"The killer had a GUN. I think that is why they ‘went along’ with the killer’s orders.'
The fact he ordered them into the back meant he was going to kill them absolutely. The reason for taking them into hte back was so the shots wouldn't be noticed. The should have forced notice. They should have taken that warning to refuse and rushed him, or bolted, knocked over clothes racks, and headed out of the store. Tossing a heavy object through the plate glass would have been a good thing.
Never go into the back room and be led off to slaughter. Fight. Force the killer to work hard to aim. Make him waste shots during an attempt to escape and attract attention. Of course it's always better to be prepared with an effective means of self defense and preparation, but this is the land of the grabber, where an NRA sticker in the window could get you a felony stop.
"...what would you have done?"
The heinous pig would have died before he ever hurt one of the women and I'd be in a Tinley Park jail for being real mean with intensity, if not dead.
I tell my girls and my wife to run and risk getting shot or stabbed versus getting in the car or on one’s knees.
There is no choice.
Better to be armed if possible.
“The fact he ordered them into the back meant he was going to kill them absolutely.”
Really? There have been tons of crime scenes where the customers or proprietors were taken to a back room, or bank safe, so that the criminal(s) could escape.
Guns are pretty loud, even in ‘the back’. I doubt there would be less chance the shots wouldn’t be noticed.
It is likely the bodies would have been. However, the absence of anyone in an ‘open’ store is kinda a big clue too.
Weren’t all the customers in the store ‘women’?
Isn’t it true that none of them were ‘armed’?
I’m just saying that all this “THEY SHOULD HAVE....”
and “I WOULD HAVE....” is just a bunch of chest-puffing and has absolutely nothing to do with this story.