, I was acting in self-defense,'” McCabe reports. “Grant, 38, ha[s] been forced to give up his job as a driver having lost the sight in his eye.”

Read more in the full article here.

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

167 Comments

  1. What horror. I’m tempted to ask if the phone was worth the eye, but I think that’s wrong. It’s not cool to have your son robbed at knifepoint, and it can’t be wrong to find the guy and ask for your stuff back. Still, a few five-ohs might’ve had better luck.

    1. Every situation has a set of possibilities that can take place before and after the situation.
      The situation is affected by the first choice acted upon which then leads down an ever decreasing path of options that can only lead to a conclusion the first option invariably determines.
      For example, Option 1. Call the police and report the theft as well as providing a description and the location of perpetrator according to the find my iPhone app, and stress very clearly the present danger likely to be encountered.
      Option 2. Call Apple inc. and request the activation of the kill switch. Ask Apple inc. to Liaise with the police. Call insurance company if one does not have an extended warranty cover with Apple inc. set claim in motion.
      Option 3. Arm oneself with a knife and then confront the thug without calling the police or Apple and ask your sons to accompany you in your endeavor to enact natural justice.
      No wonder he has admitted to culpable homicide. I hope the judge or jury is kind to him since one would hope that he has learnt a lesson, but most important, that he has taught his sons how not approach a similar situation should they be unfortunate to experience it later or their children for that matter.
      I hope that I too have learnt from him.

      1. As many stories before have demonstrated, calling the police will cause ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to happen. So you might as well take that off the list. With that being the case, I can understand why someone would try to get their property back themselves, but you never know what kind of crazy you will be dealing with.

        1. You’re wrong, calling the police causes a lot of things to happen. A report is generated from every call that goes into a database, which can be used at a later time to demonstrate a preponderance of criminal activity. While it might not satisfy your desire to take immediate revenge, cooperating with authorities helps everyone, not just you.

        2. Wrong, there have been plenty of examples of police who respond when you can give them the location of the iPhone. In this case, I suspect they would respond because the kid was robbed at knifepoint by a known violent offender. In any event, it’s a frickin’ iPhone — the guy was already scared of the robber, so he took a knife. That should have been the first warning not to go after the iPhone.

        3. Wrong. After a home invasion robbery, I traced my MacBook Pro with Find My Mac, and gave the location to the police department. Even though the location was in an adjoining city, they (and the local PD) descended upon the location within 45 minutes, and recovered not only my property, but the property of several others. It turns out that the thieves were on parole, and had waived search and seizure protection as a condition of parole, so the police were able to just walk right in and see everything.

        4. I wonder in which police jurisdiction do you live when you have such little faith in the law enforcement.

          This incident apparently took place in Scotland (United Kingdom, at present). There are very many stories from around the world where local law enforcement, armed with the “Find My Mac/iPhone” info, successfully recovered stolen devices and apprehended the perpetrators. It could have easily happened in Glasgow.

          1. I live in San Jose, CA. The cops here are so understaffed that robbery is just not a priority at all. So, calling the cops for a stolen iPhone is a complete and utter waste of time.

            1. Reduce taxes! No more taxes! Reduce taxes!

              Or so the chant goes. Since they’re so inept anyway, let’s just not pay them.

              Time to take the police force private. Call OCB

      1. The incident started with the theft of an iPhone and ended with someone (the perp) dying directly because of it because of an intentional confrontation that could have been avoided – read the article.

        When you confront someone so obviously of a violent nature you have to realize you will potentially put yourself or someone else at risk of injury or death. A prudent person would call the cops to deal with it to avoid such lethal and injurious scenarios, at least to yourself.

        Again the theft of an iPhone isn’t worth killing someone (whether or not in avoidable self defense) or losing an eye over.

        1. So is a frozen burrito worth it?

          True story. A couple weeks ago officer shot and killed a man over a freak’n burrito. Now, before all you cop haters start popping off, I’ll finish. The officer was dispatched because a guy walking into a convenient store, cooked and then just walked out with a burrito. The store owner/employee doing the right thing called the police. The officer only a block away showed up and just tried to talk to the guy, who he recognized from previous issues. The officers police dog was just sitting peacefully by the officers side when the robber reaches for his gun. The dog grabbed the mans arm and gave the officer time to react and pull his gun. By the time both had fired, the officer hit and killed the guy but he was not hit.
          So based on the previous comment, is a burrito worth killing someone for?
          Obviously the answer is no to us but then you’d really have to ask the dead guy because he was attempting to kill the officer first so it must have been worth killing for. But sense you can’t ask or chastise the dead guy we then point blame at the guy defending himself, the officer because we instantly jump to he killed the guy over a burrito.
          He didn’t want to kill the guy but had his dog not reacted and he not shot then it would be the office that was dead and we would just be talking about a scumbag that we would be paying for the rest of his life.

          So, before you start blaming the guy for trying to get his son’s phone back, you’d need to ask the dead guy if the phone was worth killing for because he obviously did. Had you asked the guy who lived after the fact, I’m sure he would say no but that wasn’t his decision at the time.

          1. Well, one could argue that had the police been given a chance to recover the stolen device, the perpetrator would have most likely chosen not to physically confront or attack a police officer (or officers). When confronted by an ordinary guy who looks unarmed, it was fairly easy to decide to attack the man; had he been facing a barrel of a gun, he would have likely been still alive (and in jail, the kid would have retrieved his iPhone, and his father would have kept his eye (and his job).

            1. Sadly, phone theft is not high on the police’s list of priorities. My suggestion is to give them a head’s up where the thief is, tell them you’re on your way and would they like to meet you there. That might get a reaction, but it really shouldn’t have to be that way.

          2. It’s different when police are involved than citizens. Anyone who does that wins the Darwin Award of the year grabbing a policeman’s gun or pointing a gun at an officer. That’s simply a death wish or mental problem. NOT rational, even for a criminal (not known for being rational though). The store owner did the right thing calling the police and he is not injured or killed as a result.

            Going self defense is OK under any circumstance but there’s no point putting yourself at risk unless it’s your family, which actually happened to me once being the only thing between them and great harm. But I did what I had to do as a man protecting his family (interesting the primal dark places your mind automatically goes instinctively you don’t expect).

            Maybe this iPhone thief would be dead anyway, but it would have been a cop who had killed him in self defense because of foolhardy moves and the father would still have the use of his eye for his job. Sometimes you have to forget your sense of testerone driven outrage in order to stay alive for your family in the larger picture. IMHO.

  2. Trying to regain a $600 iPhone has turned into losses of potentially a million in lifetime wages. Second, I was totally on his side, until it was mentioned, he brought his own knife.

    If he feared for his own life, he should have called the police. Never mind that he brought his own kids. It’s not Highlander here, 900AD. If he thought the thug would have given back the phone when asked, and then defended himself against an unwarranted attack, then killing the thug would truly be self defense.

    He, went with blood lust in his heart. I know, I have two boys myself.

    1. Yeah, it’s okay to defend yourself if you’re unarmed. But heaven forbid if you are actually prepared to defend yourself with the same thing your opponent is wielding.

      That being said, should have called the cops. Then again, maybe the cops don’t take such calls.

      1. Also, don’t make light of what I said… It’s not about defending yourself if you are unarmed. It’s about causing an avoidable occurrence. The ball was clearly in Grant’s court. He could have done things many different ways.

        Try stepping in front of a moving car, and blowing it up with a bazooka. Then claim, the car was going to run you over. The logic doesn’t work.

        But shooting and stabbing people on the street, when you do not have to get into an altercation in the first place, you are in control of yourself, is supposed to be OKAY? It’s bloody murder.

        I am not asking a man to take a stab in the eye, and not defend himself. I am saying, he shouldn’t have been there in the first place, or he shouldn’t have brought the knife. If he didn’t have the knife, do you think he would have gone in the first place? Probably not.

          1. Gollum is very clearly advocating the correct action, calling the police. Bringing the knife along constitutes premeditation. Not only should he not have had a knife, he never should have been there to begin with. Are you really that obtuse, or are you just trolling as usual?

            1. Its a double edged sword. But keep in mind that if we had not have armed ourself, we would still be loyal serfs of King George’s descendants.

              Armed defense was appropriate as the crime involved a weapon.
              Should have called police. If they chose not to help, then proceed (with 3 friends coming from a baseball game).

              Its sad but today the advice many give is run away. give up. don’t fight back. Someone else will help you…

              So if you see someone attacking a helpless girl and dragging her into his car, you should go home, call the police and forget the whole thing, cause we don’t want any violence. right?
              Just saying.

            2. I agree totally with you. However, the guy choose to put himself in harms way and despite it being a brave thing to do, the smartest thing to do was get the police to accompany his visit to the perpetrator. The thief would have quickly been reminded that he chose to bring a knife to a gunfight… Regarding your helpless girl scenario, I have seen similar things where someone is in harms way and most people just stand by and watch, then go about their day as if nothing happened. Every now and then someone in this situation stands up and takes action, some call them vigilantes. Ultimately it is these good people with no regard for their own safety who stand up to the bad people in this world. Sometimes these brave people are not who we expect them to be…

        1. Not only that, but what if the robber had attacked one of his kids? Stabbed out their eye, or even worse, killed them? All over an iPhone.

          While I love my iPhone, if someone wants to rob me at knife/gun point, they can have it. I’ll be at the Apple Store the next day getting a replacement, or I’ll use an old iPhone for awhile. But no way am I going to go after a guy who felt it was worth the risk to threaten me with a knife/gun just to get a used iPhone he could sell for a couple hundred bucks at most.

          1. So, as it is in England now, when someone wants to take our stuff, our daughter, or our wife we should idly stand by wringing our hands, waiting for the police to show up. Whatever happened to the concepts of manhood and private property? England has disarmed its citizens and made it a crime for them to resist criminals in any armed fashion. Daylight break-ins with the residents cowering in the corner are the norm there now. Since England outlawed firearms it has the highest violent crime rate in Europe according to the UN and the EU. It’s now survival of the strongest. They can simply take what they want. The biggest mistake here is the British government’s.

            The father asked for the stolen goods to be returned. That’s a reasonable request. Attacking the father with a knife is not reasonable, and it justifies deadly force in self-defense. As an American I have a right to go out in public armed for my own self-defense. If you don’t like it then that’s your business. Get on your knees for every mugger that comes by if you like. I don’t care. But don’t expect me to do so.

            1. That’s all fine and great, but I have a problem with two things here.

              First one: the man normally doesn’t carry a weapon on him in public. When he decided to look confront the robber, he brought a lethal weapon on purpose (i.e. for self-defense). This is the fundamental mistake that should have NOT been made. He was preparing to take justice into his own hands, in a country where an efficient system is in place that deals with crime. This was definitely NOT a life-or-death situation.

              Which brings me to the second point; this all started with a theft of a $600 (£350) device. Nobody was trying to kidnap a child (or a sister, or a wife). We cannot talk about these as if they are the same. Risking life over a replaceable piece of property is foolish.

        2. Oh, I agree. He should have stayed home and hidden under his bed. Let every thug in the vicinity trash his house, bully his kids, and use his wife. That would prevent any kind of danger to his person. Maybe in your limp-wristed world that’s how things should work. Not so in mine. Had I been the father the thug would be dead. Never bring a knife to a gun fight.

          1. Wot Pregrad said. And get a grip, Zeke. It’s irrelevant to go off half-cocked about defending your daughter and thugs using his wife. It was a fucking phone… and he CHASED AFTER the guy.

          2. You are arguing with a straw man. He can be a great dad and get his son’s iPhone, with out pain and suffering. Maybe the thug was crazy and the police would have killed him anyway, but that’s not the father’s job. Yes he is the protector of the family, but only in special circumstances. Now he faces going to prison. Boy the thug learned a lesson didn’t he. Oh and every other thug too. Now the family risks not having a father at home despite it all.

      1. That’s typically what happens when reporting stolen property to the police – they make a report, then nothing happens. At least that’s how it worked every time I’ve done it.

        I’ve heard it’s different when you come to the police with actionable evidence of the theft – such as a video recording of the theft happening and/or a GPS reading of the stolen object. If someone stole my iPhone, or any object I could track remotely, I would definitely try going to the cops to see if they would act on it.

      1. Scumbag steals iPhone at knifepoint. Dad tries to retrieve his son’s property, scumbag stabs his eye out. Dad strikes back in SELF-DEFENSE. Scumbag has heart attack that somebody finally stood up to his thuggish ways (or gets rather well-deserved knife wound to heart) and subsequently dies. Dad is hardly a “vigilante.”

        1. Over simplification.

          Where is “Dad tries to retrieve his son’s property, while brandishing/holding/concealing knife.”? That is the only thing wrong. It changes everything.

          Dad is a vigilante, only because of the knife. A jury of peers would convict. If, he disarmed the thug and used the knife against him – he’s a hero. That’s not what happened.

            1. You’re wrong. Dad started the second incident by confronting a known violent armed man. Just to get an iPhone back. You don’t get to claim self-defense when you started the fight, even if the bad guy did something at an earlier time.

            2. How do you know the father “started the fight”?

              If he approached the thief with a knife, then yes. But if he merely confronted the thief and demanded the return of stolen property that is not starting a fight.

            3. no, YOU are wrong…an innocent person was robbed and he took action to retrieve what is his since the police won’t do it anymore than this government will defend its own borders. The CRIME IS THE THEFT. When any government refuses to fulfill its duties, citizens MUST take the law into their own hands. You’re gonna see it big time in the United States and all the liberals will decry “vigilantes!” when they are the very people who instigated the anarchy.

            4. “no, YOU are wrong…an innocent person was robbed and he took action to retrieve what is his since the police won’t do it anymore than this government will defend its own borders.”

              Centuries of Anglo-American common law refuse to recognize the principle that you can use deadly force—not to stop a felony from occurring—but to find the thief down and get the property back. You are taking quite the anarchist position. Self-help like this is incompatible with civilization.

              “The CRIME IS THE THEFT. When any government refuses to fulfill its duties, citizens MUST take the law into their own hands.”

              The father here did not contact the police. Stop making empty generalizations.

              “You’re gonna see it big time in the United States and all the liberals will decry ‘vigilantes!’ when they are the very people who instigated the anarchy.”

              ?????

          1. “Brandishing” and “holding” is VERY different than concealing a knife and taking it with you.

            It’s a very close case if he had a CONCEALED knife and he was not the first aggressor. I think more often than not a jury would let him off with a properly formed self-defense argument. If the thief stabbed him in the eye, and the dad didn’t die, who’s to say Bradley would’ve stopped there? The dad had to kill to protect himself.

            Now, if the dad brandished the knife while asking for the phone, he loses every time. You cannot threaten deadly force to get back property. We have police for that, and they do that very well. But confronting a thief and asking for the property back is a different story (albeit inadvisable, I think, just not illegal).

            But this is all my understanding of American law; who knows what our Scottish cousins consider proper self-defense nowadays.

            1. Where I’m from, the police are much better about this stuff. Boston PD in conjunction with all the colleges in the area are much more willing to follow through on armed robberies involving phones.

            2. It’s not clear. I am making assumptions, as others are as well, but we fall on opposite sides of the fence.

              Hero, by defending your right as a human being to protect life and property.

              There was a solution where everyone lives, and a father keeps his eye and job.

              Grant went rogue.

            3. I would agree except your solution allows the thug to get way with taking someone else’s property. And depending on the police resources or how crowded the jails are, knows no one will do a damn thing about it. Oh, let’s not forget the whole lenient punishment from a judge.

              Based on that logic I might as just go around giving my phone away every week to the nearest low-life. Oh, I won’t mind spending my money and renewing my contract 3 times a month just for them.

              Gollum. Send me you phone!

      2. He probably became a vigilantly because, at least here in the states, how many times has the perpetrator of a crime had more rights then the victim? Now, at least Mr. Grant has more rights!

            1. That is not how the American system of justice is designed to work, botty. But I’m not surprised to learn you prefer to take the law in your own hands and serve up the most barbaric justice you can imagine.

            2. American law (except in a few states) says that I have a right to carry a concealed firearm, with few exceptions, wherever I go. If I confronted a thief about stolen property without brandishing that weapon, and he attacked me with deadly force then I am justified in killing him on the spot, if that’s what it takes to defend myself. The end result in this case would be that in America it would be justifiable homicide every time.

            3. re “If I confronted a thief about stolen property without brandishing that weapon, and he attacked me with deadly force then I am justified in killing him on the spot, if that’s what it takes to defend myself. ”

              All true. And I still suggest that confronting a potentially violent criminal (i.e. risking death) over an iPhone is just plain stupid. That’s not manly. Manly is sticking around – alive – to protect your FAMILY and raise your children. “Oh look at me. I may be dead and I may have left my children without a father, but I’m so manly. I confronted this psychopathic loser over a phone.”

            4. Botvinnik: Judge – Jury – Executioner

              It’s not about criminal rights. It’s about being a civilian.

              No man is trained or taught to seek retribution, by themselves. We don’t teach our kids that, and I sure hope you don’t teach yours. In the most righteous plan of action, you bring a team, backup. That is the police. If they don’t want to participate, then you drop it. You move on. It’s not as if the criminal bested you. It’s that the police, your backup team, failed you.

              When society didn’t have police, a wronged man brought his village or a posse. Any time you see what you seemingly glorify, vigilantism, it’s a fallacy. You see it all the time in movies, because revenge makes a good story.

              Two wrongs does not make a right. Want to go religion? Jesus didn’t say eye for an eye, he said turn the other cheek. But that’s only one way to look at it.

              Going alone, or with your kids, was the most stupid thing Grant did in his life. It does not matter how WRONG the other guy was, dead or not.

            5. A. The punk, at knifepoint, stole the property of his son coming home from WORK.
              B. The father went to retrieve the property, the punk responded by gouging his eye out with a knife.
              C. The father killed the punk with his own knife in self-defense of his life and his property.

              The facts are simple..the punk will no longer be stealing property from people on the way home from work.

          1. It certainly does justify the means. If the ends are that my family or I am alive at the end, and the perpetrator who attacked me is is stopped from harming them or me, and it means he is dead, the means are completely justified.

      1. The same things as Democrats. It’s that Democrats want to be sure the right person is killed. Republicans just want to see death, regardless of justice. It’s the whole right wing christian way of doing things. The american taliban.

    1. Depends.

      My city dropped responding to property crimes 2 years ago, due to funding (they claim). Home invasions spiked. They are dropping now cause in the past year there have been at least a dozen home shootings of thieves.

      The second the thief pulled the knife and stabbed the dad.. The dad was correct in fighting back.

      Just having a knife on your person is not illegal, unless the dad specifically brought *and* pulled the knife to begin with, then the dad did nothing wrong.

      I know there are places in some cities even the police don’t care to go.. For any reason. So he may have notified police and they may have said they will either not go after the guy.. Or “eventually” go look for the guy.

      Calling the police for everything is overburdening them… People are calling 911 here in the states cause mcdonalds runs out of nuggets..

      1. I agree with you, but the story does not make it clear.

        I could be totally wrong. But it did say he brought his own knife out of fear of his life.

        Walk to the mall with a kitchen knife on your belt. See how far you get.

        It mostly depends on the type of knife.

        1. Yep.

          I only read the story posted here, so I truly don’t know all the “facts”

          Me? I carry a knife on my person 24/7, and a firearm most of the time (can’t carry at work, legally anyway)

          So this dad could of had the knife on him anyway, like I said just having it on your person does not make it illegal.

      2. First, anyone who calls the police to complain about their McNuggets should be fined for wasting public resources. That said, a child was robbed and that is a crime worthy of attention from law enforcement. I would even support the father locating the perp and taking a photo to hand over to police, where they could have added this information to his record. No, they wouldn’t have gotten the phone back, but in the long run, incidents documented on the criminals record could help the courts put him in prison.

        Vigilante justice is wrong in a civilized society. If you hate government (and I’m talking to you, botty) the place to go is Somalia, which has no government and where vigilantes will cut off your hand if you steal something. Does that sound like a good place to live?

        1. The “child” was 20 in the article..

          Simply confronting someone that stole something is NOT a crime…

          It took almost 2 months for any response from police about a stolen trailer that we reported, and knew exactly where it was…

          We went and picked it up ourselves. Police came out two months later and asked us if we recovered it, we said yes cause they didn’t.

            1. I know it’s a few days ago.. But you do see my Avatar right?
              I carry, and have been trained by/with Law Enforcement. Yes we were carrying that night as well, OC. We went when the guy was not home anyway.
              (OC=Open Carry, pistols openly visible on your person. 100% Legal in 46 states)

              Now when we repossessed a stolen Motorcycle from a 19 year old kid.. he was home. (His dad turned him in though, Nobody knew where the MC was until we got a phone call from his dad. Who also did not call the cops..)

              In some places, taking the perp’s photo like you suggested.. the “perp” could sue for harassment/stalking/invasion of privacy etc. Only if the guy is on public property (or property not owned by them) is it actually legal to take their picture without consent. So if you are taking pictures of the guy on his property or in his house.. you could then be committing a crime.

  3. What a foolish thing to do. I hope he feels the phone was worth an eye.

    I am sure people here will disagree, but seriously… police officers are equipped not only to identify a potentially dangerous situation, but to diffuse it. They are specially trained.

    1. Most likely outcome if he had called police: they’d filed a report but done nothing because they’re “too busy” to go hunting for a petty thief (unless the victim were rich or well connected.)

      That said, it was stupid of him to risk his life (and lose an eye) for a phone, and irresponsible of him to risk the lives of his two teenaged sons in doing so.

      1. No, if he calls the police and tells them he has the armed robber’s location right now based on the iPhone, it is likely the police would respond. They certainly would have responded it he had told them he was taking a knife to confront the guy and get the iPhone back.

    2. Perhaps he felt that his dignity and his manhood were worth an eye. I can see that neither of those things are worth anything to you. It’s sad that the state of mind of the typical male in this society has slipped so low.

  4. Don’t take matters into your own hands. Call the police. Clearly, lethal force was justified after getting stabbed in the eye. No one but a pussy liberal would dispute that.

    1. He admitted culpable homicide. (probably a UK version of manslaughter) He can’t bring a knife to a knife fight and then claim self defense. He went knowing there was probable cause for bodily harm.

      If he was in his own kitchen and he used his own knife, then it was self defense. He went to someone else’s house, then it’s murder. It doesn’t matter what the other guy did to him. Grant left his home, with the intent to do harm.

            1. re
              “hey, I’ll be right over to rape your daughter”

              There could be someone reading this page who has been raped or whose daughter has been raped, you thoughtless, poisonous prick.

            2. Hey botvijerk, you poisonous little fuck! I’m taking a survey…
              • Are you a pathetic little schoolyard bully who never grew up?
              • Or are you a pathetic old git sinking into a festering Alzheimer’s decay of nastiness.
              Inquiring minds want to know.

            3. HEY MDN – BOTVIFUCK IS THREATENING TO COME OVER AND RAPE SOMEONE’S DAUGHTER. CAN WE PUH-LEASE HAVE SOOOOOOMMMME FUCKING STANDARD OF FUCKING DECENCY ON THIS FUCKING SITE!!!

    2. What makes you think a pussy liberal wouldn’t mind doing some damage to a right-wing wacko? We liberals love our guns and knives too. We just have the synapses to know when it’s appropriate to use them.

Reader Feedback

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