🔍 People’s Exhibit 1 Analysis: Behavior & Michigan Law

🎥 Behavioral Analysis of Jacob Cronick (Opinion)

• Initial Engagement: Jacob is physically and verbally engaged with Eric Parrotta. He does not step back or de-escalate.
• Escalation: After Eric knocks Jacob’s phone, Jacob physically slams Eric against the hood of a vehicle.
• Retreat + Re-engagement: Jacob briefly steps back, then returns armed with a firearm. This indicates premeditation.
• Weapon Use: Jacob pushes Alexandria Parrotta and knocks down Cody Richards while holding the weapon, then shoots Eric Parrotta from a distance.
• Posture: Aggression, not defense. He continues forward after shooting, showing dominance rather than retreat.

Conclusion: Jacob's actions show calculated escalation, disregard for non-aggressors, and failure to use alternatives like retreat or police assistance.

Important to note: Jacob testified that he thought my dad had a weapon, and that's why he shot, but as you will see in Exhibit one, my dad takes off his gloves, reaches into his pocket and takes out his phone. It does not appear Jacob felt threatened then.

⚖️ Michigan Self-Defense & Stand Your Ground Law

• MCL 780.972: Use of deadly force is justified only if:
• The person honestly and reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.
• The person is not committing a crime.
• The person did not provoke the threat.
• The person is in a location they have a legal right to be.
• Stand Your Ground: No duty to retreat, but only if all the above conditions are met.

🔎 Relevant Case Law

• People v. Riddle (2002): Force is not justified if the person provokes the attack or uses disproportionate force.
• People v. Guajardo (2013): Leaving a conflict to retrieve a weapon, then returning to escalate, negates self-defense.

📉 Application of Law to Jacob Cronick’s Behavior

Legal Requirement	Jacob's Behavior	Result
Imminent threat of death or great bodily harm	Eric was unarmed, backed away. Jacob returned with gun.	❌ No imminent threat at time of shooting
Reasonable belief in necessity	Jacob had time to disengage but re-entered with a weapon.	❌ Appears unreasonable under the law
Not the aggressor	Jacob physically engaged and escalated the situation first.	❌ He provoked and escalated
Not committing a crime	Used weapon aggressively, pushed others, possible assault.	❌ Undermines legal standing for self-defense
Duty to retreat (if applicable)	No legal duty, but he had clear chance to disengage	⚠️ Stand Your Ground doesn’t apply when provoker

Final Conclusion: Under Michigan law, Jacob Cronick's use of deadly force does not meet the legal standard for self-defense. His actions were aggressive, escalatory, and preventable.