Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by ATCclears, Jul 18, 2012.
'Flash rob' targets Troutdale Albertsons | kgw.com Portland
Obviously just a bunch of under privileged taking what's rightfully theirs from a greedy corporation. Coming soon to a home near you. PS: My sister's home was robbed by some of these underprivileged this week. She called police and told them she was waiting outside the home, was afraid to go inside. Police showed up 5 hours later and took the report.
pick 2, shoot them. hang them in front of the store as an example.
... If you're carrying a break-barrel shotgun. Those with modern weaponry please don't aim for the minimum and pick 8-15 (depending on your capacity) and hang them in front as an example.
Unfortunately since they didn't present an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury (according to the story) you couldn't legally shoot any of them...
Disparity of force and/or felony crime being committed, you pick, absolutely justifies deadly force. If the lady who was terrorized by multiple males who are committing a felony crime all ready isn't justification...what is?
If I was in that store, my firearm would be in my hand and no one...NO ONE...would lay a hand on me or terrorize me within 21 feet of my position.
Not in any legal sense in Oregon. Weather that is right or wrong is a different discussion all together. I personally still feel the guy running the 7-11 who whipped out a huge can of bear spray to disperse the "flash-rob" has had the best idea yet!
They'd have to steal an awful lot of candy to make it a felony...
Sorry I didn't post any statues with my previous post.
(1) A person commits the crime of riot if while participating with five or more other persons the person engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.
(2) Riot is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §218]
ORS 166.015 - Riot - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]
ORS 161.219 - Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
So...unless you two have any other statues that can make an exception to these...the flash mob was committing a felony, there was also disparity of force, they were burglarizing an establishment, and they were threatening other customers, and so much more that would justify the use of deadly force. I will await your rebuttal :-D
1) It wasn't burglary, per legal definition. Nor was Alberstons a "dwelling", per legal definition. Theft and burglary are different things.
2) While they may have been "rioting", you watch the raw footage and you tell me, which ones would you have shot?
While these goons are no angels, it's hard for me to watch the raw footage and be able to say, "yeah, I would have plugged one in THIS guy".
And while I can sympathize with the frustration that folks here have with this kind of criminality, I do not think it does the gun/2a/CCW/defensive carry community any favors for us to be searching for reasons to shoot young thugs. Politics and whatnot.
I would favor the old 'shotgun shells loaded with rock salt' remedy. Better to educate them and have them spread the word to their fellow scum.
I say ...Tasers and Bear Spray for all Albertsons employees who all will soon be outfitted like SWAT. Along with Area denial sound weapons and Flash Bangs gernades, Multiple target tracking and engageing Armed Drone servalence over stores 24/7.... come on now this the minum responce.
I don't know if a person can reasonably conclude they were engaged in a "riot"- I think it could be argued either way. I personally don't think 40 kids shoplifting qualifies as "engaging in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm" I can see alarm of the public, but I don't see how they were violent to the point deadly force is justified. I fail to see the violent conduct required to justify the use of deadly force.
As for the second statute it doesn't apply since they were not in a dwelling, not threatening the use of imminent force against anyone or using or about to use deadly physical force on anyone, and they were not "Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person"
My point is that it's easy to be a keyboard commando and advocate the use of deadly force to counteract a bunch of reprehensible little punks stealing snickers bars- I think that attitude is dumb at best and flat out ignorant. If you choose to shoot some kid trying to steal stuff at the mall or grocery store- do so at your own peril- I think you will have a difficult time staying out of jail because you capped someone's delicate snowflake of a child over some M&M's
The police, and Sgt Steve Bevens thinks that the charges of rioting fit the crime (1:33 - 1:50 of the video in the OP). The article also talks about a woman in tears after being terrorized by the criminals. Sure, being terrorized can be completely different between two persons opinions, but to me, being terrorized is being threatening with bodily harm. Even the dictionary defines terrorize as threatening with violence:
ter·ror·ize   [ter-uh-rahyz] Show IPA
verb (used with object), ter·ror·ized, ter·ror·iz·ing.
1. to fill or overcome with terror.
2. to dominate or coerce by intimidation.
3. to produce widespread fear by acts of violence, as bombings.
The deadly force statue does not have to be in a dwelling, that is only for section 2 to be true, but section 1 or 3, thats "or" not "and", also justify deadly force.
I understand how easy it is to say what you would do in hindsight, but what would you have done if you were in the store, and 6 males turned down the aisle you were on, laughing and trashing the store, walking straight towards you? What would you do if they started harassing you and terrorizing you?
ORS 164.215 - Burglary in the second degree - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 164.215¹ Burglary in the second degree
Except as otherwise provided in ORS 164.255 (Criminal trespass in the first degree), a person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein.
Burglary in the second degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §136; 1993 c.680 §24]
IANAL...but it would seem it is Burglary in the 2nd degree (which is also a felony) since it does not distinguish a private dwelling, just a building.
I was not there, therefore I can not say which ones would be shot. I would not hesitate to defend myself and stop the threat if I were to be in the store though, and I would have the law completely behind me. I was just clarifying the misinformation that the other customers or employees couldn't legally stop them using deadly force.
I feel you are placing the responsibility on the wrong people. This is not the 2A gun crowd finding a reason to shoot someone. The law is the law, it has all ready been written. The criminals chose to commit a felony and threaten others, it was their choice, they are the ones that are responsible. Period.
You Sir, obviously live outside of Portland. Here we have city fathers(?) to guide us in every facet of life....including when to throw away / what to put in our garbage, removing snow from the sidewalk and picking up leaves in the city streets. It amazes me how bumpkins outside the city limits manage as well as they do, without such guidance... more sarcasm,
As for the flashmobs, in at least one of the well known grocery chains, the employees are specifically instructed to take no physical action at all to stop shoplifters, be it one or a dozen. They are so paralyzed with fear of lawsuits, that the loss is just factored in to inventory "shrinkage".
I'm reasonably sure there is a dollar amount of stolen goods that progresses from shoplifting to the different degrees of theft, into burglary etc- I think advising people to make a snap judgment as to if hoodlum scum have stolen the appropriate amount of goods from a grocery store to become a felony, thusly giving a person a green light for deadly force is absurd. If you want to step in and start blasting, that's your choice. I think it is ill-advised and I'd never shoot someone over a Reeces Peanut Butter Cup.
(it's hard to talk about shooting kids and candy without mentioning Skittles you know?)
I posted the statue for burglary 2...no where in that statue has a dollar amount, but is described by an action of a criminal staying in a building with the intent to commit a crime. I agree completely that a candy bar is not worth killing over, that is not the point. "It was just a bunch of kids stealing a candy bar" is painting the completely wrong picture of "40 people trashing a store, stealing, and terrorizing people." I don't recall ever saying for anyone to step up and start blasting people over stealing a candy bar, I do recall saying if you felt threatened in that store, such as the lady, she could legally use deadly force to stop the threat. If that situation did not put you into condition RED, when an emergency does happen, it will probably be too late.
It seems i am mistaken about burglary somewhat- intent to steal has to be proven to make what happened burglary, which means the people in the store would have had to know the punks had premeditated entering the store to steal I doubt there is any way the people in the store could have known that at the time- we all know it to be the case now after the fact. Shoplifting and theft are in fact divided by a dollar amount most of the time with petty theft (typically under $1000) a misdemeanor and over a grand being Grand theft, which may be either a felony or a misdemeanor...I still don't think the situation presented was justifiable cause of application of deadly force. If said mob starts attacking people? Then you become justified but just trashing property and stealing goods is not enough by my understanding of the laws.
Here's a brief read that explains it:http://www.joedane.com/theft/how-can-they-prove-burglary-instead-of-just-theft/
admittedly it's California law, but I'd bet Oregon law is very similar
The Difference Between Burglary, Theft, and Robbery
We have already established that burglary is the uninvited and illegal entry into a person’s property, cargo container, or any vehicle or vessel, but burglary, robbery, and theft are three different offenses that carry different charges and there by the corresponding penalties vary as well. The charges depend on the jurisdiction where the incidents took place but generally, burglary is viewed as a lesser offense than robbery or theft.
Robbery is the taking or the attempt to take any property of worth from another person, be this property in the care of, custody of, or control of that other person. Robbery is different from theft in that it involves the use of force, the threat of force, the use of violence, or the threat of violence to intimidate the victim or put the victim in fear for his/her safety.
Theft, on the other hand, concerns the taking of a person’s property without the permission of the property owner or possessor of that property but does not involve threat, intimidation, or violence to the individual in possession of the property. A charge of theft is usually referred to as larceny and can be separated into two completely different charges with different penalties. The charge that is applied in any particular case depends on the value of the merchandise stolen or the amount of money stolen.
Petit larceny is the theft of merchandise under a certain amount of value or the theft of a sum of money under a certain amount.
Grand larceny is the theft of merchandise over a certain amount of value or the theft of a sum of money over a certain amount.
The sum or value that sets the dividing line between petit larceny and grand larceny is determined by the corresponding jurisdiction where the incident took place and varies from one area to another. In many jurisdictions, petit larceny is charged and penalized as a misdemeanor and grand larceny is charged and penalized as a felony. However, that depends on the jurisdiction and some areas consider theft a felony distinguished only by the degree or class of the felony.
Separate names with a comma.