What started out as a property crime could have turned deadly according to a Fox News report about a shoplifter in Woodburn Oregon on Saturday.
Images show a Ralph Lauren employee being threatened with deadly force as the suspect pointed what appears to be a firearm (could be a replica or a toy, we don’t know and really don’t care) at his head.
The perpetrators fled with merchandise.
It starts out as a property crime but … Insert yourself into the store as an armed citizen and discuss …
I’m armed however, am I sure of my ability to stop the threat without harm to others? Would it serve me and others better by dialing 911 from cover and being a good witness? We have several choices here. What’s yours?
Your crime description is not “shoplifting”; it became armed robbery the second a weapon whether real or not was exposed. My guess to your question would be 911 to report armed robbery with as much detail as possible unless you & yours were under direct threat. Of course with it being Oregon, the clerk was probably charged for restraint of trade or discrimination for slowing the criminal “oops oppressed individual” down.
I would definitely take cover if possible and call 911 with a description of the offender and inform 911 that the offender is armed. You may be justified in shooting but what if you miss and hit an innocent bystander? Choices, Choices. Guns are not only used to shoot a person but also to intimidate. Even if the offender pointed it at you and you shoot and kill them, if the gun was unloaded you would be justified. The good thing about having cover is that you can take the extra 1 or 2 seconds to react if need be.
What he said, if I could do that without calling attention to myself.
Further, with a gun in the perp’s hand, I think I would definitely “prepare” (whatever that might mean in the moment) to engage to defend self or others. But the vague appearance of the situation looks like:
boosters have their booty;
crooks are heading for the exit;
employee says “whoa, now”;
gun is presented more as passkey to the exit than as violent intent.
Next move is on the employee. Their choice might be, “Ok, catch you later.” Then stand pat and witness. But the employee might choose resistance. Or the operator might signal impending violence anyway. I suppose I would then try to figure some way to tactically support/defend the employee.
If I were real smart, I might not be in that store — then I don’t have any hard choices to make.
Also remember we do not make the choice to be violent, the criminal makes that choice. We have to choose wisely. We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t, just saying.
I always opt for, whenever possible, to dispatch the criminal in this situation or any like it. I would try to prevent these thugs from doing serious bodily harm on their next criminal act after they got away with this one. Once that weapon is introduced, it changes the entire landscape of this crime. I don’t chance the “Well HOPEFULLY he won’t shoot me/him/her” scenario. I’m going to do all I can to make sure he doesn’t get to make that choice.
In many Liberal communities the D.A.'s aren’t even charging a person with a crime unless over $1000.00 is stolen. So groups of thieves come in and bring a calculator as they load up the items they are stealing. Interesting to know how the press reported on this event, and if the D.A. is interested in finding the criminals involved in this. May depend how close this city is to Portland.
Something tells me that if the thugs know the limit is $1000.00, they probably aren’t too concerned about coming in with a pistol. Why would they bump things up to a charge of felony firearm when they are looking at something much less.