Where are these youths procuring their firearms and from whom?

There have been similar reported incidents at Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto and the arrested suspects were also from Antioch.

Why do they travel so far to commit these crimes and what can shoppers do to prevent these armed robberies?

As a former wholesale jewelry sales agent I am licensed & permitted to carry a concealed weapon (a Browning 9mm HighPower) but I rarely have it on my person these days as I am semi-retired.

Should I start carrying it when shopping as a means of self-defense?

They stole his Rolex. I read "Rolex armed robberies" almost every day on a Lamorinda news site. The suspects are usually of a certain race, and they target wealthy areas. Not too many customers wearing a Rolex in Antioch, so they travel far to find their victims. The eighteen year old suspect is a resident of San Jose, and the other two suspects are juveniles.

Perhaps it is better to wear a fake Rolex or no watch at all.

There are far more expensive watches than a Rolex (i.e. Patek Philippe, Audmars Piguet etc.). Are these thieves familiar with the more exclusive brands?

Wearing a Rolex is no big deal but they are easily identifiable.

The key is not attract to attract any unecessary attention.

@Jennifer of Danville

I kiddingly take offense to your insightful observation that "Not too many customers wearing a Rolex in Antioch,"

First of all, don't you mean "Not to many [robbery victims] wearing a Rolex in Antioch?"

I reside in Antioch and own two Rolexes. One was a college graduation gift and the other was a gift from a kindly ex-fiance who responded in part after I ostensibly told her that the one I was wearing was a knock-off (which it wasn't).

Whenever I visit the Danville or the Stanford Univetsity area, I don't see everyone wearing a Rolex either. Most are sporting smartphones.

I cannot even comprehend why a certain watch brand is targeted for a robbery or why people would travel from Antioch to steal them.

No, I meant not too many customers wearing Rolex watches in Antioch. They're targeting people in restaurants and shopping areas, which means they're "customers."

You can live anywhere and own a Rolex, but you'll find more expensive watches in an expensive area. Danville is more expensive than Antioch.

A certain watch brand (Rolex) is targeted for robbery because they can be worth a lot of money. Some Rolex watches are worth a lot more than others. And they travel to wealthy areas because there is more to steal.

You wouldn't make a very good criminal, which is a good thing.

"The suspects are usually of a certain race, and they target wealthy areas."
@Jennifer/a resident of Danville
Please be more specific as 'a certain race' is not very definitive.

I think Jennifer of Danville was referring to ‘non-white’ (aka African American) individuals but I could be mistaken.

The suspects were described as two black or Hispanic men, both around 25, and both wearing COVID-style masks and black hoodies. One was armed with a 9 mm pistol and the other was believed to have been carrying a “cut-down” or shortened AR-15 rifle – possibly a carbine.

There. Done. From another news source.

What it boils down to is a sad reality of the times...having 'nice things' makes one more susceptible to being robbed.

Owning and/or flashing one's expensive car, fancy watch/jewelry, or even a current iPhone is an open invitation to thievery.

With the possible exception of an iPhone, perhaps some folks should be less ostentatious given the current robberies.

Like who is one trying to impress?

Besides, one cannot take a BMW, Hermes handbag, or Rolex to heaven (or hell).

It's time to get real and not overly consumed with BS status symbols.

@Patricia Weatherly
For some people, ostentatious displays of material wealth gives added meaning to their lives as shallow as it may seem.

This in turn attracts those who cannot ever afford such trinkets and so the only option is to steal them.

I agree that folks should put less emphasis on costly designer goods and exclusive name brands as this only leads to further superficiality of person.

In some ways, stealing from the rich & sharing the proceeds with the poor is a noble humanitarian gesture.

If the proceeds go towards helping someone of lesser (or no means) with the rent, utilities, medical expenses, food, and/or gasoline, this endeavor is more along the lines of being a modern day Robin Hood.

As another poster noted, the key is not to get caught up with or become a slave to these replaceable status symbols as they are ultimately insignificant.

Countless people nouveau riche or poor are incapable of such an undertaking.

The comments are interesting with some people almost blaming the victims for their lifestyles... such as wearing expensive jewelry, etc.
Perhaps we should be blaming the criminals and the soft on crime DAs. Next time you vote you might want to consider that.
Elsewhere someone put some perspective on blaming the victim. If a woman is nicely dressed is she blamed if physically accosted? I would hope not.

I never drive any of my nicer cars or wear expensive watches when venturing into areas where crime is an everyday part of life.

That said, I resent it when outsiders from lower-income locales venture into my ‘home turf’ with intentions of stealing from and assaulting wealthier victims for their luxury goods regardless of how materialistic and/or shallow these victims may be in real life.

Success is not measured by one’s personal possessions but by one’s good character and hard work regardless of the monetary returns.

This ideal is easier said than done because America remains a country of haves and have nots and owning ostentatious luxury goods are often viewed as a yardstick of success and accomplishment.

Until people begin to detach themselves from such standards, we will continue to have high end store lootings and robberies of personal property.

I am just as guilty as the thieves because I too enjoy owning nice things. The only difference is that I can easily afford to buy them on my own.

Being wealthy is a curse.

Interesting how the socialists stick up for the criminals in this case. As for an example:

Weatherly stated: “Owning and/or flashing one's expensive car, fancy watch/jewelry, or even a current iPhone is an open invitation to thievery.” Wrong. Theft doesn't involve violence, whereas the crime of robbery requires force or the threat of force.

Watkins stated: “This in turn attracts those who cannot ever afford such trinkets and so the only option is to steal them.” In other words, the only option is to commit robbery. I see. How about the option to not commit robbery?

Jamal stated: “In some ways, stealing from the rich & sharing the proceeds with the poor is a noble humanitarian gesture.” So, it’s noble to use force or fear against an innocent person?

Today’s revolutionary thinking is always void of logic.

Socialism and overt materialism aside, it is always advisable to surrender trinkets in the event of a robbery rather than risk possible injury or death.

Or better yet, don't advertise them in public.

Another option is to own more esoteric items that common thieves do not recognize.

Rolexes, BMWs, and MBs are pseudo status symbols of the material/mundane world and easily noticed.

Try raising the bar unless you are actively trying to impress others on a superficial basis.

People who openly flaunt their luxury possessions are asking to be ridiculed or ripped-off.

Try exercising some restraint...like who are you trying to impress?

You left out the part that as an American, you have the right to be superficial.

You don't have a right to commit crimes.

I can't help but wonder if they are back on the street yet. Knowing the reputation of our DA, I expect so.

These current & aspiring thieves from out of town need to be enlightened from the standpoint that owning expensive luxury items trivialize humanity and only cheapen our existence.

Unfortunately, countless people worship upscale materialism and rely on it to DEFINE their existence.

Sad.

Yousef stated the following:

"Try exercising some restraint...like who are you trying to impress?"

Maybe the victim wasn't trying to impress anyone. Maybe the victim likes to wear nice watches. So what.

Sounds to me like you're attempting to make the victim the bad guy.

The victim was only guilty of vanity & tasteless consumerism.

Hopefully the Rolex was insured to ensure its former owner that the watch can be replaced immediately.

Another option would be to buy a Timex at Walgreens.

"...you have the right to be superficial."

True...but look what eventually happened to Marie Antoinette & the Romanovs.

Being out of touch with the real world has its consequences.

And chances are, anyone who can afford to buy a tacky Rolex can easily replace it (if stolen) because owning flashy trinkets is oftentimes the center of their plastic universe.

Personally speaking, my time isn't so valuable as to justify wearing an openly expensive watch that attracts outside robbers and thieves.

My iPhone shows the current time and is far more accurate than an overpriced mechanical Rolex watch.

But to each his/her own as overtly conspicuous consumer items often lend meaning to an otherwise empty life.

Robbers and thieves target their victims based on observation.

In addition to wearing an expensive watch, was the victim also driving a fancy automobile?

Sometimes it is better to keep a low profile. Criminals rarely rob people wearing a Timex and driving a nondescript Hyundai.

In reference to this silliness about whether or not people should drive nice cars or wear nice watches, Noah Baker takes the cake - pun intended for those history buffs. Noah made the following remark:

“True...but look what eventually happened to Marie Antoinette & the Romanovs. Being out of touch with the real world has its consequences.”

Um, Marie and her hubby were the ruling elite, including the Romanovs. Just because someone wants to wear a nice watch or drive nice a nice doesn’t put them in the same category. On the other hand, the comparison would make Karl Marx mighty proud.

This is America, Noah. I don’t drive fancy cars or wear expensive watches because I can’t afford them. But if I see someone driving a Bentley or Lamborghini, I admire the car, not the person in it. So what. And if someone has worked hard enough to afford those luxuries, good for them.

As for the trinkets, maybe those gifts were from family members, business associates, whatever. Who are you to suggest people not wear them?

Who is sounding like the ruling elite now, Noah?

People have the right to own or display whatever strikes their fancy providing the items are not stolen.

On the other hand, owning a Lamborghini or Bentley says a lot about the individual in terms of personal priorities.

Jamal said..."In some ways, stealing from the rich & sharing the proceeds with the poor is a noble humanitarian gesture..." I HOPE YOUR WIFE, SISTER, OR MOTHER GET ROBBED AT GUNPOINT...and then maybe, just maybe, you may change your naive way of thinking.

And FYI, many armed robberies result in murder. If you are seeking more nobility first hand, maybe move to Chicago or another big city where murder rates are up and violent crime is becoming commonplace.

(As an aside, when things get bad like this when laws are ignored, many citizens, business owners, and victims stop reporting crimes altogether because they feel nothing will happen, the bad guys will just get set free, and the gang members will retaliate...). I hope we don't keep spiraling downward and end up like we did in the 1990s when murder rates skyrocketed across the US.)

Stop blaming real victims, and stop blaming the police who are trying to protect the true victims of crimes.

Blake Turner stated the following:

“On the other hand, owning a Lamborghini or Bentley says a lot about the individual in terms of personal priorities.”

Apparently Blake is more concerned about an individual’s personal priorities than the individuals who committed the crime. BTW Blake, what business is it of yours to call out another person’s priorities?

Not defending the criminals but as long as no one was injured or killed in the process is all that matters.

Material things are easily replaceable.

That is why we have insurance.

"...stop blaming the police who are trying to protect the true victims of crimes."

Officer Hall's wrongful shootings of two mentally-ill homeless persons had nothing to do with protecting any 'true victims of crimes'.

Hulstead said:

"Not defending the criminals but as long as no one was injured or killed in the process is all that matters."

I see. So, according to you, a crime did not take place simply because no one was hurt. Wow, that kind of logic just topped the charts.

Elements of robbery: force and/or fear. You can have fear without the force, but not force without fear.

Guns and threats were involved = fear. Had a gun been used = force.

If force and fear (of a potential robbery) are major considerations, it's probably not a good idea to be flashing Rolexes and diamonds in certain locales (including some of the nicer neighborhoods).

No need for force/fear if you've got nothing to steal.

All robberies are dangerous and run the risk of personal injury.

On the other hand, people with class do not advertise or flaunt their baubles.

Outside validation is why thieves pursue expensive/designer goods in the first place.

And once stolen, the thieves simply fence them off to other individuals craving superficial symbols of affluence and success.

Another option is to wear a fake Rolex.

There are many knockoffs from China and they run about $350.00.

Very few people (including thieves and goldiggers) can tell the difference.

If people attached less importance to various high-end trinkets, there would be fewer of them to steal.

Worshiping the material world is the work of the devil and applies to both victims and suspects.

We should not condone robberies of any any nature.

Instead we should be condemning people who worship expensive material items.

Both sides (victims and robbers) should consider living life on a higher spiritual plane.

We should not condone robberies of any any nature.

Instead we should be condemning people who worship expensive material items.

Both sides (victims and robbers) should consider living life on a far higher spiritual plane and consciousness.

These young criminals need better role models and outlets.

They should be actively involved in more productive endeavors like scholarship, athletics, community service projects, church participation, and studying music or the arts etc.

Just like all of the wealthy white kids in Danville.

From Dontrelle: “…we should be condemning people who worship expensive material items.”

Really? So, you want to equate crime with folks who like lavish things, huh? Basically, it appears you want to blame rich people for crime that thug-life commits. In other words, it’s the victim’s fault? Wow! Now, that is some top tier thinking.

Maybe you should discuss your reasoning with small business owners in Oakland, who night after night, are witnessing burglaries and vandalism to their only source of income. And by the way, the current victims are white, Asian, black, and Latino.

There ain’t no race barrier when it comes to crime, Dontrelle. Also, this is a free country - for now, at least. However, does your standard of justice include wealthy athletes? After all, lots of those wealthy athletes come from very humble beginnings. You want to take away their right to purchase expensive goods? Would you tell Denzel Washington that he shouldn’t live in a multi-million dollar home? Better yet, how about Denzel Washington’s car collection? He shouldn’t have that either, huh? And note that Denzel came from humble beginnings.

Criminals are opportunists. Take a good look at your country and and the crime surge we find ourselves in. Look at the spike in crime against Asian Americans here in the Bay Area. How do you account for that? They weren’t wearing expensive jewelry. Where’s your logic now, Dontrelle?

Evil is evil, Dontrelle. And until you confront it, it won’t slow down.

Both Dontrelle and Malcom presented key arguments...and both are valid.

That said, one of the Ten Commandments states that "Thou shall have no other gods before me" and sadly, too many people worship materialism along with the dollar sign.

To each his/her own but the superficiality of materialism has led to many crimes and delusions of grandeur.

By equating success with material goods, we are perpetuating criminal activities.

Both the criminals and materialists are not humble people who value moral character over trinkets.

✓ Both the criminals and materialists are not humble people who value moral character over trinkets.

Sadly, both are lacking in what matters most...character, integrity, and a clear perspective of the real world.

No one except the truly superficial are impressed by Rolexes, Mercedes-Benzes, and designer clothes/accessories.

Flockhard said: “By equating success with material goods, we are perpetuating criminal activities.” So, once again, it’s the fault of the victim, not the suspect, according to Flockhard.

First, people have a right to “worship materialism” if they so choose, Mr. Flockhard. Furthermore, who are you to dictate what a person chooses to do with their money? And how interesting that you quote the Bible to basically shame people for their choice of material possessions. Let God be the judge, not you.

And by the way, those people who worship material possessions are not the same people committing crimes. I think you need to get your priorities straight.

"...criminals and materialists are not humble people who value moral character over trinkets."

So true. Our former pastor drove a Corvette and wore Armani suits while preaching humility and a devotion to God.

After discovering that he was carrying on an affair with a married church member, he was relieved of his duties.

after reading this thread one comes away with one should wear a sack outside and maybe only jewellery found in a crackerjack box. sheesh.

What both robbers and conspicuous consumers seem to have overlooked...designer clothes, fancy jewelry, and expensive cars do not make the man (or woman).

I learned this as a child in Sunday School.

Some people assign far too much meaning to costly material trinkets.

It defines them...both thieves and victims.