AT&T drives elderly man to attempt murder

Continually dissatisfied with the level of service provided at a New York Mills AT&T store, Abraham Dickan, of Utica, NY, chose to provide his own brand of "customer service" to 6 employees; reports WKTV of Utica, New York. Creating a hitlist carried in his pocket, the 79 year old entered the mobile store with intent to kill.

With a .357 magnum and no prior criminal record, Dickan located and shot Seth Turk, one of the employees on his list. Before he was able to ascertain the whereabouts of the other five employees, an off duty Rome police officer shot and killed Dickan on the spot. Employees mentioned that this was not the first time that they had encountered Dickan, and that he had previously entered the store brandishing a handgun. However, the revolver used in the attempted murder was not the same handgun used previously. Dickan's firearm permit had been revoked due to the previous incident. Although "banned" from the store, Dickan was not legally bound by a court-order of protection and thus no record of the previous altercations -- other than the permit revocation -- was on file. The list found in Dickan's pocket reaffirmed his anger towards the listed employees, along with his intent to kill.

Authorities are questioning Dickan's mental state and are awaiting stabilization of Seth Turk for questioning regarding possible conversation before the altercation.

AT&T has been continually criticised for dropped calls and poor service, particularly for iPhone customers in big cities like Las Vegas and New York. AT&T's claims that their wireless data covers 303 million people in the U.S. In January the carrier confirmed it had completed a nationwide upgrade of its 3G service in the U.S. Despite continued service criticisms, AT&T was recently ranked #1 in PCWorld's 3G test.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

TechSpot: Managing your privacy online - search engines

Next Story

Buy a PSPgo in Europe and get 10 free games

54 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

nevann said,
I was hoping this meant that AT&T had literally driven him around to do drive-bys.

That's exactly what I was thinking lol. They drove him in an AT&T truck and he went on a drive-by spree!

I think he went way over the top doing what he did, but if he went in to an AT&T/Sprint call center and started shooting the place up I could def understand that.

if AT&T would simply smarten up and fix there service instead of moaning and what not then this could have been avoided, hopefuly at&t will learn from this, if you screw customers then you should expect a few customers who may do that sort of thing since talking didn't fix the issue so he took it perhaps a bit too far but it is at&t's fault and should be sued fully as to show them that you will value your customers with quality products/services and not jack up the prices and complain. you are a service provider and you are expected to do your job properly and treat the customer as if they were family. just glad i don't use at&t junk(i don't use them because of this and that)

Well if u wanted Vodafone in the US the closest you can get to that is Verzion. Seeing that Verizon wireless is a Joint Venture with Verizon Communications (55%) and Vodafone(45%). When i had Att i did not like the service here i did get several dropped calls but in 2008 i got a Sprint contract and i am glad that i did has been the best service i have had and not to mention a bit cheaper as well.

Nothing like this could ever happen at the Sprint retailers in my area. They have prominent "No Guns" signs at all area locations.

I've asked about the signs and they said "We have a LOT of VERY angry customers." They should make that their new slogan.

Of course, as a firarms instructor and tactical competitor I routinely outperform military and police marksmen - but if I carry my firearm into said store (and they develop X-ray vision) then I face the horrendus charge of "misdemeanor trespass" - same charge a person would get if they screamed profanity and refused to leave.

Glad there was a police officer there to stop this deranged shooter. Just goes to show you're safer overall when a good guy is there to stop such attacks. I wouldn't be picky about whether or not my savior has a badge and a union paycheck.

Neb Okla said,

Nothing like this could ever happen at the Sprint retailers in my area. They have prominent "No Guns" signs at all area locations.

I've asked about the signs and they said "We have a LOT of VERY angry customers." They should make that their new slogan.

Of course, as a firarms instructor and tactical competitor I routinely outperform military and police marksmen - but if I carry my firearm into said store (and they develop X-ray vision) then I face the horrendus charge of "misdemeanor trespass" - same charge a person would get if they screamed profanity and refused to leave.

Glad there was a police officer there to stop this deranged shooter. Just goes to show you're safer overall when a good guy is there to stop such attacks. I wouldn't be picky about whether or not my savior has a badge and a union paycheck.

Like that could stop a bullet. Be serious.
You bought your guns to instruct people and compete not to carry them on you in public.

Umm, am I the only one that sees this as: He was NOT mad about AT&T's service. He was mad at the service at that "particular store"? The way the article is worded, it's not the at&t service that's the issue, it's the employee's service towards him, which is why he specifically targeted 6 of them. If he was ****ed at AT&T, would he have specific people in mind?

Most news stories like this are caused by our system's inability to help the mentally ill. Until we address this as a nation, we'll keep reading stories like this week after week.

I hate that first it is blamed on AT&T and then at the end of the story it is mentioned that AT&T has dropped calls, blah blah... I mean seriously... did the man say I AM ANGRY GRRRR!!! KILL AT&T BECAUSE I AM MAD AT THEM FOR MY DROPPED CALLS!!! or did he not pay his bill on time, got a late fee and the store did not remove his late fee because apparently he was an ass in past occasions...

I do not have any problems at all with AT&T, not 1 since I've had AT&T before it was even Cingular!

chisss said,
I do not have any problems at all with AT&T, not 1 since I've had AT&T before it was even Cingular!

Call your self lucky. I used to say the same thing about my service. My area used to be great. But with time it has gotten worse and worse. I was in New Your City a few months ago and man is it bad there. It is literally impossible to have a conversation longer then 3mins. I am not exaggerating at all. Data didn't work at all. I turned 3G off which didn't help. It is unreal.

Edited by ermax, May 28 2010, 12:36pm :

kukubau said,
Again arms policy in US is f....d up.

Hmm... lets think about that statment a little. If you ban guns then the only people that will have them is criminals. Brilliant. When you hear about shootings, how many times do they report whether the gun was stolen? Also, how many times does it make the news when someone pulls a gun and stops a crime? Never. I don't own a gun and probably never will but banning them all together isn't very logical if you ask me.

It works pretty much well in the rest of the world, for some reason accept the US. I am sure the lobbyists don't have anything to do with this.

Easy access means, easy access to everyone including the criminals.

kukubau said,
Again arms policy in US is f....d up.

How does this have anything to do with firearm policy? He lost his right to carry after the first incident. He was illegally is position of that gun. The same thing happens in counties that don't allow guns at all.

kukubau said,
Again arms policy in US is f....d up.

Excellent observation. NY state has some of the toughest gun laws.

When people ban guns they *feel* safer. But when I carry my gun I *am* safer. See the difference?

Neb Okla said,

Excellent observation. NY state has some of the toughest gun laws.

When people ban guns they *feel* safer. But when I carry my gun I *am* safer. See the difference?

Yeah...there is a difference, but not what you think...
A criminal is much more prone of shooting someone if he thinks that in any moment he is under a threat, so carrying a gun may be a danger to yourself (well, maybe if you live in remote areas and can be threatened by bears, wolves or the likes), so if he acknowledges you have a gun, you have a much higher chance of being shot and have your weapon stolen.

sviola said,

A criminal is much more prone of shooting someone if he thinks that in any moment he is under a threat, so carrying a gun may be a danger to yourself (well, maybe if you live in remote areas and can be threatened by bears, wolves or the likes), so if he acknowledges you have a gun, you have a much higher chance of being shot and have your weapon stolen.

Interestingly, in the US we've kept detailed statistics on the outcomes of violent attacks. The media correctly reports that of all possible responses, the safest course of action is to do nothing.

What they don't tell you is that these figures are skewed because people try so many ineffective things like screaming, running, struggling, etc. that just upset attackers and lead to more injury.

When you compare the stats for responding to an attacker with a firearm the odds jump tremendously into the victim's favor - an even greater statistical increase for women.

Due to situations police enter, they do occasionally have their guns taken away from them. Civilians carrying openly or concealed tend not to have the same issue.

The great thing about anti-gun bigotry is that it's caused by ignorance and a trip to the range with a good instructor like myself can serve to demonstrate the practical flaws in most of the myths prepetuated by the vocal anti-gun minority.

ermax said,

Hmm... lets think about that statment a little. If you ban guns then the only people that will have them is criminals. Brilliant. When you hear about shootings, how many times do they report whether the gun was stolen? Also, how many times does it make the news when someone pulls a gun and stops a crime? Never. I don't own a gun and probably never will but banning them all together isn't very logical if you ask me.

As ricknl has said

Easy access means, easy access to everyone including the criminals.

As long as there will be easy access for people to own/get a gun, there will be nuttos who'll use them unlawfully. How many times have you seen at the news people killed because they didn't smile the way the shooter thought they should've in another country except US?
I say it again, arms policy is ****ed up in the US and there has to be someone to take stand.
In US if you're 18 or 21 and have 200$ and your neighbor ****es you off, why not buy a shotgun for "self defense" and blow his brains off?
I for another matter can't buy a gun at all. Chances are I won't be shooting my irritating neighbor as easily as you. See the difference?
AS long as arms will be sold freely the same as a pair o snicker there will be killings and "self defence" argumentation won't stick for long. Free circulation is no problem so different arms policy for different states is a nonscence.

All you arms lovers check the statistics for other countries and see the difference in black&white!

kukubau said,

As ricknl has said

Easy access means, easy access to everyone including the criminals.

As long as there will be easy access for people to own/get a gun, there will be nuttos who'll use them unlawfully. How many times have you seen at the news people killed because they didn't smile the way the shooter thought they should've in another country except US?
I say it again, arms policy is ****ed up in the US and there has to be someone to take stand.
In US if you're 18 or 21 and have 200$ and your neighbor ****es you off, why not buy a shotgun for "self defense" and blow his brains off?
I for another matter can't buy a gun at all. Chances are I won't be shooting my irritating neighbor as easily as you. See the difference?
AS long as arms will be sold freely the same as a pair o snicker there will be killings and "self defence" argumentation won't stick for long. Free circulation is no problem so different arms policy for different states is a nonscence.

All you arms lovers check the statistics for other countries and see the difference in black&white!

because sharp or blunt objects can't kill someone?

While I understand his anger, I am surprised about how stupid he could be to not realize that the AT&T store employees had no say nor ability to alter the quality of the network. They are just low-level employees working for next-to minimum wage.......They have nothing to do with how AT&T is run. Now if he had stormed into their corporate office it would be a different story. The point is that murder doesn't solve anything. You need to crush their business and destroy their hard work, that will definitely get you results!

thatguyandrew1992 said,
Can't say I blame him!

yeah well, certainly 6 employees, who are probably working under impossible infrastructure can't be blamed for AT&T failings either.....

Eddo89 said,

yeah well, certainly 6 employees, who are probably working under impossible infrastructure can't be blamed for AT&T failings either.....

I can guarantee you that AT&T isn't just sitting on their hands, not doing anything about their poor service. If you had a telecom company that went from being an average competitor amongst a bunch of other carriers to being the sole carrier for one of the most widely used smartphones, you would have a hell of a time keeping up with the ever increasing demands as well.

Just wait... I bet if the iPhone gets released to other carriers, we will see the same thing happen to them: a massive influx of data-hungry smartphones clogging a network that wasn't built for the sheer amount of traffic. As soon as people start to leave AT&T, the stress on their network will be gone, and all will be good.

Eddo89 said,

yeah well, certainly 6 employees, who are probably working under impossible infrastructure can't be blamed for AT&T failings either.....

Agreed. With Sprint I usually just go with the flow and try to go with their process (like having me wait an hour for a tech to inspect my phone EVERY TIME I VISIT). After they fail to solve the problem in 3 visits or so I just tell them outright:

"Look, I'm here on my 3rd visit for the same problem. Every time your company's poliies make me wait at least an hour. I can see you have a long line of customers - how many of them are still trying to have the same problem from 3 visits ago? In the interest of saving time, I propose the following time-saving solution..."

I always suggest somethig fair and reasonable. Like when they replaced my HTC Mogul with a brand new special odered TP2 at no charge.

I highly reccomend the "We've exhaustively tried your employer's way - and your employer's way doesn't work." approach for any customer service interaction.

Note that I always differentiate between "you" the employee and "your employer" the company that isn't helping the employee to efficiently serve customers.