A Texas grand jury decided not to recommend charges against a man who shot and killed his girlfriend’s ex-husband in a viral incident caught on video in November.
After three days of deliberation, the Lubbock special grand jury voted not to indict Kyle Carruth, the man who shot and killed Chad Read during a dispute about the whereabouts of Read’s children.
Shortly after the incident, Lubbock Police Department transferred the case to the Texas Attorney General for its review. Lawyers for the AG’s office presented the case to the grand jury.
Following the ruling, the law firm representing Read’s widow vowed to pursue their client’s claims in civil court.
”The criminal justice utterly failed Jennifer Read, the widow of Chad Read,” they said. “Chad Read was involved in a heated discussion with his ex-wife concerning custody of his son. The video shows that Kyle Carruth injected himself into that discussion. We believe there was no legitimate reason for Kyle Carruth to bring a deadly weapon to an argument that he wasn’t even a part of. Chad Read died unarmed, shot, and killed while simply trying to determine the whereabouts of his son.”
Carruth’s lawyer also responded to the ruling.
“We are appreciative of the wise decision of this extremely hard-working, independent, Grand Jury,” David Guinn said. “Rarely does a Grand Jury work for three days on one case alone. Those Lubbock citizens must have learned everything imaginable about every aspect of the case and the people involved.”
As GunsAmerica reported at the time, the incident sparked a furious debate about the proper use of deadly force.
Warning: This video is graphic and uncensored.
— Ryan Chandler (@RyanChandler98) November 24, 2021
This is the Nov. 5 shooting of Chad Read by Kyle Carruth, estranged husband of state judge Ann-Marie Carruth.
No charges have been filed.
More information and censored video on @KAMCNews below pic.twitter.com/Me8fBmYlbK
SEE ALSO: Repeat Offender Becomes Dead Offender: Armed Carjacker Terminated by Religious Michigander
Video from the incident from multiple angles shows Carruth telling Read to “get off of my property,” and then go inside. Read says he is at the house to pick up his son, and Carruth returns moments later with what looks like a pistol-caliber carbine.
“Leave!” Carruth orders Read. “Right now, motherf-ker.”
“Do it,” Read replies, continuing to walk toward Carruth. “You’ll better f-king use it motherf-ker, because Godd-nit, I’ll take it from you and f-king [unintelligible],” Read continues, screaming directly into Carruth’s face and leaning into his body.
Carruth shoots into the porch at Read’s feet, but the larger man does not back down. Read swings Carruth out into the yard, and when Carruth regains his footing, he shoots Read twice.
Read falls to the ground while Carruth stands next to him on the porch. “I told all of y’all to leave,” Carruth says. “None of y’all should be here. I asked you to leave. I did everything. I did not want to do any of this.”
Read died later that day.
**Graphic video** of Lubbock Texas shooting.
— Michelle ❦ (@MichelleWhitzel) November 27, 2021
The husband of a judge in Lubbock, Kyle Carruth, killed a man named Chad Read in front of Chad’s 11 year old son. pic.twitter.com/5DCmdyJ9oM
SEE ALSO: WATCH: Armed Israeli Citizens End Deadliest Terror Attack in Years
Carruth is the former husband of Anne-Marie Carruth, a Texas district court judge.
Carruth’s lawyers argued that the homicide was justified under Texas’ “castle doctrine” while attorneys for Read’s wife argued that Carruth failed to de-escalate the situation and used a gun even though no physical threat to life or property existed, according to KCBD.
No criminal charges or arrests have been made in this case.
For a primer on Texas’ self-defense laws, click here. What are your thoughts? Did the grand jury get it right?
And what woukd have been the comments if Read took the rifle out of Curruthers hand and shot him? Probably the other guy should not have had one. Fists are used to kill too.
Watching the video closely, big man DOES NOT try and take the rifle from little man. He places one hand one his shoulder and the other on the rifle where the other man’s hand is. He never pulls the rifle towards him, instead pushes little man and rifle away. NO threat to little man. This whole thing was a setup by ex and little man to inflame big man into confrontation so little man can kill him so she gets 100 % custody of child. Whether little man gets convicted or not , ex husband is out of the way.
Sad for sure. Murder for sure.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I’m confused by the responses of the trolls on here. Aren’t you the same trolls that say we should “defund the police”? Now that you see what happens when trying to take a firearm out of the hands of the law abiding. You start crying for them to save the day. Police are there to assist you in protecting ones self and ones family. Not your guardian angel. (Although i do respect and appreciate the first responder community very much).
By the way the headline on that tweet says the son watched it happen! More fake news! Thats what the argument is about, the child isn’t home for the dad to pick up. Facts and law set this person free. There should be laws implemented to stop civil cases when already reviewed by a jury and found not guilty of a crime!
I’m a single father in Texas. And I feel like the shooter in this video should have been indicated for manslaughter. The father was there to pick up his child at 3:15pm. I can’t tell you how many times my ex did this to me, before I got primary custody. I would show up at my designated time to pick up my son, only to be made to wait for an hour, or told that he wasn’t with his Mom, or my ex simply wouldn’t answer the door. It’s extremely upsetting to the father (non-custodial parent), and these mothers get away with this shit. The father was there to pick up his son. He wasn’t being violent. He wasn’t threatening anyone. He was there to get his kid. And the other man when inside and retrieved a rifle. He threatened the father with the rifle. He fired the rifle at the man’s feet. And then when the father pushed him away, the man with the rifle shot him twice. That my friends is murder. There wasn’t a good reason to get a firearm. The father just wanted his kid. And that mother is just as guilty for his murder as the man with the rifle, because she caused of this drama. Single fathers in Texas have very little rights. And women use kids to punish their exes. This woman was playing games with his custody time. The man with the rifle should have never gone inside to retrieve the rifle. He should have just called the police. What he did to the father is MURDER.
You can talk $hit about laws all you want..but the gun culture in America is immoral as all hell ,period.I bet he even thinks he’s a good Christian ! Hahaha..pathetic..we are doomed as a species..way to go Texas…dumb MF hillbillies !
I bet you are fun at parties.
Hey Boner , does your family tree have any branches ? F’ing imbecile.
Hey , Mr. Neocommunist .
Abbie Hoffman called , he wants his “ gig “ back .
1. I reluctantly side with the shooter.
2. As soon as the property owner asked blue shirt to leave, he should have. Instead he became the belligerent tresspasser.
3. The belligerent tresspasser could have walked a few steps to the street and yelled until the police showed up.
4. The belligerent tresspasser should not have made an attempt to violently take possession of the property owners firearm.
5. I did not read where the child was at the home. In the video, the mother(?) states that the child was not there, hence the whole reason for the arguement. Immaterial to the shooters actions.
6. Empathy does not supercede fact, and those are that facts as I see them.
Good, objective assessment. I wish people used more logic like you presented.
Cant really see it either way because of lack of facts but since Read was unarmed this was in fact a murder. People just didnt want to indict the husband of a judge.
In Colorado that incident would have been classified at least 2nd degree murder! Shooting an unarmed man on a porch is absolutely insane!
Please stay there. We do not need any more migration from ONCE free and strong States. You do You, and we’ll do us.
Incident explained in 3 words: WHEN FOOLS COLLIDE.
Has anyone on here actually read the Castle Doctrine?
The castle doctrine in Texas presumes that using force is reasonable and justified when another person:
unlawfully and with force enters or attempts to enter your habitation, vehicle, or work-place; or
attempts to remove you, by force, from your habitation, vehicle, or work-place;
was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
Texas Penal Code § 9.31
Thank you for posting that TX law. Castle doctrine does not apply here because everything happened outside of the home.
I did notice that through the video to the end. 1) Someone should have called the Police before even going over to the residence. 2) The woman in the vehicle, who I’m assuming is the ex-wife of the shooter, hence a Judge, was more interested in videoing the incident rather than trying to deescalate her husband. She’s pretty much as guilty as the shooter for the shooting. 3) Not one of the three adults present went to the man who was shot to render any aid or to even see if he was still alive, which in my book, kind of makes them all guilty of his death. 4) the proper thing was to deescalate, the shooter, even though somewhat justified, should have took his girlfriend / wife in to the house, locked the door and called the Police. 5) Not one of these so called adults took into consideration that there was a child present in the house and could most probably have been an innocent victim and unfortunately now has to live with this experience of his father getting killed in front of him. 6) This whole situation could have been prevented if the adults acted like adults. 7) As for “What do you expect, this is in Texas.” This writer hasn’t a clue, Domestic situations are one of the most unpredictable situations that law enforcement officers can get involved in and scenarios like this can happen anywhere, not just Texas.
In the state of Texas one is not required to retreat, and definitely not on one’s own property. The guy that got shot was definitely acting in an aggressive and threatening manner. The homeowner first asked him to leave, the guy didn’t leave and continued to act aggressively. Then the homeowner came out of his house armed. Any trespasser in the state of Texas should know that once somebody produces a firearm it is time to LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. Instead, he got up in the homeowner’s face in a threatening manner, and dared him to shoot him. If I was was on that grand jury I would have no-billed him, right there. Nobody is permitted to threaten somebody else on their own property. The guy that got shot virtually forced the homeowner to shoot him. You can’t fix stupid.
Just because you can do something, should you?
Should you shoot an unarmed man for misdemeanor trespassing and saying a bunch of mean words to you? Should you stay in the safety of your home once you are in there and call the police?. Should you go back out into a “dangerous” situation with a firearm to inflame it more, and potentially have it taken away from you and stuck up your sawed-off ass?
Should you risk going to jail, and if you don’t, lose every thing you have and will have for the rest of your life in civil court?
I can stick a fork in an electric outlet— should I?
Hind sight is 20/20.
God created man, Smith&Wesson made them equal! People get beaten to death all the time so I say phuck yea shoot him!
Hey try that fork in the outlet thing, a real man won’t get hurt…..
😂😂🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂
Yes stupid can be fixed. We just have to get you to the local SPCA vet to take advantage of their free or low costa spay and neuter program.
Man, I wish I could go back to the original story, when I was abused by the self defense legal “experts” on here who posted that this guy was toast. Honorable men would post apologies for their nastiness and vitrol when I said this guy was never gonna be convicted, let alone indicted.
Too bad the related links are not really related. I remember that this was a hot topic with a graphic video. The shooting was not a good example of an innocent person protecting his life, family or home. I would NOT be surprised if the shooter may face legal problems at some future point.
Red headed, big guy, hot temper was living proof there are more horses asses in Texas (and all states) , than there are horses. Sooner or later, this nut would have been killed by someone.
He was kind enough to fire a warning shot. Some people are slow learners.
Has everyone in this country become soft and liberal? Seems a few understand and have responded appropriately. Look big guy was asked nicely several times by Homeowner to leave. Big guy with an abundance of stupidity and ego decided to stay and continue to trespass, Even after a smaller homeowner came out with a gun. Big guy had a death wish and got to go on to bully in the next world. Everyone has the right to protect their property luckily the woman wasn’t assaulted by big guy while the homeowner went to get help in his house. I don’t mean help from calling 911 and waiting 30 minutes either just to have some cops finishing lunch to show up to arrest the small guy because he has a firearm. You have a home intruder go ahead and wait for a cop but its your life you’re risking. People need to have laws on their side to defend their family and property.
This sounds like Redneck idiot saying stupid things, like “soft and liberal,” how about empathic and thinking, but no, the cowboys and republicans brain-dead trumpers have only a portion of their cerebral cortex working at any given time.
When people use terms like this intellectual did it indicates a brash unthinking typical response….i would bet a Franklin to a dollar that people like this don’t truly understand what is “liberal” – they just parrot the crap like brain-dead automatons that they hear from the whiner Carlson spouting in his beady-eyed squeaky manner.
People like this (incl. Carlson) couldn’t give a clear concise accurate of what a “liberal” means, or “Socialist” since theTrumpers et al throw this word about as if it were m&M candies…..and they indicate they CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND what the terms really mean. Funny. he is a socialist, biden is a socialist, Pelsoi is a socialist, I am a socialist, assholes, don’t even know what they are talking about!!! Get a life and an EDUCATION you Morons!
First of all, you do not win any arguments by calling everyone on this website stupid and Trumpers. You prove your own indoctrinated way of thinking from the left. So it doesn’t help. Kind of like the guy who brought a gun to a voice argument. Yes, I said it for everyone else on here who says the big red head guy was a bully and an idiot. You all should be ashamed of yourselves, left and right. Did the guy have justification to bring a gun? Maybe, the guy was clearly not thinking and being rude. What about his son who saw him die in such a manner? Also, was the guy really a threat? He was standing, and arguing, on the front yard. He became aggressive the minute a gun was introduced. Did the guy go inside and call the cops and allow them to deescalate, then put a pistol in a concealed back pocket? I don’t know if he called the cops, but I did see him bring a rifle. That was the equivalent of pouring gas on a fire. And we saw how it ended. As an EMT, we learn how to deescalate because we can’t shoot back. I am a responsible gun owner and have them to defend my home. I agree he would be justified under castle doctrine, however I also ask if the guy did not cause the need for castle doctrine to apply. But as the man is now dead, we may never know if he might not have eventually calmed down and left, or if the cops couldn’t have caused the same outcome. But don’t call us Trumpers and uneducated assholes. It literally does absolutely nothing to support your point.
No one asked your opinion about who’s a liberal. I sometimes wonder how you simpletons survive. You have the absolute right to defend yourself, another person or your home. And since you like to bandy about other folks’ leanings: shut up, go home, learn to type and read the U.S. Constitution. You know, I’ve seen Carlson be wrong, but he has never lied. Open your mid Prol.
I’m not a “cowboy”, but I love horses and riding them. I’m not a republican (I’m an independent), but my positions align with them most of the time. I’m not a “Trumper”, but I sure as hell agreed with about 99% of what he did and was trying to do. I know exactly what “liberal” and “socialist” mean and I sure as hell don’t “identify as” either. Quite simply because I’m not. It sounds like you admit to being a socialist and you (correctly) label Puhloosy and Brandon the same, but you also throw either Trump and/or (Tucker) Carlson in there as well. I’m not sure which one you are referring to in your rambling, rather incoherent and poorly written comment. Maybe you should consider some of that “education” you so obnoxiously recommend for others. Make sure to include “language arts” and writing.
Wow. Somebody got all fired up by the ladies on The View …
Nancy boy emotes.
Why are you on here??? Why are you watching Tucker??? Go enjoy your life somewhere else!!! By the way wasn’t it Biden that said to ward trespassers by firing warning shots from your shotgun? Which this guy did and like Bidens other policies it failed to work.
When did this country get so pussified, and thin skinned, that that mere words are enough to kill someone?
A real man would have just went inside an locked the door, and left the big bad man talking to himself out on the front lawn. But then again, he was a short little bastard himself, with something to prove to his Alpha wife.
He’ll get his in civil court, or the widow and son will.
What do you expect, this is in Texas. The state is a Sick place, look at its recent deranged legislation against Pro-Choice. What kind of pathetic judge mental ignoramuses would deny a woman her own choice….only on sick BS religious grounds. So in a state like Texas with large constituents of hateful, fascist, under-educated, myopic losers why might one expect them to rule otherwise?
After all real men carry guns….real men are tough and not afraid to shoot someone to show what big tough men they are, at least until they get home and look in the mirror, strut around with their piece “strapped,” these are Real Men! Texas is one of the 15 or so states in this Union that don’t have a Clue about Democracy and will Bring It Down for all of us!!!
You seem to have an overwhelming respect for Texas , firearms owners ,
organized Religion , education (or your brand of it ) and Our Representative
Republic ( not a Democracy ) .
If anyone will , “ Bring It Down “ , I’m reasonably sure folks like you will be in
the vanguard , waving “ sickle and hammer “ & “ red star banners “ .
Mind those Molotov Cocktails , and “ smash & grabs “ , ‘ hate to see you patriots
get arrested .
Texas is a good state but every state has it’s nut jobs.
LOL! Ok, groomer.
Tom, seek professional help.
You speak to “hateful” and espouse hate?!?!?!?!?!
Better look in the mirror, man.
Tom, I think the antigun sites miss you. Commie. Now go kill a baby and feel better.
I’m glad to see you have such a low opinion of our state Tom, maybe it will keep you and your husband from visiting. Just don’t forget, when your liberal local government taxes you into poverty, don’t look for greener pastures here where our conservative leaders have our state booming with business and NO state income tax. I suggest you head to France when things get tough, you will find many like minded pansies there.
Get off our lawn Tom, you fuggin Libard pussy
Holy smokes, what a ridiculous D-bag. I just have one question; is it too late to abort you? I’m happy to perform the abortion, pro bono.
He was given fair if he truly had a officer on the way he should have let him sort it out case closed!
“look at its recent deranged legislation against Pro-Choice.”
What, running low on ingredients for your Hillary baby-parts stir-fry recipe?
What’s really sick is your upset that he was killed yet you’re all for the murder of babies.
Tom, first off, WHY are you on this site? It stands for everything you hate, so what’s your excuse for trolling? Second, this really isn’t the forum for abortion debate, but you brought it up. I never thought men should really interject in the abortion debate; very rarely are men the primary caregiver / left holding the baby when the other party splits. The women, who’s live’s WILL be changed forever should have the last word. I believed this until New York passed it’s new legal infanticide bill. Allowing abortions up until actual birth is NOT an abortion. It is murder. When a fully formed, viable child is killed by a doctor because some woman “changed her mind” at 8 1/2 months, we, as a people, have a serious problem. That is what sparked the anti-abortion backlash happening across the nation. Your kind just couldn’t leave well it alone, you wanted complete control over someone else’s life. So take your name calling elsewhere, this forum is for healthy, respectful debate. Go back to streaming CNN and MSNBC, and stop defining “democracy” when you have no clue about what it is based on your own statements.
This was nothing but justified! Big boy tried to take the weapon and probably turned it on him. Justified!
NOT one of the commenting folks here were there nor at the Grand jury.
It is kind of tough if you don’t agree with ruling but that being said your only right is to YOUR opinion.
As others have stated the smaller guy was out for a kill! He didn’t want/need a firearm for protection (but living in Lubbock and how bad it has gotten I would most likely have 1 also) he was wanting justifiable murder! All participating parties could’ve handled it different, but someone(s) just don’t want too be that way! If your going to grab a gun from someone else, find the mag release! Your odds can improve? Just cause the 1 guy is bigger doesn’t make it a threat, only a bigger guy! The smaller guy has a little man complex, but has too prove he is just smaller person with little (as in less) brain cells! Forget 911 for LEOs use it for CPS. If he is there to pick up his child for their allotted time then he has that right of being there. I’ve lived in Lubbock and know what it’s like on and off campus. The child is what is and will be hurting the most for the loss of his dad. The mother is a useless woman! Either way it was murder!!!!!!!!
Many firearms will still fire when the mag is removed. For instance: Ruger, Gock, Smith & Wesson, kel-tec….
I realize that, but it leaves 1 in the pipe and nothing to feed after. After 1 shot in the floor it will be empty if mag released before fired. Probably ALL AR style will fire without mag inserted. I don’t know of any that have a mag safety?
Both parties had choices
1- You are asked told to leave a private property His choice was to continue raging
2- Private property owner asked you to leave retrieved weapon his choice was to threaten him that he would use weapon on him,
As soon if not before the gun came out he had a choice to find another way. When was his rage going to stop? The child was not there, time to leave. The grand jury was correct IMO
I should preface this by saying I’m a 100% pro-deadly force person who has used a firearm in self defense multiple times. When I saw this video the first time it was shown on GA, I figured the shooter will be spending life in prison. This was NOT an incident requiring deadly force and the gun was brought out in anger, not necessity. It was an argument, not a threat of any violence. All the evidence is in the video and it proves how our justice system is broken.
Did we watch the same video? Read grabbed the rifle, but Carruth had a better grip, and got thrown out in the yard. Once a bigger, angry man tries to take your weapon by force, there is only going to be one of two outcomes. But somebody is going to die. I can’t believe it took three days to come to a conclusion that the right man lived.
Yes, we watched the same video, but the first question is did he need to bring out the gun in the first place? Was that justifiable? The man was angry and argumentative, but was he violent and aggressive? Or did he become more violent and aggressive only after the gun was introduced? And as someone said above, if the man was there for his legally appointed custody time with his son, then did he in fact have a legal right to be there? In which case would castle doctrine apply? He wasn’t breaking and entering if he was legally allowed to be there to pick up his son. But what not many on here are saying is that the real victim here is the son, who per the article was there and saw his biological father killed. What will that do to him? But often, our rights trump our compassion and common sense in this country anymore.
Obviously this guy has been a bully his whole life and sadly he came across someone that wasn’t afraid to use whatever force necessary to even the playing field.
It didn’t have to come to this. Cooler heads should have prevailed. About 25 years ago I too had problems with the ex-wife’s new love interest whom enjoyed nothing more than interfering with my relationship with my children that he learned from a vindictive new wife. Those cooler heads prevailed because I let the legal system take care of the problem instead of blowing his brains out, which was my first inclination.
I know this dad was upset, but he could have just walked away and let the courts take care of this perceived problem, as should the shooter. He should have stayed out of it. When he went in the house to get his gun he should have stayed there and just made sure the conversation between the two ex’s stayed civil. Which it appeared to be, except for the shouting match escalated by the bully. He better be glad the pissed off dad hadn’t packed his own gun to this little soiree, or he could have been the one dead on the ground.
Sadly, life will never be the same for these folks, especially for the guy that took this life. No doubt he’ll go through life wondering; ‘what if I had stayed in the house’?
No doubt the grand jury had a VERY difficult decision to make.
Seems to me that the coward obviously doesn’t have the balls to fight a man so he used a gun, and all because the woman, like women tend to do, attempted to keep his son from him. Hopefully the widow completely destroys the coward and the ex financially.
@elapid King: you do a lot of name calling and make a lot of assumptions and accusations for someone who was not on site.
Why didnt anyone try to save this guy on-site? His own girlfriend/wife sat in the vehicle recording well after he was shot. Doesnt say much for the guys character if no one even tried to save him.
What would she be able to do? He was just itching to find an excuse to gun her down as well. The coward didn’t have the balls to fight a man so he just pulled a gun and I have no doubt that he would have gladly gunned her down as well. Hopefully someone visits this same on him and his entire family, extended family as well.
My thoughts exactly. The whole lot of them continued their squabbling while bully-man laid there leaking all over the porch. Buffoonery all around.
Big man was trespassing. Once he was told to leave, he should have left. The big man, with the big ego, got the better of him. He’s dead for it.
I’m all for one having the right to protect himself and property with deadly force.
This however is a stain on gun owners and the TX “justice” system. The dude shot out of frustration and anger, not out of fearing for his life or responding to an imminent, deadly threat.
Bad shoot. Bad grand jury decision. This was murder.
This was nothing but justified! Big boy tried to take the weapon and probably turned it on him. Justified!
So BJ, if someone were to trespass onto your property, refuse to leave after multiple demands and a warning shot, and the the trespasser were to yell & say: “You’ll better f-king use it motherf-ker, because Godd-nit, I’ll take it from you and f-king___ (….”disarm and kill you!” perhaps?), and then throw you to the ground… You would just sit back and take whatever comes next? Not me, nor anybody with a spine and common sense. Good luck becoming a victim.
In the commie state I live in, it would not have gone this way for sure.
Yeah, they should have called police as the ex didn’t appear to have a weapon although he was raging pretty bad and, well, asking for it. It does look like the shooter was looking for an excuse too shoot IMHO.
Poor judgment all the way around. Kids scarred for life.
The heart decoration on the wall is paradoxical.
When the large dude put hands on the property owner it became assault. Obviously there is animosity between big guy and his ex, little dude was attempting to remove large dude from his property, large dude should have gone to his vehicle and waited on the cops in order to get his son. His inability to patiently wait and attempt to bully someone to get his way got him shot. Little dude had no responsibility to calm large dude down, it would have been better if he did. Large dude should have remembered that he and his ex are going to be raising their child for a long time and kindness with understanding goes a long way.
Well said.
Well, they shouldn’t have been trying to keep his son from him. Hopefully he gets gunned sown along with his entire family for righteous retribution.
@ElapidKing: You weren’t there so bugger off.
Conservative Texas Men: “Projecting the threat of being shot or shooting to kill is the only way I can protect myself”.
Next you’ll be saying its okay to shoot someone because you didn’t like what they said about you or a loved one. “My castle is my person [and/or my family and friends] and is anywhere I’m standing at any given moment”. What a bunch of f*cking Will Smiths!!
I think Texas should bring dueling back; I’ll bet you would absolutely wither if the other man also has a gun and you had to stand there and take the shot.
Go ahead! Start throwing around the expected assumptive and ignorant retorts of “Libtard” “Gun Hater” “A2 apostate” – as usual you’d be dead wrong. Pun intended.
Bottomline – this law will be used as an excuse to kill someone even if they’re not posing a serious threat- like in this case. Fear, nor the ability to carry a firearm, isn’t conducive to true respect or being a man.
The loser attempting to keep the dude’s son from him didn’t have the balls to fight a man so instead decided to resort to the cowards solution and bring a gun to a fist fight. That said, I have no doubt that had the woman left her vehicle to attend to her dying boyfriend, the coward would have used it as an excuse to gun her down as well. Hopefully she’ll end up a multi millionaire from this.
Unbiased Realist is obviously an biased troll one should wisely ignore.
If that big thug will bully a smaller man, even arrogantly so after lil guy guns-up, ya might have an idea why the wife ex’d the brute? No backstory on big bull’s prior contacts, of course, and everybody likes to think they would have done it better. jes’ sayin’.
Bottom line…. The Grand Jury hear things we didn’t, they spent 3 days looking it over and saw and heard things we didn’t.
At the end of the day it was the GJ that said no charges. Roll the dice on that one.
I have my own opinion and I’ll keep it.
Does the law ever get it wrong? does it ever get it right?
This case has many dynamics.
But you have to consider that this was a grand jury, not a trial.
The grand jury had to make a decision based on evidence presented to them. If they determined that the evidence presented wasn’t enough to indict, then so be it.
That’s not a guilty verdict nor is it exoneration.
A trial may or may not be held.
There are good arguments for various facets of this case . It not a simple situation and does involve more than 2 people
I guess if it is legal for Capitol police to shoot unarmed civilians, then why are we even looking at this case? Not sure about all of you but if someone fires warning shots it’s time to leave.
A couple of hot heads, pure and simple. I agree with Slim, the child’s mother, an officer of the court no less, should have called 911. She definitely deserves a good deal of the blame for this senseless mess. As for a good old fashioned fist fight; it looks the big jerk is about a foot taller than the smaller man. So, the smaller guy is supposed to take an “ass whoopin” because the bully won’t leave when told to? Not at my house.
The two losers were unlawfully attempting to keep the guy’s kid from him. The two deserve whatever happens to them and hopefully it’s permanently devastating.
A troll plain and simple is what you are. Post after Post of your nonsense. People are killed more from fists in feet every year than from firearms but I doubt ignorant people know that. You keep stating over and over like a broken record that he should’ve thrown punches. You don’t know the guy , you don’t know whether he can fight , He could have a disability, but you assume just because of his gender that he should throw punches with the big guy. That’s not how it works. That’s the whole point of firearms, they equalize the fight. The big guy charged him,threatened to take his gun and kill him with it and then proceeded to try and take the gun. He got what he deserved. Just like you would should you try that. Now move out troll , you’re dismissed
As a retired law enforcement officer a divorced father and after watching the video.
I can only come to one conclusion. Mr. Read was baited and trap as a lot of fathers are, but the perpetrators went as so far to murder him.
Mr. Carruth committed without a doubt premeditated homicide.
Carruth tells Read to leave multiple times and then goes inside for that PC9, returns again tells Read to leave and THEN fires a warning shot in the ground (or tries to shoot Read in the foot & misses). And you call all of that premeditated murder, without a doubt?
There is the law and there is what is right. In this case the law protected the property owners action against an aggressive trespasser who was told to leave the property. His refusal to obey and his aggressive and threatening manner resulted in his death. “Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes.”
Texas however is different than most states when it comes to the use of deadly force to protect yourself, home and property. This stems from the Texas Nation and later State of Texas history. Before and after the Texas revolution against Mexico, residents, were set upon robbers, raiders and other killers in the form of Bandits, Outlaws, Comancheros, various Indian Tribes and units of the Mexican Army. If someone was on your property, especially at night, they were assumed to be up to no good and shooting them was perfectly fine, depending on who it was, this could include the daytime as well. The law today reflects that and is not wrong, as it reflects the experience and culture of the Texas people.
In this case, despite the law being on the property owner’s side, he should have locked himself in the house, yelled for the guy to leave the property, while is spouse called the Police/Sheriff, etc. If the aggressor tried to break in the house, then no one (except a Libtard) would have questioned his decision to end this guys life. Instead, you have this scene of two people who are clearly both assholes in action.
Sorry Gents, as a Former Federal officer this is plain murder and thats all there is to it!
“Sorry Gents, as a Former Federal officer this is plain murder and thats all there is to it!”
As a former federal officer, you should shut the hell up. You’re the type who put innocent people in jail for nothing for January 6th, most of whom remain there, uncharged. We don’t trust any of you maggots anymore.
We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Parliamentary Democracy, therefore Federal Law or the opinions of a former federal officers have zero weight here. Yes, if a Fed or even a local official behaved this way, they might be fired or prosecuted under federal law, but this case and everyone’s action is defined by Texas law.
According to Texas law, you have the right to use force, including deadly force, to stop someone from committing murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Self-defense applies whether the person was attacking you or another person. In other words, if you intentionally injure someone to stop them in the act of an attempted kidnapping, rape, or other violent crime, you can still claim that you acted in self-defense, even though you were technically defending a third party. Also the fact that the aggressor is standing on the porch, is basically the same as if he was in the house, as most people from Southern States would understand the porch to be a part of the home.
In this case, as I said before, you have two assholes behaving badly and the unarmed one dies. I agree that the actions of both were morally and tactically wrong, however the law sided with the homeowner, as it should have. If Texans don’t like the outcome, they, not the feds, can change their laws.
The dude was clearly physically AND verbally aggressive, using his size and using obscenities to intimidate the shooter.
He was trespassing at the point when he was told to leave the property and refused. He paid for those mistakes with his life. Period.
Clearly the evidence in the grand jury didn’t agree with you. Considering the guy said I’ll take that gun from you and use it on you, and then proceeded to grab the guys gun, that’s self-defense. And if you really were a federal officer and somebody grabbed your gun, I highly doubt they would charge you if you shot them
AGREED!!!!
You’re living proof of just how ignorant of the law federal officers can be.
Wrong, former fed. Putting down a hostile trespasser who’s attempting to take your lethal weapon by force isn’t “plain murder.” No wonder no one trusts the jackbooted federal cowards in government costumes.
The shooter is in the wrong.. Sounds like he inserted himself into something that wasn’t his business. While he had the right to order the guy off his property he didn’t have the right to use deadly force. It the guy refused to leave you call the cops. It seems like he wanted an excuse to use his gun. This does point out the problem with Constitutional Carry. This guy didn’t know the law but got away with a murder. He got lucky.
You’re wrong. Watch the video. The guy clearly says he’s going to take the gun from him and use it on him. Then proceeds to grab the gun. That’s self-defense buddy. You can argue whether he should’ve come out there with a gun at all, but the guy clearly charged him and grabbed his gun, and that’s exactly with a grand jury found
You don’t think that the shooters wife being a circuit court judge did not influence the grand jury? What a miscarriage of Justice. The victim was unarmed why would the little man with a huge ego bring out a gun? If he was so completed to confront the victim fight him like a man. He shoot him like a animal….
This has nothing to do with Constitutional Carry. He was on his property. Having said that I don’t think this was a justified use of lethal force. His life was not in imminent danger, and he did not even try to diffuse the argument, and even escalated it.
The shooter’s life WAS in imminent danger the moment the bully ex-husband tried to wrestle it from him and had already threatened to take it from him and use it on him. Did you even watch the videos? Justified shoot.
You’ve evidently never been in real danger. The cowardly homeowner was never in any danger until he came out with the firearm. If he was afraid, he should have stayed inside.
It would have been hard to protect yourself or someone else with a rifle stuck up your ass, because that’s what you get when you interfere with the custody of someone else’s child.
What a bunch of nonsense you spew. The homeowner should stay inside and hide while his wife is outside with a hostile ex-husband. What is wrong with you. That’s rhetorical. The man has a right to protect his property himself and his wife. He doesn’t have to use his fists because you say he does. He could be disabled and unable to fight for all you know. Irregardless fists and feet kill more people than guns every year. As for ever being in real danger, I have 2 combat tours with Aco 3/505 PIR 82nd ABN.
I’m enjoying the dissonance many of these other comments exemplify. All y’all loved the castle doctrine until it got applied to a white man who looks like a GunsAmerica commenter. A white man who was trying to see his children after his wife divorced him. I bet you one or two of these GA commenters are also weekend dads.
The subtext of the outraged comments seems to be: “Wait a minute, it could have happened to me! It’s murder!”
Big white dude shouting, physically engaging with an armed man while making threats? Typical GA commenter says murder.
Scared black teen with a bag of Skittles running from a Florida man who chased him down and then lost a wrestling match and shot the kid? Typical GA commenter says hurray for the castle doctrine.
Here’s the bottom line: Everybody has a castle. Get used to it.
Take your racist crap out of here. It has nothing to do with him being white. The shooting was not justified because his life was not in danger. You don’t get to shoot people just because they are yelling. He also escalated things.
Take your race pimping elsewhere.
How in the world does skin color have anything to do with this story? And as far as your “Scared black teen with a bag of Skittles” comment, you really should consider doing some research before commenting on a subject you obviously know nothing about. The “scared teen” was bashing George Zimmerman’s skull into the concrete so your damn right the “scared black teen” got his ass shot. That is the epitome of self-defense.
Whoopi, Whoopi Goldberg, is that you?
There always has to be one person make it about race, pathetic. Are you just mad because that dad wanted to see his son. The victim mentality of people like you is sad
The POS in Florida deserved it, when he could have when into his apartment he circled the building and jumped a guy with a gun… GOOD RIDDANCE! Same with that POS in Missouri… again, GOOD RIDDANCE!
This was MURDER and he got away with it because it involved a Judge….PERIOD!
“running from a Florida man who chased him down”
There is no consensus among WHITE people here. You are bitching but making little sense. If you saw Zimmerman walking down the street would you think he was WHITE?
This is ignorant. The dead man was warned off, and a warning shot was even fired. The mother was his girlfriend so he had a right to be involved. Dead man was totally bigger, beligerant and aggressive. He was at fault and threatened to take the firearm away from the owner and do some unspeakable things with it. If you carry you may find yourself in a position be where you have to shoot someone in order to maintain control of your firearm. As this shows, some people are not stopped by you brandishing your weapon. I will not argue the dead man had a right to be there but all because of his “I’m a badass” attitude he is now defunct. His fault-stupid, but a justifiable shooting.
Very well said.
Very well said.
100% on point. Bad situation for both sides, but aggressive dead guy grabbed the weapon, that was where deadly force was justified IMO
Dad just wanted his visitation with his son. Mom playing games made the incident worse. She is at fault here too. The dead father had a right to be angry. This didn’t seem to be the first time she interfered with his visitation. At the end of the day a child is fatherless. Just because the Castle Doctrine says you can does not mean you should.
“Castle doctrine” has nothing to do with it. When someone grabs your rifle after threatening to use it on you when they do, you’re justified to stop that threat with lethal force.
I am pro gun as much as the next guy but what happened to the old days when you settled things with a good old fashioned fist fight? There was no reason to bring a gun into this situation.
Did the guy have a known history of violence or abuse towards the woman?
I believe that a more prudent course of action would have been to call the cops first and remain out of the confrontation unless the woman was threatened. Might have resolved without the need for lethal force. A better outcome.
The use of force against another is not justified
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer;
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) or (5) if the actor (shooter) confronted the other person concerning their differences while the actor was possessing or transporting several different types of weapons.
Deadly Force to Protect Property – Texas Penal Code § 9.42
There is a three-part test an owner must meet in order to use deadly force to protect his property. A person is justified in using deadly force to protect his land or tangible property if:
he would be justified in using force against the other under § 9.41 of the Penal Code;
he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime or to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
he reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means or the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
That was murder and no doctrine can justify that shooting!
The victim was unarmed, there was no threat of violence until murderer came back with a weapon. This is clearly a misuse of the castle doctrine.
This is directly from the Texas Penal Code
“Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(b)(1). If the force used is reasonable in the situation, then using force is considered justified” The shooter turned an argument he was not part of into a physical altercations and used that as to commit murder.
Below are reasonable reason from the penal code
1. unlawfully and with force enters or attempts to enter your habitation, vehicle, or work-place; or
2.attempts to remove you, by force, from your habitation, vehicle, or work-place;
3.committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
“The person seeking to claim protection under the law cannot have provoked, or started, the incident. This is also known as being the “aggressor,” and it is not permitted under Texas law.”
What????
“…3.committing or attempting to commit…murder,..”
This is EXACTLY what occurred the moment the ex-husband tried to wrestle the rifle away from the boyfriend. He’d already promised to use it on the boyfriend if he could get hold of it. Watch the video.
The use of force against another is not justified (The shooter introduced a weapon making it a unjustified shooting)
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer;
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) or (5) if the actor (shooter) confronted the other person concerning their differences while the actor was possessing or transporting several different types of weapons.
Wrong again.
You either didn’t read the actual penal code or you’re deliberately leaving out the key part of 931(b)(5): “…possessing or transporting a weapon IN VIOLATION OF Section 46.05.”
He wasn’t possessing or transporting in violation of 46.05, which deals with, inter alia, various *illegal* lethal weapons. (46.05 is entitled “PROHIBITED WEAPONS”) So (b)(5) doesn’t apply at all.
(b)(4) doesn’t appear to apply either, since the provocation was already initiated by the now-room-temperature bully who was illegally on the property. Merely retrieving a means of self-defense (the rifle) is not provocation.
Easy answer: YES. Addendum: Texas needs to amend its self defense law so that it forbids civil suits if the shooting was ruled justified.
Is the dead guy liberal?
I guess he found out.
When a reasonable man has a rifle, and you’re not on your own property, you respect that man’s request to leave the property. Especially, after he’s fired a shot, and you’re still alive to be able to leave on your own.
This is a tuff one the childs father should have been able to see his kid no matter what if the father was no threat to his kid
I’m not sure how Texas law reads, but this was completely morally unjustified. There was zero reason to bring the gun out, the guy was in no way getting violent or threatening violence. He was there to pick up his kid as per a court order and was threatening to take them to court! Not violence, but court! The coward grabbed a gun when there was zero imminent threat and chose to escalate the situation which was completely nonviolent at that point. He was the primary aggressor in every way. This is like saying the robber had a right to shoot the victim because the victim tried to disarm the robber. This is the kind of case that makes people hate guns and want to ban them (not saying I agree with that notion personally).
Unjustified completely.
I fully agree with this comment…
I agree as well. I cannot believe they set him free.
Yeah well, I guess the court saw it differently didn’t they.
When I tell you to get off my land…I suggest you comply.
The same as the homeowner could have called the police; the aggressor could have as well. He was told to leave, and ultimately, I guess he did.
Well said. The dude allowed his size and intimidation factor to override his common sense and he paid for that mistake with his life. If there is a civil suit by the family, they would not want me on that jury. Period.
With our broken justice system it’s not surprising. See Kyle Rittenhouse – a shooting so obviously justified it should have never went to trial. This is the opposite side of things. Where the shooter escalated the situation, shot a warning shot – proof his life was not in imminent danger, and finally killed an unarmed man. Compare this with Rittenhouse who was chased and physically beaten and had to save his life.
Why was the child’s mother not charged. She created the situation, as usual. Anyone can understand why the guy has a right to protect his home yet the father also had rights from the courts about his visitation with his child and now due to the wife’s irresponsibility and calculating behavior a child grows up with this memory in his mind forever all having been totally unnecessary. “Call 911 call 911” is the call from the other female in distress who wants to involve other people to settle their problems that they have created. Again…why is the mother not charged????
“Men’s privilege”, where men have no rights. Is it any wonder why many gave up of marriage?
Justified once agitator said “I’ll take it from you…” All that is need to be proven at that point is if the shooter believed it. Also pretty stupid all around.
And this is why the rest of the world thinks that Americans are guntoting maniacs. I understand and support 2A, I understand lethal self defence when your life is in immediate danger. But this? A man killed in front of his kid, for what? A brawl?
Not even a brawl. A guy trying to pick up his son as per the court order, the only threat he made was legal action against them by saying he would take them to court, zero threats of violence, zero attempt to gain entry into the house, in no way was he an imminent threat to anyone. Time and opportunity to call the police and instead a guy grabbed the gun and was the primary aggressor to escalate the situation which resulted in that primary aggressor murdering a person who was simply upset for a valid reason.
Yep that’s what I saw as well. The shooter escalated the situation by bringing out a gun and firing a warning shot.
Zero threats of violence? Are you kidding me here? Did you actually watch the video?
The topic of ammunition choices is a simple answer when it comes to court.
Use the exact ammunition your local police use.
They have no special classification protecting them or giving the special privileges on what type of ammunition that their department may issue that as a Legal U.S. Citizen you are not allowed to make use of in personal defense.
Meaning that unless every shooting that resulted in the death of an individual caused by a department’s officers is open to such lawyer crap, then your ammo choice and use is golden.
I hadn’t heard the jury outcome, but I do remember when this happened. I’m still pretty mixed about it.
I feel like if the whole situation had been handled differently, there would have never been an altercation. From what I remember, it was a scheduled stay with the father. Kid wasn’t there, nobody told him, and they wouldn’t tell him where the kid was. That’s got to be a very frustrating position to be in, especially after a probably lengthy and expensive custody agreement requiring multiple trips to court.
Could have been resolved with a simple phone call or a civil conversation saying “hey, Jr. isn’t here because he went to little Johnny’s house after school, but he’ll be here in 10 minutes”.
Law doesn’t always make right. Gun owners have an obligation to the population at large to make their firearm a tool of last resort, ESPECIALLY when the agressor isn’t visibly armed or actively trying to end life.
And if the mother stays with the man who killed the father of her child over what should have been at worst a heated conversation, and that child is raised by the murder of his father, well that’s just wrong.
But I figured this would happen. A, it’s Texas. B, the shooter had local political ties.
But hell, police have been cleared of murders far more blatant than this, so why not let a commoner catch a break.
When GunsAmerica has first reported on this incident in November 2021, I have immediately looked out for the video, have seen it and quickly came to the belief, not saying that I knew, that the shooting was likely justified. And here we are, the grand jury has also decided in this way. In my opinion, and to answer the question at the end of this article, they rightfully did so. I was even amazed that Mr. Carruth allowed this guy in coming so close to him, while he already held the gun. The fact that Mr. Read kept threatening Mr. Carruth on his own property, knowing that this guy is holding a loaded gun pointing right towards him, was a big signal for me that Mr. Read was just out there for this. Even the warning shot that Mr. Carruth gave him, telling him that he is ready for just everything, was not enough to stop this guy. He could have just come and friendly say “Hello Mr. Carruth, are my children in your home?” and if Mr. Carruth would have said “No, they are not, please leave my property at once.” and Mr. Read would have left right after this, everything could have ended in a peaceful manner. Yet, Mr. Read was really out there for this, posed as a threat and received the deadly consequences.
I have just taken a look at this video again and I have just assured myself of what I have just written, which is just my own opinion by the way, feel free to have a different one. By the way, it is videos like this that make me happy about the fact that I am still single.
1. I’ve been in that situation with an ex-a few times – with a few of her right nows.
2. That was wasn’t his property.
3. That wasn’t his child.
4. That wasn’t his business.
5. He was a little man, with a big ego, being used by a vindictive ex-spouse, too stupid to realize it.
I bet it will cost them both financially.
Thinking about your words, I agree with you. It was definitely a tragic situation, with both sides being fired up. Again, I can only imagine such a situation, as I do not have a family on my own, but both of these guys were probably on for this struggle, unfortunately.
Did the grand jury make the right decision? If I understand the Castle Doctrine correctly, it does appear the grand jury probably made the technically correct decision here.
Having said that… Little Kyle is a tiny, soft, sopping wet pussy. If tiny Kyle’s pride is so large that listening to his woman’s “baby daddy” raise his voice to her is too much for that midget to stand, maybe he should learn to fight like a grown ass man.
I didn’t actually hear Chad directly threaten anyone with specific violence before the midget started waiving his gun around. Chad just refused to comply with the midget’s whiny demand to immediately vacate his front lawn. The only specific threat I heard come out of Chad’s mouth before the midget pulled the gun out was a threat of legal action. Afterward though, Chad did make the mistake of verbalizing his intent to snatch the midget’s gun.
I definitely support the Castle Doctrine, but I don’t think you should kill someone just because you can. I also don’t think you should kill someone just because you want to put a good old fashion ass whoopin on em but you know you’re not man enough to serve up that ass whoopin.
‘This testosterone filled idiot got just what he went there for (trouble)! The grown up thing to do was to immediately leave when he was asked and immediately involved the police. Just like Will Smith he wanted to impose his will on a smaller guy and this turned out badly for him. After reading your comments I realized that a lot more of you idiots need to grow up and use your heads for more than hat rack’s
Agreed!
10-4
Domestic Dispute concerning Child Custody … you just KNOW it’s going sideways !!! Start off with a call to 911… and then Pass Go …
Especially when there’s a PICK UP full of Women with COUNTRY MUSIC playing and a PISSED OFF EX HUSBAND screaming at his EX and her boyfriend about KIDS that aren’t even THERE and he WON’T leave the property and is threatening VIOLENCE !!!
A WARNING shot wouldn’t even stop him … Throwing the Armed Home Owner off his porch didn’t help either.
The chickens squawking in the background was just extra…
Maybe he should have just gone over to the Mother-In-Laws house… she could have shot him just as easy…
And you wonder why COPS hate Domestic Disputes … they almost NEVER go down good…
The home owner just simply needed a basic level of jiu-jitsu to subdue the intruder and de-escalate until the police arrived to remove the now deceased father. Legally, could the home owner use deadly force… maybe. But was that the best option, I think most would argue no. If the father has started attacking the home owner, then still, jiu-jitsu would easily level the playing field. If the father started attacking with a weapon, THEN I could support the use of a deadly weapon. At the end of the day, when emotions run high, judgement runs low. No one there was in control of themselves which is sad, embarrassing, and left a child fatherless. ALL of the present adults have some blame in allowing the situation to get out of hand like that.
So… you’re saying the homeowner needed jiu-jitsu? And that would have leveled the playing field?
What if Kyle AND Chad both had jiu-jitsu? Then what? Chad was obviously larger than Kyle, how level would that field be then? Chad was the aggressor in this instance, not thinking clearly and letting emotion get the better of him even when faced with an armed homeowner demanding him to leave the property.
What bothers me most about this whole scene is no rendering of aid to Chad after the shooting, and the camera kept rolling as Chad’s wife is screaming to call 911. You already have it on video…. now shut the camera off and dial 911 yourself.
If the man LEFT as he was told to he wood be ALIVE !!
EXACTLY!! He was looking for trouble and trying to intimidate the smaller guy, simply because he was larger in stature. Had some guy looking like Jason Momoa walked out and said, “Get off my land Mother Fu_ker”, that idiot would have backed down. Whether he was there for a legitimate reason or not, he was clearly a bully. He played a stupid game and won the prize. Plain and simple.
Absolutely.
Blue dog is a Quimmy moron. He is not obligated to leave OR deescalate, the aggressor was trespassing, acting aggressively, threatening and refusing to leave. America hating cowards like blue dog balls is what is wrong with civilization.
One need look no further than this very page to see that the Castle Doctrine excuses murder. Carruth left the scene of the fight, was not pursued and returned armed to escalate this situation. Lubbock has seen a spike in murders in the last few years; it is no surprise that a judge’s boyfriend gets off scot-free. The vigilante culture is strong in Lubbock, pretty much every guy off the Tech campus fancies himself to be John Wayne but what we get is a bunch of Larry the Cable Guys. (Larrys the Cable Guy? What is the appropriate plural?)
So let me understand this…..You feel okay with someone coming up to your house and threatening you and even after arming yourself the aggressor gets physical…you are down with that? I figure if the gun didn’t scare him he is capable of doing anything! Maybe you should get your doctor to up those hormones so you grow a pair!
Once Read laid hands on Caruth and began to throw him around, it became a self-defense scenario instead of a Castle Doctrine defense. The Grand Jury reached the correct conclusion
The Castle Doctrine doesn’t excuse murder, it allows you to defend yourself against those who would cause you harm. The homeowner has a right to defend himself, and his loved ones, on his property. You have a definite bias towards someone doing that. I hope you are never in the same situation, as I don’t think you’ll survive it if you are the home owner.
I don’t know if Blue Dog is a liberal idiot or a idiot liberal. His attitude in that type of situation will get him and maybe others around him injured or killed.
“pretty much every guy off the Tech campus fancies himself to be John Wayne”,? How do you have this information? Or, as usual, are you and and your gun-grabbing ilk just making crap up to justify your ludicrous positions? BlueHimDog, you lost any credibility you had long ago with statements like the above. Peddle you’re BS over on Bloomberg’s Everytown, that crowd will eat up your stupid opinions.
THAT’S the bluemutt/he/she/it we’ve all come to know, disagree with and generally dislike here in the GA comment section. First and foremost, when little man and property owner tells big man to leave the property, he has no way of knowing whether big man is armed or not. Personally I never open carry. If I had someone on my property refusing to leave I’d make sure I was armed as well. I wouldn’t have to go in the house to get it either because I would’ve already been armed, but that’s just me. When big man refused to leave at 1st command, LE would’ve been called. Being thrown off of my own front porch or someone grabbing my gun is simply out of the question. NOT going to happen. Period. I have no idea what all the “vigilante” bs even means – how the hell does that even remotely apply here ? Guess you libturds have your own definition for that too. Shouldn’t surprise me, on your side of the fence you need a healthy sized “owner’s manual” for basic things like gender and sexual identity – he, she, him, her, neither, both, L, G, B, T, poly, bi, pan…..it’s f’n ridiculous.
Well said Willie-O!
And more bluedouche drivel , get lost already as your imbecilic thoughts are just dumb.