This is a clear case of 1st degree murder - not self defense.

[B. Kidd]

You just have to know what the law is where you live and abide, dudes, abide.
Ignorance is no defense.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The best course of action would have been for the boyfriend to call the police and let them handle it.

The dad could have, and should have, done the same. The cops are not going to settle a custody dispute, but If he had a legitimate complaint about the wife not turning over the child, he would have had a police report to show to the family court judge.

It sucks that law enforcement and the courts have to get involved in parenting, but that's what you ask for when you have a non-amicable divorce with children involved.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Just watched the video in this link. This is totally not self defense. Read was not being physically threatening in any way. In fact he says he’s already called the police and will go to to court again. This is not a man about to attack anyone. He only gets confrontational when Carruth gets his gun.

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

Isn't that the absolute worst time to get confrontational?

 

[Papageorgio]

We must never forget:

Guns are not the cause of murder or suicide, people are.

 

[Fang]

Isn't that the absolute worst time to get confrontational?

Unless he thought he was going to get shot so instead of running (he can’t out run a gunshot) he gets up close as his only defense. He had a court order to be there to pick up his son. An argument breaks out when the son is not there, but Read is not being physically aggressive. He even informs them that he called the police. There was no reason to escalate to a gun.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Unless he thought he was going to get shot so instead of running (he can’t out run a gunshot) he gets up close as his only defense. He had a court order to be there to pick up his son. An argument breaks out when the son is not there, but Read is not being physically aggressive. He even informs them that he called the police. There was no reason to escalate to a gun.

Trespassing is physically aggressive. That's the point of the castle doctrine. People can't just bully their way onto your land and play the "I'm unarmed" card.

I agree that stepdad made a mistake with the gun. Not so much getting it, but assuming that it would be the trump card that would make dad run away. A rifle is not effective from a distance closer than the length of the rifle, so stepdad should have stayed in his doorway so dad could not get so close.

Mom seems to be getting a pass on this. Maybe legally, she isn't culpable. But she set up this confrontation and knew what she was doing. No doubt both men are physically aggressive and none to bright, just like mom likes 'em.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This is the reality you republican dog turds have created.

DeAL with it.

Deal with what?
I dont care about these people one way or another and I'm smart enough not to put myself in that situation.

 

[BackAgain]

This is the reality you republican dog turds have created.

DeAL with it.

Crapitus calling anybody else a “turd” is nearly homicidal irony.

The true problem isn’t guns. The problem is violence in society. Libs embrace it when fascist scumbags like the dishonestly named “Anti”-Fa are engaging in it.

It is no coincidence that shitforbrain hacks like Crapitus are generally opposed to “self defense.” They don’t like it when folks fight back against the violently sought objectives of the left.

 

[DudleySmith]

Isn't that the absolute worst time to get confrontational?

Yes, that's what I was thinking; very poor timing and in case he should have left when the property owner told him to.

 

[DudleySmith]

Trespassing is physically aggressive. That's the point of the castle doctrine. People can't just bully their way onto your land and play the "I'm unarmed" card.

^This. Besides, no way to tell what the guy has on him without searching him.

 

[Fang]

Trespassing is physically aggressive. That's the point of the castle doctrine. People can't just bully their way onto your land and play the "I'm unarmed" card.

I agree that stepdad made a mistake with the gun. Not so much getting it, but assuming that it would be the trump card that would make dad run away. A rifle is not effective from a distance closer than the length of the rifle, so stepdad should have stayed in his doorway so dad could not get so close.

Mom seems to be getting a pass on this. Maybe legally, she isn't culpable. But she set up this confrontation and knew what she was doing. No doubt both men are physically aggressive and none to bright, just like mom likes 'em.

But is he trespassing if he had a court order to pick his son up at 3:30? The mother can’t produce the child so the Read starts questioning her reminding her the terms of the agreement. He wants to know where his son is. The mother caused the confrontation by not abiding by the terms of the agreement. I agree she’s not legally liable. But she is the cause of the confrontation. There’s no need for Carruth to get a gun.

 

[Seymour Flops]

But is he trespassing if he had a court order to pick his son up at 3:30? The mother can’t produce the child so the Read starts questioning her reminding her the terms of the agreement. He wants to know where his son is.

He said the son was "probably at your momma's house," so that's where he should have been going since he supposedly sent the police there.

Civilians aren't empowered to enforce court orders on their own, especially on other people's property.

The mother caused the confrontation by not abiding by the terms of the agreement. I agree she’s not legally liable. But she is the cause of the confrontation. There’s no need for Carruth to get a gun.

Yes, she is to blame for this and will get off scott-free.

 

[g5000]

Which is why you are not in a position of authority. IF you had watched the video, you would know that he is just as innocent as Kyle.

Why is it that the far-left are always defending the one in the wrong? Was the ex-husband NOT trespassing?

If I was as little as the boyfriend I'd have gotten a gun too. The ex-husband was a good 8-10 inches taller and probably had forty pounds on the boyfriend and the ex was ANGRY.

Trespassing is not a capital crime.

This was an entirely avoidable killing.

 

[g5000]

So it was self-defense; home invasions are frowned on here, armed or unarmed.

He wasn't invading the home. He was on the front lawn demanding his child.

The homeowner did not need to retrieve his gun. He could have simply called the police.

This was an entirely avoidable killing.

 

[g5000]

The dad could have, and should have, done the same. The cops are not going to settle a custody dispute, but If he had a legitimate complaint about the wife not turning over the child, he would have had a police report to show to the family court judge.

It sucks that law enforcement and the courts have to get involved in parenting, but that's what you ask for when you have a non-amicable divorce with children involved.

The cops would not settle the custody dispute, but they would make the father leave.

 

[DudleySmith]

He wasn't invading the home. He was on the front lawn demanding his child.

The homeowner did not need to retrieve his gun. He could have simply called the police.

This was an entirely avoidable killing.

He was told to leave, and then got aggressive. It's he who should have left and called the cops and let the court go after his wife; the homeowner isn't obligated to let the guy in and has a right to defend his property and the people in it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's Texas.

Homeowners can shoot pretty much anyone on their property with impunity.

Mad

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We must never forget:

The #1 cause of stopping violent attacks

Also

The #1 cause of leftists shitting their pants and having Rainman meltdowns.

 

[Markle]

Trespassing is not a capital crime.

This was an entirely avoidable killing.

NO one is disputing that fact.

All the ex-husband had to do was excuse himself and let the authorities deal with the issue. He did not and he had tried his old tactics of intimidating his ex-wife and then assaulting her new boyfriend.

My own guess is that the divorce involved spousal abuse.

You are eager to ignore that the far-left, for nearly two years now, has been screaming to defund the police, denigrating them in general. Some agencies, specifically, in California cannot respond to 911 calls in a timely manner. Violent crime and murders are skyrocketing across the country because of the behavior of the far-left. Law abiding citizens are fed up with the actions of the far-left and sadly, you'll see more of it in the future. What else would you expect?

When do you say enough is enough and too much is too much?

Do you believe that this will have no repercussions? Is this okay with you, just so no one gets killed?

Looters Ransack Stores Across Country Throughout Thanksgiving Week

Groups of looters ransacked retailers around the country following last weekend's full-fledged stealing bonanza in California's Bay Area.

www.breitbart.com

 

[airplanemechanic]

But is he trespassing if he had a court order to pick his son up at 3:30? The mother can’t produce the child so the Read starts questioning her reminding her the terms of the agreement. He wants to know where his son is. The mother caused the confrontation by not abiding by the terms of the agreement. I agree she’s not legally liable. But she is the cause of the confrontation. There’s no need for Carruth to get a gun.

If the property owner tells you to leave and you confront him in his face chest to chest while he's got a gun in his hands you're one dumb mother fucker and deserve whatever comes your way. It's HIS fucking property, no court can ORDER another citizen onto your property. Quit making shit up. The court order said to pick up the child curbside. That's PUBLIC PROPERTY. When the guy got there and his son wasn't there, then he trespassed. When told to leave and he didn't that's criminal trespass. When he then assaults the homeowner on his front porch, that's burglary. That is something deadly force can be used to stop. Physically assaulting someone and attempting to steal their gun? That's grand larceny of a firearm. Another felony that deadly force is allowable to stop.

Guy definitely shouldn't be charged with anything .That is the definition of the castle doctrine. You can use deadly force to defend yourself or your property, as per Texas law.

Lets look at the actual law:

The castle doctrine in Texas presumes that using force is reasonable and justified when another person:

1. unlawfully and with force enters or attempts to enter your habitation, vehicle, or work-place; or
2. attempts to remove you, by force, from your habitation, vehicle, or work-place;
3. was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Texas Penal Code § 9.31

Look at that. Whenever someone attempts to enter your habitation, vehicle or work place. That is your property. He attempted to assault him on his porch, by definition his "habitation" as per Texas law and by definition this is burglary. By law he can shoot to stop burglary. He not only used force to enter the property, but when told to leave, told the homeowner to fuck off. Dude went and got a gun, legal to do, and legal to use. The other guy CONFRONTED this dude ON HIS PROPERTY WHEN HE WAS ARMED. This is totally a justified shooting.

Don't mess with Texas.