A Portland cannabis store employee, Jason Steiner, has been found not guilty on all charges in connection with a double homicide that occurred during an attempted robbery at La Mota, a cannabis dispensary in North Portland.
🎥 Watch the full coverage here:
YouTube – Portland Cannabis Store Shooting
The Incident
According to police and court records, three men entered the La Mota cannabis dispensary in what appeared to be an armed robbery. Two of them were armed with handguns and pointed them directly at the only employee working that night — Jason Steiner.
Steiner was held at gunpoint and forced outside the store while the armed suspects remained inside to continue the robbery. Once outside, Steiner retrieved his firearm from his backpack, moved to a nearby window, and fired 13 rounds through the glass at the suspects inside the store.
Two of the robbers were struck and killed. The third fled.
Investigators later confirmed that Steiner was a lawful employee and had every right to be on the property. Prosecutors, however, charged him with two counts of murder, arguing that because he was outside when he fired, he was no longer in “imminent danger.”
After a full trial and extensive review of surveillance footage, ballistics, and testimony, a jury acquitted Steiner on all counts, concluding that his actions were justified under Oregon’s self-defense statutes.
My Professional Take
As a firearms instructor and self-defense law educator, I believe the jury got this case exactly right — and it’s outrageous that the DA’s office ever filed these charges.
Jason Steiner was working alone when two armed men entered his store, pointed guns at him, and forced him outside. That experience doesn’t suddenly become “safe” just because he ended up on the other side of a wall or door. The threat was still unfolding, and any reasonable person in his position would have feared for their life.
He didn’t chase anyone down. He didn’t act out of vengeance. He acted out of fear and survival, responding to an immediate and violent situation created entirely by the suspects.
The idea that he “should have just run away” is completely detached from reality. Oregon law doesn’t require that. There’s no duty to retreat when you’re lawfully present and face a deadly threat (State v. Charles, 1982; State v. Sandoval, 2007*).
The DA tried to criminalize a man for surviving an armed robbery — and that’s exactly what’s wrong with how self-defense is being treated in some jurisdictions today.
Steiner was a lawful employee, forced at gunpoint out of his own workplace, and still facing a threat from armed criminals. He had every right to defend himself, and the jury agreed.
This case is a textbook example of how self-defense can be legally, morally, and tactically justified — even when the defender is outside the building. He didn’t run — he lived.
The Civil Side — What Happens Next
Even though Jason Steiner was rightfully acquitted, don’t be surprised if his name — and the dispensary’s — show up in a civil lawsuit next.
That’s how this system works. When the criminal case fails, civil attorneys often circle back to see if there’s still money to be made. They’ll likely go after everyone involved — Steiner, La Mota, maybe even the property owner or their insurance carrier — under a wrongful death or negligence claim.
It doesn’t mean the case has merit. It just means that in civil court, the standard of proof is lower — “more likely than not” instead of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
So even when someone is clearly justified, they can still get dragged through years of litigation and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending themselves again.
That’s why I always stress to my students and guards:
Get self-defense insurance.
Without it, one justified act can bankrupt you in legal fees alone. Even when you do everything right — lawfully, morally, and tactically — you can still end up defending your life a second time in civil court.
If that happens here, Jason Steiner will probably be listed right alongside the dispensary, and they’ll both have to fight another battle — not for freedom this time, but for financial survival.
Self-Defense Law in Oregon
Oregon’s justification statutes outline when force — including deadly force — may be lawfully used:
- ORS 161.209 allows the use of physical force when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend themselves or another from the use or imminent use of unlawful force.
- ORS 161.219 allows deadly physical force when the defender reasonably believes the aggressor is committing or attempting to commit a felony involving force, or is about to use deadly force.
In plain terms: Oregon law centers on reasonableness and necessity, not on retreating or hesitation in the face of imminent danger.
No Duty to Retreat Under Oregon Law
Unlike some states, Oregon does not impose a legal duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. As long as a person is lawfully present and reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to stop an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, they are justified in standing their ground.
This principle is confirmed by both statute and case law:
State v. Charles, 293 Or. 273 (1982) — The Oregon Supreme Court held that a person claiming self-defense “is not required to retreat or to consider whether he could safely retreat” before using force.
(647 P.2d 897 (Or. 1982))
State v. Sandoval, 342 Or. 506 (2007) — The court reaffirmed that nothing in ORS 161.219 “suggests that persons who reasonably believe another person is about to use deadly physical force against them must calculate whether it is possible to retreat before using deadly physical force in self-defense.”
(174 P.3d 272 (Or. 2007))
Together, these rulings make it clear: Oregon law protects the right to stand your ground if you are lawfully present and faced with an imminent, unlawful threat.
My Perspective
In Jason Steiner’s case, this legal principle couldn’t be more relevant. He was lawfully inside and outside his workplace during a violent felony, and the threat never stopped being real. Oregon law did not require him to flee or hide — he had every right to defend himself.
The jury recognized that. They understood that self-defense is not murder when the threat is real, immediate, and unlawful. Justice was served.
Lessons for Armed Citizens & Business Owners
- Have a plan. Armed robberies unfold in seconds — not minutes. Training and situational awareness save lives.
- Know your state laws. Whether you’re in Oregon, Colorado, or Texas, the same principles apply: reasonableness, necessity, and lawful presence.
- Don’t provoke. Don’t hesitate. If you are lawfully present and face a deadly threat, you have the right — and the duty — to protect yourself and others.
Final Thoughts
This case serves as another real-world reminder that self-defense is not a crime when the threat is real and the defender is lawful.
For every CCW holder, business owner, and armed professional, this verdict reinforces one truth:
You have the right to go home safe.
Related Reading
- Colorado Self-Defense Law Explained (CRS § 18-1-704)
- Three Things That Will Get You Arrested Even If You Have a CCW
- Can You Carry a Firearm in a Bar in Colorado?
- The Gavin Dasaur Incident – Why Ego and Alcohol Don’t Mix with Firearms
- The Michael Hancock Shooting: When a Ride Turns Deadly
- James Rayl Settlement: The Cost of a Self-Defense Lawsuit
- Understanding Concealed Carry Reciprocity
- The Daniel Penny Case: Why Self-Defense Insurance Matters
Call to Action
➡️ Sign up for a Colorado Concealed Carry Class – Learn the laws, tactics, and judgment skills needed to protect yourself legally and responsibly.
➡️ Compare Self-Defense Insurance – Don’t face a courtroom alone. Visit our Self-Defense Insurance Comparison Chart to find the best coverage.
Disclaimer
This article reflects the professional opinion of Mark Schneider, firearms instructor and Force Science Analyst.
It is not legal advice. Always consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.
