In a decent neighborhood in Mandeville, Louisiana, an unidentified store clerk was attacked by an aggressive customer at a gas station. A firearms instructor on the scene — openly carrying his .40 caliber pistol in a holster — felt compelled to assist the store clerk in de-escalating the situation. But the aggressor would not stop. Instead, he kept on increasing the level of attacks. From theadvocate.com . . .
The shooter tried to assist by urging Breland to leave the store . . .
Breland walked out again but then returned and threw what appeared to be potato chips at the clerk. 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.
With nowhere left to retreat, and faced with an attacker who was aggressively attempting to disarm him and obtain his firearm, the open carrier used his .40 caliber pistol. From wdsu.com:
Investigators said surveillance video inside the store shows Breland trying to grab hold of the customer’s firearm. The customer ordered Breland back once more and told him he would shoot if he did not stop.
The customer retreated into a corner of the store while he was being attacked. Officials said with nowhere left to retreat, he shot Breland once. Breland did not stop attacking the customer, who fired another two rounds until Breland fell to the ground, the Police Department said.
According to nola.com, Police Chief Rick Richard said the customer was lawfully carrying the firearm on his side in plain view. “Louisiana is an open-carry state. The guy was straight-up legal,” the chief said. He was not charged.
I haven’t been able to find the video anywhere on the internet. The descriptions are consistent. As one police officer commented, he couldn’t understand why the customer insisted on attacking an obviously armed man. He attacked when the gun was in the holster. He attacked when the gun was drawn. He paused after he had been shot once, then he continued to attack and was shot twice more in the chest.
Clearly, this attacker did not “shoot the open carrier first.” However, he was not deterred by the presence of the firearm, either. It’s hard to see how the events would have occurred differently if the instructor’s pistol was concealed until he drew it.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch
Drugs come to mind. Or mental illness. Or a combination of several factors. Some folks just will not stop until you kill them. They seem to want it that way.
Agree. Insanity and/or drugs. Possible long-term suicidal ideation. This guy was in in such a condition that he wouldn’t have responded to any form of deterrence.
Disagree, slightly.
We have a up and coming generation of people who always get a participation award, who only receive discipline (in a very limited fashion) at school and never have to figure out how to wrap their mind around the concept of not getting what they want. They will go into huge, angry rages because their computer time is up and will never develop that skill of how to deal with emotions when they don’t get their way.
Granted, this is maybe 1 in 20ish where I work, but in the pampered, scheduled school systems of your upper class suburbs (looking at you silicon valley!) i bet my piss poor wages this number is higher. And some of them will figure it out in High School, time to toughen up or wimp out. Or pull a Columbine. After that, they become adults… Some with no father/mother figure either, God help them.
Course your drug/mental statement is still good, but you gotta factor in these people in, cause they exist.
Some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it.
“Cool” reference!
Excellent!
Good thing he had a 40. 9mms would have bounced harmlessly off the impervious torso of such a determined attacker.
I guess we should also be thankful he wasn’t carrying a 45, or the clerk may have been injured from the concussive blast during the shooting.
I figured that the .40 round would’ve simply dissapered in mid air due to being an extinct cartridge.
Luckily for this guy, the incident actually happened two weeks ago, and .40 became obsolete only last week.
Picture my surprise when I found out that the .30-30 chambering and lever-action rifles have been obsolete for at least 75 years, which means I haven’t actually shot anything with my favorite rifle at all, ever. (But it all seemed so real at the time…)
Nah, you’d be hard pressed to find a northern Michigan deer hunter that doesn’t own a .30-30.
Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are… 🙂
If only he’d had a 10mm. Just the sight of the gun would have killed the assailant. Pulling the trigger would have killed the perp and the souls of his ancestors.
Vhyrus,
You sir or ma’am win the Intertubez today!
Thanks for the chuckle!!!
I know you are just joking, caliber wars and all. The .40 isn’t for me anymore, but I do have a good friend who used a .40 (Glock 23) to defend his life when he was attacked by an individual with a knife. Two shots at near touching range and the individual in question has long since expired.
Soooo…would he have had to shoot him 6 times with a 9mm? .40 a dead caliber my ass 😉
“Dead” doesn’t mean ineffective–and your point is that it’s not ineffective. True that.
And they weren’t asking if it were dead, just if it were heading that way. Plenty of decent calibers simply aren’t available any more, either as ammo or handguns chambered in that caliber.
I think .40 is declining in popularity. “Dead” would be what happens if that trend continues for a while. Apparently a lot of people are concluding it doesn’t have a use that some other caliber cannot handle as well or better. But even that doesn’t mean it’s not effective.
Agreed. Overall .38 Super is dead, but still has its spots. I’d venture a guess that 9mm+P+ has largely supplanted it.
“Concluding” wrt calibers, is never more than temporary fads, for calibers as entrenched and close to optimal as the .40.
It’s dead to me. But I don’t see it going anywhere.
Just wait till a one of the big boy agencies has to justify their annual budget and will be looking to swap out their gear at tax payers expense. Then a new set of people that disagree with everything on what the government does can relish in the fact that they use their favorite caliber.
I read up on this story, starting with the wdsu.com link, googled for some other sources, and my conclusion is this: Justified shooting, but boy that guy should have just stayed in the store and not gone outside “to get the license plate.” If he hadn’t, I’m thinking no shooting and no dead guy. Just sad all around, for the DGU guy and the dead guy’s family. Apparently the dead guy had a wife, kids, and was an Army vet. Who knows what issues he had and what set him off. Doesn’t give him a pass to act that way. And to keep after a guy with a gun drawn and after getting shot once? This is a crazy world. But I still think the guy should have stayed in the store.
“should have stayed in the store” – olivehead, I’d be inclined to agree – it may never have escalated into the deadly encounter that were now reading about. In that regard it most definitely is a horrible ending, however, we don’t know what this gentleman was on (drugs) or going through in life. He could have have just as easily gotten violent with someone else (his wife/kids) who lacks an equal or adequate defense.
Attempting to obtain his information and peacefully reporting the incident may very well have saved someone else’s life. This is one of those Monday morning quarterback “what ifs.” We can only pray for the deceased and his family, unfortunately.
No. He sure should have gone out to get the license plate number. Too often too many people dont 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 wouldt have 3 extra holes in him.
@ Echo5B
I tend to agree with you. Getting his license plate with the guy knowing he’s getting his plate taken may have been enough to cause him to rethink is present actions. I can’t speak for anyone else, but cowering in the store like a little school girl isn’t me at all! The man was threatening and acting like an ass-wipe and if I wanted his license plate, I’m going to go get it and nobody is stopping me, least Mr Nutter Butter. Others actions don’t generally dictate my resolve or will.
Except we know that it didn’t do that at all, it escalated the situation even more, because of course it did!
And what would have happened if he hadn’t gotten the plate? The guy would have gotten away with throwing a bag of potato chips? Oh the humanity!
I see the logic in the argument behind staying in the store, but I also agree he should’ve gotten the plate # using a more subtle approach. Primary reason is that it was just as likely to escalate elsewhere – on the road, perhaps, or at his next stop. By going out to get the plate #, the customer/shooter was just trying to help. The idea that a bystander should not get involved is part of what’s wrong with the country today… people just want to turn their heads and pretend they don’t see the crap that goes down. And the guy that got shot was certainly not acting like an honorable veteran, whatever his issue may have been.
I’ve read all of your replies and can see both sides of the coin. In the balance, I’ll stick with my initial thought: stay in the store once the threat has abated. Some guy throwing a fit (granted, the kind of fit I’ve never thrown in my worst moments) turns into a fatality. Maybe this and maybe that, but “pursuing” a guy who’s clearly demonstrated anger-management issues probably isn’t the best course of action. What you (the deceased) “might” have done still isn’t a crime in this country.
When I was in college my GF’s grandparents lived in Mandeville, and we visited several times. It’s a really nice place and it has access to Ponchartrain. The downside is that it’s only 30 miles away from Nu’WAlens, and when the water’s high the scum washes over the causeway.
Charlie
I see a recurring pattern when open carriers get into scuffles. The bad guy tries to get the gun. People should keep this in mind.
When you carry a gun, every fight is a gun fight – there’s at least one.
Yeah, I got into a conversation once, with a guy interested in CC. Turned out he was a bouncer in a downtown Austin bar, was worried about the possibility of an armed (and drunk) customer. I don’t know what he ended up doing, but my advice was unequivocal; I would NEVER carry a firearm into a job where (nonlethal) hand-to-hand combat was part of the job. When I am carrying, the only fight I would ever be getting into would be a gunfight. Someone acting as a backup, in case someone is armed, maybe, but actually scuffling with one or more drunks while carrying, the idea alone gives me the shakes.
“I see a recurring pattern when open carriers get into scuffles. The bad guy tries to get the gun. “
Please provide some links showing this “recurring pattern.”
Your statement is objectively a non sequitur. At least as reported here, the ‘gun grab’ happened after the confrontation began.
Once the confrontation begins, any carry is…”up for grabs.” It happens with CC-ers, too. In fact, there was one story (too lazy to dig up the link) where someone TRYING to “prove” the old “OC gets your gun grabbed” canard did in fact involve a CC-ers who presented his firearm!
In short, there is no such “recurring pattern” or the anti-OC debate would be settled with overwhelming evidence. The objective truth of the matter is that any you engage in an altercation with a person and there’s a firearm on your person, openly carried or concealed, the potential for losing control of that firearm exitss.
But, this is not the same thing as an “OC gun grab” as the anti-OC crowd likes to frame it.
.40? This guys only crime was violating the caliber fan boy fashion code.
After our little discussion about .40s a few days ago and then the “firearms instructor” is carrying a .40, it reinforces, not that I need it, my attitude of EAT SH– over the .40 debate.
I can certainly sympathize with the instructor though. It appears the last thing in the world he wanted, like most gun owners, was to use his firearm. He tried everything and when confronted with being disarmed of his weapon, he made that ultimate decision.
Sounds like he would have been justified in using lethal force sooner than he did. I’m rather sure I wouldn’t have waited quite so long. I would NOT allow myself to even begin to be disarmed by a dirt bag. Not even close. Of course, I wasn’t there either, but nothing good happens when a puke takes your gun and if you allow that to happen, you should never have been carrying a gun in the first place.
Just how stupid is the guy?
A gun grab in the face, seriously?
Pretend to be peaceful and apologetic, wait until he turns, whack him in the brainstem from the back with (insert the name of the hard object), take the gun, finish him off
Intelligence is how you deal with somebody with superior firepower, not brute force
Would you turn your back on someone you pulled a gun on?
About as likely as charging at a guy who just put a round into you…oh, wait…
Well it was a .40…
I wonder if someone would like to speak to the firearms instructor, or to the store clerk being attacked and tell them that guns are bad, mmkay? That they should have just taken a beating, because statistics say they probably wouldn’t have suffered too severe an injury?
Stupid games, etc.
But at the same time, the armed instructor managed to take actions that set the guy off. Not blaming him, but I wouldn’t advise going out and reigniting the confrontation over ‘getting the license plate.’ If, instead, one of them had called the police this might have ended without the ‘defensive shooting,’ ( since the police have weapons other than guns). Might.
Anyway, if the guy hadn’t have attacked an armed dude at a gas station there also wouldn’t have been a problem.
Would you have gone to get the license plate number?
This story is patently false. There’s no way that anyone could have possibly controlled the .40 through three separate shots. It’s way too snappy! In related news, I am not certain WWII happened either, since shooting rifles in a caliber larger than 5.56 results in shots sprayed all over the place. Recoil is just so….owwwwwyyy! Eewwww!
The switch from .30 cal and.45 acp to 9mm and 5.56mm has more to do with the NATO alliance and the ablity to carry more ammo for the same weight, than it does recoil, at least for military.
For Joe Blow Gun Owner, it could hold more sway.
.40 is not dead its just deadly.
This is literally 5 minutes from where I work and I have stopped at this particular gas station several times. Mandeville is one of the wealthiest cities in Louisiana. Just goes to show you that crazy people can strike anywhere so carry a 100% of the time!
“Mandeville is one of the wealthiest cities in Louisiana. Just goes to show you that crazy people can strike anywhere so carry a 100% of the time!”
Agreed.
For all the anti-gun crowd that says “oh, just stay out of bad places,” perhaps ask the Petit family how that works. Or the Tates. Or…well, such a sad list is very long.
Evil knows no geographical boundary. Pretending one is ‘safe’ solely because one lives in a “nice area” is the height of self-delusion.
+1
Or to put it another way, staying out of “bad” areas *reduces* but *does not* REPEAT *does not eliminate* the probability of shit happening.
The people in question are somewhat on to something–you ARE better off staying out of “bad” areas. Their problem is that they apparently don’t understand the difference between reduce and eliminate.
What, an open carrier didn’t get shot first? Shocking.
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.
“Good men” don’t just attack strangers on the street. Esp. obviously armed strangers on the street. No matter how bad their day had been. Evil men commit felonies like that, and without remorse or reason, as here.
So now you that you KNOW the truth, try and retain it, OK?
The wanna-be cop threatened the unarmed man before the man laid a hand on him. He thought that the guy had to listen to him because he had a gun. Carrying a gun does not give you the right to tell another person how they can act.
” He is not a trained law enforcement officer”
Ah, and there it is.
So folks, now we all have to be trained law enforcement officers to observe and record a license plate!.
And this after being told for a long time…”don’t get involved, just be a good witness.”
Interesting how slippery slopes work. What’s the end game to this line of thinking? I’m thinking it goes something like “be nothing more than a passive little sheep in every aspect.”
He did much more than try to get a license plate. He was trying to tell the man what he can and can’t say or do in his dealings with the clerk. Does having a gun give him authority over another man?
“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.
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.
There was video of the event. I wonder if it will be released.
So, you spoke to someone. You say. Big freaking deal. Doesn’t mean your word is more true. See, there’s this thing called “evidence.” Until we see something specific that settles the difference, the press account and your account are on equal terms.
To that, I’ll add this note:
“Armed citizens trying to play cop”
Your consistent use of this phrase makes me question every word you say.
This is Statist-speak.
Citizens, armed or otherwise, have every responsibility to “play cop,” especially concerning felonies. Cops are not elevated citizens.
Maybe if you tone the rah-rah “only cops” language freedom minded individualists could take seriously what you claim.
Did you see this — an unidentified STORE CLERK was ATTACKED by an aggressive customer at a gas station. A firearms instructor on the scene — openly carrying his .40 caliber pistol in a holster — felt compelled to assist the store clerk in de-escalating the situation.
Don’t know if I would call that a ‘common argument between an employee and customer’
Or you didn’t ad a /sarc tag to end of your post.
There was no physical attack, It was a verbal argument and the only thing physical that took place was a bag of chips was thrown at the clerk.
Seems like you are making a heap ton of unsubstantiated claims about what did and did not happen.
Citations please?
Assault — as·sault n.
1.
a. A violent physical attack, as with blows.
b. A strong or cutting verbal attack.
3. Law
a. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
b. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.
Source – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Physical+assault
____________________________________________
Assault
At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.
Source – http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Physical+assault
A assault still happened.
Well actually I personally spoke to someone that was there and saw the entire thing happen. The store clerk was being just as belligerent as the unarmed man that was killed. WHAT GAVE THIS MAN THE RIGHT TO STEP IN AND DECIDE WHO NEEDED TO BACK DOWN?? WHAT BECAUSE HE CARRIES A GUN?? If this man would have minded his damn business, a good man would be alive today. Yes a store clerk would have had to deal with an irate customer, but that’s part of retail sales from time to time.
“Well actually I personally spoke to someone that was there”
So, second degree “hearsay,” then. That’s not admissible in court for a reason: it contains no probative value.
I find it mildly amusing that you come here with this “I heard it from someone so it must be true” nonsense and start up the “armed citizens playing cop” bit and expect anyone here to fall for it.
Did Shannon train you personally?
Yeah, well being a veteran doesn’t get this POS any special treatment. Being a veteran myself, it pisses me off to no end that there are so many “veterans” (many of whom are fake) that are so willing to whip out the veteran card to make an excuse or get away with stuff. It’s disrepctful to the country, the constitution, and your fellow veterans. No, being a veteran doesn’t give you the right to drink and drive, attack people, or beat your family. A few months ago here in Georgia, a veteran was executed for murdering three police officers. Boy did you see liberals suddenly support veterans then, suddenly it’s, “Wa wa wa, Georgia is executing a veteran!” Well yeah, he murdered three people. That’s what he gets. The fact that you served in the military doesn’t give you the right to act like a jackass.
I was saying he was a honorable veteran to help point out that this was a good man. One argument with a store clerk or the fact he stood up to a punk, threatening an unarmed man with a gun, does not make his a POS like some of you have said. Those calling him a POS are a POS for judging someone that you know nothing about.
“I was saying he was a honorable veteran to help point out that this was a good man.”
Boy, you missed Brainwashed’s point completely it seems.
Being a veteran is not necessarily an indicator of him being a “good man.” He can be a veteran and be a scum bag, for example.
Therefore, your mention of his veteran status as, as you admit, ‘evidence’ of his goodness smacks of nothing more than an attempt to emotionally manipulate the response to the story with the loaded term “veteran.”
Do you have ACTUAL evidence that he was a “good man?”
Oh, yeah, right. When I was in high school, right up to when I entered the AF, the draft was still with us, and it was VERY common for words to come out of a judge’s mouth to the effect of you get to choose between enlisting or going to prison. What will it be? Hell, there are a lot of Vietnam veterans whose major accomplishment incountry was finding heroin dealers, who never fired a shot or did anything *at all* constructive, and you can hold your fire as I am a Vietnam COMBAT vet, and I damn well know what I am talking about. Status as a veteran tells you nothing, either positive or negative, about a person’s tendency towards violence. Having fruitcake liberals who want to remove vets’ RKBA since they *might* suffer from PTSD is bad enough, let’s not go the other direction, either.
You have got to be kidding me. If a man signs his name voluntarily, which this guy did, and is willing to sacrifice his life if required, then you my friend owe that person a certain amount of respect. Why don’t you tell me what you know about this person other than what you read in an article written by someone that was not there and is more concerned with writing a juicy story than delivering the facts?? I didn’t think so. Let me tell you I did know this man personally. He was a husband who stood by his wife thru a lot, was a good father to 5 children, and again signed up to defend you so you could make the ignorant unsupported statements that you have been making.
You are the one making a claim that stands in contradiction to the EVIDENCE we have before us that he was not, as you claim, a “good man.”
So, burden of proof is on you. That means EVIDENCE, not claims.
Voluntarily signing a piece of paper is not evidence of any character trait later in life. You really need to get a grip. Your claims and assertions are so completely illogical and irrational that your comments smell like a certain t word…reek, even.
The things I said about this man are FACTS, not so called evidence which you gather from a article written from third party accounts. Voluntary signing to put your life on the line to defend our country is not evidence of a character trait of “a good man”?? Are you delusional?? Let me guess, you didn’t serve your country, did you…
Seems like another Zimmerman case. Technically justified, but still stupid.
Makes great headlines…or would you rather discuss knitting and rocking chairs?
I don’t see the relevance to my comment, but whatever floats your boat.
What’s wrong with knitting OR rocking chairs?
Both are might useful things. One speaks of self reliance and the other, requires some semblance of skill to produce, provides a relaxing atmosphere in which to do the the first.
I’d rather discussion knitting and rocking chairs than ding-dongs that criticize publication choices on privately owned and operated web blogs. But, I guess that’s just me.
Let make that a term. Zimmermaning; pulling a Zimmerman; Zimmermanned, Zimmermannish. Let’s spread it.
I find it interesting that this obviously disturbed person was allowed to drive a vehicle.
I live near this area and have heard all these same details. I’ve speculated as to the identity of the OC’er as well. But I’ll give you 2 seconds to guess why this wasn’t front page news.
The OC’er is black?
After a DGU reported in the press, a gaggle of gunny folks. are dissecting the events to figure out how the uncharged defender could have done things differently.
Somebody’s dead, because somebody shot him. At best a DGU is a qualified bad thing – among responsible gun owners the least bad alternative, now let’s see if we can figure out a better one. This always happens. In this case, the defender retreated, back into the building, back into a corner, to try to defuse the mess. That was the second round. The argument hereabouts is whether the defender should have tried to get the assailant’s license plate *after* de-escalating the conflict the first time.
Somebody tell me again how US gun owners are a bunch of hopped up, wannabe Rambos, looking for any excuse to “discharge” their camo / chrome / facist-black phallic substitutes.
This can’t be real — the OCer’s gun wasn’t stolen at the beginning of the incident and then used to massacre everyone else!
And the pearl-clutchers will contend that the OCer escalated the situation by being present with a visible weapon, and otherwise things would have ended up just hunky-dory.