Law We have another 'self-defense' shooting.

[maximus__]

the initial escalation is trespassing.



You don't have to fear for your life. You can fear for great bodily injury, for example. And on your own property you don't need any reason to have a firearm, but a trespasser who won't leave allows you to retrieve said firearm according to this grand jury's interpretation. Once the trespasser touches the gun and says he's gonna kill him and loses the half-assed wrestling match for the gun, the homeowner has reason to defend.



Are you saying an ex-husband and/or family member is incapable of committing a crime or being a threat?



I can agree to that. I certainly wouldn't.



false. trespassing is the initial aggression here, like it or not. it's just the facts.



Agreed, but, none of this would have happened if the deceased had vacated the property and waited for law enforcement.



Yes, of course. You can't do this at a Denny's. You can defend yourself on your own property from a trespasser who refuses to leave and grabs your gun.



Because it was his home/property. He shouldn't have had to ask twice, or have a gun.



He was automatically right about stopping the trespassing. That's black and white. If I want someone off my property and I produce a firearm and say "leave," and then the person grabs my firearm and says they'll kill me, I'm reasonable to think I'm in danger. Do I think bringing the firearm out was a good idea? Lord no, however, the initial aggressor was the trespasser and he escalated it further instead of following his legal obligation to leave.



That's a pretty bias way of examining the scuffle. He gets in his face while the home owner is armed, bumping him etc., threatening him, and then a scuffle ensues in which the home owner is displaced from his porch and within 2 seconds (and maybe more like 1) he fires his shots. You make it sound like they sat down on stools between rounds when he got shot. In reality, the absolute most escalated part of this scenario is the 3-5 seconds in which physical contact and the shooting occurred.

If it was just some random I would completely agree, but I don't in this situation. There was no reason for Kyle to escalate it how he did, that's just my opinion. Dad had a legal right to be there and it only became a trespass once his right was removed.
Dad has right to be upset and to be able to have that conversation (even if he points his finger and yells) with the mum about his kid and where he is. There was no reason the gun should have been brought into anything based off what we have in these videos.

4. Are there times when the defense is not allowed?
There are certain situations where self-defense is not a defense strategy. These include when the defendant:

• responded with force to a strictly verbal provocation,
• resisted an arrest by a police officer, even if it was unlawful, that did not use excessive force,
• consented to the victim’s use of force, or
• provoked the victim’s use of force and did not abandon the encounter.

https://www.shouselaw.com/tx/crimes/defenses/self-defense/

This sort of covers my opinion on the matter. I still think Kyle is the initial aggressor. Everything I have seen shows me that. It's complicated by him being at home and I agree there is a trespass, but I still don't think lethal force was justified. Kyle escalated it by wandering inside and bringing out the gun, the Dad only reacts to Kyle's actions. He never does anything first it's all reactive. Even when he is shot, he isn't lunging or doing anything. If it was out on the street Kyle gets charged every day of the week for involving himself in someone else argument and provoking a fight. I think given the actual circumstances that should be considered more and not just "his front yard/porch his rules."

If this was some random guy trying to rob the place my opinion is completely different. I just think this is going to open up a lot of custody issues and a spate of "self defence" shootings in this situation.
I also think Kyle makes it into the news again in the future for something else. The were some interesting things done around his divorce proceedings with his judge ex wife in that area around sealing documents.
My guess is Kyle bringing guns into verbal fights is a regular occurence. I just don't see this as self defence at all. I see it as no different to getting slapped by someone and then beating someone to death in response. the force has to be reasonable.

 

[maximus__]

I get what your saying, and the dad did have every right to be upset. What he didn't have the right to do was go to another man's property (whether his kid was there or not) and start making demands and trying to intimidate people.

I've already said it but I personally wouldn't have gotten a weapon involved, but I'm not the shooter. Who looked frail and unable to physically remove the trespasser from his property. If you aren't free to remove unwanted persons from your own property then what are you free to do? Nothing, you're just supposed to let whomever come to your place and make a scene?

Everyone in this thread has been cooking up stories in their head. From, "Omg they were hiding the kid on purpose!" All the way to "they were hiding the kid on purpose so the step dad could set up the hit!"

The dad even mentions where he believes the kid is after they inform him he is not on the premises. Highly unlikely this situation was used to "push the dad out of the picture" much less an organized murder. That's just ridiculous.

Also you can say all you want what the shooter "should have done." But again, this was his home and the people that were there (uninvited) were there pretending like they could do as they please. Wrong answer.

The reasons those rumours all started was because there is video from inside and everyone is so calm. Nobody reacts in the usual way you would when you shoot someone. Even Kyle reacts in a cool calm way after he shoots him.
None of that shows somebody in fear or what you would normally see in this sort of situation. Usually people are screaming and yelling even trained professionals react more than Kyle who was supposedly fearing for his life.

There were also some issues around how the Police initially treated the whole thing, Kyle's ex wife being a judge in the area and Kyle was pretty active in the 2A space at the time from memory. He was pretty well established in the town and a number of people had to excuse themselves from being involved due to his connections.

You keep saying he was uninvited. he had his right to be there removed, it's different. His initial reason to be there was lawful from all available info. He was there to pick his kid up and didn't immediately leave when asked after dismissing Kyle and continuing to talk to his ex wife. His ex wife worked there and the full video has her saying she wanted to see her kid before she handed him over. He wasn't there kicking in doors and making threats, he was speaking to his ex wife to find out where his son was because she had custody of him at the time.

 

[rikibobby]

I'm from Canada and I know you don't trespass in Texas.

 

[Mike]

Eh figured it might go down like this because Texas. The shooter used Texas law to initiate a confrontation and get away with murder.

 

[submerged88]

The guy who got shot told the guy with the gun to use the gun. He even yelled at him and ordered him saying something like, You better use it motherfucker!. So the guy did as he was told and shot him. Whats the issue here? If he put his hands up and said "don't shoot" and got shot then the outcry would make sense. This seems like suicide by gun owner.

 

[Mike]

The guy who got shot told the guy with the gun to use the gun. He even yelled at him and ordered him saying something like, You better use it motherfucker!. So the guy did as he was told and shot him. Whats the issue here? If he put his hands up and said "don't shoot" and got shot then the outcry would make sense. This seems like suicide by gun owner.

The issue is they purposely orchestrated a situation knowing it would antagonize the guy. Then, little Man Syndrome introduced a gun to the situation not because he was afraid for his safety or the safety of people on his property, but as part of a dick measuring machismo contest.

As evidenced by getting nose to nose with someone he knew was already frustrated, that was threatening to take him to court not whoop his ass. He got the gun out to try to act like a tough guy and intimidate him, amd when it only sweved to exacerbate the situation he was "forced" to shoot. That's a bad snoot in most of the country. He used Texas legal technicalities to instigate a situation where he could murder a guy he didn't like and get away with it.

 

[2fast2see]

WOW!....
(This: Carruth, who is the ex-husband of 72nd District Court Judge Ann-Marie Carruth, was never arrested for the shooting, which his lawyer had argued was a 'justifiable homicide'. Judge Carruth, who lost her bid for re-election in March and will be in office until December, divorced him shortly after the shooting.)

Gun-wielding Texas man who shot dead his partner's ex-husband during furious child custody row will NOT be charged after shooting is ruled to be in self-defense

• William 'Kyle' Carruth opened fire on Chad Read on November 5
• Pair argued before the shooting about the custody of children of Read and his ex-wife Christina Read, who was dating Carruth
• Chad Read's widow, Jennifer, released footage showing husband being shot
• Read can be heard demanding to see his son, 9, outside of Carruth's home
• A grand jury had determined Carruth will not face charges because the argument unfolded on his property and he was acting in self-defense
• Jennifer Read will now pursue the case in civil court, as her $50million wrongful death lawsuit against Carruth can resume following results of the investigation

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-girlfriends-ex-husband-not-face-charges.html

 

[salamander]

Dude was a pussy fuck for bringing out the gun, and wormy bastard for shooting him...but if a gun doesn't give you a pause when your angry, what does?

 

[Poon Goon]

WOW!....
(This: Carruth, who is the ex-husband of 72nd District Court Judge Ann-Marie Carruth, was never arrested for the shooting, which his lawyer had argued was a 'justifiable homicide'. Judge Carruth, who lost her bid for re-election in March and will be in office until December, divorced him shortly after the shooting.)

Gun-wielding Texas man who shot dead his partner's ex-husband during furious child custody row will NOT be charged after shooting is ruled to be in self-defense

• William 'Kyle' Carruth opened fire on Chad Read on November 5
• Pair argued before the shooting about the custody of children of Read and his ex-wife Christina Read, who was dating Carruth
• Chad Read's widow, Jennifer, released footage showing husband being shot
• Read can be heard demanding to see his son, 9, outside of Carruth's home
• A grand jury had determined Carruth will not face charges because the argument unfolded on his property and he was acting in self-defense
• Jennifer Read will now pursue the case in civil court, as her $50million wrongful death lawsuit against Carruth can resume following results of the investigation

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-girlfriends-ex-husband-not-face-charges.html

Do you think that there is anything that isn't related to a conspiracy?

 

[2fast2see]

Do you think that there is anything that isn't related to a conspiracy?

Power protects power!

His wife was a judge and he was cheating on her.

The system protects itself.

Do you think she wanted to be dragged into this? No!

This was murder!

 

[Poon Goon]

Power protects power!

His wife was a judge and he was cheating on her.

The system protects itself.

Do you think she wanted to be dragged into this? No!

This was murder!

Settle down. This is Texas is a better explanation.

 

[oldshadow]

He was on the shooters property and asked to leave. He said fuck that and threatened the property owner. He was being a stupid as hole and that cost him. I feel not sympathy. On a civil court case I would give the family one dollar each.

 

[woodguyatl]

I'd like to say guilty but in Texas of you ask somebody to leave your property and they don't and then escalate by trying to take your gun you are free to shoot them. Probably could have legally shot him just for refusing to leave.

 

[Wadtucket]

Violently trespass and assault a Texan man on his property and your wh*te privilege won't save you

 

[2fast2see]

He was on the shooters property and asked to leave. He said fuck that and threatened the property owner. He was being a stupid as hole and that cost him. I feel not sympathy. On a civil court case I would give the family one dollar each.

The property owner could have stayed inside, locked the door and told the woman he was cheating with to go around back.

Had the ex attempted to break in or stop her then it would be justified.

How hard is this?

 

[oldshadow]

The property owner could have stayed inside, locked the door and told the woman he was cheating with to go around back.

Had the ex attempted to break in or stop her then it would be justified.

How hard is this?

It's his property and he shouldn't and doesn't have to hide from a criminal on his property.

 

[Poon Goon]

The property owner could have stayed inside, locked the door and told the woman he was cheating with to go around back.

Are you from fucking France or something? This incident happened in AMERICA

 

[2fast2see]

Are you from fucking France or something? This incident happened in AMERICA

I live in Florida and I'm pro second amendment.

This is a custody situation where the parties know each other, which is different from a stranger trespassing onto his property. If that occurred, I would be more lenient to the homeowner.

The homeowner was intentionally antagonistic and escalated the situation.

 

[oldshadow]

I live in Florida and I'm pro second amendment.

This is a custody situation where the parties know each other, which is different from a stranger trespassing onto his property. If that occurred, I would be more lenient to the homeowner.

The homeowner was intentionally antagonistic and escalated the situation.

Why would the criminal being someone he knows be the deciding factor. The guy should have left his property and called the police if he had rights to the child being denied.

 

[Poon Goon]

Why would the criminal being someone he knows be the deciding factor. The guy should have left his property and called the police if he had rights to the child being denied.

Any logical question you ask of him can easily be countered by the judge conspiracy. It's a convenient way to disregard facts like the dead guy threatening to take the gun away and use it on the shooter.