Man arrested after shooting at AT&T store robbers in Gresham

imported post

I don't think it was the smartest thing to do. Doesn't look good for gun owners.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Man-arrested-after-shooting-at-robbers-94897679.html

GRESHAM, Ore. -- A man was arrested Tuesday after police said he fired his gun twice at a getaway car used by robbers.

Gresham police said two robbers stole about $2,800 worth of cell phones from the AT&T store on NW Division St. near NW Eastman Pkwy. at around 7:45 p.m. As the robbers were driving away, a customer inside the store stepped out, pulled out a gun, and fired two rounds at the car, hoping to hit its tires, according to Sgt. Rick Wilson.

Sgt. Wilson said the gunman, Roger Witter, 48--who has a concealed weapons permit--reported hitting one of the tires, but it's unknown whether the car was hit. No one was injured in the shooting, even though the shots were fired in the direction of a TriMet bus stop.Police arrested Witter and transported him to the Multnomah Co. Jail, where he was booked on suspicion of several charges, including unlawful use of a weapon and reckless endangerment. The jail said he will be released overnight on his own recognizance.

"By Witter's own admission, he never felt that his life or anyone else's life was in danger," Sgt. Wilson said. "He was just trying to detain the suspects for police."

"It is important to remember that no matter how frustrated one may bewith crime and the criminal justice system, it is not permissible to use deadly force in this type of situation,"Sgt. Wilson added. "Those two rounds could've gone anywhere... in fact, we're still not sure where they went."

Gresham police continue to look for the suspects. They're described as possibly being in their 20s, African-American, 5'10", 150 lbs., skinny, and they're believed to be driving a silver Chrysler car, possibly a 4-door Sebring. They were both wearing blue jeans and hoody-type jackets.

Police believe the suspects are also responsible for another AT&T store robbery at Mall 205 in Portland, which occurred about 30 minutes prior to the robbery in Gresham. An AT&Trepresentative said in a statement that the company is taking the matter very seriously and employees are cooperating with law enforcement.

imported post

I just read the story and then came here to post it- you beat me to it!

I hate people like this guy. I really do. he does nothing but sully the reputation for the rest of us.

In case anyone else reading this is confused, you NEVER FIRE AT A BAD GUY WHO IS RUNNING AWAY! NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!!!!!!!

imported post

I agree.....not too bright. :?

imported post

I heard this story on the news this morning, and could feel the gun grabbers coming out of the walls. I can't believe this guy! It's not a training issue. It's a common sense issue, and I'm not sure how to teach common sense. Luckily he didn't hit somebody else...wonder where the bullets went.

imported post

Ironbar wrote:

I hate people like this guy. I really do. he does nothing but sully the reputation for the rest of us.

In case anyone else reading this is confused, you NEVER FIRE AT A BAD GUY WHO IS RUNNING AWAY! NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

My thoughts EXACTLY! We all know what he wasn't thinking about. I would like to know what he was. I mean seriously, how could he have thought his actions were justifiable? I'm not sure if the thieves endangered anyones lives but this guy certainly did and that makes him more of a scumbag than them.

imported post

Ironbar wrote:

I just read the story and then came here to post it- you beat me to it!

I hate people like this guy. I really do. he does nothing but sully the reputation for the rest of us.

In case anyone else reading this is confused, you NEVER FIRE AT A BAD GUY WHO IS RUNNING AWAY! NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

i tend to disagree with your last sentance.... if a bad guy is in MY HOUSE and running from me, i do not know if he has a weapon hidden on his person, i do not know if he is running for help, i do not know if he will encounter any loved one in his flight.... a bad guy running from me in MY HOUSE is still a mortal threat to myself and loved ones.... he has entered my castle and is given no quarter, he has forfiet his life when crossing my thresshold.

so respectfully, i give you the ONE exception

imported post

cassterr wrote:

I'm not sure if the thieves endangered anyones lives but this guy certainly did and that makes him more of a scumbag than them.

Click to expand...

the criminal in his very action endangers the lives of his victim, this is why a thief who steals a purse and causes a heart attack is charged with murder. its a willful disregard for the victim.

the shooter in this case was absolutely negligent and endangered the lives of those around him.....

the difference i see is intent.... they both endangered others, but one in the COMMISSION of a crime and the other trying to STOP a crime (no matter how wrong headed) .... as no one was hurt , i submit to you, the criminals are the greater scumbags, no matter how bad this guy makes us look.

imported post

Firing on someone stealing from AT&T, although the amount is $3,800, is not really Justifiable.

It is a safe bet, though, that $3,800 worth of Theft constitues a Felony.

I am sure that Mr. Witter was trying to help Police.

imported post

I would have liked to see the look on his face when the police put the cuffs on this man. "Hey this isn't what happens in the movies!". IMO you never shoot at anyone over property it can be replaced even more when its not your property. We all just got a black eye from this guy who watches to many movies. If he had some training he might not be in the pickle he's in now.

imported post

GSXRrider wrote:

I heard this story on the news this morning, and could feel the gun grabbers coming out of the walls. I can't believe this guy! It's not a training issue. It's a common sense issue, and I'm not sure how to teach common sense. Luckily he didn't hit somebody else...wonder where the bullets went.

Click to expand...

GSXRrider, I have to disagree with you. From a common sense stand point, training as an Infantryman in the US Army I have gone through many classes where you think to your self 'Oh SNAP!!! Why didn't I think of that? It's so common sense!' For example, if he had more training on the four rules of firearm safety:

1 - Always treat every firearm as if it were loaded
2 - Never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy
3 - ALWAYS BE AWARE OF WHAT IS IN FRONT OF AND BEHIND YOUR TARGET
4 - Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot

If he had more training, did some classes, that would probably be drilled into his head. I get the common sense, that's step 5 (if your military, you know it), but it still needs to be trained. I haven't seen much of it outside of the training I do, but it would probably be beneficial to try and come up with some scenarios that involve that sort of thing, both fleeing bad guys that aren't endangering any one or your self, and targets in front of and behind your threat.

imported post

aadvark wrote:

Firing on someone stealing from AT&T, although the amount is $3,800, is not really Justifiable.

It is a safe bet, though, that $3,800 worth of Theft constitues a Felony.

I am sure that Mr. Witter was trying to help Police.

 

Click to expand...

Absolutely Correct:
164.055 Theft in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of theft in the first degree if, by means other than extortion, the person commits theft as defined in ORS 164.015 and:
(a) The total value of the property in a single or aggregate transaction is $1,000 or more; . . .
(3) Theft in the first degree is a Class C felony.

imported post

aadvark wrote:

I am sure that Mr. Witter was trying to help Police.

 

Click to expand...

If he wanted to help he should have jotted down a license plate.

imported post

DenWin wrote:

GSXRrider wrote:

I heard this story on the news this morning, and could feel the gun grabbers coming out of the walls. I can't believe this guy! It's not a training issue. It's a common sense issue, and I'm not sure how to teach common sense. Luckily he didn't hit somebody else...wonder where the bullets went.

Click to expand...

GSXRrider, I have to disagree with you. From a common sense stand point, training as an Infantryman in the US Army I have gone through many classes where you think to your self 'Oh SNAP!!! Why didn't I think of that? It's so common sense!' For example, if he had more training on the four rules of firearm safety:

1 - Always treat every firearm as if it were loaded
2 - Never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy
3 - ALWAYS BE AWARE OF WHAT IS IN FRONT OF AND BEHIND YOUR TARGET
4 - Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot

If he had more training, did some classes, that would probably be drilled into his head. I get the common sense, that's step 5 (if your military, you know it), but it still needs to be trained. I haven't seen much of it outside of the training I do, but it would probably be beneficial to try and come up with some scenarios that involve that sort of thing, both fleeing bad guys that aren't endangering any one or your self, and targets in front of and behind your threat.

Click to expand...

DenWin,
What your saying is that he had a lack of knowledge that led to his poor decision(s). Lack of knowledge is ignorance and ignorance is not the same thing as common sense. Common sense means having sound judgment. IMHO firing a weapon in the direction of a populated bus stop, at a vehicle fleeing from a populated parking, was not a sound judgment.

imported post

cassterr wrote:

DenWin,
What your saying is that he had a lack of knowledge that led to his poor decision(s). Lack of knowledge is ignorance and ignorance is not the same thing as common sense. Common sense means having sound judgment. IMHO firing a weapon in the direction of a populated bus stop, at a vehicle fleeing from a populated parking, was not a sound judgment.

Click to expand...

Point taken, it DOES relate to common sense. Was it sound judgement? No, and it almost never will be. But I still believe it to be a training issue, because what is training other than learning more knowledge about what you do to keep sharp on the subject at hand? If he would have trained in some sort of scenario of a fleeing criminal who was posing no threat, or maybe read up more on case study, or even visited this site and passed back and forth opinions, he may have gained more knowledge on this. But like I said earlier, I know I've learned stuff before that, once you know it, makes perfect common sense, though you never thought about it until it was brought to your attention.

imported post

It MAY be a training issue as well as a legal issue.

Training because he may not have taken consideration of the back ground when firing.

Legal issue because the laws need to be changed so that this isn't a crime. How low do you think crime would go if thieves started getting shot at coming and going?

I know, most will say "yadda yadda yadda self defense, can't shoot when they're leaving". Well that's only because that's the law now, nothing says we can't change it and lord knows we need to do something to stop the criminals who have more rights than their victims. I think maybe it's time for a change in the laws regarding use of force to protect property and/or apprehend felons in the commission of a crime.

But yes, under the current rules, ya gotta let 'em get away. How stupid is that?

imported post

We-the-People wrote:

It MAY be a training issue as well as a legal issue.

Training because he may not have taken consideration of the back ground when firing.

Legal issue because the laws need to be changed so that this isn't a crime. How low do you think crime would go if thieves started getting shot at coming and going?

I know, most will say "yadda yadda yadda self defense, can't shoot when they're leaving".  Well that's only because that's the law now, nothing says we can't change it and lord knows we need to do something to stop the criminals who have more rights than their victims. I think maybe it's time for a change in the laws regarding use of force to protect property and/or apprehend felons in the commission of a crime.

But yes, under the current rules, ya gotta let 'em get away.  How stupid is that?

Click to expand...

As a personal choice, having been forced to pull the trigger before, if they aren't posing an immediate threat to life, limb, or eyesight, I still wouldn't pull the trigger. The second they pose a danger to, in order: 1 - loved ones; 2 - self; or 3 - innocent personnel is when they get the hammer dropped on them. Just my humble opinion.

imported post

We-the-People wrote:

But yes, under the current rules, ya gotta let 'em get away.  How stupid is that?

Click to expand...

Seems pretty smart to me.

imported post

DenWin wrote:

As a personal choice, having been forced to pull the trigger before, if they aren't posing an immediate threat to life, limb, or eyesight, I still wouldn't pull the trigger. The second they pose a danger to, in order: 1 - loved ones; 2 - self; or 3 - innocent personnel is when they get the hammer dropped on them. Just my humble opinion.

Click to expand...

Here's the way I see it.

While they may not be an immediate threat to life and limb, if society sees fit to allow them to get away with such crap, they will eventually cause threat to or loss of life and limb. I see no reason that a civilized society would allow such worthless pieces of )$*$ to walk among us unscathed by those they victimize.

Consider the days of the old west. No, it wasn't really the wild west like portrayed on television and the movies. There was a gunfight here and there but in reality, probably a lot less of them than we have now.

But what about all those horses? People rode their horse to the store, much like we drive our cars today. Now I don't know if you've seen a horse lately but they still don't come with door locks, ignition locks, "the club", or any other anti theft device. Yet there was very little horse thievery back then. Why was this?

Because most everyone carried and did so openly..........in fact, concealed carry was the stuff of card cheats and low lifes......... and they had a pretty effective law back then. Get caught stealin horses and you got hanged, right after your fair and speedy trial. If you were riding off with a herd of horses (or cattle) you might very well be shot in the back.

You see, back then, when we had a civilized society instead of a socialized one, the people understood that you just plain didn't give the bad guys any quarter and you got rid of them. This sent the message to other bad guys to go bother some other locality and to any local thinking of dishonesty that it just wasn't worth it.

We need to deal with the system we have but that doesn't mean we can't work to change it. I look forward to the day when someone stealing from you is all you need to justify deadly force. We'd have a lot less crime and a lot less inmates.

imported post

It's been a while since I last looked them up, but doesn't doesn't Oregon have a fleeing felon rule in its use of force laws?

imported post

We-The-People: I see your point, but A - how easy was it to make an insurance claim on your horse(s) and/or cattle in the 1800s? and B - your horse(s) and cattle, if you had them, really were your lively hood. You couldn't go with out your horse for very long and still survive well. That sort of thing did threaten life for many which is why it was such a serious crime. These days, it is very easy - not that you want to - to deal with the theft of your vehicle, bike, almost anything. With mass transit and the advent of the credit card you can get by for the next couple of weeks at least while the insurance company figures out either fixing or replacing your vehicle.