Kroger Employee Cleared in Fatal Self-Defense Stabbing, Faces Weapon Charge

Southgate, Michigan – A Kroger employee, Charles Hinton, 33, will not face charges for the fatal stabbing of Ramon Vazquez, 23, inside a Southgate grocery store on October 7, 2025, after Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy ruled the act as lawful self-defense. However, Hinton has been charged with one count of Carrying a Concealed Weapon for illegally possessing the knife used in the incident.

The altercation occurred at the Kroger located at 16705 Fort Street. According to reports, Vazquez entered the store seeking Hinton and initiated a physical attack, punching Hinton multiple times. In response to the assault, Hinton produced a knife and stabbed Vazquez twice, leading to his death.

Prosecutor Kym Worthy issued a statement confirming the self-defense ruling, stating, "The facts in this case show that Mr. Vazquez was the initial aggressor who physically attacked Hinton while he was working. Hinton in response defended himself. In this case the facts and evidence support that he acted in lawful self-defense." Under Michigan law, individuals are permitted to use deadly force when they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

Despite the self-defense determination, Hinton faces legal repercussions for possessing the weapon. The charge of Carrying a Concealed Weapon carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. This aspect of the case has drawn commentary on social media, with user "avsterbone" tweeting, "> So a @kroger employee is ambushed & attacked by a customer, engages in lawful self-defense by stabbing his attacker to death, yet @PAKymWorthy still charges him with CCW for having a prohibited knife. Another case study on why laws that ban the possession of objects are immoral."

Hinton was arraigned on the weapons charge and released on a personal bond, with a condition not to possess weapons. His next court date is scheduled for October 24, 2025, in 28th District Court in Southgate. The case highlights the complex interplay between self-defense rights and weapon possession laws.