Footage of a deadly shooting in Lubbock, Texas, was released over the weekend sparking debate as to whether the use of force was justified.
Video below (GRAPHIC) depicts William “Kyle” Carruth fatally shooting 54-year-old Chad Read after a brief confrontation on Nov. 5.
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
David M. Guinn, Carruth’s lawyer, claims that his client acted in self-defense.
“All Texans may lawfully brandish a firearm to protect themselves, their property and their business,” said Guinn, an attorney with Hurley, Guinn & Singh, in a statement to NewsNation.
Guinn indicated that his client feared for his safety after Read, allegedly, threatened to take Carruth’s carbine.
“And instantaneously, he tried to take the gun away from Kyle,” Guinn said. “In doing so, he was powerful enough to sling Kyle 180 degrees around on Kyle’s patio.
“Raising his left leg, he was continuing his advance on Kyle, threatening him and posing an immediate threat. Kyle responded,” Guinn continued. “This is a justifiable homicide.”
**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
A disagreement or miscommunication over child custody appears to be the cause of the dispute.
Read’s widow Jennifer is now suing for full custody of the two boys, who are currently living with Read’s ex, Christina Read, and Carruth.
“I am the stepmother of the children the [sic] subject of this suit,” states Jennifer Read’s affidavit. “The mother of the children, Christina Read, has endangered the physical health and emotional well-being of the children by permitting them to be in the presence of the man that murdered their father, Chad Read.”
The investigation is ongoing and thus far no charges have been filed in connection with the shooting. Stay tuned for updates.
But in the meantime, what are your thoughts based on the available evidence? Does it appear to be lawful self-defense or should it fall under the category of murder?
With how calm she was honestly to me seems almost as if it were a setup to kill him
Going to grab a firearm to end the confrontation does NOT deescalate the situation. If the visitor does not back down with that exposure, I would have to say the end results turn out like this one did. Self defense, a side arm , not a rifle makes more sense and use it if your life is threatened by death…..ONLY. This was so ridiculous for this guy to grab a rifle thinking this will end things. Bad situation but other options like……going in the house and call 911. THAN grab your weapon in case the other hothead enters your home until law enforcement gets there. Changes the whole scenario
Lessons:
1) Don’t assume a firearm in your hand will assure compliance.
2) Don’t assume someone with a gun will not shoot you.
I predict the shooter will eventually be charged.
And… this knuckle head just shot the father of his girlfriend’s children… great way to enhance a relationship all around.
Both men behaved inappropriately or illegally when either could have decelerated the situation. Both agreed to accelerate it into a deadly confrontation therefore it became a fair fight mutual agreement. You could claim an advantage with the weapon but both accepted the terms of battle and a whatever out come.
You could list technical or legal evidence to prove wrong and right on both sides. It would come down to adding up points to determine right and wrong without a standard to gage it by. It was a fair fight, no charges.
2 words: MUR DER
Everyone saying that the little shit who left the argument (in which the only threats that were made were legal action) and retrieved a firearm then exited the house and re-engaged the beleaguered father became the aggressor? You guys are right.
In cases of self defense, one of the things we look at is “escalation of force.” You threaten to beat me up? Not enough for me to draw and shoot. I don’t have a reasonable fear for my life. You pull a knife and say you’re gonna kill me, then try to close distance? Well, that constitutes an “escalation of force” – I am now outmatched and am in fear for my life and justified if I draw and shoot to defend myself.
The little shit with the PCC is guilty of escalating the situation – regardless of the fact that he was on his own property.
Here’s a news flash for you slack-jawed trigger happy micro-dick idiots – “Castle Doctrine” does not make your property a sovereign state where you can shoot whoever you want for whatever reason. Sorry. Even in TX. You are still subject to the laws of the land, and this guy should go to prison for killing that poor man who just wanted to see his son.
Wrong Cupcake. As soon as he states he’s gonna take the weapon away from the home owner and grabs said weapon the home owner is justified. Now i highly recommend if you don’t like our laws to move back to California. In fact i kinda insist it. We don’t much care for pussys like you in Texas
What about the kids?! Think what this will do to them. I wonder just how they feel now living with the man that killed their dad?
Common sents on both sides could have stopped this from happening!
Seems so staged. So fake.. Crisis actors? Camera conveniently goes off Chad when he gets shot? Not one person got upset that Chad ‘the Bully’ was taking a dirt nap. Not one. Hmm..I don’t know. But the bully deserved it. He won’t do that again, that’s for sure.
You can clearly see that Chad has been a bully all of his life.
Justice was finally served for all the people he pushed around. That’ll learn ’em.
It probably may not seem relevant, but based on everyone\s reactions after the shooting, the deceased must have had a history of being a jerk and no one seemed all that upset about what happened to him. No one screamed or rushed over to see how badly he was hurt so it doesn’t seem like he was a very popular guy even to the woman (his wife) filming the event. The smaller guy told everyone to leave they refused, the bigger guy was outside yelling at the woman, and when the smaller guy came out with the Ruger, instead of being smart and leaving, he got even more confrontational.
Lessons? 1) leave when you’re told by the property owner. 2) Don’t get physically confrontational with an armed person, especially when he has every reason to believe you could kick his butt, 3) Having said all this, the smaller guy should have stayed inside, called the cops, and not brought the gun outside unless it looked like the belligerent guy was going to attack the woman he was talking to. Hopefully, he won’t be charged with a crime for defending himself.
He wasn’t charged with anything. no charges.
Let this be an incident to learn from. Never go on or into another person’s property or personal space and make threats or claim “i am going to kick your ass” ! Especially if this person owns a firearm and is not afraid to use it to defend themselves or their families!!! Very simple rule to remember.
Yeah, so in Texas you dont come to another man’s house and start finger pointing, and loud talking the women folk.
Dude told that redneck knuckle dragger to leave his house. Get out! The redneck knuckle dragger almost followed him into his house. But then turns and steps to his old lady.
So far you could have already shot this guy twice. So then homeowner returns with his rifle, castle doctoring, stand your ground, and the full right to protect your house and your old lady.
But then knuckle dragger is out to prove he is even dumber than we already think he is. Then guy chest press checks this dude on His front porch, in front of everyone, verbally threatens him, and then trys to execute the threat. So now we should have shot this guy three times.
But homeowner fired a shot to the ground to get this guy to back the f off him. And then knuckle dragger seals the deal. He grabs the gun slings him 180 and about 15 feet, but now he has put himself between the homeowner and his own front door.
Finally the man completely out of options, and with now where to go he ends the fight. Let me tell yall something, when a man tells you leave his house…Get the f out!!!!! We don’t play that California, Yankee, mess down here. Oh, and if you don’t like it, stay there!!!!!
Unfortunate all around, this is what happens when egos get flared up. This is at minimal wreckless homicide. As soon as Carruth went into his home the conflict with him ceased, Mr Read at no time pursued him into his home so Carruth was in NO danger. As soon as Carruth armed himself and came out of the house he became the aggressor whether you think so or not, HE brought a DEADLY weapon to a verbal confrontation, HE closed the distance on Read even after being told he he will take the gun from him, (never claiming to use it on him) and when they struggled for the gun Carruth was tossed about 8feet away from Read, WAS there a need to fire at him at this time? Screw all the B.S. This was NOT a self defense shooting it ceased being self defense the moment he stepped into his house and came out with a gun. Both men let ego get the best of them and both paid a price, one assumed room temperature and the other has to live with the fact that he killed his wife’s ex-husband infront of his kid and quite possibly bankruting the family with legal cost and still winding up in prison for a very long time, and from the looks of Carruth he will become a communal party favor!
If you listen closely, Read most definitely says, “You better fucking use it, motherfucker! Cuz I…goddamnit, I’ll take it from you and I’ll fucking use it on you, you got it!”
He’s legally covered in Texas. It was his domain, Loudmouth was told to leave and he refused. Stupid tax was immediately levied against him. Don’t like it….. Move back to Kalifornia. This guy learned the same lesson that Trayvon, Michael Brown, Joseph Rosenbaum, and Anthony Huber already learned. Don’t attack a guy with a gun who’s willing to use it.
As an everyday gun carrying citizen, I understand that de-escalation of disagreements is priority! Bringing out a weapon and introducing it into an argument is not de-escalation! When the home owner went back inside he should have contacted the police or sheriffs dept – that is their (law enforcements) everyday job!
I think this guy may be guilty of murder by failing to de-escalate the situation. Was the father there by legal right to the kids for his visitation rights? Or was he trespassing? Notice the moment the weapon was introduced – the situation was escalated and turned deadly! This is a very unfortunate incident that could have been avoided if a cooler thinking would have prevailed! This did not have to happen!
The state judge involved in this should also be charged as an accessory to escalating this event – if she was in violation of the court’s agreement and the fathers right to visitation and had legal right to be there!
Let’s use the PC ‘What If’ scenario. What if the person with the rifle was a woman, feared for what might happen in a similar confrontation, and came prepared with a rifle as this man did. The she gets slammed around by the other person, and she shoots and kills him? I’ll bet nobody, even the commie media would say anything other than, ‘You go girl!” So, the man is supposed, first, attempt to take on his attacker with feet and fists and maybe take a beating, and not be allowed the same privilege to shoot his attacker. If women want to be equal in every single subject, then it goes the other way too.
I protect my daughter as I go with her every other week when she has to drop off her child to her druggy, tattooed to the max, dumb-ass, POS ex, by keeping a pistol in my pocket. Police will tell you domestic disputes are there most dangerous, it does not stop just because you are not a LEO.
The big guy (the one demanding to pick up his son) was threatening legal action. The homeowner (reputedly the husband of a judge?) is the one who then brought a gun into the issue. A subpoena is NOT a deadly weapon. Threatening to have someone subpoenaed is not a life threatening act. Indeed, nothing got physical until the homeowner brought a gun into the matter. Yes, the big guy was on the shooter’s property and had refused to leave tho’ told to do so. That would certainly justify calling the police. It doesn’t justify bringing in a gun. It doesn’t justify shooting someone. As to the assertion that the big guy had “tried to take the carbine” away from the shooter, that may or may not be correct, but, if so, he ONLY did so AFTER the shooter had discharged the gun at him. At that point, the big dude was acting in self-defense, NOT the shooter. I’m sorry but this was NOT and cannot be made to be “self-defense”, not even in Texas, not even under a fairly generous reading of “the castle doctrine”. This was 2nd degree murder and the shooter needs to go to jail. Oh, and if his wife really IS a judge, she needs removed from the bench.
Agree 100%. Deceased was angry but not violent. When someone won’t get off your property you call the cops. If they get hostile you get in the house and lock the door with gat in hand. If he breaks thru the door THEN you shoot.
That is not the law in Texas. You have no duty to retreat. The man there to pick up his son should have called the police. He escalated it. You don’t get in someone’s face on their property. While I believe the man in turquoise was morally in the right, the man with the gun was legally in the right. Period. No charges should be filed.
if the father was there to pick up his son under the terms of a court ordered visitation agreement, he has the right to show up and expect that his son will be there. visitation interference happens when the parent that is supposed to turn over the child doesn’t do it. obviously, the mother and her husband or boyfriend did not have the child and were in violation of the order. unless the order says that the exchange has to happen and a particular place, the father had a right to go and be on the property. he has an order from a court saying that he can do that.
The woman and the killer had the obligation to provide the child as that’s the order and they should comply. The problem is that they evidently have not wanted to comply and have either made arrangements to hide or remove the child so that he could not be picked up by the father. The father is understandably upset but it does not give the person living at the home to say get off of my property or else I’m going to shoot you. he had a legal court order and was enforceable by anyone competent to do that. so a sheriff’s deputy or a local police officer could make sure that the order of the court is complied with. if they don’t comply, they can be cited in most states for violation of a court order or visitation interference. different states call it different things.
you do not get to refuse a legal judges order and come up with I’m defending my home. what are you defending it from? do you actually think the man is defending his home and himself from a father who is there to pick up his child that has a court order for visitation?
refusing a legal court document and then using a gun to threaten someone to leave and ultimately killing them is really what happened here. this has nothing to do with defending your home or having the right to use the firearm in self defense. it’s about someone refusing an order of the court and then going inside and grabbing a firearm to intimidate and ultimately killing the person who was there to pick up his child.
This is a good shoot and a great life lesson for all adults:
NEVER EVER go onto a gun owner’s property and try to push him around. You will probably end up dead. This is Darwin Theory at its finest
Carruth was on his property. He did not go off his property to confront Read. He felt threatened as Read came onto Carruth’s property, even to his very door threatening physical harm to him and possibly to his family. He has every right to protect what is his even to the shedding of blood if necessary. Isn’t this what the Bible tells us. He was within his Constitutional rights to defend himself. Carruth lives within a “Castle State”, where your home is your castle. It is also called a “Stand your Ground” state. penal code 9.13 & 9.32. Read was bigger and meant to prove his superiority, but he was met with an equalizer. Carruth was well within his rights. If Read wanted something he should go through the proper channels of authority and the court if he was right. After all, isn’t he connected with a judge who should know this. He was trying to be a bully, so much good it did him. He sounds like a liberal, he wanted it his way, to hell with anyone else’s rights.
” When he grabbed for the carbine,….they both became armed ! ” As out of contol as the visitor was, he surely could of bene shot by thr Deputy trying to disband the situation. We will never know.
This looks fake
The man came to get his son , court appointed time , his ex wife knew what time he was supposed to be there to get him. Being a single farther with joint cosdity I have had to deal with this many times. She is to blame just as much as the shooter, if you have a child being taken away from you you know the feeling. There was no need for a gun in this at all should have just called the cops and had it settled that way. The guy with the gun should be up for murder charges , this is one time I will be on the side of the nonsmoker.
O.K., I’m not part of the brain trust, but it were me I would have left when the homeowner came out with the rifle. This is what happens when one lets their testosterone run their actions. It is too bad though.
I would have probably just shot him in the knee so that he would have something to remember… Romberg, this is Texas!
The amount of red neckery here is amazing, simply because after he was shot and dropped to the floor like a sack of potatoes, without so much as a groan or a movement, the arguing continued. No screaming for the man that was shot, no cries to get help, no one running to his aid, just rednecks still trying to prove who is right.
I’m as surprised at that as I am at how effective that carbine was in dropping the father dead in his tracks. Literally.
A sad day all around though. Whether the law provides that this is deemed self defense or not, righteously it was the wrong thing to do.
Absolutely Murder in the first degree. The unarmed man made no to attempt to kill or cause physical damage. He was only yelling louder.
Most definitely, am a single farther I know these sick games woman will play with your kids , even if it is Cort appointment time to get then, there is nothing that can piss a man off is games with your kids.The shooter should be on death row
I own guns and that man was afraid to take an ass whooping he’s a fucking pussy that’s why he went and got the gun cuz he’s a pussy and he deserves to be put in prison and let a big fella rapist tight little virgin asshole I own guns when you have a gun you have a responsibility to be better not just shoot somebody because you can you’re a fucking punk .
Run on sentence much? With all that name calling, you’re either a kid or a man-child. Fighting’s for inside the ring. If you come at me looking for smoke..you’re going to get smoke.
“A fucking pussy”, “”Fucking punk”? Really? When was the last time you got into a “fight”? Did the referee step in when someone was knocked down?
The guy had every right to defend himself, his property and his woman against this jackass that tried to use his size and aggression to intimidate and dominate a smaller person.
True story, when I was a teenager about 45 years ago a similar fight started between two guys with the much bigger guy being the aggressor. The smaller wasn’t a “fucking pussy” so he stood up to him. Big guy got the upper hand knocking the smaller guy to the ground and proceeded to beat the now defenseless man into a coma. End result: 3 broken fingers, broken nose, shattered jaw, ruptured testicles, severe concussion/coma, and lost one eye. Big guy goes to jail. Smaller guy spends weeks in a hospital and a lifetime of disability.
Fuck that. Big mouth, big attitude big guy is getting dropped except on my property I use a .45 or a 12ga.
You own guns, but you don’t have even a passing acquaintance with punctuation, grammar, or sentence and paragraph construction, do you, bunky? In addition, your strange fascination with homosexual rape says more about you than you seem to realize.
So, your position is the smaller man should have risked a fractured orbital bone, cracked or broken ribs, and internal bleeding, for what reason, to prove exactly what, that he’s stupid and/or has good medical benefits?
Now, you’ve admitted you own guns, but after expressing your intimate knowledge of prison culture and use of prison colloquialisms e.g. “punk”, what remains is the question of whether you have a prior conviction that disqualifies you from owning or possessing said guns.
I do not understand why there is a “question”.
The “question” is manufactured by the Left who want to disarm the public.
Someone does not need a weapon in order to kill another.
It is obvious the father was much larger than the boyfriend and was threatening violence by making physical contact.
The father should have called the police and produced his divorce papers to enforce visitation.
This was probably not the first time this situation had arisen.
If it was the first time, he reacted completely wrong. He reacted incorrectly in any case.
Screaming and physically assaulting someone is NOT the correct means of enforcing court orders…even if the American Left believes they are justified in using these tactics.
Remember:
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away, which begs the question; Where were the police the enraged father allegedly had called?
I see a lot of trolls here advancing the Rittenhouse Prosecutor’s ridiculous notion that a firearm used in self defense is not justified if the person being defended against is un-armed.
Pure hogwash and it makes me sad to see G.A. commentary taken over by leftist Soros-esque trolls as with so much Conservative media.
We have recorded trespassing – repeatedly noted and un-questionable aggression on the part of the individual shot.
Let’s Go Brandon!
Todd.
Those shot by Rittenhouse were not unarmed. One was beating Kyle with a skateboard and the other pointed a handgun at him.
The big guy had the #1 Ability, the #2 Opportunity and….. the question….Intent to do harm at this point?????
He commented the crime of trespass the second he was told to leave and did not.
He also showed aggression and committed assault when he made physical contact….then attempted to take the weapon.
Other possible factors were protecting his girlfriend and others in the home.
Question……was he, the shooter justified to come back outside???? Was he justified to come back with deadly force?????
What is the past record of the “Victim” and could this weight into the scenario?
Personally, I would not have come back outside unless necessary. Armed myself inside? Yes!
The best way to avoid a fight, or gun fight is to avoid it!
It’s good to know a Ruger PC carbine will drop a person that quick.
It’s bad to know this tragedy = 1 life gone and another life ruined with a 2nd degree murder conviction.
This is murder. This is not self defense. I’m a 67 year old gun proponent NRA member, versed in when I can shoot in self defense, and this is not self defense. There are a lot of reasons, but when you go and get a gun and come back and shoot someone you know, expect to spend the rest of your life in prison. This was a domestic disturbance call to the local police at best.
Wrong. NRA is weak and has failed repeatedly to do its job for years. You are misinformed at best. This is self-defense, and more importantly, it’s Texas law to stand your ground. The turquoise shirt was on someone else’s property due to a court order and should have called the police when he met resistance because it isn’t his property. The black shirt had every legal right to shoot the man because Texas is a stand your ground state. He should not be charged. The turquoise shirt escalated the situation and met his end in a legal manner.
While I think the turquoise shirt was morally correct and understandably frustrated, the black shirt guy was legally correct. It’s that simple. This was handled poorly and a Darwin award was given.
Stupidity on both sides.
The DECEASED chose poorly. He should’ve never even set foot on the residence. We have LAWYERS for a reason. Either use the legal system to your advantage or risk your freedom and possibly your life by doing something stupid. Both parties have some blame to share in this and unfortunately, a man lost his life when he didn’t have to.
In my state the shooter would be in jail. One has to be in fear of losing one’s life in order for a shooting to be justified. He was afraid of getting his ass kicked. He should have went indoors and called the police.
The record needs to be set straight at least on this forum , “the 11 year old child was not there”
Please try to keep the facts straight , people love to exagerate especially if they feel it might help a particular agenda , such as gun control ,
As the one gentleman said ,the only truth that can be gleened from this video is they’re both hotheads , its so unfortunate and unnecessary,
I live in Texas and some people want to say our laws are very lenient but if their not adhered to correctly they will be prosecuted,
This will fall under the castle doctrine, it can go either way , i may be wrong but the victim was on the porch of the shooters house , under the roof , the smaller man was obviously afraid of the larger man . if he can prove he was afraid for his life or bodily damage he’ll likely be aquitted,
From this video that, for me at least is hard to tell,
If the judge/jury takes seriously what the big man said , wow…… If it goes to court it will be a tangled up mess
Bottom line ,its much harder to prove a justified shooting in Texas than any of the more gun strict states think
WOW!!! What a sad situation!!! The worst part is how calm everyone is after the fact and no one tries to help revive the injured man. Nobody is going to win in a event like this! Not saying the use of force was proper, however when will people understand that the person with the firearm is to be taken seriously?
So From what I see – the killer murder chicken squat guy instead of staying out something that is none of his v business, decided to turn icy cold blooded killer instead of hero and using his phone to call the police instead of going in the house and returning with a modern sporting rifle, fired his weapon at the poor hapless innocent guys feet. That act puts the poor hapless innocent victim of murder in fear of HIS life, so he tries to nullify the murderous intent of the killer guy. The nasty evil murder guy then just stepped back and blasted the poor hapless innocent guys life away in a totally ice g cold blooded way.
Texas Self defense law: Proving self-defense can be difficult, however. People can only claim self-defense when they:
• only use the minimum amount of force necessary for self-defense,
• reasonably believe that force was necessary to stop someone else’s use of unlawful force,
• did not provoke the attack, and
• were not engaged in a crime.
Recap: The Killer was not in danger. He left the area, then returned with a firearm thus PROVOKING and THREAENING THE MAN HE KILLED. He shooter escalated the issue with a firearm.
If Mr. Read was serious about doing it right, (and staying alive,) he would have brought the cops with him as an escort.
No matter who you are, if it’s heated and one or both have a weapon then one (OR BOTH) will be loosers.
Bruce Herden, cops won’t accompany ANYONE to a normal weekly custody exchange. The boys mother should bear most of the responsibility. Had she been committing a felony, like child endangerment, instead of just contempt of court, in many states she would be guilty of murder. Same as they charge a bank robber with murder if one of his accomplices is killed in the holdup.
I was a military police officer in Vietnam in jeep patrols so I am going to look at it from that perspective and my experiences there. The orders the small man land owner gave to get off his property were clearly within his right. Without actual law enforcement personnel available his command for the man to leave would act in lieu of actual sworn-in officers of the law. The fact that the larger very aggressive man who refused that command and leave when he had a chance and then with anger and physically touched the landowner and even try to take his weapon away seems to clearly make self defense in this situation. Since the aggressive man did not appear to have a weapon why the land owner did not try to just wound (probably in his leg with only one shot) and thereby disable the man vexes me. If the man was somehow still aggressive he could have wounded his other leg. Taking a person’s life whether he is an asshole or not is very serious business. Also why is nobody rendering this man some first-aid. Basically they probably let the man bleed to death. Picture is me about to go out on patrol in Vietnam.
The power of the firearm went to the head! The right thing would have been to call the police and let them handle it. Stay in the house, no harm to anyone. Now if the guy comes barging through the front door, Castle doctrine could be applied, but still just because you can, or if the law says it’s ok, do you really want to snuff out a life when you yourself add a nano second to life?
The 2nd is not to fight against our own, it’s to fight against a tyrannical government.
Whatever happen to the good ol days when a good fist fight would solve all matters, and then you can go have a drink and laugh about how stupid the situation was!
This is how we lose our 2nd!
Ok, everyone that is not from TEXAS listen closely. If you are in our state DO NOT threaten or advance on someone who is on their own property. If you do this, you have forfeited your life. We can legally defend ourselves, and we will.
You can call this guy a coward, he may be, but he won’t go to jail for what he did.
If Mr Carruth is indicted and stands trial he will probably use the proven Wanker Rittenhouse defense. He will claim self defense and cry on the witness stand. The jury will believe him and find him not guilty.
You obviously pay no attention to reality. The “proven Rittenhouse defense” is to not use deadly force until your life or safety is threatened. Wake up!
The biological father was stupid for trying to control a man with a gun. But, that was clearly murder, not self-defense. There were plenty of opportunities to retreat from the threat. Step dad will spend the rest of his life in prision, and his step son will hate him forever.
But mainly, how terrible for the son.
A kill shot for sure…Read was essentially dead before he hit the ground. Couldn’t access any audio of what was being said, etc., and while Carruth may not have needed to fire in the immediate circumstances…may have been able to retreat and shout a stop command before doing so, etc…he was likely justified here under the law. Read’s hot-head and bravado in front of his ex-wife and son cost him his life. Shame.
Not an expert on the laws of Texas, but I will say that whether the shooting is justified or not, it didn’t have to happen. 1. The shooter didn’t need to bring a firearm into the engagement that while loud, was not physical. 2. It’s really stupid to dare someone with a gun to shoot you and then grab it and say you plan to take it away. Basically just goober fucktards in action.
In my opinion this is murder because while the father may have been louder or larger and even trespassing, he didn’t bring a gun into the conversation. The homeowner only had to end the conversation by going inside and lock the door and call the police period. When you go inside the safety of your house to retrieve a weapon and come outside that safety and shoot someone in the heat of a conversation just to shut them up is not self defense. The gunman intensionally escalated the situation which caused the death of a man who was a angry because they are keeping his child from him. This is just my opinion and I would send this guy to prison and take away his right to ever own a firearm again because he is not intelligent enough to know when not to use it.
Texas law, that was perfectly legal. Repo men have been shot in Texas for stealing cars, at least that was the defense and got off. Texas, u have the right to protect ur property with deadly force. The trespass and threats alone can get u shot with no repercussions.
Opinions are like…
All the above comments are made by idiots and morons who have no clue what really happened, nobody fully understands Texas law, nobody knows the entire back story, and there’s a whole lot of other stuff that will have to come out before anything is decided. The only sure thing is the shooter is a skinny little pussy and the dead guy was a loudmouth hothead.
LOL, talk about idiot…
…and you do? Based on what you wrote i don’t think you have the ability to know your own name without looking at your license – completely idiotic comments you make.
And its yet another example of the absurd Texas mentality (and far right gun nuts in general) – self defense, don’t back down, all bullshit for total idiots and Neanderthals that have limited intellect (and education)!
So the little dude should have acted the opposite of a “pussy”, correct? So then, he should have acted like a “dick” instead, correct? Well, from the video evidence provided, the bully got “fucked” pretty good. So is he still a “pussy”? Btw, which one are you ? Are you sure that you’re Grumpy, or is your name actually Dopey?
Pre meditated murder. Retrieve a weapon from house. There had been no physical activity only verbal. When gun was displayed. It changed the situation from verbal to assault by brandishing the fire arm. The armed person antagonize the deceased. Firing a shot in the porch floor. At this point the decease was far from the arm person. The threat of physical violence against the armed person was diminished by distance. Premeditated aggravated murder. Punishable in Washington state by lethal injection. You Cowardly bitch. You were also stopping a father from his 11 year old son who was right there when it happened. What’s the chance of the son retrieving a gun and killing the coward that killed his father.
In my opinion, both parties are equally to blame. The dad, if his ex was preventing him from getting his son, should have retreated to his vehicle and waited for the police. The homeowner, after the dad refused to leave after being asked to do so and was trespassing at this point, should have retreated inside the house and waited for police to arrive. Both let their tempers get the best of them and one of them made the mistake of bring words to a gunfight. That being said, from a strictly legal standpoint, any half-way decent lawyer can prove this as self-defense and any smart prosecutor wouldn’t bother trying to bring charges because it would be impossible to improve malice. The shooter was on his own property, had ordered the guy to leave, had the right under Texas law to brandish a weapon and, once he was threatened by the dad and the dad actually tried to take the gun away, the ability to claim the fear of death or great bodily harm. Now, before I’m attacked by the haters, I’m not in any way, shape or form defending the shooter’s actions. I’m just laying out the facts according to the law in this case.
I agree. Confrontations like this really boil down to who started it, any party attempted to de escalate, and who was retreating/advancing. All this can change moment by moment. So the video is going to play a key role for the jury to decide based on TX law.
This was BS…totally NOT self defense. The guy grabbed the gun and flung the dude around but didn’t go after him and wasn’t presenting any lethal force. The guy didn’t go after the gun further…there was space between the two…he wasn’t advancing to present any threat. Unjustified shooting. The guy clearly shot out of anger/frustration, not out of being afraid for his life!
They’re both assholes. Only differences between them is one is a murderer and the other is dead. That woman screaming out of camera shot sure wasn’t grieved about the dead man lying on the ground.
I have gone through this type of a situation when My wife and I divorced. My daughter was never available for me to pick up or my ex claimed my daughter was sick. It was a frustrating situation. My ex always had someone at the house whenever I was to pick my daughter up and there was always an argument. I would not think of pushing the issue with my ex a nd her boyfriends because I knew that it would only make matters worse and could easily escalate. The father who was killed should not have acted the way he did. He was threatening and being abusive. When the gun appeared it should have been very clear to the father that he should leave and deal with the problem through his attorney. I feel that the shooter was justified in shooting him and I hope it will teach some people who believe that they can push anyone around that it is not acceptable behavior.
It’s going to be tough to claim the victim was trespassing when he (victim) was acting on a court order for visitation. It still may be self defense, though.
Looked to me like justified homicide. The larger man initiated physical contact with intent to do violence at two points, first when he leaned in on the smaller man. The second point is when he grabbed the gun and threw the smaller man. The Rittenhouse case taught us that by grabbing someone’s gun, in the eyes of the law you become armed, whether you control that gun or not. So by becoming an armed aggressor, he made this a justifiable homicide of self-defense. From a biological behavioral nexus, the larger man was displaying anger. Anger is triggered only by either an obstacle or boundary violation. Anger can, but does not always cause violence. The smaller man was also displaying anger at the boundary violation of noncompliance to the lawful order for the larger man to leave. However, when the larger man grabbed the gun and threw the smaller man, his emotion shifted to fear. At the extreme end of the scale of fear is the fight or flight mechanism. By grabbing the smaller man’s gun and throwing him he literally flipped biological switches forcing the smaller man into fight or flight and you can see the outcome – the fight response. These are biological certainties that cannot be disputed and is fact and why the shooter will not be found guilty. There is no known way of overcoming your biological fight or flight response once triggered. The lesson here for everyone is to not get into a situation of physicality. If you feel yourself getting angered -LEAVE – and seek alternatives like police intervention or legal redress. The big man escalated with physicality tripping biological reactions that could not be controlled and were inevitable given the larger man’s choices.
Ok, first of all, for all of you numbnuts screaming “he had custody so he had a right to be there.” The dead dumb**** DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WHERE HIS SON WAS!! Listen to him say “I’ll go get him” “I sent the cops out to your mother’s house…because that probably where he is!” That means he’s on someone’s property, threatening legal action and such on AN ASSUMPTION and he never verified the son was there, so until he knows where the kid is, he can’t go trespassing and screaming at people about 3:15! Further reinforced by the inbred bitch recording saying “She should told that!” (About the son not being at the house) Umm, They BOTH say “he’s not here!” Multiple times, and the retard who is 6ft under said “I’ll go get him,” so what makes them believe the kid is even there? And then when Kyle is brandishing like he’s allowed, THAT IS DE-ESCALATING, not standing there taking verbal abuse from a trespassing asshole who has no right or reason to be on someone’s property, becoming increasingly violent. And then when he gets within kissing-distance of a guy armed with a carbine, he grabs him and throws him out of the way, which means now the dead dumbass could have enter his house and attacked others. If someone is dumping gas on your house, you don’t have to wait to shoot them until they strike a match.. Clear self-defense and case closed. Next time, don’t spawn if you can’t act like an adult.
Based solely upon the video and the argument between the ex-husband and ex-wife over what appears to be over picking you his son for visitation(?), the other gentlemen retired and returned with a firearm.
If a person confronted me, other than law enforcement, with a firearm and discharged said weapon in my direction, I would try to disarm that person to ensure my safety from being shot.
As the attempt was made to disarm the person with the firearm failed and said person was still in control of the weapon, there was no reason why that person had to fire two deadly shots when just wounding the person would be a reasonable response if still felt threaten.
Therefore, based on the video alone, the use of deadly force was not warranted and said person should be charged with either murder or at least with manslaughter.
As I am not a lawyer this is just my personal opinion based on the video.
You can’t just “wound” someone…this isn’t Hollywood. Once a projectile leaves the barrel, in the air or ground or at some one that is using deadly force. Sounds and looks like he put a shot at the other guys feet before he got tossed. Was he justified to use deadly force before he got tossed? Don’t know, that’s up to the State of Texas. It’s a tough call and in hindsight there are myriad things we all would have done differently I’m sure. Here in Illinois I would imagine the homeowner would be charged with murder. I believe though that even if he is not charged with murder his legal troubles are only begining.
You should read Texas law. I love my state. Personal property, self defense they don’t play. What he did was legal. The difference would have been if the man was not on his property.
This is not justified. Anyone that thinks shooting an unarmed man attempting to retrieve his child is already a murderer. You don’t shoot an unarmed person retrieving their child from your premises. That is dishonorable. If you cannot fight like a man then don’t pick up a weapon either.
If you can’t think like a man don’t pretend to be one
Hey William. You sound really smart. Are you a “real” man?
I agree….the guy should have called for police….don’t understand why this guy is not in jail
the guy should have called for police….don’t understand why this guy is not in jail
I dont know where u folks live but u need to check texas law. U can defend just ur property with deadly force. The guy who got shot should have never been on this guy’s property let alone making physical contact. Repo men have been shot many times and the shooter got off. They have to make special rules for repossession because of it. What he did was legal. The guy who was shot should have never been on his property, he should have called the police and waited in the road..
As soon as Carruth fired at the ground – an indescribably stupid thing to do – I think he lost all right to self-defense. At that point, Read has the self-defense claim as obviously Carruth is the aggressor…if he was not, he wouldnt be aiming for the ground. He convicted himself,
Verdict: homicide.
So much for six feet tall and bulletproof.
The now deceased individual apparently thought to bully everybody to get his way. When the homeowner brought out a carbine he made an egregious mistake in allowing the assaulter to get within range to grab him. Big boy made the mistake of assaulting a man with a weapon.
Apparently, the cops had already been called but were slow to arrive.
Who to blame? I would say that the big boy, if he was in the right about the argument, should have waited in his car until the cops showed up. He chose poorly.
The really sad thing besides a father that gave a shit dying was how calm EVERYONE was while has was actually dying……
So sad….
I suspect when the publisher posted this article, they thought everyone would come to the shooter’s defense. but clearly most people see this is as NOT JUSTIFIED.
The shooter said he did EVERYTHING but that’s not true. He should have called the police and let them deal with the situation.
Based upon the video, the shooter will lose his house, freedom and stepkids.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the court system.
I feel sorry for the family you’re responsible if protecting.
Bad angry man comes on your property screaming and yelling at your family. You come out with a phone with 911 on the phone if you’re even brace enough to come back out.
Big man beats you up and wife. Wife dies from head trauma. You cry on podium about how you did everything you could to protect your family. Everyone looks at you like really? You could have had the balls to kill to protect them but you didn’t because you’re a coward.
Seems that most of the people on this forum isn’t from Texas or aware of its laws. Perfectly legal what this guy did, castle doctrine is a joke compared to Texas law.
Justified or not… his wife was only inches away from the target at the time of the shots. She was standing at the door way when he was slung off the porch… then walked over and was looking thru that side of the window in the house at the time of the double tap. Glad that there were not errant shots and multiple recepients.
I’m all for defending your life and property, but this was a very different situation. Tempers can run hot when children are involved. Carruth should have called the police and let them handle the situation. Instead, he chose to escalate by involving a firearm. Both men acted stupidly, but there was no reason for a weapon to be brandished in the first place, as Read wasn’t armed. Use of deadly force for self defense or protection of property is one thing, but in this type of domestic dispute, it should never have come to this.
The aggression and issue of trespassing seem pretty straight forward.
So, tell me once again what it is other than rabid leftist lunacy that: “…Sparks Debate Over Use of Force”
Let’s Go Brandon!
Todd.
Were the police called and on the way? Regardless if they were or not things happen in seconds as we saw here. Mr. big chest was certainly instigating and made physical contact. Mr big did not leave the scene but continued to be aggressive. Life threatening? Unless you have never seen someone killed, or permanently brain damaged by a single punch to the face, especially from a big dude like this then I understand some of the ignorant comments. Reality is that a single punch can be life threatening and it appeared this is where the issue was going next and sure enough he went for the gun. Mr. Dead could have left and deescalated the situation. Mr. Dead chose to take it to the next level. How dumb are you to attack a man with a firearm? Mr. Dead knows now.
Stand Your Ground Law at its finest. Subject should have left the property when told.
Bingo! At what point does one realize things are getting way out of hand and they should turn around and leave? Anger issues and bad choices get you nothing except consequences. If you are on someone else’s property and told to leave then you leave.
Blood makes the grass grow. Thanks Chad aka tough guy😂
That fool Chad isn’t so tough laying and leaking on that patio. He got what he deserved. Except most of us would’ve emptied that in him. This guy Carruth is a very kind soul, that’s why he only gave Chad a two piece. Pew Pew!
🇺🇸 Carruth for Sherrif 🇺🇸
Regardless of where one stands on the self-defense claim here, the little weenie who killed the loud-mouthed, trespassing aggressor is by no means a hero, or a badass, or an object of admiration. He’s a weak, skinny little punk who knew he was going to get his ass whipped unless he brought out a firearm. Then, instead of rendering aid to the man he just shot, this punk bitch chose to verbally attack the dying man’s wife. You cannot shoot someone for trespassing. The aggressor wasn’t trying to get into their house or trying to hurt them, he only responded (very poorly, I will add) to being threatened with a rifle. I hope the skinny little bastard goes to prison for overstepping Regardless of where one stands on the self-defense claim here, the little weenie who killed the loud-mouthed, trespassing aggressor is by no means a hero, or a badass, or an object of admiration. He’s a weak, skinny little punk who knew he was going to get his ass whipped unless he brought out a firearm. Then, instead of rendering aid to the man he just shot, this punk bitch chose to verbally attack the dying man’s wife. You cannot shoot someone for trespassing. The aggressor wasn’t trying to break into their house or trying to hurt them, he only responded (very poorly, I will add) to being threatened with a rifle. I hope the scrawny little bastard goes to prison for exceeding the important protections of the stand-your-ground law. Punks like this clown make all gun owners look bad.
The threat of “getting his ass whipped” by a “loud mouthed trespassing aggressor” is what more than likely causes “the little weenie” to get a force multiplier to put the advantage on his side enough to deter the “loud mouthed trespassing aggressor” from continuing to escalate his anger. NOBODY won in this situation. Your comment actually makes a case for self defense for “the little weenie”!
You have no idea what your talking about, what so ever. Before you making stupid comments take 5 minutes and read a little bit about Texas law. It’s the only state with laws on the books like this. Mr. Carruth was totally in the right.
I can’t be more pro 2A or self defense but this is wrong on every level. There is no way you retreat to your home pull out a firearm and re-engage in a pissing match and then claim self defense. To top it off no remorse at all. Even the person in the car seemed to act like nothing just happened. No one tried to render aid? They just continued the banter? These could not be more damaged people. 🙁
Smartest comment so far….
William “Kyle” Carruth did not appear at any point to be afraid for his life. He stood defiant – toe-to-toe, eye-to-eye through the entire altercation. He “walked” “calmly” into his home to retrieve the firearm. And he pointed the firearm with purpose and skill – with “clear” intent. He even followed up by standing, again “calmly” and “coherently”, with no apparent fear [re. stress nor trembling] in his voice and lucidly responded to the girlfriend of Chad Read.
William “Kyle” Carruth knew exactly what he was doing – which [IMHO] reeks of premeditation. Chad Read fell right into a scenario that William “Kyle” Carruth [and possibly Christina Read] had probably [at minimum] discussed.
Without a doubt, all involved parties could have handled this a lot differently and fostered a totally different outcome which avoided death. No one had the best interests of the child in mind – and now that young boy will live forever with not only his father, but having the memory of being there when his father was killed with his mother standing by and doing absolutely NOTHING.
We will see a lot more outcomes like this one due to a flawed law which allows the cowardly, devious, and mentally unstable to get away with murder.
Not everyone’s a chicken.
@ William very true! The law is protecting [or people are arguing in favor of] this chickenshit’s actions. It’s easy to stand your ground if you’re the only one with a f’ing gun in your hand; in this case “hands”. I am all for the right to arm and protect yourself, but sometimes I think we should bring back “dueling”. Most people would stand down immediately if forced to settle things on equal terms – fisticuffs or otherwise.
To TLR you are commenting bullshit ,you know nothing of what transpired. You are offering possible scenarios and you know nothing….You would be better to STFU.
Steven Kenneth Teach. You have no idea what you’re talking about which equates to you commenting “bullshit”. Where did I offer a scenario? Learn to read and you’d do better to STFU.
@Steven Kenneth Teach quite the opposite. YOU are the one spouting bullshit and a vitriolic/aggressive message to someone you don’t even know – therefore YOU would do well to STFU. You message post says a lot about you.
Since when do these idiots see a gun and are like you ain’t gonna do shit. You play stupid games you get stupid prizes. I haven’t seen a single person on here from Texas or aware of the Texas laws. Texas law goes above and beyond castle doctrine. In 1996 an 18 year was shot stealing a calf, people get shot for a hell of a lot less and the home owner was cleared. Do some research.
@Jay – how can you tell who is and who isn’t from Texas here unless they state so. BTW, there are several commenters here who say they are from Texas.
This shooting seemed more about anger than self-defense. why do call to police? Cleary the unarmed man was, although angry himself, not attacking anyone (just standing his ground). Taking a LIFE is a last resort act, not something to be proud of, as it seems shooter was strutting after the victim lay at his feat. Compassion not gun action was what was needed here. a LIFE was loss needlessly here.
Did you watch the same video I did? Mr. tough guy made physical contact, did not leave before or after the gun came out. Furthermore, Mr. Dead escalated and became combative going for the weapon it appeared. At that point it is a whole new ball game and when Mr. Dead continued to come at the shooter it became clearly justified to shoot. The whole thing should have never made it to that point. Mr. Dead was on someone else’s property and should have respected that and left. He became a trespasser, and an angry aggressive and violent one at that. Making contact with another human in anger is assault, a criminal offense. Mr. Dead did that.
EstevanCruz, you are a simpleminded moron who cannot comprehend the nuances and subtle differences between defending oneself and being the attacker. Now quit spreading idiocy in the internet. We get enough of that from anti-gun libtards.
Grumby old idiot, you’re an undercover libtard snowflake posser. And you don’t have a clue about either Texas law, or practical common sense self-preservation! Go get a life, blockhead!
Not to be a dick but ur an idiot. Grumpy old biker, a brief internet search and u will see the home owner was within his rights. $100 says he dont go to jail, 7th generation Texan, prouder of being a Texan than an American. Dont talk about shit u don’t don’t know about.
This was like a NBA touch foul. The shooter was not in danger and neither was anyone else until he needlessly retrieved a carbine.
And what video were you watching, snowflake?
@Tony P. why is Phillip DeWitt a snowflake? You seem to be the one butt-hurt for a remark that wasn’t even directed towards you.
He didnt leave private property. Continued to verbally assault and physically menace two people. Wait call the cops crowd fuds, say we have 2A, but call the cops all the time for everything, so why 2A? Dude should have left the property and dealt with it in the courts, dude f’d around and found out. Its a shame but stupid games win stupid prizes. You cant trespass and then menace the property owners and not expect consequences. Save your stupid arguments, either you have sovereign property rights and rights to defend it and your family or you dont. Intent, opportunity and capability dont really apply when you are trespassing and refuse to leave in some states. You leave or get shot, the sheriff gets called post-incident, in many rural places there isnt time to wait for deputy dog. It is what is is. Maybe people should not be so Stupid, be kinder, be more patient and you wouldn’t get dead. Goes for stupid drivers as well.
My dad told me early in life “Dont argue with a man holding a gun” It never ends well never.
Murder. he should have stayed in the house and called the po po ,he murdered that man in broad daylight.
The guy should be thrown in prison and the ex wife is a piece of shit.
Chad fucked around and found out. Now, he daid.
😂😂😂
🇺🇸 Kyle for Sherrif 🇺🇸
🇺🇸 Carruth for Deputy 🇺🇸
Darwin says Don’t argue with a man
who has a shotgun and is on his own property. The victim so to speak is now
Dead Right
I think this whole scenario is staged and pre planned by the ex wife and her “protector.” The woman, being a judge, should be completely familiar with the law. Based on the conversation this is not the first time this has happened (trying to pick up his kid and his kid not being there). One could reasonably assume this scenario has played out before, the woman refusing to give him visitation of their child and the father becoming agitated. The woman was not on the porch near her other half but was well away from him, maybe so she stays out of the line of fire????? The interesting part is that after the man is dead the homeowner stands over him yelling I told you this was going to happen. It seems like it was a great big set up from the word go. I could really care less if he is innocent or guilty the kid/s are the ones that will suffer from this especially if this was all a pre planned set up!
MURDER pure and simple. The man that was shot did not provoke or threaten the shooter. The shooter was not afraid for his life. He calmly walks inside to get his weapon. When he comes out, he basically is trying to have a show of force.
Well that’s the real takeaway. IF you think just having a gun can prevent anything, that’s a rookie mistake. The shooter’s bluff got called and now he MUST use his weapon or who knows what would have happened. I bet the bigger guy would have taken it away and thrown it into the bushes and kicked that guy’s ass. I say murder because the shooter CREATED the situation that required him to use deadly force.
We won’t know. And if someone brings a gun that close to me, I will grab it as well. I will not let someone just point a gun at me or shoot me in the back.
We live in dangerous times with very few people having anything between their ears…or any morality.
So you think you can go to another man’s house and yell at him and when he tells you to LEAVE MY PROPERTY you think you can continue to yell and berate? AND THEN when the biologically smaller man goes to get an equalizer- and returns and AGAIN – LEGALLY tells you to LEAVE HIS PROPERTY- then you think you can continue and then GRAB HIS GUN??? OMG smh…
You wrote “And if someone brings a gun that close to me, I will grab it as well” I suppose we will be seeing a video similar to this one if you do. When you trespass on someone else’s property and assault him which he did by pushing his chest into the property owner and he continued to push then you have committed assault. Mr. Dead should have left but he made bad choices. For all of you reading this I suggest you get on youtube and see for yourself how unsuccessful it is 99.9% of the time to disarm someone with a weapon without getting shot. Only in movies.
First issue is trespassing. Mr big was told to leave twice yet chose not to. Second issue is who escalated the event, mr big did. When the gun came out mr big should have simply left. People do stupid things in the heat of passion. Texas law is far different from the §hithole enclaves of the liberal NE. This is sad all around but stupid is as stupid does.
Do some damned reading, Texas don’t have to show ur in fear for ur life. Different rules different laws.
This situation is a bit in the grey area but I think that use of deadly force may not be justified in this case. Below are what Texas law says about use of deadly force and trespassing:
Section 9.41 of the Texas Penal Code clarifies a person is allowed to use force, but not deadly force, to stop a trespass or property interference. Trespassing is defined as knowingly illegally entering a property or remaining on said property after being told to vacate it by someone connected to the property. Theft and “interference with property” is when someone takes another’s property with the goal of denying him or her ownership and without his or her consent. Using these terms and connecting them to the initial scenario above, anyone who fires on a trespasser is likely to face a serious felony charge.
The scenario changes if the trespasser notices the property owner and engages with him or her while armed. This changes the situation from trespass to attempted murder or aggravated robbery. This matters when separating force from deadly force. Firing upon the perpetrator in this scenario would likely be deemed a justifiable action. The point when force or deadly force is valid depends on reasonableness and immediacy of action.
I think your comment is spot on. I think there was an assault the second the trespasser made physical contact trying to be mr tough guy. He became combative and physically assaulted the property owner again and was making clear progress to close the distance between the two just before being shot. Easy to judge after the fact while not being in their shoes. However, this should have went down something like this in my opinion-wife and shooter should have entered their home and waited for police. IF..the trespasser tried to attack them as they tried to enter the home or through the door then boom. Just my opinion.
I think it is a grey area because while the father in the green shirt was combative early on, it doesn’t appear he was a threat when he was shot. The video may not be completely clear but unless the shooter can convince the jury that an unarmed man was a deadly threat, then the shooting was unjustified according to Texas law.
I have an occasion people who venture on to my property, mostly kids on four-wheelers riding on the levees at the irrigation canal. They cannot be shot, just talked to and it generally works out OK. Now, on the other hand, cattle rustlers can be shot. Good thing, I have never had to do that.
If I were a betting man, I would bet on a conviction for man slaughter.
Not so fast, remember Mr Joe Horn?
June 30, 2008— — A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglarizing his neighbor’s home won’t be going to trial.
The mother of the child in question should suffer the initial charges for creating this situation. The shooter is in violation by creating a dangerous situation where the victim who suffered was in fact trying to carry out a court order for visitation. I fully support the second amendment and the castle doctrine but this is a clear cut case of an abusive and manipulative woman.
Pussy with a gun. He wanted to shoot him from the get go. What a pos.
If he’s a pussy with a gun, does that make you a cunt with an attitude, Ms. Brenda?
I agree with most of you. When the shooter went into the home he should have stayed there and called the local LEOs. I have a CCW and carry every day which makes one hyper vigilant about whether one would shoot another. Living in a castle doctrine state the thoughts then go to; “…serious bodily injury or death to oneself or another…”. The shooter let his temper get the best of him and he came out brandishing a firearm, I guess legal in TX but still not the best course of action. The shooter will now live with the memory of taking another’s life, which he may relive every day and night when he goes to bed. For me, brandishing my CCW licensed firearm is not an option, and will always be the last option. The shooter made some poor choices IMO and ended with taking the life of another human being. This may be one political fodder for the anti-2A ID 10 T’s.
However, LET’S GO BRANDON!
2 separate issues: the pound of remedy, and the ounce of prevention. I’ll let others (i.e. y’all and the courts) hash out the mess of this particular shooting, which obviously needs to be dealt with justly given the facts. Instead I’ll weigh in on the prevention part (and I don’t mean gun control :). Notice how many “parents” these children have? When God says Thou shalt not commit adultery and that adultery is the only justification for divorce (Luke 16:18), it’s partly to prevent this kind of pagan spouse-swapping that dissolves society. As an added bonus, there would be fewer of these kinds of fights. Every split family I know wreaks havoc on their children, even without homicide. Contrast that with intact marriages, which are plainly much better for the kids even if they don’t appear blissful. Shame on us for tolerating “no fault” divorce.
The guy should go to prison, he escalated the situation by coming out with a firearm. Was he trying to impress his judge girlfriend? The ex-wife should also be sent to prison; she is a judge, she should have displayed better judgment, and to start off, she should have had his son ready for the father’s visitation. Bad situation, bad judgment, bad decisions. A man lost his life because his ex-wife the judge, who is supposed to know the law did not comply with, guess what “THE LAW”. Sorry folks but this is not justifiable self defense, this was first degree murder or manslaughter at the very least. I’m wondering at this point if the ex-wife would be entitled to any life insurance or other monetary benefit by the death of her estranged husband. SS comes to mind, if the father is dead and leaves minor children, guess what, she just got herself a SS check for the minor child. Just food for thought.
Your plate is poisonous poop reeking of libtard gun-grabbing rhetoric.
The moment the big guy said “you better use it because if you dont, I’m going to take it from you and use it against you” changed the situation entirely. Up until that point lethal force was absolutely not justified but those words and his actions of grabbing the weapon and slinging the other guy around instantly changed the legality of the situation against him and he paid for it with his life. When lethal force gets introduced into a situation, walk away. Whether you are in the right or not. It is not the time or place for ignorant chest thumping. Let the cops sort it out when they get there.
I agree with statement. I think the guy should have stayed in the house and called the authorities. But he was within his rights to arm himself against someone invading his property. And once the guy threatened his life he had the right to defend it.
I have to agree with you there. While I totally understand the victim’s apparent situation (I would also be furious if anybody kept me from my child), it’s a really bad idea to tell somebody with a gun that you’re going to take it and kill that person. There’s a whole lot of unnecessary stupidity in the video that led up to that point that shouldn’t have happened, but what it boils down to is exactly what you said, at least that’s what I believe.
Sad. I don’t see any reason whatsoever for Read’s death. As others have pointed out it was a family argument. Carruth should’ve have called the police and had them sort things out. When Carruth retrieved the rifle to the threaten Read he became the aggressor. He’ll rightfully be charged and found guilty of murder.
Sorry Rex, as long as he was trespassing he was the aggressor.
Personally I think that the police should have been called. Bringing that weapon out in a situation where the other party was already angry and by the looks of it… Ready to get into a fist fight with somebody… I think that gun just provoked him. And the fact that the little dude with the gun got right in his face immediately… Continued provocation. But on the flip side… Big dude should have just put his anger away and left. As soon as he went for that firearm he was a dead man. It’s unfortunate that these types of things happen. I carry a concealed weapon everywhere I go. And I mean absolutely everywhere. Pulling my firearm out is the absolute last resort. Here in New Hampshire we have the stand your ground law and the castle doctrine as well. But just because those laws are there doesn’t mean that it’s always justifiable. Personally I think the bottom line is if that little guy just called the cops and didn’t bother with that firearm… The situation would have been dealt with and nobody would be dead. But unfortunately that’s not how it happened
When he went into the house to get his gun, he should have stayed there and called the police. He changed the whole dynamics of the situation by coming back out with a weapon.
I found this information on a law firms website:
Does Texas follow the castle doctrine?
Yes, Texas follows the castle doctrine.
When the people are at home, work, or in their car, their right to use self-defense is at its greatest. The law will presume that the use of force was reasonably necessary, as long as the person:
1. did not provoke the victim, and
2. was not committing a crime, other than a traffic offense.
3. If neither of these is the case, self-defense is presumed to be justified.
However, the person must have also had reason to believe that:
1. the victim was unlawfully breaking and entering, or
2. the victim was unlawfully removing the defendant from his or her house, car, or place of employment.
The castle doctrine also presumes that self-defense was reasonably necessary if you reasonably believed the other person was committing:
– aggravated kidnapping,
– murder,
– sexual assault,
– aggravated sexual assault,
– robbery, or
– aggravated robbery
The tipping point was the instant the “Big Guy” tried to take away the firearm. Up to that point it was all hot air. However, as soon as he laid hands on the other man and/or his weapon, it was all over. This was a justifiable shooting. The man feared for his life. Period.
It was a bad shooting, and NOT in compliance with TX self defense laws or Castle Doctrine. While the shooter had no duty to retreat, he was not in fear of nor in direct threat of grave bodily harm or death until he retreated to a safe space AND THEN CHOOSE TO LEAVE THAT PLACE OF SAFETY TO RE-ENGAGE ARMED. Even in TX, trespassing does not provide justification for murder.
There is NO requirement to retreat in Texas, period end of discussion. You add the fact he was on his property making threats, physical contact. Mr. Carruth was right and will not go to jail. Their is more to texas law than castle doctrine and trespassing laws. There is a confluence of the laws in Texas when ur on ur property defending it, urself and ur family.
This was a family argument with no one in danger until the $100 carbine was pulled out for intimidation purposes. Real sad the shooter could have went inside and called police. Shooting not justified.
May or may not be justified and I’ll bet my life no charges will come since the moron was up on his face and here’s where he ended ANY charges to the shooter when he said “I’ll take it from you” and maybe more crap came out AND THEN HE TRIED TO TAKE IT! I’d of KILLED HIN VERY DEAD the SECOND he tried to take MY weapon that even if it had been better he left inside BUT WHAT IF the moron who CLEARLY has anger problems as it takes a BIG MAN to belittle a WOMAN AND THREATEN TO TAKE THE KIDS it IS the homeowners RIGHT to walk around his yard like a continental soldier with it thrown over is shoulder ALL DAY AND NIGHT AND DAMN SURE when there’s a MORON on your property! Also let this be a LESSON to YOU that JUST because the LAW is written a certain way doesn’t mean that or other people won’t feel threatened for their lives or just out right shoot some MORON who CHOSE… CHOSE to get in his hillbilly Ford and go to his EX’s MANS HOME to START SHIT as HE was the ONLY ONE ACTING REAL tough till they FIRST round dropped him like it hit his SPINE which I’d bet he’s just a pu$$y and dropped before he even felt the shot… BOY I HOPE IT HURTS SO MUCH! If more so called “tough” guys ended up like this MORON did there’s be a lot less of them around to keep spitting out these dumb kids and a lot less shootings since a SMART person after a guy brings out a gun LEAVES AND FOR SURE AFTER ALMOST GETTING HIS FOOT BLOWN OFF! SAD PART he’ll live and have ten boys that all have a bunch of more hillbilly genetics spread across the world. Let’s just hope they stay in dirt ville tahas!
You’re an idiot, watched too many John Wayne movies. The gun should never have even appeared! A smart, logical, and self confident man would have made sure his wife/girlfriend had the son ready for the visit. Instead he joined in a conversation that had nothing to do with him. They should both rot in prison.
Wow, you didnt even read the datails of the case before popping off that loud mouth did you? The guy was there to get HIS kids for HIS court appointed time and the woman, who was shacked up with the shooter told him she wasnt ready to give them to him yet. Even under Texas Castle law the shooter, who is still married to another woman, could safely retreat indoors and end any threat he felt. He escalated the situation and nullified any question of fearing for himself. He became the upper-hand aggressor who escalated the situation.
Know the facts before you speak. It serves everyone better…
Know the facts? KNOW THE FACTS? Good advice- idiot lmao… Look- we have LAWS for a reason- the LAW is there so that when disagreements occur- there is a set of rules to go by- here are the LAWS that are in play here- 1) the woman would not let child go at set time- she BROKE the law. The LAWFUL remedy for that is NOT to go around the yard chest thumping and threatening people. The LEGAL remedy is to gather the info and report it to the court. Unless your child is in IMMEDIATE danger you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to try to take the child by force or to stay on property after you were told to leave. The father should have left. Period. THEN you also cannot grab someone’s gun while threatening to “take it from you and kill you” while they LEGALLY brandish it to try to get you to leave. THAT IS THE LAW now choke on it idiot…
100? More like 800/900,
Ruger carbine!
He (Carruth) was NEVER “in fear of his life”, it was all talk between ALL parties PRIOR to Carruth retreating into his house to retrieve a weapon (NOW THE AGRESSOR). He escalated everything to the point of the ACTUAL confrontation in which he ‘decided’ to shoot and kill Read. All they had to do/SHOULD HAVE DONE ws wait for the cops. He CHOSE NOT to. He WANTED to kill Read..
This moron should rot in jail, I am a big gun rights fan, and will shoot any dirtbag coming into my home to inflict harm, but this was clearly a pissing match that has taken another ignorant fools life, if anything, he should be made an example as to when to call police and let them do their job, if after police is called, the aggressor pulls a weapon, or tries to break inside into the house, then its a justifiable shooting.
Dude was bigger, leaned in hard and wouldn’t leave. Homeowner shot at his feet first. Any rational human being would have left the area, not this big (now dead) dude.
Homeowner should have merely butt-stroked the big guy in the gnads first, then if he came again shot him.
But… It is easy for us to view the scene as non-participants, whereas in the actual moment a degree of rational thought due to raised tension\adrenaline may have been elusive.
Private property. Told to leave. Grabbed for weapon. Turned violent. The man got what he asked for. Should not have gone that far, but it did. Good shooting.
If the man holding the gun hadnt smiled right before he started shooting yeah id say self defense but come on only psychos smile before they murder someone
A baseball bat would have done the job, but in reality all they had to do was wait for the police. Shooting an unarmed man outside your home because he won’t leave your property is not a valid defense.
He should have stepped off the property and called LE to enforce the court order. He paid for his mistake with his life.
The resident was not protecting himself or his property as there was no threat made of harm. He was enforcing his desire for the man to leave his property. He will pay for his mistake with his money and freedom.
Neither were right. When a weapon is brought into a conflict, the stakes have just escalated. It is a lesson for all readers. This encounter costs both these men and their families a tremendous amount. They will never be repaired. That’s a heavy price to pay. That is why you should always, always, seek another way. Brandishing a weapon should be a last resort. This is a sad commentary on our species
This is murder. The video of the of the widow isn’t the video that proves it so I can see where the first poster may have been confused. Having not watched the second video. The man was on the property for a lawful purpose. To confront them about the failure to comply with a court order. The physical confrontation did not amount to assault. The decedent was not breaking a law. He was not charging or attacking the other man as he levels his gun. Rather standing perfectly still. He swung the other man around and the other man used that as grounds to intentionally take revenge for it by killing him as he stood in place expecting to be killed by a the other man. It’s ironic that the video taken by shooters side was the video that proves guilt. The shooter should have made a second warning shot where he took intentional killing shots instead. And he absolutely should not have shot twice. This would not have been legal for a cop in the same situation. The decedent did make stupid threats and those might help the shooter’s defense attorneys in court where the shooter is being tried for murder. But nothing shown here shows lethal self defense was nessisary so there’s nothing shown here to prevent the shooter from being charges. It’s up to a jury to make the final decision.
I was expecting to have the opportunity to edit my first post.
I’d have edited to make the sentance “having not watched the second video” part of the previous sentence and further I’d have replaces first man second man with shooter and decedent. I was less interested with being clear when I started posting than when I finished. Sometimes you just have to post what you got before some glitch or another wipes your whole post into oblivion.
Don’t escalate the situation by threatening and approaching the man with a gun. And furthermore, dumbass, don’t tempt (tell him he better use it) the guy with the gun to use it…….he did! Now all the liberals are going to have an emotional field day with a guy who did the right thing to an aggressor who wouldn’t back down.
Personally I think it would have been wise to gather the family inside and wait for that big guy to try and enter the house….then (not a little pop pop) boom. 00 buckshot- no need to shoot twice.
100% agree
Don’t escalate the situation by threatening and approaching the man with a gun. And furthermore, dumbass, don’t tempt (tell him he better use it) the guy with the gun to use it…….he did! Now all the liberals are going to have an emotional field day with a guy who did the right thing to an aggressor who wouldn’t back down.
Personally I think it would have been wise to gather the family inside and wait for that big guy to try and enter the house….then (not a little pop pop) boom. 00 buckshot- no need to shoot twice.
The man who got shot was trespassing, was aggressive, and was threatening. He refused to leave the property. It is not the homeowner’s job to run and hide. He defended himself and his property. He should walk.
In a nutshell.
The shooter was in facilitating the violation of a court order, went back inside to grab a rife, then came back out. This was a case for OC spray and 911.
He should go to jail for a long time.
As a social worker who has been involved in child custody, I saw this use of children as bargaining chips by custodial parent to not only get property but to inflict as much emotional turmoil on the non custodial parent as possible. It’s sickening. And also sickening was the unjustified use of force here. As a proponent of gun rights and self defense ,this particular behavior was unwarranted. This was nothing like the Kyle Rittenhouse case where his use of force was clearly and undeniably necessary to save his own life. I this case though, the gunman was not in immanent danger, and it was himself who went inside to bring out a weapon and then discharge it escalating the situation. Yes, I agree the victim should have left the property but that did not warrant him being killed.
Really? Kyle shot the first guy who was chasing him. This dude was in his face making threats and even grabbed his gun. Same same, not different
I think they should have just called the cops.
They did call the cops, they were on their way
Exactly, Semper Fi. This was not murder but it is homicide. He will go to jail and all these mothers and kids won’t have a father now. He went inside and brought a weapon OUTSIDE to intimidate the guy into leaving. He didn’t have to shoot him. He WILL go to jail. I am also a marine and this was not justified.
If you were really a Marine, you’d know the title is capitalized.
after having dealt with an ex that withheld children and would send them off other places or just be gone during particular times, I completely understand what the man who was killed was dealing with. The police don’t want to be involved in situations like this because they don’t really understand a child custody laws and you almost have to make sure that you bring the statutes and orders with you to get them to cite the person. and Illinois, or I am, it took dozens of times to get the authorities to act and eventually they finally did but they were extremely pissed off at both of us. they considered a waste of their time, they’d rather be sitting in a parking lot watching cars go by.
as a person who has many firearms and has had to carry them for work, I can tell you that you don’t get to just tell somebody go away or I’ll shoot you. this seems to be a theme here. overwhelming force isn’t the answer on something like this. it begs the question, if your kid was doing something that upset you really bad, could you go out and legally shoot them because you told them to stay out of your toolbox? while you may not I think it’s a proper analogy, it’s pretty close. homeowner could have just as easily walked inside his home, lock the door and called 911. if the guy is breaking the door in, it’s a problem. if you’ve done all kinds of bad behavior though and jerk him around and he has limited time with his child, I don’t think a jury’s going to be terribly sympathetic if you have the police show up and they find that you’re violating a court’s order. so do you get to incense someone by repeatedly violating a court’s order and get by with using deadly force telling someone to go away? I don’t think that people are looking at these use of force assistance properly. if you create all of the events that cause the problem, do you get by with using deadly force? people will say that the aggrieved dad should have just walked away. quite possibly the best course of action would have been to just pull out his phone and call 911. I know I did it many times and finally got the police to act. it was never in my thought process to want to shoot someone over child custody. That’s really what this was about. You’ve got two people behaving extremely badly and harming a child’s relationship with their father. very honestly neither one of those people need to be a custodial parent. that much is clear at this point as the new husband or boyfriend killed dad for trying to engage in his time with his child. the court doesn’t ever deal with the custodial parent and step parent who created this outcome. I think there’s a huge lesson here on two fronts, a point needs to be made regarding following custody orders and visitation and bringing a gun out to threaten people is never ever a good idea. someone gets killed because of that and that’s one of the things that we’re seeing with police agencies. when you’re only tool is a hammer, everything has a hammer used on it.
You either believe in personal property rights or you do not. If you do- then the guy should have left when he was told to leave property. He ESPECIALLY should have left when gun came out. The legal remedy for someone failing to follow a court order is NOT to trespass on property and walk around yard beating your chest and talking down to the mother. The LEGAL remedy for that is to gather info and call police or go to court. The property owner (or resident) stated to leave- father would not- he was up in his face in a threatening manner- resident left to get an equalizer – came back- asked him to leave AGAIN- father would not- THEN father had the audacity to continue acting threatening- finally GRABBED HIS GUN while telling him he would “take it from him” and kill him, he got shot for that action and that action alone. When you actually DISECT the information given- this was legal shooting.
when you come to pick up your child for visitation, you have the right to come to the front door and get your child. that is the courts expectation unless the order specifies another place for the transfer.
All of this bluster about trespassing doesn’t pass muster. if I catch someone trespassing on my property and advise them that they are trespassing, I don’t have the right to shoot them because they aren’t moving fast enough. if I find someone on my property until then they are trespassing and they need to go even though they had a legitimate reason for being there that involved a court order, maybe something like a survey crew, I don’t get to go home and grab a gun and then threaten them with it. ultimately if I kill the surveyor who had an order saying that he could be there, me going and retrieving a gun and killing them is not going to be seen as any kind of self-defense. I don’t care how big the other person was. My only real remedy was to advise them that they are trespassing that they should leave and then contact the authorities unless that person is committing an act that would likely result in the death of myself or someone in my home. it’s funny how people believe that if you pull out a gun, everyone has to comply with whatever you say and you get to kill them versus using some other method.
That’s not really the way the system works.
When you are told to leave a property by an owner in Texas…..you should do that.. The man should have called the police to go see his child’s mother or taken them to court. But when you are told to leave a property Iin Texas…..leave. I feel bad for the guy but the owner was within his right.
You are 100% correct. There was a physical size difference, the ex did not leave as the seriousness of the resident was displayed. The ex chose to escalate the situation after a firearm was presented. He chose to try to take it and was stopped. The resident did not verbally threaten with an outcome.
The ex should have departed, called the police and took them to court.
How many ex’s, regardless of male or female have killed their former spouse and children?
You don’t get to shoot someone for a misdemeanor (trespassing). You don’t go get a gun to shoot someone because they’re bigger and you’re afraid to fight them but want to intimidate them. The guy was in violation of a court order, the father was upset at being jerked around and not able to see his kid. How would you feel? Especially as others have mentioned the lack of response from the legal system in these situations. Should he have left? Called the police? Absolutely. But again, you don’t get to use lethal force just because someone is on your property. Breaking into your house is a different matter. But the shooter went into the house and returned with a weapon. No reason to do that. Maybe he should have taken a few self-defense courses, or did a stint in the military. Then he might not have felt the need to grab a gun and shoot an unarmed man in front of his kid.
Simple fact, the boy wasn’t at the house. Simple fact, the owner of the property told the deceased to leave multiple times. Simple fact, the deceased threatened to take the firearm away from and use it against the property owner – and then tried to do just that. In Texas, that all adds up to justifiable homicide. The shooter is not going to jail, nor should he. Simple fact, if an armed property owner tells you to leave, you leave. If you feel you’ve been wronged in some way then contact the police or a lawyer. You don’t get up in the face of someone that has every right to protect themselves.
People in other states don’t realize Texas law is that simple. Behave, or face the consequences.
If the home owner had a “magic” blue outfit on, there would be 2 people killed, the other one is the lady in car taping them. Magic words, “I’m in fear of my life” blue gets away with it every time
You are a fool, making non contextual foolish statements without basis in fact.
Why are you even here, we really don’t want you.
They both played stupid games and they both won stupid prizes.
Good thing one of em wasn’t “Black”!
Self defense, no doubt.
If the home owner was a cop, he would have this guy and the women in the car both killed, in fear of his life.
Have you ever read the full FBI shooting reports? I suspect you haven’t. Why is it so many more white people are shot than black or brown people. I learned in the military ignorance is not an excuse for anything.
As a veteran of a child custody disagreement, I can appreciate the frustration the victim felt at not having the other party involved follow the court orders. I think the victim should have documented the non compliance and left. As a CHL holder and gun owner in the State of TX, I am obligated to de-escalate any confrontation. This OBVIOUSLY is NOT what the shooter chose to do. Instead he chose to use a firearm to intimidate and ESCALATE. Unfortunately, when the intimidation did not work, he backed himself in to a corner resulting the death of the father. This is not 1st degree murder, but certainly not a justified shooting……the shooter will be going to prison, as he should be. Oh, and in the event any commenters on this page are unclear, you can just skip over anything “Blue Him Dog” has to say. He is just a liberal troll.
The man’s last words were “I’ll take that fucking thing and…”
That’s a credible and direct threat. The police were supposed to be on the way Out go the lights, Clyde.
” Instead he chose to use a firearm to intimidate and ESCALATE. ”
Did you happen to look at the picture ? The jerk was in Carruth’s face, outweighed him 30 pounds or so, and was on Carruth’s porch. And then the jerk (ex-jerk) tried to take the carbine away from the property owner.
Got what he asked for.
Several commenters here believe if you have a court order for anything, and the other party refuses to comply, you have the authority to enforce it yourself. You walk away pissed off, call the police to document the violation, and go back to court for violation and enforcement. The aggrieved party can USE FORCE to enforce the order.
Edit: CAN NOT USE FORCE
Hell yeah he should of shot him , threaded and manhandled and now all the bleeding heart pussies will holler murder , he had a court order for the boy not to trespass or threaten to beat him or put his hands on him , so 💯 percent self defense , glad you protected you and your family
I live in NY, a place that most 2A folks call an unfree state. The only place us LEGAL gun owners shoot is at the range or in the woods. When you live in a crazy place where anything goes this is the kind of stuff you have to expect. No one was in imminent danger in this situation so the cops could have taken care of the situation. At least that what we do in a unfree state like NY.
TX here. Since the concealed carry revolution, we’ve seen violent crime decrease each decade in Texas. Armed citizens are a net positive on safety. This is not an example of that.
This guy made a poor decision to display a gun in a child custody argument and a very bad decision to use it.
This is not a place where anything goes. He will go to prison.
I sure hope he goes to prison. If not for any other reason, so that the victims kid don’t grow up feeling like he or she has to even the score for daddy’s death. I had an drunk asshole threaten me from my front porch years ago. I never considered pulling out any of my guns. I was always told don’t get your gun unless you know you’re going to use it. It won’t scare a drunk or a crazy person. The cops took care of the situation and I never saw the drunk again. I think he was lost. Merry Christmas.
Texas born and raised, when some from NYC comments on stuff like this I think about all those British idiots talk show hosts who have been in the US a couple of years trying to tell me what my right are. How are you liking the no bail system and rykers island unloaded and the fact you got to get permission to buy a gun. No one cares about your opinion, you already proved your ignorance on the subject.
Not a good shoot. This was an argument about his child.
He wasn’t violent he was pissed. Looks like games have been played in the past.
The gun being brought outside in this situation escalated the situation.
I say he should be prosecuted for manslaughter at least maybe murder 2.
Good call except I don’t see a reason to de-escalate the charges. What I see here is a man turning his front yard into a Sally port. I’m not saying this was in fact murder, I’m saying this should be up to a jury to decide if it was murder one. Clearly the shooter was taking the exception for the rule. That it may have been the closest thing to self defense and still actually being murder.
Two idiots. One is dead and the other should go to jail.
Murder? The guy getting the kid got exactly what he deserved. He was told to leave. He did not. He tried to grab the gun. He got a couple rounds.
AND… he told himjust before “MF you better use it”. So, he did. Again, he got what he asked for.
The man was not leaving. Totally self defense.
Read started the aggression, refused Carruth’s demand that he leave the private property, verbally, asked to be shot, ignored a warning shot & then physically attacked Carruth. Texas law says Carruth had no obligation to retreat or wait for additional attacks before defending himself.
For all of those who believe the homeowner escalated, let me as you this; Would you have the same opinion if the homeowner happened to be wearing a magic blue costume. Let’s view this through the lens of a LE encounter. The words, actions, body language and elevated voice of the trespasser demonstrated a high potential to become violent. He failed to comply with legal and simple commands to leave the property. Same as an LEO would do, the homeowner escalated to protect his self and family. In fact, the LEO likely would have escalated far sooner. In a sense, the homeowner “feared for his life”. Then the trespasser threatened to take the gun and use it against the homeowner. Then the trespasser DID turn violent and attempted to take the gun. Now this is a horrible event and a part of me does sympathize with the deceased father. That being said, most of you would be defending a LEO for doing and not doing the exact same things.
Side note…
Michelle Twitzel tried to spin the story with a lie in the title of her Tweet that said he was shot in front of his 11 y/o son. The shooter clearly says the child wasn’t even there.
People should learn don’t fight armed folks. Whether it’s the police, a young man in WI, or a Texan on his porch. Sorry to the man who lost but you have to keep your head or you may lose it.
The father had every right to be there. He was there to pick up his child, for whom he had a court ordered custody agreement. The mother was refusing to hand over the child. That is felony kidnapping.
Was the father a jerk about it? Absolutely. Is the new boyfriend/stepdad a murderer? Based on the evidence so far, yes.
Unlike Rittenhouse, Carruth wasn’t armed before the altercation started. When he had the chance to de-escalate, he chose instead to escalate the situation. He decided to go and get the gun. That is enough for me to consider it pre-meditation.
Glad you are judge and jury. A There’ felony if there’s no judge and jury. He should have done what he said. Left the property and got his suponea. He got the bullets he requested.
Hey – only a genuine fool would get up in the face of someone brandishing a firearm. At that point, the dead guy lost any possible defense. Cops on the way and he tries this? Too bad, cowboy – you insisted he use it – he used it!
Sounds a lot like the words of a pedophile in Wisconsin a while back…
I believe the shooter is going to – and SHOULD – spend the rest of his life in jail…
The deceased was advised multiple times to leave the property. The deceased was confrontational and threatening in nature. The deceased then advised he would take the gun and beat the gun owner with it. Trespassing and threatening the property owner of bodily injury seem ground enough
The video shows self defense. When you are at someone’s property and the owner requests that you leave, you leave. That’s how you deescalate the situation. You become an intruder if not invited. Too bad Chad had to pay with his life. This is just too bad all the way around. Kyle could also have deescalated the situation by calling the police and simply locking himself in the house. He did not have to be the judge and the executioner at the same time. He is no better than the man that he killed. I saw absolutely no need to use deadly force. A tragedy all the way around. This is not what we are.
You hit the nail on the head. Chad put me in the mind of a bully – he was really used to pushing his face in and pushing his way around.
Betcha he was a bit of a problem with the boy – wait and see….
Trespassing doesn’t rise to the level of deadly force.. He had made no threats up until the little guy brought out the gun.. In all actuality the xwife is the cause and reason for all of this, give the father his child.. Women need to stop using children as a way to harm fathers out of spite..
“This is not what we are.”
Jesus… you sound like Hussein Obama. Texas law is more straight forward than most liberal states’ pansy “duty to retreat” requirements, i.e., – deadly force is authorized in the preservation of one’s life, safety, PROPERTY, or those same aspects of ANOTHER’S life, safety or PROPERTY.
Ever heard the phrase, “Don’t mess with Texas?”
Watch the second video carefully, the one recorded from inside the house. The victim made no attempt to leave the porch, “raise his leg,” or “advance on Kyle” like the attorney claims. Two stupid, angry guys….one is dead…..one is probably going to jail. SMH
Good old blue dog trolling yet again.
True a situation here that could’ve been avoided. Notice Kyle‘s finger was not on the trigger during the argument so therefore the gun was used as intimidation to what Kyle felt was to even himself up to the victim. Most sane people would’ve left the property and maybe continued the argument sometime later. All the elements have not been revealed at this point. The fact in brandishing a firearm you should be prepared to use it in the event it is going to be taken from you and used against you. My thoughts were the other person or persons Kyle may have thought he was protecting. I would’ve summoned people back into the house and then close the door and let the idiot stand on the porch. The castle law would have protected Kyle if the victim tried to enter the house. I was a victim of a road rage incident where I learned the best thing I could’ve done was stayed in my truck as a first line of defense. I was trying to protect my vehicle. “Stupid“. It would’ve been better for me to have paid a deductible then have these scars on my face. But it prompted me To get a carry license and to educate myself.
welcome to ‘Merika where everything is solved by gunplay. Absolutely ridiculous, but not surprising. Letting everyone have access to firearms and ambiguous laws that promote the use of guns to solve any dispute is absolutely insane.
Obviously you should leave “Merika”. There’s a constitution. There’s a second amendment in it. If you don’t agree…. GET OUT OF OUR COUNTRY.
Double Tap
Child custody battles are very heated. It’s amazing parents manipulate the custody hours to piss off the ex husband or ex wife.
A man is on someone’s property arguing. He could have easily shown his documents to law enforcement so they could help facilitate the transfer of the child from one parent to the other. And law enforcement is very busy to be the worlds baby sitter FYI. The guy went there to get his son. All he needed to do was document the ex wife did not return the kid at the right time and day. Instead he went to the guys home looking for the kid. He was told the kid wasn’t there. He was asked to leave. Simple question simple solution just leave!
His last emotional mistake
The guy who went in for a firearm
I was taught never pull a firearm unless I felt like I had no other option.
So the dead guy should have ran for the hills when he saw the guy come out side of his home with a firearm and then was asked to leave the property multiple times
Instead he jumped in the guys face tried to wrestle the firearm away from the guy and was later shot
Heated situations, manipulating custody hours happen all around the world.
When someone asks you to leave their property just leave
Both men created a situation out of anger that didn’t have to end this way.
Both had an opportunity to await the authorities. Neither acted on those opportunities. Child custody disagreements are one of the worst things to go through. In this case, I would not suggest murder. according to the laws of Texas he may be guilty of something but it is not murder. Both men made bad decisions.
This is pretty clear cut premeditated murder. The victim was no threat to the homeowner he just wanted his son, and from what he is saying their is a custody agreement that gives him that right. If I was on this jury I would vote to convict the assailant, he wasn’t under any threat of physical force until he brought the firearm outside. I’m a staunch supporter of self defense and 2nd Amendment rights, but this sadly is murder plain and simple.
You are NOT a staunch supporter of self defense or the 2nd Amendement rights. And…. you definitely don’t know the laws. There will probably be someone like you on the jury but, eleven more that will listen and do what our legal system says they need to do.
Richard it’s you that are misinformed, while I don’t think it’s “premeditated” it’s definitely not self defense, you don’t have the right to kill someone for trespassing, nor do you have the right to escalate force till you feel justified to kill.. Both were wrong, the guy with the gun is going to jail, because he should.
Use of ‘lethal force’ is unjustified in this situation, in my opinion. Instead of grabbing a firearm, he could have as easily grabbed a phone and called the police, then stayed inside until they arrived. If Mr. Read had followed him inside, and used physical force to gain entry, or laid a hand on him, then brandishing a firearm to scare him, or wounding him in the leg to incapacitate him, would be justified, if not necessary. Clearly, Mr. Carruth feared for his safety, but I don’t think his life was ever in danger. Manslaughter, yes, but premeditated murder? That’s a bit harsh.
Never do anything with a gun that you wouldn’t do if you had no gun. Probably the primary rule of self-defense. Nobody had to die here.
Chad was there to pick up his son, Kyle & Christina were being Aholes, if Chads son kills Kyle it might be justifiable homicide?
i’ve seen both sides of the comments here… the major flaw with “being told to leave” is the fact the father was there to pick-up his son at a specified time through a court order. – so the father had every right to be there and the father made no attempt to enter the home at any point. it also appears this is not the first time the father came to pick-up his son and had an issue. finally the father stated very clearly he was going to take this issue up with the courts and made no verbal threats of violence. my conclusion is the mother and boyfriend lured the father into a altercation, by denying access to his son, to justify the homicide. the “Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.” comment is ignorant.
Okay, come on to my property, insist that I’m lying, threaten me and just about everyone present, become menacing, being larger and way more aggressive then me, and then presist to stay on my property after being asked to vacate the area, and then asked to leave under the threat of lethal force, and then become even more aggressive and brassen to the point of becoming physical, what else should he expect to happen? The law is definitely on the side of the property owner, especially in Texas. If Mr. Read felt that his son was there, and he had a demonstrative right of immediate custody, he should called local law enforcement to assist him. And bonus life lesson for all you indestructible bully types out there: once the property owner bradishes his firearm and demands that you leave his property, LEAVE! If you’re in the right, get the law to help you, not the undertaker. Now there are two families in turmoil, and a child who will be scared for life!
Right on.
Father of the child is not displaying any threat of violence or bodily harm. He’s just mad and arguing. The altitude-challenged trigger-puller was trying to follow Joe Biden’s advice by “scare them away by firing some shots”. Well, you don’t pull a gun unless you are going to use it AND you have a damn good reason to.
That weenie is going to prison for a very long time if there is any justice in Texas.
You ought to know the law, and what you are talking about, before you blindly leave stupid comments. According to Texas law the property owner is in the right, nor was he obligated by said state’s law, to render direct aid, other than to summon emergency responders, 911 L.E.O. & EMS. Btw, had the loud mouth bully left the property when he was told to vacate the premises, he would probably still be alive. The property owner even let off a warning shot which did not deter the trespasser. Instead he thought that he would go into Super Man mode, and disarm a lawfully armed person defending his life, immediate family, and property, and was dully dispatched.
As a juror I’d be compelled to find the shooter guilty of premeditated murder. He left an argument, nothing but words being slung around, to retrieve a firearm. Then when the intended effect of intimidation didn’t materialize, he fired a round at the victim. That gave the victim every right to defend himself against an armed attacker. Either man could have walked away and de-escalated the situation but unfortunately, an innocent man lost his life before either one came to their senses. Regardless, only one of them brought lethal intentions into the situation. Guilty!
I’m sure you’d feel the same way if someone was on your porch making threats and wouldn’t leave after being told to vacate the property.
I think we all can sympathize with the situation and feel bad for the victim, especially with children involved but the situation doesn’t take away ones right to protect themselves and others on their own property.
Curios if you’d being saying the same absolute non-sense if the homeowner happened to be wearing a magic blue costume. The homeowner feared for his life and the actions of the trespasser demonstrated a potential to turn violent. He failed to comply with commands to leave. Then the trespasser DID turn violent and attempted to take the gun. This is NO DIFFERENT than a LE encounter and you’d likely be claiming that the agent of the state was justified. NOT GUILTY.
A drunk man once sang some wise words about how happiness is Lubbock, Texas in your rear view mirror. The city of Lubbock responded by naming the street their civic centre is on after him.
Yeah, home boy straight murdered that guy. He left the confrontation and went in the house, the victim did not follow. The murderer came back out with a firearm and the presence of the firearm escalated the fight. The victim grabs the gun and flings the younger guy several feet away – an excellent opportunity to de-escalate or flee (although in Texas he has no legal obligation to flee, maybe that course of action would not have ended in murder). The murderer then DOUBLE TAPS and the victim crumples on the porch.
No, this was not self-defence, very clearly. If the first guy went inside and called the police and armed himself and the victim followed him in, then maybe that would have been self-defence. But that is not what happened. He went inside with the purpose of arming himself to try to intimidate the victim. It didn’t work and the presence of the firearm just made him madder. How is that for Sam Colt making them equal? One is an angry jerk and the other is a murderer.
And then the fact that a judge is involved. Oh boy.
You guys keep talking about these lawless cities run by Democrats, just look at the increase of shootings and gang activity in Lubbock – about as close to a one-party Republican city as one can get. They still had signs up in some stores for segregated bathrooms into the 80s, even though it wasn’t enforced by then.
You dumb fuck…… If someone tells you to leave their property and you don’t well…… Play stupid games win stupid prizes!!!!!
there was a court order allowing access to his son to be picked-up at that time, so the father had every right to be there, and he made no attempt to enter the home at any time. the father was angry, yes… but he was unarmed and made no verbal threats of violence just threats of court actions. the mother distracted the father allowing the boyfriend to enter the house and retrieve a firearm. looked like premeditated murder to me.
You can’t shoot unarmed people for being on your property. They have to pose a threat. So if an unarmed person cuts across your lawn and you tell them to leave but they do it again you have the right to shoot them for being on your property? Guess what prize you just won???? A free ride in a police car….straight to jail!!
This is a crappy situation
When a man tells you to leave his house I suggest you listen!!!! Play stupid games and then stupid prizes.
You dont have the psychological aptitude to own a gun.
you trying to make this a Left vs Right argument is weak at best. the “increase of shootings and gang activity” in that area is almost certainly due to 500,000+ of illegal crossings every month from Mexico along with the human trafficking and drug smuggling. although i do agree with your assessment that this was premeditated murder.
Hey genius, they both looked white to me! No illegals in the pictures/video I saw.
i was commenting on Blue Dog (he/him) post where they stated “You guys keep talking about these lawless cities run by Democrats, just look at the increase of shootings and gang activity in Lubbock – about as close to a one-party Republican city as one can get.” where they tried to make it a Political Statement. if you had taken the time and read what was being said you might understand. moron
the Democrat party created jim crow laws of race segregation
Curios if you’d being saying the same absolute non-sense if the homeowner happened to be wearing a magic blue costume. The homeowner feared for his life and the actions of the trespasser demonstrated a potential to turn violent. He failed to comply with commands to leave. Then the trespasser DID turn violent and attempted to take the gun. This is NO DIFFERENT than a LE encounter and you’d likely be claiming that the agent of the state was justified. You’re probably cool with it whenever magic costume wearing actors escalate and murder though.
Finally an intelligent thought. Next time you call the police to your house for just about anything get in an argument with him. Then get in his face and tell him your going to take his gun away from him and reach for it and grab it. You’re going to get shot even if the officer breaks free and gets some distance. Let’s say the distance is 21 feet. I think I read somewhere that 21 feet means something to law enforcement. How is this situation any different? Would any of this happened if the victim didn’t start the confrontation? Why did he approach the shooter after he was told to leave? Once the man came outside with the gun the victim should of went back to his car and called the police or left and came back with the police. Was the shooter supposed to wait until he ripped the gun out of his hands and be shot with his own gun? Lots of police officers have died by having their gun stripped from them and shot. The victim was told to leave and didn’t. He was trespassing once he made a confrontation with the homeowner period. You are trespassing if you are not invited and are told to leave. Private property is private property. This isn’t Russia yet. Who approaches an armed person that has a gun out and says you’re going to kick their ass and take it away from them? You need to stop watching movies and come back to reality. I put this 100% on the victim. He started the confrontation. Was told to leave and wouldn’t. Then was told to leave by an armed person and thought it wise to confront armed person and grab armed persons gun and assault armed person by violently throwing him and in law enforcement eyes trying to take gun. This is tragic but the outcome was in complete control of the victim.
The 21 feet is military age man with a knife.
Nothing worse than comments from those who think they are intelligent.
BTW, your grammar is lousy, on par with that of a 7th grade child.