There was a confrontation at a Kroger.  A customer unholstered his gun to diffuse an altercation with another customer at the self checkout.

The gun owner did not point the gun at anyone, didn't announce he was going to use it and only drew it to avoid getting assaulted.

In fact, the other customer outright told police that if the man had not been armed, he would have "body slammed him."

Someone else decided to call 911 and reported that a man "pulled a gun on someone".

The store surveillance video backs up the claim that the gun was never brandished or used in any threatening way other than having it in his hand in plain view.

He's been charged with assault with a deadly weapon, even though the statute requires at a minimum the weapon to be pointed at the "victim."

I think the best justification for drawing is that the other man was bigger and likely able to cause harm to him.  If that man was able to get the gun from him, then he'll have lost his means of defense as well as being placed in a much worse situation in which he could be shot.

I don't think he'll be convicted, but this shows why you need to have some sort of firearm/legal defense insurance -- so the system/state doesn't punish you for protecting yourself.

I would consider it brandishing and wrong, but that's without knowing what happened in the seconds prior and what was said.

I didn't see any threat from the supposed "bad guy".  He looked like he didn't care.  He didn't turn toward the "victim" nor showed any attack indicators.  He just continued to check his grocery items without stopping.  He may have been slightly bigger, but not enough to show a disparity of force where a gun was needed.

The "victim" didn't seem concerned for his life by his actions.  He casually drew his gun without dropping the groceries.  He didn't yell nor quickly move away.  He just went to the checkout station. 

Looked more like an exchange of words and the guy with the gun wanted to show off to the other guy.

I would consider it brandishing and wrong, but that's without knowing what happened in the seconds prior and what was said.

I didn't see any threat from the supposed "bad guy".  He looked like he didn't care.  He didn't turn toward the "victim" nor showed any attack indicators.  He just continued to check his grocery items without stopping.  He may have been slightly bigger, but not enough to show a disparity of force where a gun was needed.

The "victim" didn't seem concerned for his life by his actions.  He casually drew his gun without dropping the groceries.  He didn't yell nor quickly move away.  He just went to the checkout station. 

Looked more like an exchange of words and the guy with the gun wanted to show off to the other guy.

If the "bad guy" hadn't confessed to wanting to body slam the gun guy, I'd be right there with you.  Obviously the gun prevented the escalation as admitted to by both.

I don't think everything that happened prior is important.  Just the part where one guy was angry enough to want to body slam someone.  Sometimes there isn't an overt display of emotion where the person threatened starts yelling.  A person with a gun who believes he can defend himself isn't as likely to ratchet up so quickly unless he sees a weapon (IMO).  Concealed carriers are supposed to keep calm and maintain their composure.  Maybe that's more what was going on -- one party was angry, and the other wasn't as intimidated as the angry person expected?

Who knows?  It would have been nice if they both had body cams and the entire footage was uploaded!   

Madafakaz need training!

Longer video on what happened.  https://www.clickondetroit.com/video/local-news/2023/10/09/surveillance-video-captures-man-holding-firearm-at-kroger-store-in-bloomfield-township/

Nevermind the threatening guy was in the yellow shirt.  I thought it was about the guy in black checking groceries.  Makes more sense now.  A weak case for drawing a gun defensively, but maybe he thought the other guy might draw a weapon.  Better options would be to take cover or backup while getting a firing grip on the gun but keep it concealed, or use pepper spray.  And shows the importance of verbalizing you're the victim and being the first one to call the police.

Longer video on what happened.  https://www.clickondetroit.com/video/local-news/2023/10/09/surveillance-video-captures-man-holding-firearm-at-kroger-store-in-bloomfield-township/

Nevermind the threatening guy was in the yellow shirt.  I thought it was about the guy in black checking groceries.  Makes more sense now.  A weak case for drawing a gun defensively, but maybe he thought the other guy might draw a weapon.  Better options would be to take cover or backup while getting a firing grip on the gun but keep it concealed, or use pepper spray.  And shows the importance of verbalizing you're the victim and being the first one to call the police.

I think the biggest lesson here is the old adage "Don't pull your firearm unless you intend to shoot an attacker."

It's impossible to argue he was in fear for his life or physical safety when he only drew without firing.

It's like letting off a warning shot.  If you're scared, it has to rise to the level of imminent death or severe bodily injury.  if you're justified in shooting, that's when you draw. 

Posturing to deescalate a situation is in reality escalating it.

While the outcome (before the Cops showed up) was positive, introducing a firearm into a situation isn't always going to cause the person to back down.  Now what?

The contradiction here is that presentation of lethal force is a valid phase in the use of force continuum.  But only Cops seem to be allowed that option.  Either you take an ass whooping, or you shoot the jerk.  Neither is a good option.

 

It's good to review vids like these and play the "what would u do" game as u watch it for the first time.  Which is why I watch Active Self Protection's YT. 

Guy with gun could have easily walked away more.  It's better to walk away and be wrong and go home, than to stand your ground and prove you're right and go to jail.  Or in this case, if he did have to use his gun cause the other guy approached even closer to body slam him.

Another thing to notice is how everyone else is minding their own business. No one notices a gun in hand, which can easily be used and innocents hit.  Assume there is loud shouting going on so it's not like there isn't anything to cause an alert.

Longer video on what happened.  https://www.clickondetroit.com/video/local-news/2023/10/09/surveillance-video-captures-man-holding-firearm-at-kroger-store-in-bloomfield-township/

Nevermind the threatening guy was in the yellow shirt.  I thought it was about the guy in black checking groceries.  Makes more sense now.  A weak case for drawing a gun defensively, but maybe he thought the other guy might draw a weapon.  Better options would be to take cover or backup while getting a firing grip on the gun but keep it concealed, or use pepper spray.  And shows the importance of verbalizing you're the victim and being the first one to call the police.

I think that without knowing what was said it would be hard to say it was a crime or a justified presentation. He didn't look scared and the other customers seemed oblivious but who knows, maybe the guy in the high vis shirt whispered a threat? I think it is really going to rely on what the witnesses heard otherwise it seems a he said she said situation.

The guy in the high vis shirt's comment that he would have body slammed the guy is of very little value in my opinion for two reasons.
1. If he didn't make the statement at the time it cannot be retroactively used to justify self defense. You have to judge a person's actions by the information they had at the time.
2. It is pretty standard male bravado to claim how he would have won the fight after it was avoided. I can't count the times I heard someone say "I would have licked that guy"

The way he handled the gun is disconcerting though. Not only did it look like he might have pointed the gun in the direction of other people present but there was also two individuals between him and the guy in the high vis shirt. If he did have to raise his gun and fire he could have shot one of them on accident. It looks like his finger was off the trigger at least.

I think that without knowing what was said it would be hard to say it was a crime or a justified presentation. He didn't look scared and the other customers seemed oblivious but who knows, maybe the guy in the high vis shirt whispered a threat? I think it is really going to rely on what the witnesses heard otherwise it seems a he said she said situation.

The guy in the high vis shirt's comment that he would have body slammed the guy is of very little value in my opinion for two reasons.
1. If he didn't make the statement at the time it cannot be retroactively used to justify self defense. You have to judge a person's actions by the information they had at the time.
2. It is pretty standard male bravado to claim how he would have won the fight after it was avoided. I can't count the times I heard someone say "I would have licked that guy"

The way he handled the gun is disconcerting though. Not only did it look like he might have pointed the gun in the direction of other people present but there was also two individuals between him and the guy in the high vis shirt. If he did have to raise his gun and fire he could have shot one of them on accident. It looks like his finger was off the trigger at least.

Do you get paid by the 'if' ...  EEF?

Do you get paid by the 'if' ...  EEF?

Usually rebuttals contain actual reasoned arguments....

Usually rebuttals contain actual reasoned arguments....

I was unaware a hypothetical required a rebuttal.

No wonder all you do is argue.  Everything is a rebuttal for you.

I was unaware a hypothetical required a rebuttal.

No wonder all you do is argue.  Everything is a rebuttal for you.

Those weren't hypotheticals. You need to work on your critical thinking skills.

You didn't show anything was inaccurate with what I said, you didn't even say you disagreed with my reasoning. All you do is pick out that I used an "if" to point out that he was at risk of shooting bystanders in the event he had to fire at the guy. What is your point of even replying to my post?

I think that without knowing what was said it would be hard to say it was a crime or a justified presentation. He didn't look scared and the other customers seemed oblivious but who knows, maybe the guy in the high vis shirt whispered a threat? I think it is really going to rely on what the witnesses heard otherwise it seems a he said she said situation.

The guy in the high vis shirt's comment that he would have body slammed the guy is of very little value in my opinion for two reasons.
1. If he didn't make the statement at the time it cannot be retroactively used to justify self defense. You have to judge a person's actions by the information they had at the time.
2. It is pretty standard male bravado to claim how he would have won the fight after it was avoided. I can't count the times I heard someone say "I would have licked that guy"

The way he handled the gun is disconcerting though. Not only did it look like he might have pointed the gun in the direction of other people present but there was also two individuals between him and the guy in the high vis shirt. If he did have to raise his gun and fire he could have shot one of them on accident. It looks like his finger was off the trigger at least.

Wow.

Wow.

Yeah.  The second-by-second breakdown from just watching a security camera video is amazing.

i guess if he can spot a photoshopped image that nobody else has, then he's able to glean all of those observations from a single camera angle and no audio.

 

Yeah.  The second-by-second breakdown from just watching a security camera video is amazing.

i guess if he can spot a photoshopped image that nobody else has, then he's able to glean all of those observations from a single camera angle and no audio.

 

Lip read too.