Apple MacBook Pro takes a bullet for man, saves his life at Fort Lauderdale airport shooting

“A man’s Macbook [Pro] laptop saved his life when a bullet fired by a maniac during a deadly gun rampage in Fort Lauderdale Friday struck the device he was carrying in his bag — shielding him from the bloody carnage,” Joe Tacopino reports for The New York Post.

“Atlanta resident Steve Frappier was dodging gunfire when a shooter [Esteban Santiago] started spraying bullets near the baggage claim at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood airport,” Tacopino reports. “‘I just landed in Fort Lauderdale and a lone gunman started firing in the baggage claim for the Atlanta flight Delta 2334 that landed at 1230 pm,’ Frappier later wrote on Facebook.”

“An image posted online showed Frappier’s laptop with a gaping hole in the side,” Tacopino reports. “‘His life might have been saved by the laptop,’ his friend said.”

Steve Frappier's MacBook Pro took a bullet for him
Steve Frappier’s MacBook Pro took a bullet for him

 
Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Apple, if they haven’t already, should send Steve Frappier a brand new, loaded MacBook Pro posthaste!

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “Lynn Weiler” for the heads up.]

74 Comments

          1. Naw, they are as much scum as the guys they fight. Pay attention, the nut case that shot a bunch of people at the Fort Lauderdale airport was a citizen of a terrorist nation, or more specifically he was a citizen of your terrorist nation.

            1. Is that the royal “We” there botvinnik, or the schizophrenic “we”? I see your “aim for Bin hit Saddam” guidance system is working perfectly. It will be that great guide when your nation decides to invade and terrorize China.

              You won’t have to worry about aiming with that arseanal of 150 megatongues as long as you get the right time zone. Then you can decide which Korea you want to take care of, East Korea or West Korea.

              Have a good one.

      1. OK, I’ll bite, botvinnik:

        What does a deranged individual from Alaska with PTSD who was born in New Jersey to US citizen parents—almost certainly Roman Catholic—and served for much of his life in the US military have to do with Muslim extremism?

          1. No, no he didn’t. He said “patriot for a terrorist nation”. You automatically associate terrorism with Muslims? Your brainwash is showing. It’s Botty, resident right-wing racist and revisionist, who instantly dragged in Islam.

            I come here for Mac news, not political bull tripe that belongs in the comments section at CNN or FOX. That’s why I don’t go to their sites any more – trying to maintain the illusion that people are, in general, fair and respectful.

            Can we not have a little civility here? Too much to ask? I wish MDN would moderate the hell out of this forum – get rid of the political BS. We are people here, not party members pushing our own little political wagon. There’s a lot more to life than f’ing politics, and many other places to post political baby-talk, take your little brain-farts there please. If you have something to say about Apple, say it, if you have something to say that divides people into your artificial left-right spectrum, go somewhere else, the Mac people here are sick of watching this site descend lower and lower into the partisan cesspool that passes for political discourse these days.

            Thanks, much appreciated.

            dmz

            1. “aim for Bin hit Saddam”

              What part of that don’t you get?

              As for civility, that went out the window here years ago. If you want mild mannered Apple only talk then it’s you that needs to go elsewhere. Do you actually think that if MDN didn’t want the caustic rhetoric on this site that they wouldn’t put a stop to it?

              Yeah, it would be nice if things went back to the way they were, but that’s like wishing the world was like it was before the creation of anonymity on the internet. We’re in a cesspool, like it or not.

            2. That statement about the “aim for Bin hit Saddam” guidance system is in reference to the invasion of Iraq, and Iraq wasn’t invaded by muslim extremist, rather bullying terrorist.

              Plus it was made AFTER this comment: “Islam: Where every day is always 700 ad.®”

              So my comments about the shooter have nothing to do with muslim terrorist but rather terrorists from the nation that runs the Guantanamotrumpo on the Bay resorts where innocent people are tortured and held without justice.

            3. “… Guantanamotrumpo on the Bay resorts where innocent people are tortured and held without justice.”

              Innocent? Yeah, riiiight.

            4. Yes, innocent until proven guilty. It’s a concept known to the free and civilized world. The nation that has kept these innocent people there for over a decade, and they still can’t prove their guilt when you have such persuasive measures at your disposal.

              When it comes to justice denied, it’s mission accomplished.

              Such an act against humanity, it’s the way of that war mongering nation.

            5. What are you talking about? You defend a torture camp like Guantanamo without even knowing that the U.S. government has _admitted_ that quite a few people held there are now KNOWN to be innocent?

              The U.S. government, including Republicans and Democrats, has admitted that a bunch of people it kidnapped and tortured at Guantanamo did nothing wrong, but is now worried that, if released, they will _BECOME_ radicals against the U.S., having been unjustly kidnapped and tortured for many years.

              If you don’t know that, then shut your damn mouth about Guantanamo.

            6. Thanks eyeschool, you hit the nail on the head. I guess a lot of folks are still in denial about themselves being citizens of a terrorist nation.

              You are right about the politics spoiling this site though, I certainly remember a time here when such tripe did not make it to this site.

            7. Eyes, agree with that your comment in general. But I must point out that it was Roadkill and not Bot that started with the snarky comments. He who claims righteousness and calls American a terrorist nation is the one who most frequently comes here for a fight. I would call it ironic, but I think the guy’s a little mental.

            8. Actually I think that the journalist calling the guy a maniac was the one who started with the snarky comments.

              I’m not claiming any righteousness, but frankly any nation that disregards the sovereignty of other nations and invades on imaginary posturing and tortures human beings and removes their freedom and denies them justice is a terroristic nation looking for a fight. Ironically I think that qualifies as seriously mental, as opposed to someone who points out the blatantly obvious to the blatantly oblivious.

              Now, possibly you think that someone that comes from a peace loving region of the world that respects the sovereignty of other nations and doesn’t torture others to me mental. You can have that opinion if you want and we can agree to disagree.

              I’m not looking for a fight, I’m looking to see if this once decent country can become decent again but so far, there’s a lot of denial.

            9. Once again…

              Terrorist Acts by Religion (2016)
              • Christianity – 0
              • Judaism – 0
              • Confucianism – 0
              • Hinduism – 0
              • Taoism – 0
              • Baha’i – 0
              • Islam – 2,477 attacks in 61 countries, 21,256 people were killed and 26,727 injured.

              This is reality, you may now return to sucking on Angela Merkel’s left tit, you piece of shit.

            10. The message has a point, but unfortunately, in making that point, it omits some facts. There was a number of terrorist acts with fatalities, during 2016, where the perpetrators were NOT Muslims (Ireland, Malta, UK, Colombia, Peru, Myanmar (Burma), etc. While their number was much smaller than ISIS and other derivatives, omitting them significantly weakens any argument you make that tries to support what you’re saying.

              As for the US and the islamic terrorism, Muslims still have long way to go (in terms of killing Americans) before they reach the number of victims of terrorist attacks perpetrated in the US by non-Muslims (and that includes Sept 11).

              Data from 2013 tells us that some 90% of all terrorist attacks in US were done by non-Muslims.

          1. For nearly thirty years, I handled the mental commitments for my county. To qualify for commitment, the patient had to be an imminent danger to himself or others. Often, the basis for the potential violence was the perception that somebody (usually the government and/or Jesus) was controlling their actions with voices in their heads.

            We attributed this to mental illness. We did not try to blame Jesus. Why should a delusional individual who thinks the government is trying to force him into ISIS be regarded any differently?

          1. Exactly. The common denominator in the majority of these killings here is a connection to Radical Islam. You can bet on it. And the name doesn’t have to be Mohammad to be one, you’ll see even more of that in the future you can bet on it as the influence grows.

      1. I have witnessed trucks performing many useful functions but have never seen a gun perform a useful function that couldn’t have be done with almost any other tool.

        1. Well, idiot, if you ever suffer a home invasion and your wife is getting her throat cut and your daughter is being raped, be sure and grab “almost any other tool.”

          You’re too fucking stupid to live.

            1. Eugene, although you are past the age of majority, you are not a man and although there is a slim chance you could be one you are not a man. You are just a troll. Try rising above your inner Donald Trump and treat people with respect and have a little respect for yourself.

          1. What a profoundly naïve thought (NRA has the most effective brainwashing programme in the world, no doubt).

            Let us consider the likelihood of that scenario to begin with. The chances of home being invaded, wife’s throat being slit and daughter raped (in that order) are infinitely smaller than chances of getting killed in an airplane crash (or bus, or train crash). However, all statistical data points to the fact that in cases of home invasion when homeowner had a weapon, the likelihood of death for the homeowner goes up significantly.

            In other words, if your home and my home get invaded by burglars, my chances of surviving it are much greater than yours; I have no gun in my home, and the moment you show yours to the thieves, they will kill you without hesitation.

            The data makes complete sense. In a home invasion situation, attackers are always much more prepared for the event than the homeowner. They carry weapons and are prepared to use them; homeowner is caught by surprise, has to immediately try to think of a course of action and will inevitably do something that will jeopardize his life, because he is simply caught by surprise.

            A responsible gun owner has the gun(s) safely locked somewhere out of reach of his children. When surprised by the attacker, he has numerous obstacles before he can get to that gun, load it and be ready to use it against the attacker. In America, thieves are quite well aware that even today, 1/3 of all households own gun(s). In practically every home invasion scenario, the attacker has the upper hands, is in control of the situation, and the homeowner is caught by surprise and is reacting instinctively (and, in most cases, in a wrong way).

            In America, gun ownership has consistently proven to increase likelihood of dying from shooting. The constitution provides the American people the unrestricted right to own guns. One third of the population chooses to exercise that right, even though it significantly increases their chances of getting killed by a gun. It is unfortunate that the nation is paying such a high price for the privilege of owning firearms.

            1. No. I’d prefer I survive the home invasion. And the greater likelihood of that outcome is if i DO NOT have a gun in my home. Data tells us (and common sense confirms) that a homeowner with a gun is much more likely to get killed trying to defend his home than the one without a gun.

              The NRA is apparently exceptionally effective in brainwashing their membership of all common sense when it comes to guns, gun possession and its risks and dangers. Arguing with facts, data, research (never mind common sense) oftentimes has no effect on profoundly indoctrinated followers.

            2. Oh, and to make this perfectly clear, the same applies not just to the homeowner but to the household as a whole. If there is a gun in the household, and someone attempts to use it in defense from an intruder, the chances that someone in the household will die are significantly higher than if there are no guns.

              Gun fans persistently try to argue an invalid point: that if they have a gun to defend themselves against home intruder, that they will be successful at doing so. This argument miserably fails. Data (and common sense) explains why (and I mentioned this above): intruder is prepared for this, he planned for it, he almost always knows what to expect. Home owner isn’t prepared for home invasion, is surprised by it and will almost always panic trying to think how to respond. With the exception of trained professionals (law enforcement, military), ordinary people simply don’t know how to react to an armed intruder with a firearm. And if they try to pull a gun on that person, they (and their loved ones) often die.

              That’s them facts.

            3. No doubt there are stories like that (those two are quite old, though), but when you look into crime data, most victims in home invasions are homeowners who pulled their guns on the perpetrators.

              For every one of those feel-good “hold your ground”, homeowner-shoots-invader news stories, there are four or five more where the gun-brandishing homeowner lost his life. Compare those with scenarios where the homeowner did NOT attempt to use the gun and survival rate is significantly higher.

              The main point here often seems lost: the value of life is much greater than the value of property that gets stolen during home invasion. Many gun-owning homeowners misguidedly attempt to protect that property with their life and end up losing both.

        2. You have got to be kidding me? “Never” really? Wow. How about the police guns that have saved lives? The sharp shooter that’s taken out someone holding hostages when talking isn’t working? What more useful tools could have won WWII? You Libs don’t like bombs either, but Hitler wasn’t exactly in a negotiating mood. And other examples: http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/gun-save-lives-stories/2014/10/28/id/603652/
          Hope you get to talk your way out of a life threatening situation with a lunatic someday, please record it so we can observe.

          1. Your response has nothing to do with his statement.

            Let me make it perfectly clear for everyone: guns have no positive purpose. There is nothing good that a gun can do. Its primary, its ONLY purpose is to kill another person. Gun designers invest years of research and development to build a more accurate, more precise and more reliable weapon, so that it is better at killing another human.

            All other uses of a gun (as a deterrent, or as a blunt-force weapon) are ancillary and not really related to its main (and only) design purpose: to kill a person.

            There will always be some people who will want to kill someone else. However, America’s problem is that the constitutionally guaranteed right to own a gun makes is so effortless to do it that a large number of gun deaths in America would never happen if access to guns is better controlled (or restricted).

            As I had said before, this one constitutional privilege is the one that America is paying for very dearly, with innocent lives.

            1. “Let me make it perfectly clear for everyone: guns have no positive purpose. There is nothing good that a gun can do. Its primary, its ONLY purpose is to kill another person.” And sometimes that is a needed purpose. The world isn’t all Unicorns and Rainbows. There are people out there that want to kill innocent people for no good reason. If people want the ability to defend themselves against these people thankfully in this country that is their right. Looks like we’ll never agree. So I’m not bothering to reply further.

            2. You are clearly an intelligent man with a strong conviction, so most certainly worth a response (and I apologise if I came across as a bit of a condescending ass in my prior message; sometimes it is difficult to keep track who’s who in the thread).

              You are certainly right in that there are people who want to kill others for no good reason. I have always been of the opinion that guns are, by design, dangerous things, and should only be handled by highly trained professionals (of equivalently experienced, trained and licensed “amaterus”). We require training, registration, licensing and certification for far less lethal and dangerous things (from aircraft, automobiles, motorcycles, even flying drones), but one can simply walk into a gun show and buy a deadly weapon, with which he can immediately proceed to kill people right away.

              Americans have amended their original constitution (rather quickly after its initial adoption) to ensure that the populace has unrestricted right to own (and carry) a firearm. As the amendment, and its florid wording, implies no restriction on that right, originalists like to keep it that way — unrestricted.

              Data shows us that when there is a household with a firearm, the chances of someone dying from a firearm in that household are more than doubled. Factors that increase these chances are not just the home invasion (debated above), where a homeowner trying to defend the home with a gun has a much higher chance of getting killed by the intruder than a homeowner without a gun), but much more often by accidents that too often happen with firearms in homes that have them. The only time the gun death numbers in gun-owning homes are inline with deaths in non-gun owning homes is when the homeowner is a law-enforcement or military professional (and knows EXACTLY how dangerous the firearm is).

              The point is, the Americans’ right to own and carry firearms is the one that American population is paying for with their lives.

              For some, this may be the necessary price for the privilege to feel the freedom that the constitution tries to guarantee.

              I think you are right, in the end, we may likely never agree. That doesn’t prevent us from debating the subject.

            3. I agree that gun shows should not be exempt from requiring a background check for purchase of a firearm. That should be done anywhere.

              But I still believe in the right of citizens to own and carry guns. Obviously you don’t live on a farm where rabid animals often wander into a barn, or other reasons. I’m for animal rights but I understand the need to keep the deer populations down due to car/deer collisions and the damage they do to seedlings in forested areas. Hunters need guns. Though I am not in favor of all species hunted, especially those just for sport who’s numbers aren’t overpopulated.

              Being of the Liberal mindset as you are, I’m surprised you so quickly assume everyone here is a man.

            4. We’re beating a very dead thread here, so this is essentially a simple two-way conversation, but as I said in my prior post, you certainly merit the effort of a response and engagement.

              Regarding the right of Americans to own and carry guns, I don’t think there is point in discussing a purely academic hypothesis of completely eliminating that right. We all know that such a move would require a constitutional amendment, which is a virtual impossibility. So, the discussion proceeds within the constraints of the constitution and its existing amendments. What I find quite annoying is when gun-rights advocates engage in scare-mongering propaganda against gun-control advocates how “they are going to take your guns away!!!”. Even if the political landscape were to change in such a way that Democrats end up controlling both houses, as well as the White House, and with a comfortable margin (keep in mind, there are several Democratic lawmakers in strong gun-rights districts!), and they were to push through their gun-control agenda, all they could accomplish is some level of gun control. Anything beyond that would quickly get challenged in courts and thrown out by that 2nd amendment. The dishonesty of the NRA in their campaign doesn’t allow for normal discussion.

              As for addressing you as a man, forgive me for that; it is all too easy to assume that majority of participants in an IT-related forum would be men… I know of several women who occasionally chime in here (based on their handles), but yours wasn’t obvious, so I made an assumption, based on the stereotypes for the audience in these types of forums. In all fairness, we very rarely see women arguing for gun rights in the mainstream (outside of the narrow gun-right circles).

  1. That is an “exit wound” on the laptop. Looks like a .40 or .45 caliber. It didn’t save him..just a near miss. That aluminum is like butter to a round …even a .22 would go through practically unscathed.

    1. IIRC, he used a 9mm (and probably a FMJ bullet). The exit hole is where the battery is located so there was some mass to penetrate which could explain the distorted hole. Also, it would depend on where the bullet entered and exited the backpack and where the laptop was relative to that. The bullet may have penetrated other items in the backpack, could have gotten distorted, and certainly could have lost velocity before it went through the MacBook. If the bullet was a hollow point it would have gotten way more distorted and expanded before coming through even just the MacBook. Just speculating on possible scenarios, FWIW. I’m definitely glad the guy is OK, though.

Leave a Reply to Nick Cancel reply

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