‘I Used to Be Scared, But I Had to Do Something’: Clerk Fights Armed Jewelry Store Robber in California

A routine shift at a jewelry store in Montclair, California, turned into a life-threatening confrontation when an armed suspect attempted a brazen smash-and-grab robbery. Surveillance footage captured the dramatic moment a store clerk, overcoming her fear, physically fought back against the intruder. This incident highlights the intense dangers faced by retail employees, the complex legal landscape of self-defense in business settings, and the critical need for robust security protocols. This article provides a comprehensive, fact-based examination of the event, its context within California’s retail crime crisis, and actionable insights for business owners and employees.

Introduction: A Moment of Courage Under Fire

On a February afternoon in 2026, the quiet retail corridor of Montclair, a city in San Bernardino County, became the scene of a violent crime. A male suspect, wielding a handgun, entered a jewelry store with the clear intent to commit a rapid, violent theft—a criminal tactic known as a “smash-and-grab.” His objective: to quickly smash display cases, seize high-value merchandise, and flee before law enforcement could respond. What he did not anticipate was the decisive resistance from a female clerk on duty.

Security camera video, later released by authorities, shows the suspect pointing his firearm and demanding compliance. In a stunning act of defiance, the clerk did not immediately comply. Instead, she engaged the suspect physically, leading to a brief but violent struggle. Her statement to reporters after the incident—“I used to be scared, but I had to do something”—encapsulates the split-second decision many retail workers face when confronted with lethal violence. This event is not just a local news story; it is a case study in retail security, employee psychology, and the legal boundaries of self-defense during a commercial robbery.

Key Points: Summary of the Montclair Incident

• Event: Armed smash-and-grab robbery attempt at a jewelry store in Montclair, California.
• Date: Mid-February 2026 (as reported).
• Key Actor: A female store clerk who physically resisted an armed suspect.
• Evidence: The confrontation was captured on the store’s surveillance video system.
• Suspect’s Action: Brandished a handgun and attempted to commit a rapid theft of jewelry.
• Clerk’s Response: Overcame initial fear to fight back, engaging in a physical struggle with the armed assailant.
• Outcome: The suspect fled the scene. It is unclear from public reports if any merchandise was stolen. The clerk was not reported to have suffered serious physical injury.
• Broader Context: The incident occurs amid a reported increase in organized retail crime and smash-and-grab thefts across California and the United States.

Background: The Epidemic of Smash-and-Grab Robberies

The Nature of the Modern Smash-and-Grab

The “smash-and-grab” is a specific, high-velocity form of retail theft. Unlike a prolonged hostage situation or a covert shoplifting, its hallmark is speed and intimidation. Perpetrators typically use tools like hammers or rocks to quickly shatter display cases, grab as much high-value, easily portable merchandise as possible (often jewelry, electronics, or designer goods), and escape within 60-90 seconds. The presence of a firearm or other weapon escalates the crime from a theft to an armed robbery, significantly increasing the trauma for victims and the legal severity for perpetrators. These crimes are often linked to organized crime rings that quickly fence stolen goods.

California’s Retail Crime Crisis

California has been disproportionately affected by this trend. According to data from the California Department of Justice and retail industry associations, reported incidents of organized retail crime and smash-and-grabs have risen sharply over the past five years. Major metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the Inland Empire (which includes San Bernardino County) are frequent targets. Several factors contribute to this: the state’s high concentration of luxury retail, Proposition 47 (2014), which reclassified some theft and drug possession offenses from felonies to misdemeanors for amounts under $950, and perceived challenges in prosecuting these fast-moving crimes. This climate creates a heightened sense of vulnerability among small business owners and employees, particularly in jewelry, electronics, and high-end fashion sectors.

The Psychological Toll on Retail Employees

Behind the crime statistics are human beings. The National Retail Federation (NRF) consistently reports that violent incidents, even when non-fatal, lead to significant employee trauma, absenteeism, and turnover. The “fight-or-flight” response is a primal neurological reaction. The clerk’s admission of being “scared” is a normal, healthy response to an armed threat. Her subsequent decision to “do something” represents a conscious override of that fear, often driven by a sense of responsibility for the store’s assets, a protective instinct for coworkers, or a visceral rejection of victimization. Understanding this psychological arc is crucial for employers developing training and support systems.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Confrontation

Legal Framework: Self-Defense and Defense of Property in California

California law on self-defense is nuanced, especially in a business context. The core legal principles are:

• Reasonable Belief: A person may use force in self-defense if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury or being unlawfully touched.
• Proportionality: The force used must be reasonable and proportional to the perceived threat. Deadly force (which can include using a firearm or even a knife) is only justified if one reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury.
• Duty to Retreat: California imposes no general “duty to retreat” before using force in self-defense if the person is in a place they have a right to be. However, this is balanced against the reasonableness of the actions.
• Defense of Property: The law is much more restrictive on using force solely to protect property. One cannot use deadly force to protect mere possessions, like merchandise in a store. Force used must be to defend against a threat to personal safety, not just property theft.

Application to the Montclair Case: The suspect was armed. The clerk could reasonably argue she believed she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury when the gun was presented. Her physical resistance, therefore, could be legally justified as self-defense. Had the suspect been unarmed and merely attempting to smash a case, the legal justification for a physical fight would be far weaker, as the threat to her person would be less clear. The presence of the firearm is the pivotal legal fact that likely justifies her actions under California’s self-defense statutes.

Security Protocol Failure or Conscious Risk Assessment?

Standard retail security best practices, especially for jewelry stores, often emphasize compliance during an armed robbery. The primary goal is to preserve life. Employees are typically trained to be “good witnesses,” to comply with demands, and to avoid escalation. The clerk’s actions directly contravene this standard “comply and survive” protocol. Analysis must therefore consider two possibilities:

1. Protocol Absence/Failure: The store may have had no formal active shooter or armed robbery training, leaving the employee to rely on instinct.
2. Conscious, Situational Override: The clerk may have made a rapid, conscious assessment that compliance would not save her (e.g., the suspect appeared irrational or likely to shoot anyway), or that the value of the property was worth risking a fight. This is a high-risk, high-stakes personal calculation.

From a business liability perspective, an employer’s mandate to prioritize employee safety is paramount. If an employer encourages or fails to discourage resistance, they could face increased liability if an employee is seriously injured. However, in the moment of crisis, the employee’s instinct to survive or protect others can override any training.

The Role of Surveillance and Evidence

The fact that the confrontation was captured on video is critically important. For law enforcement, it provides an unambiguous record of the suspect’s actions (brandishing a firearm) and the clerk’s defensive response. This evidence is vital for:

• Prosecution: Clearly establishing the elements of armed robbery.
• Defense: Documenting the clerk’s reasonable belief in imminent danger, should any legal question arise about the proportionality of her resistance.
• Insurance: Supporting claims for property loss and business interruption.

This underscores the non-negotiable need for high-quality, redundant surveillance systems in high-risk retail environments. Cameras must cover entrances, sales floors, and display cases, with footage stored securely off-site or in the cloud.

Practical Advice for Retail Businesses

This incident serves as a stark reminder for all retail operators, particularly those in high-value sectors. The following is a synthesis of security best practices informed by industry standards from the NRF, the Jewelers of America (JA), and security consultants.

1. Prioritize Employee Training and Policy

• Active Shooter/Robbery Response Training: Conduct regular, mandatory training. The consensus from law enforcement (e.g., FBI’s “Run, Hide, Fight” model) is to run if possible, hide if not, and as a last resort, fight. Training must emphasize that “fight” is a last-resort survival option when faced with imminent death or serious injury.
• Clear, Written Policy: Have a clear, written policy on armed robbery response that prioritizes human life. Distribute it to all employees and review it annually. Include procedures for activating silent alarms, complying with demands, and post-incident reporting.
• De-escalation Techniques: Train staff in verbal de-escalation, which can sometimes disrupt a perpetrator’s plan or reduce violence.

2. Invest in Physical Security Measures

• Deterrence: Visible security is key. Use signage about alarms and video surveillance. Maintain clear sightlines into the store from the street.
• Delay: Make entry and escape harder. Use reinforced doors, security gates that can be deployed after hours, and window film or polycarbonate glazing to make smashing glass more time-consuming.
• Detection: High-resolution, wide-angle cameras with night vision, linked to a monitored alarm system. Panic buttons for employees, discreetly placed.
• Display Security: For jewelry, use tethered displays, locked cases, and consider keeping high-value items in safe or vault displays, only bringing them out for known customers.

3. Leverage Technology and Partnerships

• GPS Tracking: Use invisible, uniquely coded DNA marking or GPS trackers on high-value merchandise. This aids recovery and prosecution.
• Alarm Monitoring: Partner with a professional central station monitoring service that can dispatch police immediately upon alarm activation.
• Law Enforcement Liaison: Establish a relationship with your local police department’s business liaison or robbery detective. Share information about crime trends and known suspects.
• Retail Crime Partnerships: Join or form a local business watch group to share information about suspicious activity.

4. Post-Incident Support

• Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM): Provide immediate access to professional counseling for any employee involved in or witnessing a violent crime.
• Clear Reporting Procedures: Have a simple, supportive process for employees to report the incident and their needs without fear of reprisal.
• Insurance Review: Ensure your business owner’s policy (BOP) or standalone policy adequately covers armed robbery losses, including cash, merchandise, and property damage. Understand any security requirements (e.g., specific alarm systems) to maintain coverage.

FAQ: Common Questions About Retail Armed Robbery

Q1: Is it legal for a store employee to fight an armed robber?

A: In California, yes, if the employee reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. The use of force must be proportional to the threat. Fighting an armed suspect solely to protect property is not legally justified, but fighting to protect one’s own life from a gunpoint robbery is. The key legal test is “reasonable belief” under the circumstances.

Q2: What should an employee do first during an armed robbery?

A: The universally recommended first priority is to survive. This means complying with demands for cash or merchandise if it is safe to do so. Do