Chad Reed shooting in Texas

[get2choppaaa]

This topic was brought up in the Arbery Thread, but merits its own thread.

What we know about fatal shooting of Chad Read and suspect Kyle Carruth

Kyle Carruth's divorce with Judge Anne-Marrie Carruth was finalized two weeks after he was involved in a fatal shooting with his girlfriend's ex-husband.

www.lubbockonline.com

Records link Kyle Carruth to deadly south Lubbock shooting

The shooter in a Nov. 5 homicide in South Lubbock was identified in court records as William Kyle Carruth, the ex-husband of Judge Anne Marie Carruth.

www.lubbockonline.com

Widow releases video of Chad Read's fatal shooting in South Lubbock

Jennifer Read, is also seeking custody of her husband's children.

news.yahoo.com

I want to call this murder, but I am not sure that it is for a couple issues regarding the guy not leaving.

Clearly the Ex Wife is forcing and escalating the issue.

The warning shot is an issue (not authorized under law)

Telling someone "youd better use it or I am gonna take it and kill you" is also an issue.

Trying to take the gun is also an issue.

We dont know what this guy has said to the boyfriend or not in separate conversations.

Full Disclosure:
I have been denied visitation before by my ex wife- have had people threaten me.... and I've walked away. Denying you your kid or not... once someone tells you to get off their property and brings a gun out, its clear you're not going to get your way unless you are going to kill them.

Castle Laws in Texas are pretty beneficial toward the defense when on their own property. SO I do not thing this is likely to go to trial.

I want to say this guy is a piece of human filth for shooting the other guy who just wanted to see his kid... but I have NO idea about the beforehand story.

It's clear the ex wife set this up however.

 

[eradicator]

Chad Read’s widow releases video of deadly shooting; Carruth attorney makes case for self-defense

It sure looks like the shooter will get away with the shooting. He shouldn't have brought out the gun in the first place if the guy was just there to pick up his kid for his scheduled visitation.

His son who, he was there to pick up, blames the mother for the father getting shot and wants to run away from her, according to this link. It is tragic, but ultimately will probably not go to trial. Chad Reed on tape saying "I'm going to take your rifle from you and kill you with it" and then trying to take the rifle from Kyle and consequently getting shot screams self defense.

 

[Caractacus Potts]

Wow, talk about timing. I spent nearly four hours today working on my annulment paperwork for the Catholic Church. I decide I have spent enough time scratching at old wounds and poured myself a drink and logged onto RVF and see this. Like get2choppaa, I have been denied visitation with my girls. If you don't have children I don't know how to express the pain you feel inside when they are denied you.

My ex complained in court that she was afraid of me because I had been in the Marine Corps and had guns in the home. She said she was scared for herself and the girls and shitstain. If you think your Second Amendment rights are sacrosanct, think again. I had to surrender my firearms until the ordeal was over.

Fortunately for me, shitstain is a coward and he will never have the nerve to stand toe to toe with me. Even if he did he is your typical wussy lib who dislikes firearms. I have made it a habit to not be carrying when I have to drop my older daughter off because I don't want to be tempted to make a life altering decision when I see him.

The Yahoo article g2c linked to does not have any comments and I don't want to create an account for the Lubbock online to read the comments there. I wonder if the redpill has been disseminated enough out to the general public that the majority of commenters will blame the ex-wife for the incident?

 

[get2choppaaa]

Chad Read’s widow releases video of deadly shooting; Carruth attorney makes case for self-defense

It sure looks like the shooter will get away with the shooting. He shouldn't have brought out the gun in the first place if the guy was just there to pick up his kid for his scheduled visitation.

His son who, he was there to pick up, blames the mother for the father getting shot and wants to run away from her, according to this link. It is tragic, but ultimately will probably not go to trial. Chad Reed on tape saying "I'm going to take your rifle from you and kill you with it" and then trying to take the rifle from Kyle and consequently getting shot screams self defense.

Yep. I have literally been goaded into stations like this with my ex-wife where I was red hot mad, and have been denied visitation... had to call my lawyer, ect... so I really felt for the victim. Like Cataractus Potts, I too had the Marines/gun ownership used as an attempt to deny.

The think I always kept in mind was : "If I let my ego win and hulk out right now, and kill somone, or worse, get killed... I'm no good to my kids"

I understand how that man got worked up the way he did. The family court system in America is such a joke. IT takes YEARS sometimes to get things resolved that should take a couple weeks at most. I got to meet my newborn son in a hospital for 1 hour, then didnt get to see him for 6 months until I was able to get an emergency hearing in front of a judge.

Having a Concealed Carry License, and having take a couple classes... its pretty clear you cannot threaten someone, even as a result of their provocation.

I want to know what was said between the deceased and the ex/lover before the events of the day. Was there a reason he should have been in fear for his life? Had he threatened violence?

I have dealt with drama with stepkids family with my now wife and her ex husband though she's never denied visitation. He was physically violent at one point and so while my wife carrys a gun now... I just sit by the door within earshot and let them work it out. No reason for me to make the guy feel bad just because he's there to see his kids, and I would expect the same from someone. Even though I don't like the guy because of his actions and way he has treated his own kids.... I always try and make a point to be cordial. I did intervene 1 time when tempers were flaring over him being a deadbeat and my wife calling him out when he have to drop off kids late and dinner time, and after i heard him raising his voice I told them "Thats enough... yall can work this out some other time, but my dinner is getting cold and you need to leave." Never had an issue since. Dude understood exatly what I meant... wife went in, served everyone dinner apologized later. I explained to my wife, you will not put me in that situation again or it will be bad for any/all parties involved. Sometimes even a good woman can't avoid acting that way when their resentment really builds.

 

[C-Note]

6 Interesting Castle Doctrine Cases » The Thermidor

Castle doctrine cases tend to include self-defense against home invasions, attempted burglaries, and trespassing.

thethermidor.com

Seems like the Texas castle doctrine gives a lot of leeway to the property owner. Since the dad was refusing to leave the property, the shooter may not be charged. This happened three weeks ago and apparently the district attorney is still trying to decide what to do. I suspect the DA may take the easy way out and present the case to a grand jury so he can wash his hands of it if the grand jury decides not to indict.

Anyway, I can understand the father being upset to show up for his visitation and the children not being present. Seems to me that a better action to take would have been to calmly ask then they would be available, return to get them at that time, then later to file a motion with the divorce court that his ex-wife was not complying with court orders on visitation.

Of course, it's really easy for me to say having never been in that situation.

 

[get2choppaaa]

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS



Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.31 | FindLaw

Texas Penal Code PENAL TX PENAL Section 9.31. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

The Castle Doctrine: Understanding Self-Defense in Texas

Fort Worth Criminal Defense Attorneys explain the Castle Doctrine and when a person can use deadly force in self-defense in Texas. Learn more.

www.google.com

 

[get2choppaaa]

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

[get2choppaaa]

Poso and Beattie commenting now. Possibly this will get enough coverage to get to trial and let the whole context come out.

 

[budoslavic]

 

[budoslavic]

 

[The Beast1]

I honestly side with the dad because ex wives can be cunts. However, the second a firearm comes out it's time to go, regardless of if you are armed, not armed, or think you can disarm an armed individual.

Not worth it.

Also am considering a bullet proof vest to wear under regular clothes just because. Still would run away the second a gun comes out.

 

[get2choppaaa]

I honestly side with the dad because ex wives can be cunts. However, the second a firearm comes out it's time to go, regardless of if you are armed, not armed, or think you can disarm an armed individual.

Not worth it.

Also am considering a bullet proof vest to wear under regular clothes just because. Still would run away the second a gun comes out.

Have you ever worn a body armor?

It's not exactly comfortable and in this case with a rifle you'd need plates. In either case it's very hot and takes a lot of time getting used to.

The best way to not get shot is to use de_escalation like you said.

It's not a bad investment, but it will slow you down and if you haven't done any training in it, it's a potentially encumbrance.

There are low vis options out there though.

 

[EndlessGravity]

Before I make my comment I want to be clear: I would never put myself in this situation in any way. That includes having children with a crazy woman or a woman who would leave. There is no way I'd have handled this the way it played out.

There is more I need to learn about for gun laws but it looks like a justified shooting to me. No one has yet mentioned how it looks like the father is forcibly blocking the mother's path, not allowing her to escape. He then instigates violence after being told to leave. Self-defense.

I do feel for you fathers in this thread who have had to deal with this stuff though. I'm also glad to see your level head allowed you the clarity to handle the situation better than all of these people.

 

[The Beast1]

Have you ever worn a body armor?

It's not exactly comfortable and in this case with a rifle you'd need plates. In either case it's very hot and takes a lot of time getting used to.

The best way to not get shot is to use de_escalation like you said.

It's not a bad investment, but it will slow you down and if you haven't done any training in it, it's a potentially encumbrance.

There are low vis options out there though.

Yeah I'm talking about level 2 under shirt vests. Definitely not plate carriers, that would look ridiculous. The issue is level 2 is only good against 9mm. Anything higher well, you know.

 

[get2choppaaa]

Before I make my comment I want to be clear: I would never put myself in this situation in any way. That includes having children with a crazy woman or a woman who would leave. There is no way I'd have handled this the way it played out.

There is more I need to learn about for gun laws but it looks like a justified shooting to me. No one has yet mentioned how it looks like the father is forcibly blocking the mother's path, not allowing her to escape. He then instigates violence after being told to leave. Self-defense.

I do feel for you fathers in this thread who have had to deal with this stuff though. I'm also glad to see your level head allowed you the clarity to handle the situation better than all of these people.

Yeah that's why I think that no matter which side someone comes down on... It's going to be a challenge for both in court.

The problems with the blocking her path argument is that she could have walked away and literally backed up out our talking to him and that's shown by some of the other videos.

Barka (law of self Defense) is the go to guy for this. He says it's not justified... and it's manslaughter not self defense.
That being said... I think both sides can make a compelling argument.

For all folks involved with gun ownership and faced with shooting someone... The civil court will be guarantee to rape you.

 

[Belgrano]

To me it looks as if the manlet consciously and intentionally used the self-defense law and the castle doctrine to kill that guy. He brought out the gun and he was itching to use it, he calmly double tapped Read from 10 feet away while Read was standing still, and he remained cool and completely unfazed after it happened. As if shooting a man was not a big deal. To me that suggests that he thought about doing this before, that he mentally prepared himself for that scenario and that he was ready to use violence against Read.

Now maybe he did not break the local laws by doing so, but regardless of that I would say that just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should.

Here's how the altercation would have looked like in the rest of the civilized world:



And after that everyone would go home and move on, while still being alive.

The whole thing was just completely unnecessary.

 

[budoslavic]

@man_integrated thread link.

 

[budoslavic]

@AmySwearer's thread link.

 

[get2choppaaa]

@AmySwearer's thread link.

Wife just read through this after I had talked about it earlier today. Her mom is a family law attny and she's seen a lot of stuff interning at their office before she was a paramedic. Her comment was pretty spot on: "This is like a crappy episode of Yellowstone... It's pretty clear this was setting him up because of the risk of the boyfriend and losing his fortune in divorce court."

As others have said... This guy used the gray area to shoot the dad. If the Dad could have kept his wits about him he would still be alive and his son would have a father. He gave into his emotions and his anger got him killed (possibly murdered)

This woman is the worst kind of evil though. It's pretty clear this was rehearsed.

 

[EndlessGravity]

Yeah that's why I think that no matter which side someone comes down on... It's going to be a challenge for both in court.

The problems with the blocking her path argument is that she could have walked away and literally backed up out our talking to him and that's shown by some of the other videos.

Barka (law of self Defense) is the go to guy for this. He says it's not justified... and it's manslaughter not self defense.
That being said... I think both sides can make a compelling argument.

For all folks involved with gun ownership and faced with shooting someone... The civil court will be guarantee to rape you.

Yes, I'll pay close attention to what Barka says and cross compare my state's laws. Where I am, I'm fairly certain it would be a legal shoot, no matter how the guy acted after. I may follow up with a gun attorney in my area who I trust to clarify our rules in similar situations, though I am familiar with at least one that's somewhat similar.

I do agree with others though: looks like they lured him into it. However, the shooter's calm reaction after...could just be his reaction. How he posed though could get him in trouble if they can uncover evidence of a pre-planned plot.