Video of Open Carrier Mandeville Shooting of Shawn Breland

Open carry Breland Shooting 4

On Monday, April 4th, about 11:00 a.m., a firearms instructor who was openly carrying a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol, shot and killed Shawn Breland at a gasoline station and convenience store. Twelve days later, I wrote about the incident and published the article on Gun Watch and The Truth About Guns. There was some disagreement about the incident as described, and people here were of varied opinions. From TTAG . . .

From askandyoumayknow

This is a case of a bystander getting involved in a common argument between an employee and customer. How many of you have gotten mad at an employee somewhere due to the way you were being treated? This man threatened an unarmed man with a firearm, and when he couldn’t handle the man, he shot and killed a husband, father, and honorable veteran. He should have not gotten involved. The police were already on the way. If he wanted to be in law enforcement, then he should have joined the Mandeville police dept. The man was getting in his car to leave when this wanna-be cop came out telling him he was getting his license plate. He is not a trained law enforcement officer and his mishandling of the situation caused a good man having a bad day to lose his life.

JR_in_NC says:

“The shooter followed Breland outside to get the license plate from Breland’s white minivan. Breland got out of the minivan and physically attacked the shooter, Ruple said.” If you are going to make claims that contradict what is published, please provide a source for your information.

I am commenting specifically on the information I have available which is: He (the shooter) went outside to get the plate number and Breland RETURNED to the continue the confrontation.

Did the shooter contribute to the escalation? I don’t know, and I am not commenting on that.

What I am commenting on is the completely idiotic, Statist notion that we all have to be “trained law enforcement officers” to act in any situation.

Dean Weingarten says:
April 20, 2016 at 02:34 (Edit)

There was video of the event. I wonder if it will be released.

The video has been released, so you can look at it and determine which version of events was closer to the video.

One thing was not mentioned in the written description of the events. Shawn Breland had a passenger in the mini-van. It may be the man in a white T-shirt that came into the store after him. That man takes a drink from the counter that Breland pays for. It might have had an impact on Breland’s mind-set. It is clear from the video that Shawn Breland was an exceptionally large man. From nola.com:

A legally-armed citizen who fatally shot an attacker at a Mandeville convenience store in April will not be prosecuted, St. Tammany Parish District Attorney Warren Montgomry said Friday (May 27). Mandeville police investigators concluded Shawn Breland, 42, of Folsom, was the aggressor at the Shell gasoline station and convenience store at 3959 Louisiana 22.

“Although Mr. Breland’s death is a tragedy, this office agrees that the shooting was legally justified under the circumstances and will not pursue criminal changes based on the evidence submitted to date,” Montgomery said in a news release that included surveillance camera video of the incident. (See video above. Warning: graphic content).

Link to Video 

Here is another claim that was made during the TTAG discussion. From askandyoumayknow:

 I personally spoke to a man that was there during the entire situation. The shooter did not walk quietly out to get the license plate. He confronted him stating that he was going to get his license plate, in turn escalating the situation. THE MAN WAS LEAVING. If the shooter would have minded his own damn business, a good man would be alive today. Armed citizens trying to play cop have far too often lately found themselves in situations that end in them shooting and killing UNARMED people.

As you watch the video, much that happened becomes clearer. Pictures convey so much information that multiple replays may be necessary to catch relevant details. Digital recording is making “he said” “she said” controversies less common.

The video greatly increased my understanding of this case of an open carrier defending himself and others.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar Geoff PR says:

    It would have been nice if there was audio, but it was clear the agitated customer pressed the attack…

    1. avatar Mojopin says:

      Recording Audio without someone knowing about it is pretty tricky in alot of states. I work part time as a hospital security guard and we are issued tazers that are capable of both recording audio/video once the saftey switch is turned off. But because of PA wire tap laws of recording audio without consent this particular function of the tazers are turned off for legal reasons.

  2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Dude kept retreating until there was no where left to retreat to.
    Being in a shoving match while holding a gun is not a good idea.

    1. avatar echo5bravo says:

      Shoving a guy around whose holding a gun didn’t seem to work out too well either.

      1. avatar cloud_1911 says:

        Yeah the instructor gave that guy every chance in the world to quit messing with him. He actually showed too much restraint from a tactical standpoint. Getting cornered and almost pushed down is almost point-of-return in a fight.

        Also, any “he should have” argument is a non-starter, and irrelevant from a logical point of view. Someone acting within the law cannot “cause” unlawful behavior, nor be held as an aggravating factor.

        We know that human nature resents someone looking at license plates when you’re trying to make a getaway after misbehaving, but it is legally no different than lookin at someone’s face to remember features. I have no obligation to avert my eyes so you can make a clean getaway–and the reaction that it evokes in you is completely your choice 100%

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We know that human nature resents someone looking at license plates when you’re trying to make a getaway after misbehaving, but it is legally no different than lookin at someone’s face to remember features. ”

          If I understand correctly, had you been similarly situated, and the dead guy came boiling out of his car demanding, “What the hell do you think you are doing?”, you would politely inform the aggressor your are perfectly within your legal rights to look at his license plate, then expect to saunter away nonchalantly, and the now properly informed and chastised aggressor would recognize your grasp of the law, get back in his car and drive away.

        2. avatar Paladin says:

          @ Sam I Am

          You’re missing the point. Yeah, recording the license plates is probably what made the man decide to attack the shooter, but that does not make the shooter responsible for the attack. If a man beats his wife because she burnt the dinner, does that make it her fault? Of course not.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          When you follow an aggressive and abusive person out of a doorway, you are keeping alive a confrontation that may have simply ended (no, we cannot project that the deceased may have just come back and done more harm – projection, remember? like projecting that people with guns just might snap and kill).

          Faced with a person who is beyond question in a hostile and angry mood, it is not really prudent to take actions that can easily be construed by the aggressive person as continuing to challenge his/her sense of self.

          As I noted, if the family contacted me, I would launch a multi-million dollar law suit based on the fact that the deceased “retreated”, or disengaged, and was then followed by a person armed with a gun. That action constituted aggressive behavior on the part of the shooter, who was then the initiator of the following confrontation by an unarmed person. Barring evidence that the deceased subsequently threatened the shooter by explicit declaration to do great harm, I would argue that the shooter used disproportional force against someone who was merely angry and shouting. Walking toward another person while shouting cuss words is not a threat justifying use of a fire arm, even if the shooter cornered himself in the back of the store. My argument would include the fact (on video) the deceased possessed no weapon and did not appear to raise his arms/hands in an attempt to feloniously beat batter the shooter. Merely touching another person without permission may be considered simple assault in some jurisdictions, but such action is never justifies response with a deadly weapon.

          This episode may not be over.

    2. avatar wyantry says:

      I was surprised at the number of times the Attacker grabbed at the gun-holder before anything happened!
      Another case of: “When your life is being counted in seconds…the police are only minutes away”

  3. avatar Alex waits says:

    Good shoot. Let us all learn from this incident.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Good shoot. Let us all learn from this incident.”

      Perhaps we learn that .40 isn’t the master-blaster round so many think it is?

      Not certain one way or the other that this is a good or bad shoot; not commenting. Why on earth would someone pursue/follow an agitated person out of the store? No way to anticipate what would happen next. The shooter saw the store clerk call for police. The store clerk was not being endangered by an angry person, or is yelling and screaming “imminent danger”? Any time you decide to boldly go look at someone’s license, and even tell them what you are doing (deduced from the video), it is silly to think they will just shrug their shoulders and move on. Did the shooter aggravate a disengagement? Don’t know. Cops say good shoot. Can’t argue, but overall this video underscores, “the most successful gunfight is one you are not there for.”

      1. avatar David P. says:

        Are you serious? No really, are you serious? The fact that he went out and looked at someone’s license plate is grounds for Breland to become physically aggressive? It would be different if the shooter shot Breland so he would move out of the way so he could get his plates. If a cop pulls me over and runs my plates should I be allowed to cold cock him? Talk about a victim mentality “stick you head in the sand Sam so nothing bad happens to you, rest of the world be damned.”

        1. avatar california richard says:

          +1…. Getting a license plate number is grounds for an ass kicking in your world? Holy crap, i hope you’re a sock puppet and not a POTG. If you’re really that violently sensitive about something as harmless as writing down a suspicious person’s license plate, then you should rethink that whole gun ownership thing.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “+1…. Getting a license plate number is grounds for an ass kicking in your world? ”

          And in your world, once you tangle with someone like the dead guy in the video.

          What you think is legal, right, justified, smart makes no difference. The aggressor determines what is grounds for kicking your ass; not you. We are not talking about legality in a violent confrontation, we are talking street rules.

        3. avatar Rabbit Ears says:

          I would have been long gone, open carried pistol and all. Why would you hang out in a convenience store with an obviously trouble making customer? I’ll let the “heros” stick around for what happened next.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          +1

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Are you serious? No really, are you serious? The fact that he went out and looked at someone’s license plate is grounds for Breland to become physically aggressive?”

          Your note seems to be a case of an offended person looking for something to be offended about. Please re-read my comment. I stated that following an out-of-control, angry person should not be undertaken with the mindset that your action cannot and will not trigger an even more aggressive response. That was it. Whether following someone out the door and declaring you intend to capture their license plate for police reporting is a challenge in your mind, or our minds, the only thing that matters is what is in the mind of the agitated, angry person. Who knows what that mind might order? There were so many alternate ways to capture the plate number, why risk getting your clock cleaned?

          Just making note that being a good person does not make your every move correct, prudent or advisable in every instance.

          No, I am not advocating for the customer, the victim or in anyway mitigating the outrageous behavior of the customer. Personally, if “you” threaten and pursue (note the order of events) a person obviously possessing a gun, you deserve whatever you get. Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

        6. avatar Pond Hipster says:

          I have a “Get Involved With Non-Homicidal A$$holes in Convenience Stores” card. It just stays at home the days I carry my “Concealed Weapons Permit” card.

          Convenience stores are magnets for wackos. Convenience store clerks can provide their own security. I’ll provide mine.

      2. avatar Marc says:

        He “boldly looked at a man’s license plate.” Hahaha. Oh the gall of some people.

        1. avatar Rabbit Avenue says:

          Dude took his first step towards possibly being the next George Zimmerman the minute he didn’t walk out when psycho dude started harassing the clerk.

          Good shoot but way too many opportunities to walk first. No thanks.

      3. avatar Ozzallos says:

        “And in your world, once you tangle with someone like the dead guy in the video. What you think is legal, right, justified, smart makes no difference. The aggressor determines what is grounds for kicking your ass; not you. We are not talking about legality in a violent confrontation, we are talking street rules.”

        While you’re right, you’re wrong. Unwarranted aggression on behalf of an aggressor does not mean you simply roll over and let them do as they will, especially if your actions are reasonable and lawful. It means you take precautions for your actions… Like carrying a firearm. This particular incident once again demonstrates the armed/polite society adage.

        Street rules cut both ways. Just like the shooter didn’t have to go out and get the license plate, the aggressor didn’t have to go back inside to continue the encounter.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “While you’re right, you’re wrong. Unwarranted aggression on behalf of an aggressor does not mean you simply roll over…”

          Avoiding conflict, especially when you know the situation is not normal, is not the same as rolling over. Equating prudence with spinelessness is the same sort of “moral equivalence” we don’t respect from leftists.

          There were alternatives to allowing actions to appear to be counter-aggressive/challenging. Which is not equivalent to saying the end result was a bad shoot. I’ll let the courts settle that one (civil suit is not ruled out).

  4. avatar BillC says:

    I can’t believe how he actually waited so long to shoot. So much for a blood-thirsty gun carrier narrative.

    1. avatar PeterK says:

      It was a really rough spot. No good direction for bullets to fly with that many people around.

    2. avatar wyantry says:

      I agree! MANY times the shooter was grabbed and essentially mauled. Another case of: “When your life is being counted in seconds…the Police are only minutes away”.

  5. avatar Flynn says:

    The guy may have “BEEN LEAVING” but he had “left” and returned several times, becoming more violent and threatening each time. The shooter appeared to actually be attempting to excuse himself for the most part, even giving the guy space at the counter to air his grievance. Wanting to get his license plate number in case the assailant returned, yet again, and things escalated was a logical decision. Good shoot IMHO.

  6. avatar MarkF says:

    Saw this video earlier today. My reactions were:

    Dead guy escalated the battle and refused to let it go. Each time he came back into the store he visibly amped up the situation (audio would have been nice, though)

    Dead guy never once believed he was crossing some line into dangerous territory – no thinking at all – he was wrong at this also

    Shooter *may* have stepped into the situation by telling the guy he should leave, but the shooter had every right to say that as the dead guy was shutting down business and the shooter had product to buy and places to do

    Shooter *may* have escalated things by going out to get the license plate, but on this one it depends upon what words were being exchanged; if there were direct verbal threats against the clerk or the store, I’d have done the same to enable the store to press charges to protect themselves (hell, I have done that before)

    Shooter really didn’t want to shoot the guy; never brandished the weapon, never pulled it until he was literally backed into a corner – personally, I think he waited too long and he was at unquestionable risk once he had no placed to move to (when he backed into the short aisle)

    Jesus, but all of this happened at bad breath distance – deeply scary stuff – bigger, agitated guy close enough to grab and push and keep grabbing, for at least 10-20 seconds that went on… damn.

    End of the day, call it evolution in action

    1. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

      More like Natural Selection.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolution.

    2. He got what he asked for. Dude was fucked up before he even went to the store. First thing I noticed was his inability to park between the lines clearly painted in the parking lot. I don’t care what gun guy said to drunk(?) guy. The fact that gun guy was open carrying was plenty of warning “don’t fuck with me”. He fucked with him and fought with him and got what he had to know he would get. Two to center mass. No remorse for dumb ass from me.

      1. avatar Chrispy says:

        Funny too how the dead man was at many times within inches of the open carrier’s holster and firearm and didn’t realize the guy had a gun until after he had been shot.

  7. avatar Harry says:

    One of the problems with open carry is that any confrontation that becomes physical is now a retention struggle, and a person who might need a punch or two under normal conditions now needs to be shot.

    Also, one of the problems with unnecessarily challenging a person who is looking for a confrontation is that you ensure a confrontation.

    The shoot was justified. It was also easily avoidable by a person with sound judgement. The shooter was in the right, and is also a damn fool.

    1. avatar echo5bravo says:

      No. He sure should have gone out to get the license plate number. Too often too many people don’t get involved at all. Just leave him alone seems to be the mentality of most people. I would bet as sure as the sun goes down tonight, this isn’t the first time the guy had gone off on someone. Every time he did it and nothing happened it reinforced in his mind his “right” to act that way. Maybe if someone had reported him the first time he would’t have extra holes in him.

      1. avatar Harry says:

        Funny thing about license plates; they’re designed to be read from a good ways off. Like from inside a store. Also, every convenience store on earth has video surveillance, which will usually identify plates of cars coming through the pump islands (in case of drive-offs), and will absolutely provide a clear picture of anyone at the counter. There were quite a few eyewitnesses to the whole thing to provide testimony and descriptions to the police. Finally, if it had been actually necessary for the shooter to get involved, he could have hung back away from the bad guy’s vehicle and waited until he pulled out to get the plate number rather than walking up on the crazy dude’s vehicle.

        Nope, it wasn’t a question of no one getting involved. This ain’t Kitty Genovese. The shooter stuck himself into a situation when there was no need, nor any benefit to anyone. Without the shooter, the headline would be “Obnoxious Douche yells at Clerk,” not “Armed Citizen Brings a World of Hurt Down On Himself, Shoots Obnoxious Douche.”

        Bad guy acted bad, had it coming. Good guy acted stupid, made it waaaay worse.

        1. avatar Wilson says:

          There’s no way you can know that the shooter “made it way worse”. It’s entirely possible that the deceased was intent on getting in his car, going home, grabbing a gun or other weapon and coming back to off an innocent store clerk.

          He left and returned repeatedly, each time visibly more agitated. If that continues long enough one of those times he’s going to come back really hell bent on causing trouble. There’s no way to know that this time he left he wasn’t going to his car specifically to retrieve some sort of weapon. Based specifically on his actions in this incident you can’t just assume he’s going to leave peaceably and not return until he’s calmed down. You also can’t assume he’s just going to cool off when he could be going to leave and go hurt or kill someone somewhere else in another incident because he’s already so agitated.

          Walking out into a parking lot to observe a publicly displayed tag on a car is not illegal, nor in this case is it necessarily unwise. Trying to get in a fist fight with a guy who has a gun however, is extremely unwise. Maybe this idiot got to think on that before he shuffled off this mortal coil.

        2. avatar Pond Rabbit says:

          Agreed Harry. I would have been halfway home by the time the agitated guy left the store. The clerks life wasn’t even remotely in danger. Good guy with gun brought down a lot of hassle on himself by not minding his own business.

          Thank God this wasn’t in California.

        3. avatar Anonymous says:

          Funny thing about license plates; they’re designed to be read from a good ways off. Like from inside a store.

          The open carrier wanted the license plate. Completely within his legal bounds. He walked out seeking to obtain it and it was obvious that the psychopath knew he didn’t seek a fight, but to obtain his license plate as he jumped in front of the license plate. License plate in the front wasn’t readily visible, so he went to the back. Staying the store doesn’t guarantee he’ll get a good look at it. So no. Regardless of their design or your perception of their design, the open carrier wanted it – and went out to get it.

          Also, every convenience store on earth has video surveillance…

          Exaggeration. No basis in fact.

          There were quite a few eyewitnesses to the whole thing to provide testimony and descriptions to the police.

          Yep. Descriptions like “big guy.” “Darker complexion.” “Angry person.” and “Wearing T-shirt.”
          License plate is going to be a lot better than those eyewitness descriptions.

          Finally, if it had been actually necessary for the shooter to get involved, he could have hung back away from the bad guy’s vehicle and waited until he pulled out to get the plate number rather than walking up on the crazy dude’s vehicle.

          Treat people like shit and they will treat you the same. The open carrier got involved because he wanted to, because he saw a guy treat someone like shit. Completely his prerogative and his decision.

          The shooter stuck himself into a situation when there was no need, nor any benefit to anyone.

          Are you one of those guys that records shit with his cell phone while someone gets assaulted?

          Without the shooter, the headline would be “Obnoxious Douche yells at Clerk,” not “Armed Citizen Brings a World of Hurt Down On Himself, Shoots Obnoxious Douche.”

          Complete speculation. The headline could have said: “Obnoxious Douche beats clerk to death while open carrier records scene with cell phone.” Please don’t try to predict alternative realities.

          Bad guy acted bad, had it coming. Good guy acted stupid, made it waaaay worse.

          What are you talking about? The psycho wanted to die. The shooter just gave him what he wanted.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        Getting the plate was largely useless. This wasn’t a robber, it was an angry guy who wouldn’t have even been arrested.

        1. Taking down a plate number is no reason to get assaulted. If the guy had nothing to fear from the police, why did he try to cover the view of his plate? I’d like to see toxicology reports.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Harry,

      I did not see where the armed defender challenged Mr. Belligerent. The only thing the armed defend did “wrong” was try to note Mr. Belligerent’s license plate number. That does not constitute “challenging a person” in my opinion.

      1. avatar Harry says:

        Really? After seeing how that guy was acting, you don’t think walking up to his car in the parking lot would be taken as a challenge? I wouldn’t, you wouldn’t, take it as such, but clearly this guy is a nut looking for trouble. It’s not hard to foresee that the bad guy might not take kindly to that.

        And the shooter ISNT HELPING. bad guy is on his way out, you can read a plate from 50 yards away, there are cameras everywhere, and so far, all the BG has done is be a loud asshole. What is the benefit, to the shooter or to anyone else, for him to go out there and put himself back into the crazy guy’s rage space?

        Anyway, I’m not so much saying the shooter was “wrong” as he was just stupid and egotistical.

        1. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

          So you were able to read the license plate when the van pulled in, right? I sure wasn’t.

          Carrying a gun doesn’t mean you are suddenly forced to be on the sidelines in all social interactions – that’s some cowardly, apologist bullsh*t.

          Shooter did the right thing. See something, say something. He witnessed an assault that where the offender continued to COME BACK into the store AFTER HE LOOKED LIKE HE WAS LEAVING multiple times, escalating his aggression each time.

        2. avatar Katy says:

          Getting a plate number is like getting a cop’s badge number. You make a point of telling him you are taking note – it is a non-violent way of saying that the person is being unreasonable and you will seek to have law enforcement address the matter.

          Either the guy leaves and you never call the cops (problem solved), the guy leaves and you call the cops (they will look at you and shrug if nobody got hurt, problem solved), the guy stays and you don’t call the cops (he called you out, can be challenging), the guy stays and you call the cops (cops show up and under authority tell him to leave, problem solved).

          So getting a plate and making that act known solves 3 out of 4 options in de-escalating a problematic situation. Not a bad idea.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So getting a plate and making that act known solves 3 out of 4 options in de-escalating a problematic situation. Not a bad idea.”

          Nine times out of ten, an aggressor in a blind rage will take great offense at your attempt to directly or indirectly interfere with his “right” to act the way he is acting, and take you on.

          Law and “right” are meaningless in situations such as captured on the video.

        4. avatar David P. says:

          Harry, do us all a favor and watch the whole video before passing judgment. You argument of him being on “his way out” is not valid. He was on “his way out” several times before the time you assume that he is leaving. Each time he reenters and becomes more violent. What makes you so sure this was the time he left? If he left then what makes you so sure he wasn’t coming back to cause a bigger scene? If this guy did not get the plate and the BG came back and shot the clerk and anyone else in the store, would you be on here saying “good thing no body got his plate, that could have made him really mad”? He was getting the plate, that was it. That is not against the law. I have called the police several times and every time they ask did you get the plate.

          It’s not about being a hero it is about being a witness. I know a girl who used to be beat by her boyfriend on a regular basis. He is in jail now and she has moved on with her life because an old Vietnam vet seen it happen once and called the police and refused to leave her side until the police arrived. Thank god that guy was not you Harry.

        5. avatar Anonymous says:

          Really? After seeing how that guy was acting, you don’t think walking up to his car in the parking lot would be taken as a challenge?

          Nope. It is really obvious from the video that he was trying to get his license plate number. Even the psycho jumped in front of the plate to block the view.

          And the shooter ISNT HELPING.

          Shooter helped a lot. I don’t know what you are talking about.

          …you can read a plate from 50 yards away, there are cameras everywhere, and so far, all the BG has done is be a loud asshole.

          Thus far. How knows what he would have done. He came back to dump chips all over the clerk. What was next? Who knows. Also, who can read a plate at 50 yards is completely subjective. Cameras everywhere? Only the clerk knew that.

          What is the benefit, to the shooter or to anyone else, for him to go out there and put himself back into the crazy guy’s rage space?

          It provides positive proof to Mr. psycho that an eye witness has his license plate should Mr. psycho come back into the store to assault the clerk. Too bad Mr. psycho (unlike a non psycho person) didn’t get that.

        6. avatar Deeply Sceptical says:

          I do security cameras for a living, if it was an analog camera, and most of them still are, it doesn’t have the acuity that you think it does. now the new Ip, megapixel cameras will give you better resolution. but i gotta tell you if seeing plates are what you are after there are special cameras for that application.like the cameras you see at toll booths, those are special license plate reading cameras.

    3. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

      Anytime you carry and get into a physical altercation, it becomes a struggle for retention.

    4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      One of the problems with never standing up to a bully is that you’re forever bullied and they forever brutalize others.

      Going out to get thr plate number to provide it to the police is fine. If Mr. Big Now-Deceased Bully were really that tough, he’d man up and deal with the cops and the fallout. Instead, he doubled down on the bullying, repeatedly, and finally pushed too far.

      Too bad, so sad. He won’t be missed, and perhaps some other bully learns the lesson about attacking innocent people.

    5. avatar RocketScientist says:

      “a person who might need a punch or two under normal conditions now needs to be shot.”

      This is one of the most asinine statements I’ve ever heard. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been in a situation in which someone “needed a punch or two”, much less would I consider that “normal conditions”. You might need to re-evaluate your anger-management or conflict-resolution skills if you are routinely finding yourself in situations you consider “normal conditions” where someone you are with “needs a punch or two”. For ME, the only time violence is ever on the table is when it is a last resort to prevent serious bodily injury to myself or someone else and not always even then.

      1. avatar Chrispy says:

        Thank you.

      2. avatar Dan says:

        I’m afraid you don’t understand the original intent of the author.

        “a person who might need a punch or two under normal conditions now needs to be shot.”

        This means that WHILE OPENLY CARRYING A WEAPON, if someone else starts a physical fight with you with their firsts, you now cannot ignore the fact that you are carrying a weapon and use only your fists to deal “a punch or two.”

        As other commenters said, the fight is now a “struggle for retention” of the firearm. i.e. if you lose the fist fights because you’re trying to play fair, you could die from losing control of your weapon to your attacker.
        So the shooter, in this case, decided not to risk his life by playing a fair fist fight. And he was justified, because he was not the aggressor.

    6. avatar Anonymous says:

      One of the problems with open carry is that any confrontation that becomes physical is now a retention struggle, and a person who might need a punch or two under normal conditions now needs to be shot.

      Uh no. I don’t assault people with punches Harry. They keep their hands off me and they get to live through the encounter. And that is the way it should be.

      Also, one of the problems with unnecessarily challenging a person who is looking for a confrontation is that you ensure a confrontation.

      Uh no. There is no definitive proof that obtaining his license plate is going to result in assault. It is legal for me to write down anyone’s license plate. It is legal for me to look at people’s license plates. I don’t like license plates, but that’s another topic. The point to take away here, is the open carrier performed no illegal actions and the guy melting down in the convenient store assaulting people was.

      The shoot was justified. It was also easily avoidable by a person with sound judgement. The shooter was in the right, and is also a damn fool.

      Damn right it was justified. The shooter told him to leave the store. I’m sure at that point he was no longer a customer, but a trespasser, who had been asked to leave by the clerk. He wanted to act like a psychopath and paid the price. It’s important to note the shooter showed amazing restraint. Amazing restraint and clearly didn’t want to shoot him and put up with a lot of crap before taking his life in the last few moments of the video. To me, it’s obvious he wanted to die. He pushed the shooter to the limit, and then he was given what he wanted.

  8. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    The dip-s**t backed an armed man into a corner and continued to threaten and assault him even after the man drew his weapon and warned him away. Good thing the store had high quality video cameras. When your life is being threatened the police or just minutes away.

  9. avatar Owen says:

    The deceased found out the hard way that being a bully in the adult playground can have dire consequences. My sympathy goes out to the survivors.

    1. avatar BillC says:

      The last two seconds of the video where he is on the ground and finally realizes he’s been shot and probably going to die; golden. I wonder if he had time to reflect that he “done f’cked up”?

  10. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    perhaps could have been avoided, but i see nothing done by the shooter where i can say “Oh this was obviously a poor decision, he should face charges!”

    good shoot IMO.

  11. avatar Jolly Roger Out says:

    Really? A “good man”? All I saw was a jackass who realized he might be taken to task for being such and attacked someone who was openly carrying. If that’s askandyoumayknow’s idea of a “good man”, then I’d hate to meet the person he calls “bad”.

    1. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

      dindu nuffin:
      1) Blame the victim.
      2) Blatantly lie about the agressor.
      3) Blame the victim.
      4) Repeat until the professional protesters get on board.

      1. There’ll be no protest here. The recipe is missing a key ingredient.

  12. avatar Phil says:

    Just an opinion: Everyone who ends up on the wrong side of the gun is retroactively remembered as a “great guy” and/or a “family man”.

    Breland may have been both of those things to some, but by watching the body language in that video, I see a guy that I’ve seen hundreds of times in my life: A “big guy” with a temper, who felt he could push others around with impunity.

    No audio, but it looks like he starts antagonizing the cashier who very clearly looks like he was just doing his job. After a few short seconds Breland starts making “hurry up, hurry up” motions – clearly, the world that day was supposed to revolve around Breland, and anyone who didn’t comply was going to get his ire.

    It went from “guy having a bad day” to “guy clearly has issues” when Breland wouldn’t drop it and kept coming back for more. Another hallmark of the “big guy” who likes to push others around.

    The OC’er remained calm even when Breland pushed him aside, until Breland tried to enlist him as a stranger in his attack against the cashier, like jerks will often do. Then the “big man” starts physically poking the guy. Nope.

    Then you have Breland physically dumping what looks like a bag of chips on the cashier when he comes back for what, his 4th go at the guy? This is not a guy having a bad day. This is an a-hole in action, veteran and father or not.

    When the OC’er goes to get the license plate and Breland freaks out once again, the OC’er backs off. Then Breland gets into a straight out physical altercation that HE initiated with the guy who was minding his own business that HE tried to enlist in his petty fight. Breland is then seen shoving, pulling, dragging, and swatting at the guy for a full TWENTY FIVE SECONDS non stop – backing him into a literal corner – before the OC’er even draws.

    Sad and unfortunate? Yes. But an overzealous gun owner itching to shoot? Please.

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    He had to shoot or that big gorilla might have bashed that little kid’s brains in!

    Oh, wait. That was Harambe.

    Never mind.

  14. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The video seems to make it clear that the armed defender was not “looking for a fight” or escalating anything. Rather, the belligerent man would not let things rest.

    Was the armed defender justified to use force to defend himself? Yes. Was he justified to use deadly force? I am having a hard time seeing how a belligerent man shoving/grabbing someone rises to the level of a reasonable threat of imminent grievous bodily harm. Either way, it is easy to play Monday morning quarterback. When you are actually in the thick of things, it is an entirely different matter.

    Personally, I would have kicked the belligerent man. That not only provides a significant pain penalty to the aggressor, it also creates distance when he recoils backwards. What the belligerent man would have done after that and what I would do after that is anyone’s guess.

    At any rate, the moral of the story is this: if you want to minimize the probability that someone will punch, kick, bludgeon, stab, or shoot you, don’t be a belligerent a$$hole to people.

    1. avatar jk says:

      Once Breland started reaching towards the OCer’s gun, the threat of severe bodily harm was very real.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        good point

    2. avatar Wilson says:

      I would argue that the unknowns in the situation heighten the threat.

      This isn’t a CCW situation so the aggressor knows, or should know, that this guy has a gun. He decides to physically attack him anyway. That could be a play to try to get the gun or it could be a play to close distance and use a knife, which would be my first thought. It could also be the result of using narcotics or steroids.

      Compared to your average person I’m very well trained in hand to hand combat but I’m not getting involved in it if I can possibly avoid it. The risks to me are simply too great given the unknowns in a situation like this. All that training means nothing when you’ve been stabbed a few times or you trip over something you didn’t see and hit your head. Plus you’re highly unlikely to win against a larger opponent who is hopped on on drugs that dull his sense of pain, remove his sense of fear and greatly increase his strength and aggression. In this day and age, if you’re going around looking for a fist fight I’m going to assume you’re high on meth and therefore very dangerous.

    3. avatar JoshFormerlyinGA says:

      If you’re the same size or larger than me, and repeatedly physically assault me, even after I attempt to back off, I’m going to assume that you mean to cause physical harm to me. This was a justified use of force in my opinion.

  15. avatar Stuart K says:

    It really upsets me to see all the comments (yes I know, never read the comments!) on that video. There are plenty of people who think going after the guy’s plate resulted in an unnecessary loss of life. I’m betting that guy showed a lot more restraint than a lot of us would. There were a few times i was afraid he actually got his hands on the weapon. Why doesn’t anyone care about rule of law? Why do people think only cops are responsible for maintaining order? If everyone stood up and tried to make a difference instead of having the ‘not my job’ attitude this place would be a whole lot nicer.

    Thanks to that dude for standing up for the clerk and for the rest of us.

  16. avatar David P. says:

    Looks like a legal shoot to me. The shooter gave Breland every chance to leave the situation unharmed. This is what happens when people want to make snap judgements without all the evidence in front of them.

    To the guy that feels the shooter was in the wrong because he announced that he was getting the license plate number and then did so- grow a pair. It’s because of people like you, who sticks their head in the sand everytime something bad goes down and then tells the responding officers that you didn’t see anything, you are what is wrong with America. Getting a plate number is not against the law in any state, shoving a guy is getting a plate number is against the law. If you are stupid enough to keep shoving a guy, who was trying to get your plate number, who also has a gun pulled then Darwin’s theory is alive and well.

  17. avatar Jerrick says:

    Based on the video only, I would say good shoot and an appropriate use of force. The individual exercised great restraint throughout. IMO, he gave the deceased every opportunity to stop and leave. The individual never made a visible act of aggression (of course, audio might change that) and appeared to have retreated until there was no where left to retreat. Once backed in to the corner with no ability to escape I believe he had no other options.

    That said, there are a couple of takeaways here:

    1. The shot appears to have occurred when the storekeeper was directly behind the deceased. The storekeeper should have had more sense to stay clear of the altercation.

    2. Point shooting should be practiced.

    3. The deceased continued to act aggressively and approach the individual after being shot to the extent the individual had to repeatedly push him away. This is a good reminder that being shot by a pistol does not always result in an immediate stop. IMO, the individual would have been justified in continuing shooting until the threat stopped.

    4. Overall, the Wednesday afternoon quarterback in me says the individual should have got the plate number while the vehicle is driving away, if at all.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Jerrick,

      “The deceased continued to act aggressively and approach the individual after being shot …”

      I could not tell exactly when the armed defender pulled the trigger. At what time in the video do you believe the armed defender pulled the trigger?

      1. avatar BillC says:

        I couldn’t tell, despite watching the end numerous times. I believe I read he was shot twice, but it’s pretty much impossible to tell.

        1. avatar the ruester says:

          It’s at 5:55. The clerk reacts.

      2. avatar Jerrick says:

        On the video at 5:55 minute mark you can see the armed individual press out and then the deceased double over. After that point the deceased continues to act aggressively and approach the armed individual.

        From the video alone it appears only one shot was fired, but it certainly could have been multiple shots.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “1. The shot appears to have occurred when the storekeeper was directly behind the deceased. The storekeeper should have had more sense to stay clear of the altercation.”

      Look where the final altercation took place – those shelves appear to be stocked with alcohol, and hootch ain’t cheap, that’s *many* thousands of dollars of fragile merchandise sitting there.

      The clerk was probably concerned it was gonna get smashed…

  18. avatar Wilson says:

    Clearly the OCer was not the aggressor in this situation and did nothing illegal or even questionable. He was attacked, backed into a corner and defended himself. He didn’t even shoot the guy right away after drawing.

    In short, the attacker had multiple opportunities to break off his attack and walk away. He chose to press his attack even multiple warnings and after being shot once. His anger and stupidity cost him his life.

    I have no idea if the guy was a veteran as askandyoumayknow claims but I would say that since his other claims are now pretty well debunked all his claims about this incident come into question. Further, even if the guy is a veteran that doesn’t really mean anything. Having been in the service doesn’t make bestow any magical powers or make one immune to terpitude or stupidity.

  19. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    The Marine Corps teaches, “don’t second guess the man in the field”. If you are not there you don’t know what happened.

    The video provides evidence to support a “justified shooting” but there is no audio to back that up.

    Could it have been handled different/better? Maybe, but maybe not.

    I know a guy like that; very large, aggressive, quick temper, quick to attack. If he backed me into a corner the way Breland did I would shoot too.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “don’t second guess the man in the field”

      Then how do Marines learn stuff? Are they never presented scenarios, then required to analyze and evaluate? I don’t see reviewing and commenting as second-guesing.

  20. avatar OngoingFreedom says:

    Looks like a good, and unavoidable, shoot.

    1. avatar Harry says:

      It was certainly unavoidable at the moment the trigger was pulled. Shooter was backed into a corner, had to retain his weapon, and facing a disparity of force. I used to be a prosecutor, and based on that video I would not recommend charges against the shooter.

      As a gun person and armed citizen, I think it was very easily avoidable before that final confrontation. A prudent person, especially one with an open-carried pistol to protect, might have stayed away from the crazy guy rather than standing next to him at the counter and engaging him; go to the back of the store, or outside, and call the cops. Or he could simply have not gone walking up to van like he did. Shooter was within his rights in everything he did, but you can be within your rights and still be a dipshit. Crazy guy caused the incident, but shooter helped it escalate from a yelling to a shooting. Being armed demands prudent judgement from each of us. I wouldn’t want the shooter prosecuted, but I also wouldn’t want him walking around my neighborhood armed.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I used to be a prosecutor

        Well, that explains everything.

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Harry.

        He went and obtained his license plate number. What can he do with this you ask?

        It provides positive proof to the rational man that an eyewitness has your license plate number. That means if you go in the store and assault someone (like the clerk who you threw chips at), eyewitnesses can give that license plate number to the police. The rational man would understand that it is time to pack up and go. This guy happened to not be a rational man.

      3. avatar Anonymous says:

        Being armed demands prudent judgement from each of us.

        Judgement like hide and call the police? No thanks. He took the decision to side with the clerk. The clerk i’m sure asked him to leave. In the other article, the shooter himself asked him to leave. He got his license plate number and if the guy performed any illegal activities – an eyewitness (the shooter) has that number – only more the reason for that guy to leave. But he would not leave. You make a moral judgement when you put yourself next to or in front of someone else to assist them. I see that he did nothing wrong at all.

        I wouldn’t want the shooter prosecuted, but I also wouldn’t want him walking around my neighborhood armed.

        I wouldn’t mind him walking around my neighborhood. None of us are going to shout at him, assault him, try to take his gun for a minute or so while backing him into a corner until finally getting shot by him.

  21. avatar c4v3man says:

    It looked like the shooter had no interest in getting involved until after the attacker started throwing objects at the manager. The attacker left and returned repeatedly, and the shooter seemed to basically ignore him, in the beginning even moving to the side with his purchase so the attacker could continue to harass the manager.

    Shame he had to shoot the attacker, but if you’re willing to attack a visibly armed man, you’re clearly unstable and can’t reasonably be expected to solely settle the matter with a few punches. Such a crazed attacker may very well keep beating you until you suffer potentially fatal wounds, or sieze control of your weapon and kill you with it. Definitely did not look like the shooter was actively looking to be a hero or trying to play cop, or else he’d inject himself sooner into the situation.

    The real problem is why didn’t anyone else call the police or do anything to help? It looks like the manager pulled a flip phone at one point, but didn’t seem to actually call the police?

  22. avatar TheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    Video started slow but my adrenaline and heart were pumping by the end. I’ve been in situations like that (sans firearms) that have escalated like on par with that video and it sucks to be pulled into a fight or flight situation.

    The shooter showed great restraint and am sure he wished none of that EVER happened, but who wouldn’t be fearing for their life with a huge dude ripping at their shirt trying to grab your gun?

  23. avatar Joe R. says:

    Just sad, all the way around. I think it’s merely another lesson in who decides how we all get along. It isn’t always you, so you demand a better and more immediate accounting and conservative disposition from your fellow man.

    If a cop had happened upon the scene at an interim moment, we might have more shot and a completely different story.

  24. avatar Sian says:

    The pearl-clutchers are going to claim that he escalated the situation merely by being present and armed, and if he hadn’t been there, the store clerk and customer would have resolved their differences peacefully.

  25. avatar RealityCheck says:

    I think the shooter showed remarkable restraint. He was clearly deferential and attempted to avoid confrontation. And once it turned personal, he retreated and avoided as much as anyone could possibly be expected.

    But on the other hand, the big guy was likely leaving. He had gotten in his car. If the shooter hadn’t shown up in the parking lot, the odds of the situation escalating were probably not that high. So did the shooter escalate the situation? Perhaps. But even if he did, he should still bear no legal responsibility. The big guy’s response was so outrageous and over the top that the shooter remains fully legally justified.

    Second-guessing and armchair quarterbacking is just that. We weren’t there, we can’t know. It’s possible that the shooter felt that the big guy was such a danger to society that he felt it was his moral and civic obligation to give the cops the best possible chance of intervening and discussing the situation with the guy. Did his checking the plate escalate the situation? Yes — definitely, since the big guy didn’t seem to have any problem at all with the shooter prior to that moment. Was it illegal, or improper, for him to check the plate? No, of course not. Was it unwise? Well, that’s the eternal question that we can’t know the answer to. Just like Zimmerman — if he’d never gotten out of the car to follow Trayvon, would any of the events played out the way they did? Probably not. But would Trayvon just have ended up dead from some other altercation, six months later? On the path he was on, possibly. Would the big guy here have taken his wrath out on someone else (his wife or kids perhaps?) Possibly. We don’t and can’t know.

    All we can know for sure is that based on that video, the shooter was absolutely in immediate imminent danger of grievous bodily harm from a larger, agitated attacker who had backed him into a corner and, according to the police, had made several attempts to grab the gun. I cannot fault in any way the shooter’s actions once the big guy turned on him. From that second onward, this is a textbook case of someone having to defend themselves with a firearm.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Second-guessing and armchair quarterbacking is just that. We weren’t there, we can’t know. ”

      If analyzing and evaluating is prohibited, why post the video at all? Indeed, why are there any discussions here of best practices, and irresponsible gun owner of the day?

      1. avatar RealityCheck says:

        To observe, to learn from. But it is absurd to declare empirically that one actor or the other was “right” or “wrong” without having been there and experiencing the totality of the situation.

        We cannot KNOW what was definitely wrong. Or definitely right. But we can watch this play out, we can see what worked and what didn’t, we can certainly see that the defender made ample attempts to distance himself or retreat, etc.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But it is absurd to declare empirically that one actor or the other was “right” or “wrong” without having been there and experiencing the totality of the situation.”

          In practice, isn’t it rather difficult to separate quarter-backing from analysis, evalutation, and commentary?

  26. avatar the ruester says:

    I saw 3 things;

    The shooter got out of his path so he could leave the store.

    The presence of the gun does seem to agitate the aggressor.

    The guy got shot once and kept coming forward, just like the shooter claimed.

    As a side note, the aggressor exhibited clear signs drug induced psychosis.

  27. avatar Phil LA says:

    The guy parked in two parking spaces. Everything from then on made sense.

  28. avatar American says:

    Looks like the shooter gave the actor every chance to back off.
    The actor kept escalating things.
    I wonder what the BAC was of the deceased.

  29. avatar Bob316 says:

    I see a guy with an uncontrollable anger issue who assaulted both the cashier and the OC’er. The video shows this attacker continue to attack the OC’er and push him further and further into a corner nearly knocking him over several times. The video shows that the OC’er gave the attacker more than enough opportunity to back away. This was a legit DGU, period. The fact that the OC’er decided to be a good witness and get the attackers license number is not relevant to whether this was a good shoot or not. Frankly, even if the OC’er had not gone out to get the license number, I do not believe the attacker was done with his attack. If he had been done, he wouldn’t have followed the OC’er back in the store.

    1. avatar Bob316 says:

      I might also add that the OC’er had shown significant restraint. 3:15 into the video shows an assault-and-battery. Even though the OC’er was assaulted early in the video, he didn’t react.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The fact that the OC’er decided to be a good witness and get the attackers license number is not relevant to whether this was a good shoot or not.”

      Maybe, maybe not. The local authorities decided it was a good shoot. Nice result IN THAT JURISDICTION (sorry, don’t know how to do italics in this comment block). In other places a prosecutor just might decide that once the dead guy got into his car, any further contact by anyone from the store was a separate event, and that the shooter intentionally aggravated the dead guy, making self-defense indefensible as a defense (ironic phrase intentional). If I were the dead guys’ family lawyer, I would sue the crap out of the shooter based on the same thinking.

  30. avatar Angryaz says:

    Justified however he waited far too long to shoot that guy…. he was in such a bad spot once shooting occurred that cashier almost got shot as well

  31. avatar Pwinky says:

    Screw all you idiots who would have us cower in the corner while oversized jerks like this assailant run roughshod over society. If you don’t want a man to step out into public and do legal things (like take a plate number down) then you’re part of the problem. If you think it’s a great example of clear thinking and responsible citizenship to assault armed individuals then by all means keep that up: the problem will soon take care of itself.

    I waited to pass judgement until the video came out but now that it has this is case closed. The guy that is mentioned with the comments in the original article is probably a friend or relative of the deceased; can’t trust ’em.

    1. avatar Pond Avenue says:

      Nobody put a badge on my chest. I would have been home about the same time as crazy dude. Yelling and throwing chips isn’t my definition of assault. If crazy guy was black, Mr. Open Carry would have been the next George Zimmerman. No thanks.

  32. avatar preston says:

    notice how we haven’t heard from askandyoumayknow since the video has been released and it proves him COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY WRONG. the shooter provided a public service.

    1. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

      I imagine that askandyoumayknow is a woman and knew the deceased.

  33. avatar Michael says:

    I learned long ago to stay out of a fight unless threatened. Just be a good witness.

    I don’t care of the shooting was justified or not, it could have and should have been avoided.

    1. avatar Deeply Sceptical says:

      i agree, not a fan of the open carry. i think it fore arms people with too much infomation. it will, in my opinion make a bad situation go sideways. i carry concealed whenever i leave the house.I know Mr. Weingarten is a BIG fan of open carry. myself, I think its kind of like exhibitionisim. I think open carriers get the same jolt from OC that a weinie wagger gets when he flashes a person. Just my opinion, flame on ladies.

  34. avatar Sam I Am says:

    If what you think is harmless looks challenging to another person, what outcome do you expect?

    To answer your question, to the out-of-control, drugged-up, hopped-up, crazed, pick your belligerent/aggressive person, Yes, kicking “your” ass is justified. Did anyone consider that at the moment the shooter went behind the car, the dead guy could have come out shooting? And the shooter was holstered, attention averted to the license plate. Still think it was a good and proper idea to even mildly look like a challenge to some as outraged as the dead customer?

  35. avatar Hannibal says:

    Guy kept coming after being shot. If someone’s worth one bullet, they’re probably worth more than one…

  36. avatar RobinTn says:

    Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.

  37. avatar Dennis in SC says:

    “Although Mr. Breland’s death is a tragedy…” I would disagree with that statement. This is man who has bullied his way through life and gotten away with it many, many times. Seen too many of them.

    Breland’s (I hate to call him “Mr.”) reaction to being identified by his plate number was a challenge to his “right” to be a bully. If we had information on his background, I’m sure it would be full of similar incidents and he didn’t want to add to his list of accomplishments. People of his age just don’t wake-up one day this angry.

  38. avatar Mikial says:

    The video is pretty clear. Breland was the aggressor and clearly had an attitude. Why pick a fight with some poor guy working as a clerk at a convenience store? Just buy your drink and chips and go on your way.

    The carrier was trying his best to retreat and avoid a fight, but Breland continued to be aggressive. Should the carrier have gotten involved? No, at least in my book, but he never threatened Breland, he just walked into the parking lot. You really shouldn’t go around picking fights with random people that you don;t know.

  39. avatar J says:

    “a good man would be alive today” – I don’t know how anyone could say that. This guy was acting like a jerk.

  40. avatar Adub says:

    I might have kicked the big guy in the nuts myself instead of going for my gun, but when you attack somebody who has drawn their sidearm, you have proven yourself too stupid to live.

  41. avatar Daniel says:

    Some observations that have not been made yet:

    1. It’s prudent to carry less-lethal defensive tools if you’re going to carry a gun, both from a legal and tactical standpoint. Had the shooter been carrying O.C. Spray for instance (a GOOD one, see below), a face-full of that and some swift kicks to the groin may have dissuaded the VCA from further action until the police arrived, saving the shooter from carrying around the burden of taking another’s life around with him for the rest of his life. Note I say MAY have, it might just as well have enraged the VCA further and goaded him into further action, but then that’s what the gun is for. The shooter would have looked better in the eyes of the law, although in this case it’s irrelevant since he’s not going to be prosecuted.

    2. Distance and surreptitious action are your friends. The shooter displayed unsound tactics by letting the VCA get so close to him on multiple occasions, and by displaying that he was getting the license plate.

    Don’t flame me for Monday-morning quarter-backing. I’m not passing judgement on the shooter’s actions, I’m learning from what he did and what he might have done better, not saying I would have done any better under the same circumstances.

    I carry O.C. spray routinely, I’ll tell you from experience if you or your loved ones are carrying around those key-chain pieces of crap, throw it away and get you a good 2 oz canister. I’ve tested this out after my key-chain spray failed when I was attacked by a dog. The key-chain ones need to be changed out monthly or they are a no-go. The 2 oz. will last a couple of years at least, but I still change them out yearly.

    1. avatar David T says:

      IMO, less-than-lethal-methods are an invitation to be sued or possibly face retaliation in some other fashion. It sounds callous (AND IT IS CALLOUS) but society is better off with some people going to the morgue ahead of schedule. Shoot to kill IMO.

      I agree on the other points.

      Please note that I have saved everyone the trouble of telling me how callous I am.

      1. avatar Daniel says:

        You would do well to review this book in it’s entirety:

        http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Force-Understanding-Right-Defense/dp/1440240612?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

        and drop the “Shoot to kill” bravado from your vocabulary.

        Your first point on an invitation to be sued is questionable at best. Although your second point on retaliation has some merit, it’s not enough to open one up to being charged with murder.

        1. avatar David T says:

          Not advocating bad shootings or murder. Just don’t think less-than-lethal is necessarily the best choice. There are jurisdictions with few legal protections for people acting in defense of their lives. Shoot to kill is not bravado and its staying in my vocab. I will see if my library has that book.

      2. avatar Rabbit Avenue says:

        David T. No thanks. Every time I strap on my holster, I click my heels three times and repeat over and over, “don’t be the next George Zimmerman”.

        1. avatar David T says:

          That is a good thing to keep in mind in today’s atmosphere.

  42. avatar Stacy says:

    It’s a judgment call. I’d have probably stayed inside the store and either snapped the plate with my phone or assumed the security cameras would get it. But, like the camera tech a few comments up says, that’s often a bad assumption.

    The OCer very clearly exercised a lot of restraint while being chased and swung at by an angry, bigger man who’d already shown himself to be out of control and looking for a fight. He was literally backed into a corner and still didn’t even draw right away.

    I don’t think he used too much restraint. He tried valiantly to avoid shooting–that’s what everyone should do, police included.

    Retention struggle? Sure, and that’s probably a good reason for CC over OC. Angry drunk probably won’t see your pocket print, but nobody could miss your belt holster

    1. avatar Rabbit Avenue says:

      Why would you feel the need to get the plate?

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        Because the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Because the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

          “You don’t win by dying for your beliefs, you win by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his”. (Sorry, Mr. Scott)

          There is a big difference between doing nothing, and ending up in a shooting.

        2. avatar Ozzallos says:

          There’s also a big difference between being argumentative and trying to beat somebody up because they’re writing down your license plate.

          Which, I might add, he never got to do or even had the opportunity to express his intention to do so. The shooter was intercepted by the aggressor just in walking across the parking lot. Yes, we know his intention, but there is no way the Aggressor could have factually known it. The shooter didn’t even get a chance to stop before being confronted.

          You’re really trying too hard on this ‘shadow of a doubt’ angle, frankly.

  43. avatar Billy says:

    Just my untrained opinion here, but I’m betting that the dead guy was either high or drunk… personally, I’m leaning towards drunk. His mannerisms looks to me like someone who can physically handle a lot of alcohol (he wasn’t stumbling drunk), but his mind and attitude couldn’t.

    Excessive use of his hands while talking/berating, several instances of him open-handedly referring to himself as if he’d been personally wronged, reaching out and touching a stranger (open carrier) trying to enlist him in his verbal fight against the clerk. Not to mention that he keeps coming back in for more, throwing more of a tantrum each time…

    And if you notice at the 5 minute mark when the video switches back to being inside… the open carrier already has his gun drawn, but the guy’s still going after him. A sober person doesn’t do this. Well, a sober person might do this if they’re trying to stop an attacker, but that would be a full out tackle attempt, not a sluggish shoving match with a man with a gun.

    To me, this explains why the open carrier was trying to get the guy’s plates… let the guy leave, then call the cops (or wait for them to show up) so he can give a full description of the guy and vehicle they need to track down and stop for drunk driving.

    Good shoot, IMO.

  44. avatar Ned says:

    What I saw was the open carrier was experienced enough to keep his firearm side always away from the aggressor (so much for the argument that open carry always puts one at a tactical disadvantage). I’m not even sure the aggressor ever saw it until it was intended to and he always kept his head. In all the fights I have been in, I have never had a truly experienced bad person just push me around without striking or attempt to strike or take me down, not that it makes the guy any less dangerous (drunk maybe). Personally, I believe that the aggressor had no right to attack, I don’t care what kind of day he had. After that, I make no judgements. Well except to say to those who write something about wannabe cop…not his job, what if it was a woman or senior? If I was there and decided to help, I would do it with or without my firearm so the hero stuff make no sense. People just don’t stand up for right any more.

    1. avatar Ozzallos says:

      On the other hand, Open Carry didn’t exactly deter anything here, either.

  45. avatar Matt in FL says:

    This is off topic, and it’ll probably get deleted, but fuck it.

    You know what? I’m done.

    I’m reading an article, and I see a sentence that reads, “Montgomery said in a news release that included surveillance camera video of the incident,” with the words “surveillance camera” underlined. I think, “Oh, there’s a link to the video,” so I click on it. Instead of the video in question, it takes me to “http://www.amazon.com/OutbackCam-SWVID-OBC5MP-Outdoor-Network-Surveillance/dp/B008YGGLFU”

    Nope. I’m done. It’s been nice reading and commenting with y’all. The day the bullshit defeats my adblocker is the day I’m done.

  46. avatar Ozzallos says:

    01:24 – First signs of argument between Aggressor and Employee that will continue throughout video.
    02:12 – Aggressor re-enters store, clearly seeking to confront Employee.
    02:53 – First contact with shooter, does not appear to notice firearm.
    03:15 – Aggressor *appears* to be soliciting support from the shooter for his argument at this point.
    03:55 – Shooter says something to aggressor, no longer seen as conversational ally.
    04:09 – Shooter now fully tracking Aggressors activities.
    04:18 – Re-enters second time.
    04:27 – Shooter follows Aggressor outside.
    04:48 – Aggressor intercepts Shooter in parking lot behind vehicle. Upon interception, Shooter does not engage in argument or confront Aggressor, retreats to store.

    Time stamps between cameras do not match up, so it is impossible to maintain 100% continuity. That said, there does not appear to be pause in the confrontation now in progress.

    05:08 – Aggressor follows Shooter into store. Physical contact by Aggressor dogs Shooter’s retreat.
    05:10 – Shooter attempts to maintain separation physically. Shooter has now adopted stand-off defensive pistol stance. Aggressor attempts to physically escalate, shooter continues to push him back through 05:25.
    05:26 – Gun now visibly drawn as Aggressor pulls at Shooter.
    05:29 – Even with gun drawn, Aggressor continues to advance on Shooter.
    05:34/05:57 – Shots fired. Aggressor continues to advance until falling.

    After action–
    Going out to grab the Aggressor’s license plate is obviously the turning point in this encounter, but that said, it was an incredibly benign action on the Shooters part. In fact, unless the shooter conveyed his intentions, there was really no way for the Aggressor to know the Shooter’s intentions short of some verbal warning like “I’m going to take your license plate number down as I follow you out”, which I doubt. It doesn’t even appear he notices he was followed out at first. Regardless, the Shooter was automatically deemed hostile by the Aggressor and never even given a chance to act on his intentions.

    I’m not sure I would have done it, personally. We have cameras, several witnesses and a description of the vehicle. There’s probably pump cameras too which means there might be a license plate number. But again, it’s an incredibly benign action to set the guy off so badly and I cannot fault the shooter, who is probably thinking the Aggressor will be back anyway and possibly with a weapon himself by this point.

    The defensive pistol stance was the first clear indicator that crap was about to hit the fan. Once the Aggressor attempted to pull the Shooter in, the gun came out and the Aggressor still pressed for a physical confrontation. Some here have mentioned that he shouldn’t have retreated so much, but it clearly establishes a non-confrontational pattern until no other choice was given. You have to seriously reach to prosecute and even if you do, it’s not likely to hold up in any court.

    As far as the aggressor himself goes, he was very animated from the moment he stepped into the store. I won’t read much into his parking simply because many people do that– you’re in and out, not looking for perfect alignment between the lines. I can’t speculate if he was drunk or high, but whatever the issue was, he carried it into the store with him and the interaction with the employee fueled it. As an aside, 01:46 has him looking pretty hard at the register’s till. I could be reading too much into that, but it stands out in a bad way IMO.

    Sorry, but the Aggressor earned it. There is next to no evidence that the Shooter ever engaged the guy physically or assaulted him verbally beyond the numerous “back off” attempts in the latter part of the video. The Shooter was amazingly calm for most of it, which is a credit to him and his training. The single ‘what-if’ decision was still well within his rights as a law abiding citizen and not grounds for a physical confrontation on the aggressor’s part.

  47. avatar Blindman says:

    Attack someone for no legitimate reason – get shot dead. Civilization triumphs.

  48. avatar TXGunGal says:

    In my almost 50 yrs. of striking out on my own, Texas Hill Country small town, in my rearview mirror. Have encountered more nut cases, psychos, and garden variety A-holes in convenience stores, on highways, rural roads,
    Hell, even adult kid next door, who stills lives at home. They are everywhere!

    You need a mental plan ahead of time that you have run though your mind, couple of different situations
    I exercise total non-interaction with them. Whether CC or just mace in pocket, not going there with that type of person.

    What you need to understand, they are in a bad mood or bad mood may be permanent state of mind. All they want is to rant, rave, be rude and mostly be left alone. Had shooter just left it alone, no dead guy, no police showing up, no delay in in shooter’s day. Dead guy could have gone on being a**hole.that he was.

    Not saying good shoot or bad shoot, just saying non engagement might have been a better choice

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email