.

Armed Guard Patrols Mall Store

C.D. Peacock employs guards with a hand gun during holiday shopping.

 

Northbrook Court jewelry store chose to beef up its holiday security Friday and Saturday with an armed guard complete with a hand gun and a bullet proof vest.

At the same time, uniformed Northbrook Court security guards carried no weapons and were not equipped with handcuffs. Tiffany’s had no noticeable security guard at all Saturday though the store was full of last minute holiday shoppers.

The Peacock's guard refused to give his name to Patch or answer when queried Saturday. Store manager Sally Salcena refused to comment directing inquiries to Operations Vice President Sharon Thomson. 

Thomson failed to return calls to Patch. It was later learned she is out of town this week. No one from Peacock management returned calls though four messages were left. There was no silence from executives at or local elected officials. 

The contrast between Peacock’s and Tiffany’s, where there was a lack of visible security a few doors to the south, aroused the curiosity of state . 

“If a store like Tiffany’s does not see the need (for armed security) at this time of year it is up to Peacock’s to explain why they would need this. Peacock’s has to explain if it is taking the law into its own hands.” 

was less concerned than Garrett. “I’m not troubled by it if they have all the clearances and have met all the requirements,” she said. 

Northbrook Court spokesperson David Keating explained the shopping center’s uniformed security personnel do not carry weapons. He further said Peacock’s personnel were acting inside the store and not in the mall’s common area. 

“I have to refer you to C.D. Peacock’s because this is a retailer within the store’s space,” Keating said. 

said her village’s police department knew about the situation. 

“This is something our police department is aware of,” Frum said. “They (Peacock) do it from time to time and they usually use off duty police. None of them are ours,” she added referring to Northbrook officers. 

A spokesperson for the police department said there are levels of security guards who are permitted to carry firearms while working.

Tom Koz January 04, 2012 at 06:04 PM
The LAW allows ANY business owner to ALLOW any or all employees, as long as they have a FOID card to "keep and bear arms" while on their (the business owners) owned or rented property!!! If you don't like it Mr. Sadin or Ms. Garrett, do not visit that establishment. It is unfortunate that more business do not have their employees armed.
State Rep. Karen May January 05, 2012 at 05:52 PM
Dear Mr. Barbieri: My legislative agenda has nothing to do with whether private stores hire armed guards. My legislative agenda focuses on pension reform, the state's financial health, job creation, education, health care, support of small businesses, social services for the less fortunate, energy security, protecting the environment, helping our veterans, protecting children and families and myriad other important issues. A reporter called me to ask me a question, and I answered it. I told the reporter I thought stores had every right to hire trained and armed security guards, evidently the same position you stated. So why are you "disturbed"? Representative Karen May
RB January 05, 2012 at 08:45 PM
I am not for everyone carrying fire arms. Assault rifles that the ARA says we should all have the right to bear are made for military and las enforcement and not civilians. I don't think Ms. Garrett's position is unreasonable. It appears she basically told the reporter to ask the store to justify their armed guard. As far as Ms. May, I don't see where a reporter asking her a question means she is focused on this particular issue.
David Greenberg January 05, 2012 at 09:10 PM
Who's the ARA? Just what is an "assault rifle" anyway? Some cosmetic characteristic that offends? If someone doesn't want a firearm, that's their business - but they shouldn't be able to dictate whether another law-abiding citizen can own one or not. Honestly, I think the whole concept of having a guard, armed or not is a non-issue. It's a jewelry store, in a mall, near an expressway, during a lousy economic period. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to say "Gee, maybe we should have a guard to give criminals pause before attacking us, and to defend us right away if they do." Recall that the US Sup. Ct. has said that the Police have no duty to protect an individual (or a particular business) - so if you call, they don't have to respond in a particular timeframe, or at all. It's up to the individual to defend oneself.
RB January 06, 2012 at 12:18 AM
More than cosmetic, an assault rifles main characteristic is that it can be fully automatic. You would not need one to defend your home from an intruder and it's over kill to squirrel hunt with one. They are the go to weapon for gangs when they can get their hands on them. Yes, I was wrong about the name it's not the American Rifle association it's the National Rifle Association. Nothing American about them. They are one of the Republican parties large Contributors that believe assault rifles are okay....ask most police chiefs and they will tell you that civilians should not have them. Cosmetic? More than cosmetic.
RB January 06, 2012 at 12:20 AM
As far as the guard, I don't have an issue with a guard at a jewelry store having a gun. It was a very odd article and weird that they posted the picture in patch and even asked the question.
Tom Koz January 06, 2012 at 01:11 AM
RB - the general public are not allowed to have full auto weapons. And the NRA is ALL about America and the Freedoms and Liberty for her citizens. The peoples republic of Illinois (because of crook county) is the ONLY state in the US that will not allow it's law abiding citizens the Right to keep and bear arms!! Thankfully, this will change as numerous cases are working their way through the court system that WILL Restore our Comstitutional Right! Gun hating liberals be damned!!
David Greenberg January 06, 2012 at 03:23 AM
Generally speaking - the "general public" can't have full auto weapons. However those who apply for, and receive a Class 3 FFL CAN have full auto weapons There's many requirements that go along with the Class 3 - but it's not just cops and military who can have them.
David Greenberg January 06, 2012 at 03:33 AM
Virtually any semi-automatic rifle or handgun COULD be modified to be fully automatic. If one does so without the proper license, it's a Federal Offense. One can't have a fully-automatic weapon w/o possessing a Class 3 FFL. That said, the requirement is not going to stop criminals from possessing whatever they want, nor stop them from taking a weapon and illegally modifying it. What evidence do you have that the 'go to' weapon for a gang is a so-called assault rifle? From what I've observed, they're not walking around with rifles strapped to their backs, they've got handguns in their pants. Regardless - banning a particular weapon doesn't stop criminals from getting it, or from committing criminal acts. Witness Great Britain - they've banned virtually all firearms. So they have lots of knife attacks. Their response? Try to ban the sale of sharp-pointed steak knives (as if a crook wouldn't simply sharpen a point on a "safe" version). Ban knives, people go to bats. In fact, during the recent GB riots, citizens wanting to protect themselves purchased aluminum baseball bats in record numbers from AmazonUK Banning firearms makes us less safe because it creates victim zones. Crooks know their intended victims are very likely unarmed and take advantage of that situation. When they don't know if they're armed or not, they take pause and crime goes down - this is a proven fact in State after State. IL is the lone hold out...for now.
RB January 06, 2012 at 01:16 PM
I don't think the framers ever intended the right to bear arms to be the right to own fully automatic weapons. The fact that they are manufactured for mass consumption makes them available on the black market. Chicago and Cook County have a terrible problem with many guns in the hands of criminals. Since you brought upnconcealed carry, more guns in more peoples hands underneath their belts does not solve the problem. All we need is for every bar fight to become a shoot out since everyone will be packin. States like Texas still have terrible crime problems, and they have concealed carry. "gun hating liberal's be damned"...that sir is exactly why I don't want you walking down the street packin!
Donny January 06, 2012 at 01:36 PM
Stats, facts, university studies, FBI, Justice Department, etc. would dispute your position statements "I am not for everyone carrying fire arms." and " States like Texas still have terrible crime problems, and they have concealed carry." Here are a number of links to educate the public on gun ownership: http://www.byui.edu/onlinelearning/courses/hum/202/ConcealedCarryPreventsViolentCrime.htm http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/texas/100707-concealed-carry-effects http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=9928 http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/concealed-carry-issues-discussions/114035-texas-study-affluent-neighborhoods-have-far-higher-rate-ccw-permits.html In states like VT where they don't even have gun registration requirements, VT enjoys some of the lowest crime rates in the nation.
RB January 06, 2012 at 02:03 PM
Donny, my position is that the Government through registration (or no registration) can't accurately prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. That's why I said what I said. Additionally, this thread was addressing the carrying of a gun by a person guarding a jewelry store. I'm okay with that. Assault weapons are a whole different matter but the Gun advocates typically defend a 'gun' as a gun no matter how much over kill. Assault guns are not defensive in nature.
Tom Koz January 06, 2012 at 03:00 PM
RB you are correct. No matter what, the government cannot stop those (criminals) who wish to do you harm from doing so. "Packing" a firearm at least gives me, and all who decide to carry, a fighting chance. I'd rather have something and not need it, than need it and not have it. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away! Oh, and I'm going to guess here that you own a Prius, because a big bad SUV is overkill and not just mode of transportation in nature.
RB January 06, 2012 at 03:17 PM
Tom, I don't believe you need an assault type weapon to defend yourself. I also don't want the general population walking around with any type of gun in a concealed carry scenario. We have citizens that get drunk and drive...do we really want them to carry a fire arm? Unfortunately, those that would misuse the right make it impossible to safely implement concealed carry in Illinois. You may have a properly registered gun in your home to defend your family. 'seconds' do count. Have you gone out and purchased a defibrillator?
Donny January 06, 2012 at 03:36 PM
They are when the Federal Government comes knocking on your door to detain you indefinitely.
RB January 06, 2012 at 03:39 PM
Donny, you have that right today. I would suggest you reconsider your action.
Donny January 06, 2012 at 03:48 PM
The second amendment was put in place not for sport, personal protection, or protecting a jewelry store. The second amendment is In place to protect its citizens from their government, protection of ones business, case here a jewelry store, is really just an extra benefit.
David Greenberg January 06, 2012 at 06:09 PM
The type of weapon wasn't specified in the Amendment. Weapons could be manufactured for military use only and still end up on the black market - witness the fact that drug cartels around the world have access to bazookas and grenade launchers. More guns do equal less crime - you may wish to Google for studies done by John Lott, U of Chicago researcher. As for the fear that "every bar fight becomes a shoot out" - that's an irrational fear that's proven to be irrational because of the evidence from 49 other States with concealed carry on the books. That fear was trotted out when Florida proposed concealed carry - the reality of it is that less than 1% of the MILLIONS of concealed carry permitees ever commit any sort of criminal act (source: State of Florida and FBI). As gun ownership has gone up, crime has gone down - and that's from the FBI. Here in Illinois, the criminals already have de facto concealed carry, they know this and use it to their advantage. It's long past time to level the playing field - crime doesn't only happen at one's home or business, it can, and does, happen anywhere at any time, and it's a creator-endowed right enshrined in common law, long before the USA was ever Constituted, that one can and should defend oneself, family, loved ones, fellow law-abiding citizens, and property against criminal onslaught.
David Greenberg January 06, 2012 at 06:17 PM
You may be correct in your assumption in a typical situation. However, if you recall the LA Riots - there were several shopkeepers atop their stores, armed with rifles. Their stores weren't burned or looted. There are times where the Police are unable to respond (and indeed, they have no duty to respond to anyone for anything - source: US Sup Ct), so it's incumbent upon the individual to defend oneself. If you want to see what happens during riots where the individuals and the Police were disarmed - look to the UK - during their most recent riots, the only people with weapons were their version of the SWAT, and there weren't nearly enough of those officers to defend against the onslaught of rioters. People took to ordering aluminum baseball bats from Amazon UK (it was their best selling item during those riots). The fact that the UK has virtually banned gun ownership and still has a high crime problem is telling. And it's practically unbelievable because during WW II, the USA air dropped handguns for use by the individual against the Nazi's. We also provided many, many other weapons to the UK which helped to turn the tide and win the war. Sadly, those lessons seem to have been forgotten. Sweden - a neutral country - they don't stay neutral because they want to, it's because everyone there is armed with a rifle and given several thousand rounds per year by their government. They have to practice every year. No one would invade Sweden -their forces wouldn't make it.
David Greenberg January 06, 2012 at 06:24 PM
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I believe that "militia" is still defined as every able bodied individual between the ages of 18 and 45 (45 being a geezer back in the 1700's). "Free state" being a state which isn't necessarily a defined locale such as Illinois, or Florida - but rather one in which the individual isn't under the thumb of a claimed Soverign - and in which one is self-governing. Recall that the Constitution of the United States begins with: "WE, The People..." - that's you and me and every other citizen in the land. WE, US, YOU AND ME, WE created the Government. We have certain unalienable rights, and WE decided to give the Government certain rights, jealously reserving the rest for ourselves. Certain things needed to be clarified - hence the Amendments to the original Constitution. Freedom of Speech, Right to Assembly, Right against Self-Incrimination, etc. all of that means nothing if you have no way to defend those rights. That's what firearms are for - it keeps everyone honest. Look at Hitler and other despots throughout the ages to see what happens when the populace is disarmed.
Pedro B January 06, 2012 at 09:25 PM
David- I seriously doubt you know anyone who lives in Sweden, or if you do, they must be really old people, or hunters in the remote northern parts of the country. None of my Swedish friends living there keep a rifle in their homes (their parents do, though). Handguns are much harder to obtain with more hoops to jump through. One of the IT guys from Malmo said his cousin had to join a gun club and pay dues in order to get his 'Clint Eastwood-type gun. Since Sweden is a lot more homogeneous than the U.S. with much less urban socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, along with the vastly less numbers of unregistered handguns, has plenty to do with the discrepency. In general I would state that the Swedes I know are cool people that don't want to kill you or take offense with you because you didn't grow up speaking the same religion or culture. And you should be more honest- the primary reason they would not be invaded is because their taxes are so darn high ;).
RB January 06, 2012 at 10:40 PM
She did not get involved. She was asked by a reporter what she thought and she told the reporter to ask the jewelry store why they have an armed guard? Why would she know?
Deadcatbounce January 06, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Hey Pedro, who are these people that take offense with you because you didn't grow up speaking the same religion or culture?  also, are you saying that the socioeconomically disadvantaged want to kill?  It sure reads like that.  If that is so that people that take offense at you because you are different and the socioeconomic ally disadvantaged want to shoot people then I think we need guns to protect ourselves.
Donny January 07, 2012 at 12:08 AM
What action RB?
Donny January 07, 2012 at 12:10 AM
Well said David, firearms even the playing field or keep citizens honest.
Ed60062 January 07, 2012 at 04:30 AM
This article has taken on a life of its own. If all you folks come to the gun violence meeting Sunday at 2 PM at St. Norbert's it will be a lively occasion. Personally, I'd be on the anti-gun side if all guns could be made to disappear. Unfortunately the bad guys are the only ones to get a free pass for concealed carry.
Ed60062 January 07, 2012 at 04:32 AM
If all you folks come to the gun violence meeting Sunday at 2 PM at St. Norbert's it will be a lively occasion. Personally, I'd be on the anti-gun side if all guns could be made to disappear. Unfortunately that will never happen and the bad guys will always get theirs.
David Greenberg January 07, 2012 at 05:16 AM
I don't take offense with anyone because of their religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, culture, or the language they speak. About the only thing I do take offense to are people who don't bathe regularly ;-> Seriously though, the whole "shoot that guy because he has the wrong color shoe laces on" is a distraction to the real issue at hand - control of territory for offering illegal items and services - which the Government has declared "War" on because it's a threat to something offered by some other company that happens to donate well to a Congresscritter...
Deadcatbounce January 07, 2012 at 06:03 AM
A eighteen year old single mother in Oklahoma faced her worst nightmare recently.  Her husband had died on Christmas day and a pair of (alleged) burglars apparently thought she was an easy target (allegedly), trying to break into her home on New Years Eve.  But instead she went into “Momma-Bear” mode and the intruders paid the price
Bill Stewart March 24, 2014 at 11:29 PM
I wonder what would happen if more stores hired armed guards. Do you think crime would go down? I would like to think so. Bill | http://wemovesafes.com/services.html

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something