It was a BB gun, actually.
So probably a case of suicide by cop. 
(post shortened)
I hate omnibus threads. They’re just too cluttered and it can be difficult to keep track of who’s responding to whom concerning what. (Sorry - mini rant over 
)
Imminent means immediately. Imminent danger is a danger that can’t/wasn’t guarded against and must (if you so chose) be instantly dealt with if you wish to avoid sever injury or death.
- imminent
adjective us /ˈɪm·ə·nənt/
› (esp. of something unpleasant) likely to happen very soon:
A rain storm was imminent.
- What is IMMINENT DANGER?
In relation to homicide in self-defense, this term means immediate danger, such as must be Instantly met, such as cannot be guarded against It calling for the assistance of others or the protection of the law. U. S. v. Outerbridge,27 Fed. Cas. 390; State v. West, 45 La. Ann. 14, 12 South. 7; State v. Smith, 43Or. 109, 71 Pac. 973. Or, as otherwise defined, such an appearance of threatened and impending injury as would put a reasonable and prudent man to his instant defense.
http://thelawdictionary.org/imminent-danger/
As far as what happened in the Georgia Walmart (it’s a supermarket AND a gun store 
), it’s still not known if the shotgun toter actually loaded the shotgun inside any of the stores. I suppose that a witness may eventually come forward to testify in court.
*“After reviewing the yields of the investigation with prosecutors, it was determined that the action of the two men did not violate Mississippi state statute regarding the carry of firearms,” said Gulfport Police Chief Leonard Papania.
…Papania added, none of the businesses the men entered that night prohibited the open carry of firearms.*.
http://www.walb.com/story/29382269/police-citizens-react-to-gulfport-walmart-incident
FYI - The shotgun toter has not been arrested for open-carry of a firearm.
All the reports said that the man was loading a gun in the store. Not merely buying bullets or talking about it. “Imminent” applies to the actions described in all the news reports so far.
The cut-and-paste reporting says some unknown person had said a man was loading a gun. Considering how poorly the media has covered this story, I’d like to see the Walmart security videos.
The Police Chief had consulted with the prosecutor’s office before deciding that no laws had been broken. While you’re free to apply the word “imminent” to the actions at the Walmart, according to the Chief and the prosecutor’s office, no one was in “imminent danger”.
Of course not; he was white.
Who was in imminent danger? Who could reasonably consider themselves in such danger? Who did he point the gun at, or threaten to point it at, or look like he was going to point it at? Who did he directly threaten in any other way? Who’s instructions to stop doing whatever he was doing with the gun did he disobey?
You are just saying he was an imminent threat without backing it up in any way at all. Please answer even one of the above questions - “who” being an actual person, not an abstract “anyone in the store”. Did he, for example, walk towards a checkout, or another shopper, whilst doing whatever he was doing with his gun? Did the owner or manager of the shop ask him to stop what he was doing?
What, in short, was the actual or perceived threat?
I’ve answered you already, you weird shouty person. You disagreeing with my answer doesn’t make it not an answer.
No, you actually haven’t. Neither’s anyone else. Which is rather telling, really, as it shows that you and they are well aware that he didn’t actually threaten anybody, or give anyone the reasonable impression that he was.
I’ve thought that that guy in the red sleeveless t-shirt had the luckiest day of his life leaving when he did.
Shall I just repeat my previous post? Then you can repeat this one! What fun!
No, you could answer the question, rather than lying about the fact that you already have. But I’ll admit, it’s kinda fun watching people bluster and blither and make it clear they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about, despite their lame attempts at distraction.
I was following back the thread of conversation til I hit this post, which doesn’t have a quote from a previous post meaning I can’t follow the thread back any further.
Can someone point to the post being referred to here, involving a man in a Wal-Mart and a man with a towel on his arm?
Which was the style at the time.
Not the posts, but,
You once again distort and lie by pretending the police encountered him in the store and did nothing because open-carry.
[QUOTE=The article you just linked]
According to police they received multiple calls about the men who had possibly done the same thing at a local Winn-Dixie, forcing police to divert officers to the Walmart to form a perimeter as the SWAT entered and searched the store. By the time police had arrived, the two men had left.
[/QUOTE]
Is that a distortion? Police can’t do anything to the men later, though if they HAD encountered the men at the store, there could at least have been a lot of panicked gunfire.
The implication being made is “Sure, they’ll shoot a black guy if they see him waving a towel around, but if they see a white guy racking a shotgun they won’t do nothin’!”
Which, of course, ignores the fact that the police never encountered the subject of that particular anecdote while he was armed. If they had, they very well may have shot him, and they may not have, depending on how events played out.
Irrelevant. The police encountered him elsewhere (a distinction without a difference) and did nothing because open-carry:
And what, exactly, did they do wrong? Are you saying open-carry laws don’t apply here? Or are you saying that they’d have shot a black person if he racked a shotgun in a Wal-Mart and they encountered him several hours later and no longer armed? Or are you saying they should have shot him when he was unarmed?
In either case, cite?