Tiffany at Stanford Shopping Center robbed Crimes & Incidents, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Jul 8, 2007 at 10:26 am
Two masked men boldly robbed the Tiffany & Co. jewelry store at Stanford Shopping Center at 6:30 p.m. Saturday, telling 15 employees and 12 customers to get on the floor.
Posted by Not a PR Flack, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2007 at 11:46 am
Well, the above comment seems quite likely to have been written by someone from the Shopping Center's PR Agency. Keep shopping folks!!!! Keep shopping!!! Never mind those masked and armed burglars - they are just a minor distraction..... keep that money flowing....
Posted by Still shopping, a resident of the Palo Alto Hills neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Um ... you're completely wrong, but the pesimism and sarcasm are entertaining. Just saying that I won't allow criminals to deter my day-to-day activities. Frankly don't care whether people shop or not.
Posted by Chris, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2007 at 12:14 am
What happened with the Tiffany's security guard? There's always one inside the door. Very odd that the guard would do nothing against some armed with a "tool" of some sort.
Posted by Not a PR Flack, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2007 at 8:46 am
I would be equally justified in asking why Stanford has allowed it's security to be so lax and unprepared that unarmed men can walk in to a store in the center of the complex and in broad daylight steal thousands of dollars of jewelry? And then walk out to a waiting car. Won't this weakness embolden other criminals to do the same at other stores at Stanford? What will Stanford do to improve security so that their shoppers are not in danger? What on earth happened to the armed guard at Tiffany's - was he asleep? On a break? Out sick? What is Tiffany's doing to ensure this will never happen again? Obviously they were well cased prior to the robbery - isn't there undercover security at the Shopping Center watching out for just that?
A strongarm robbery at a major shopping center is a serious matter - not something to brush off with a 'I'll keep shopping' comment! So, if you are not the PR wing of the shoppping center, I apologize to you personally Still Shopping, but I still think this is a serious issue worthy of serious discussion.
Posted by Orange Julius, a resident of Stanford, on Jul 9, 2007 at 8:51 am
You wrote....
"None of the employees or customers were injured." Should read, "None of the employees or customers was injured."
I beg to differ.
Since there are multpile individuals being referred to in the past tense, "were" is correct. Had there been only one employee, "was" would be appropriate.
Posted by what!, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2007 at 1:02 pm
no mention that this kind of event increases the ''public perception'' that ''black men'' or others similar are ALWAYS armed and criminal . thats how PAPD act toward people.
Posted by GrammarGuru, a resident of another community, on Jul 9, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Oh my oh my. Orange Julius, you are in error. I realize that this has nothing to do with the main point of the thread, but I can't help myself when someone not only makes a grammatical mistake, but gets into someone's face with it. The verb references "none," not "employees." That's none, as in no one. Would you say, "No one were injured?" I thought not...
Posted by Miffed, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2007 at 4:29 pm
A few years back when we were shopping for wedding rings, my soon-to-be husband went to Tiffany's. I don't remember what he was wearing that day, but I'm sure it was clean and not smelly. Anyways, the young salesman looked at my fiance and flat out said to him, "You can't afford anything in here." From that day on, we've been put off by the store and the attitude of its salespeople who think they are beyond everyone else.
Tiffany's does sell nice stuff, but if you put a lower-quality diamond in the right lighting, it, too, will sparkle as if it were in a Tiffany's showroom.
Posted by agree, a resident of Stanford, on Jul 9, 2007 at 9:27 pm
I COMPLETELY agree with the above comments on how they treat people! I am more than willing to spend money on beautiful jewelry, but they do not deserve my business or yours with that attitude. Go to Gleim or Diamonds of Palo Alto, you'll be treated a lot better. I promise!
Posted by Luz Marie Guerra, a resident of Mountain View, on Jul 10, 2007 at 9:43 am
I went into Tiffany's and looked at the remains of the robbery. Sad. A jewelry cabinet covered with a felt cover with a sign, "Excuse the inconvenience". (I don't remember the exact comment. ) I asked the saleslady if she had been in the store at the time, and she replied, "We're not allowed to talk about it". Yes, the guard was there when I went in....but WHERE was the guard on the day of the robbery? Strange.
Posted by Kris, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 10, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Wow! This is a shock. Sad.
I was at the mall the following day, though I did not know about the robbery then, and all appeared business as usual, including security riding around on their Segways. Do these devices directly contribute to better security? Performance? Time to incident?
As graceful as the Segways appear/move, all I can imagine are people getting hit by them as security tries to respond quickly to an incident. Can you really close in on a suspect who is running away, hiding in crowds or between cars while manuevering these things? The lack of fitness these men and women lose by not walking during their shift crosses my mind also. Hope I'm wrong.
Posted by surprised & disappointed, a member of the Duveneck School community, on Jul 10, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Surprised since this is an upscale mall. I was just in the mall probably an hour after this happened and did not even notice anything after got home.
I am a little disappointed on how little police or security involvement in the case. (I hope I am wrong). That just makes us an easy target for crimes.
Posted by Jamba Juice, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 11, 2007 at 8:27 am
1) if any hourly employee at any store dare tell me that "you can't afford anything" then I would not rest until that employee would be out of a job
2) having an armed conflict might not always be the best course of action for a security guard. jewelry is insured, but people's lives are not. we might never know why the guard did not "act" but thank God that no one was hurt.
3) you'd be surprised but the greying baseball cap and shorts wearing customers are the ones with the big bucks
4) we never notice any police roaming around in segways. if there are no undercover police roaming around, then something needs to be done. whatever will be done should not affect the shopping experience and ambiance though.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 11, 2007 at 9:47 am
In Silicon Valley, the people who are the best dressed are the salesmen (particularly realtors) and the TV people. Everyone else dresses the same and I bet you couldn't tell the difference between a t shirt from Nordstroms or a t shirt from WalMart. Most people I know get so many t shirts free from some activity or other that they don't even need to buy any.
No, the lesser paid dress up to look like they are paid a lot and those that get paid a lot don't care. Have you seen how Steve Jobs' dresses. (No criticism, Steve).
Posted by Annoyed, a resident of the Palo Alto Hills neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2007 at 10:30 am
The guard did act he acted as trained. He made sure that the customers and employees complied, allowed the bad guys to leave and then secured the area checking on the well being of his co workers and customers. He is not armed as armed security is not a deterent just a hinderance. Does anyone want to shop in a store where a shoot out may occur. Guns are for police not private security. Tiffany has state of the art cameras that caught every detail of this crime. It is better to let them take the merchandise and then have the police catch them from the video. As for the"tool" they were carying..it was a sledgehammer which I assure you can be used as a weapon. Just beacuse they didnt dispaly a gun does not mean that they did not have one. This can happen anywhere anytime dont blame the store or the mall.
Posted by natasha, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2007 at 10:04 am
On the subjexct of grammar, this is what the online grammarian had to say:
There is one indefinite pronoun, none, that can be either singular or plural; it often doesn't matter whether you use a singular or a plural verb — unless something else in the sentence determines its number. (Writers generally think of none as meaning not any and will choose a plural verb, as in "None of the engines are working," but when something else makes us regard none as meaning not one, we want a singular verb, as in "None of the food is fresh.")
None of you claims responsibility for this incident?
None of you claim responsibility for this incident?
None of the students have done their homework. (In this last example, the word their precludes the use of the singular verb.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
