Stills taken from the deadly confrontation between Chad Read and Kyle Carruth. (Photo credit: YouTube and EverythingLubbock.com)
Previous Post
Next Post

The shooting death of Chad Read at the hands of his ex wife’s boyfriend, Kyle Carruth, last year was captured on video from a couple of angles and provoked much discussion. As we noted at the time, the details weren’t quite as clear-cut as some wanted to believe and it was difficult to predict whether a prosecutor would consider the shooting justified or not.

Here’s what we do know, and what the outcome is so far.

On November 5, 2021, Chad Read and his wife, Jennifer, went to pick up Read’s son for court-ordered custody time. Later we’d find out Read’s ex-wife had a history of withholding the son and a habit of jerking him around. On the day in question, the son was, again, not present. And because the incident was recorded by Jennifer Read, we have a general idea of the minutes surrounding Chad Read’s death.

Read became agitated when informed his son wasn’t even there. According to the Lubbock Avalanche Journal, the moment he found out his son wasn’t present went something like this . . .

During the argument, Christina could be heard saying the child was not home and that she was going to fetch him. She also said that she didn’t abide by the court ordered deadline because she wanted to see their son. 

“I don’t care if you wanted to see him or not,” Chad Read said. “I get him at 3:15 p.m. If you want to see him, you see him up until 3:15. You keep trying to keep my son from me.”

An argument followed, Carruth retrieved a rifle from the house and shot Read, killing him.

The cell phone video can be seen here . . .

This version includes video from another angle, taken from inside the house.

Complicating the situation was the fact that Carruth was married to a district court judge at the time (she divorced him after the shooting). The case was presented to a grand jury and was found to be a case of self-defense.

Lubbock County District Attorney’s Office had excused itself from the investigation because of Carruth’s relationship with the judge, according to the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal.  

Investigators turned their findings over to the Texas Attorney General’s Office, which handled all prosecutions related to the case.   

‘The presentation of the case included several eyewitnesses, family of Chad Read, and additional evidence that was not previously released to the public,’ Paxton announced.

‘After several days of thorough inspection of the evidence, the Special Grand Jury concluded their investigation into the matter and deliberated on whether the evidence supported the filing of criminal charges against Kyle Carruth. 

‘The Special Grand Jury voted…to not indict for any criminal charges against Kyle Carruth.’

Here’s the TL:DR on the shooting: both men behaved badly and Carruth escalated the situation with the firearm. Carruth had the time and desire to walk back inside to get the rifle, then return and continue fighting with Read.

Read pulled a card that’s never wise, basically asking, “What are you going to do, shoot me?” After firing a shot that struck the ground at Read’s feet, Carruth was out of arm’s reach when he fired the shot that killed Read.

The case was handled by the Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, because of the ties between Kyle Carruth and the Lubbock law enforcement community. A grand jury has now ruled the shooting was a case of self-defense.

Kyle Carruth in an image taken from Facebook. (Photo credit: Facebook)

A few things to know about Kyle Carruth:

  • Carruth was married to district court judge Anne-Marie Carruth
  • Carruth separated from his wife in July 2021 and filed for divorce September 2021
  • After the shooting, Anne-Marie Carruth submitted new court filings related to Kyle Carruth’s involvement in said shooting
  • The divorce between the Carruths was finalized soon after the shooting
  • According to Jennifer Read, Chad Read’s widow, “Christina Read and Kyle Carruth have been engaged in an ongoing affair, despite Kyle Carruth being married. On October 30, 2021, Chad Read informed Christina Read that he had evidence of her affair with Kyle Carruth and that he was going to go public with it.”
  • Texas Governor Greg Abbott appointed Anne-Marie Carruth to the 72nd Judicial District Court in Crosby and Lubbock Counties in January 2021, a term that ends at the close of 2022 after she lost her re-election bid.

Now that the criminal liability aspect of the case has been decided, Read’s widow says she’s going to file a wrongful death suit against Carruth.

Jennifer Read will launch a $50 million wrongful death lawsuit in a civil court now the criminal investigation has finished. 

‘Apparently in Texas it’s okay to bring a gun out to a verbal altercation and murder the ex. The ‘special’ grand jury was just for show,’ she wrote on Facebook. 

This where things shift into the op-ed area in this post. This case sets a dangerous precedent, and not just in the state of Texas. Was this a messy, convoluted series of events? Yes. Did the two men both behave badly? Absolutely. Does that mean Carruth was justified? No. As the story makes clear, there was additional evidence presented to the grand jury that wasn’t public so it’s not possible to form a fully informed opinion.

Stills taken from cell phone video released by Jennifer Read showing the shooting death of Chad Read. (Photo credit: YouTube/Jennifer Read)

That said the decision not to criminally charge Carruth could have seriously negative repercussions. There are a lot of states in the country, including Texas, where simply being the mother gives you an advantage is custody disputes. Some judges are certainly better than others, but by and large, you’ll find a lot of heavily biased rulings in family court situations.

Let’s take a step back from the Carruth case and consider how high-conflict custody situations tend to go. When one or both parties are prone to drama and conflict, the situation becomes messy and contentious. Even when one side tries to keep it together through parallel parenting and only communicating with the ex about the child, the high-conflict party can keep the insanity going. Losing your cool at some point isn’t advised, but it happens.

As gun owners, we have an added layer of responsibility (and potential liability) for our behavior. You have an inherent right to bear arms, but also a responsibility not to be an idiot.

As John Farnam says, we shouldn’t be going to stupid places with stupid people and doing stupid things. In some custody cases, that could even look like doing all child handovers in a police station parking lot, or having a competent adult other than yourself do them so you don’t become the high-conflict ex.

You might not want to hear it, but it’s your responsibility to avoid risky scenarios and de-escalate. Sometimes de-escalation looks like not attending the exchange yourself.

The late Chad Read and his widow, Jennifer Read, from a photo on social media. (Photo credit: Facebook)

What could this decision in the Carruth case mean for gun owners? Well, Texas has its own particular Stand Your Ground laws. Those laws undoubtedly came into play in the grand jury’s decision. From a purely self-defense perspective, it’s easy to look at the videos and say, that doesn’t appear to have been a justified shooting. In a court of law and a jury deliberation room, things are seen through a different lens. The people doing the examining are very rarely experts in self-defense and use of force. There are pros and cons to that.

Most gun owners aren’t likely to be impacted by the choice not to charge Carruth. In my opinion, based on personal experience, the biggest risk here is for dads. It’s possible someone’s violence-prone ex will look at this case and feel empowered against the bio dad in their situation. In fact, if you examine the full-length video, the bio mom — Read’s ex — seems totally unsurprised by the outburst, even as though she perhaps expected it. Why, we’ll never know, and guessing is ill-advised.

How safe are the interests of bio dads in Texas (and other heavily pro-mom states)? Not very much, in or out of court. If you learn one thing from the Carruth-Read incident, let it be to follow Farnam’s rule of three stupid things.

I’ll say it again: do not go to stupid places with stupid people and do stupid things. Be a responsible, well-trained, level-headed gun owner. Be the unnaturally chill one in any situation you find yourself. Learn to de-escalate. After all, you are no good to your kids if you’re dead or in prison.

Be careful. Be safe. And don’t be stupid.

 

 

 

Previous Post
Next Post

91 COMMENTS

  1. YES BE CAREFUL DON’T BE STUPD . HE PLAYED RIGHT INTO HIS EX-WIFE TO BE HANDS .
    I BELIEVE EX-WIFE CAUSED IT ALL TO HAPPEN .

    • Both men were angry. And Carruth shot him, because he was angry. That’s obvious to me. The reason he brought the gun to the door? Was because he was angry, not because he was concerned for his life. Had he been at the door, with a CCW, or happen to already be armed, fine. I would understand that. But because he went to get a gun because he was angry, that makes it different, for me personally. They should probably both be in a prison cell, or chained, together, picking up trash along the roads; that garbage woman too. Unfortunately, one of them is already dead. At least the remaining one could be picking up trash along the highway.

      When you carry a firearm, it is best not to purposely challenge, instigate, or provoke people, so you can then shoot them in self defense.

      I’d have voted differently on that grand jury.

      • He went to get the gun because Read refused to leave his property and continued to behave in an aggressive manner. It was reasonable for Carruth to be concerned for his safety.

        • Carruth literally went to get a gun so he could confront him. He didn’t confront him without a gun. He wasn’t being confronted by Read. He went and got a gun for the purpose of a confrontation.

          He went to get the gun because Read refused to leave his property…

          Read was on his lawn yelling and arguing with his ex. If Read refused to leave, you call the cops. Firearms are Not for the purpose of intimidation or to chase people off your property. Negative. They are for self defense.

          Carruth brought the confrontation to Read, Read didn’t bring the confrontation to Carruth. That is the problem.

          It was reasonable for Carruth to be concerned for his safety.

          If Carruth was so concerned for his safety why did he confront Read? He literally fetched a firearm, for the purpose of confronting Read. That’s how concerned he was for his safety.

    • Bigger ain’t better. Smaller guy asked him to leave with the ex agreeing. I agree with this decision though I never had that problem with my ex picking up my son’s for visitation. This was some 35 years ago. The dumb hillbilly she was married to(since divorced)was just happy to see my $…

      • “asked him to leave”

        But he had a legal right to be there to pick up his son. It isn’t his fault that his ex didn’t hold up her end of the deal. That’s why the “stupid places with stupid people” advice seems silly here. He never would have thought his life would be in danger just for picking up his son. Why would he?

        • “But he had a legal right to be there to pick up his son“

          Whatever right he may have had ended when he was informed his son was not on the premises and he was ordered to leave by the property owner.

    • “The real moral of the story is never get into a dikc measuring contest with an armed man.”

      The one who I think probably instigated the whole mess (in one way or another, Christina Read) got what she likely wanted (Chad Read ‘out of the way’) so she could play with her new toy (William Carruth), and now she’s suing him for 50 million. That’s one stone cold woman… 🙁

      • Point of order, Christina Read (the ex-wife) is not suing Carruth. Jennifer Read (the widow nee current wife) is suing Carruth.

        • Makes more sense. If tbe lawsuit is won the monster mom will have to find a new malleable idiot. The shooting g one will be too broke.
          I despise that woman just based on what I know and am so sorry for the innocents.

    • Don’t care how much of a hardass you are, a bullet is harder still unless you’re wearing some kevlar or AR500.

  2. Again, there are no winners in this, and everyone concerned behaved badly and stupidly.

    But as I noted at the time, because the decedent was in the course of committing both assault and burglary (as defined by the Texas Penal Code, not as “understood” by laymen like Walter E. Beverly), I thought there was a very good legal argument that it was not an unlawful shoot. (I won’t dignify idiotic but legal conduct as a “good” shoot.)

    • Is assault or burglary accepted as justification for use of deadly force in Texas? Was shooter justified in fearing for death/great bodily harm from decedent? Did not shooter initiate initial contact?? Shooter escalated the altercation by going for armed position losing his mantle of innocence and raising the confrontation to deadly force level.

      • As I wrote in the comments last December (disagreeing with Andrew Branca, who I greatly respect):

        “First, the porch is considered part of the “habitation” under Texas law. As such, [Andrew’s] curtilage discussion is irrelevant, and Texas law treats this case just as if it all happened with an uninvited person in the living room.

        Second, because the porch is considered part of the habitation, when the deceased stepped onto the porch and committed an assault, that was burglary under TPC 30.02.

        Ergo, the analysis *will* be under TPC 9.42(2)(A) — was deadly force reasonably necessary to prevent / stop the commission of burglary (which, because the deceased was still on the porch when shot, will boil down to whether the shooter reasonably believed that the deceased was going to continue to commit assault).”

        Again, weapons-grade stupidity all around . . . but as predicted a defensible shoot under Texas law.

        [disclaimer: while I am a lawyer, I’m not YOUR lawyer, and this is not legal advice to anyone/]

        • A lot of contorted twisting to justify this. Precisely why we have juries and not just a judge interpreting the law.

          Stepping on porch = burglary.
          🤣 😂 😅

      • In almost every state once you are asked or told to leave another’s property and you don’t you are trespassing. Once you put your hands on them or their weapon you are committing assault and they are legally justified in using deadly force. All the other stuff is just smoke and fog. Those are the facts that matter.

    • “Again, there are no winners in this,…”

      The cold bastard in me thinks Christina Read got what she wanted, the current hubby out of the way, and she decided William Carruth was the handy tool to do the job.

      Now that Chad’s cleanly out of the way (legally, anyways), she disposes of the tool by suing his ass for 50 million. Old boring hubby gone, and a nice, plump payday.

      There’s the ‘winner’ in this shit-show.

      That’s one cold, manipulative bitch, right there. And guys, there are lots more just like her out there, especially if you have some financial assets…

      • Doubtful that the economic motive was as you postulate. First, he ain’t got $50 million, and likely not even 1% of $50 million in exempt assets. Second, the same defense that got him off the hook for criminal liability also apply to civil liability, albeit the civil standard of proof will apply.

        • AND I apparently mixed-up the ex with the widow.

          What an unnecessary mess for the parties… 🙁

    • All Police shooting are justified when dealing with a resisting criminal. Which is 99% of police shooting,

      • Show me ANY of these police shooting cases where the perpetrator did not first resist arrest! Idiots can shut their mouths and do what they are told. But if they could do those things they wouldn’t have been in trouble with the police in the first place now would they?

        • Yes as they are being beaten by police in the head with night sticks shouting; “Shiow me your hands!” Well we had to shoot him, we were beating him in the head and he was using his hands to cover it. But we kept shouting over and over show us your hands!

          We live in clown world and you bought right in to it.

  3. Where is the reasonableness level of response in the shooter’s actions. A little good-ole-boys’ tussling isn’t reason to apply deadly force. Once one side is armed, disparity of force comes into play. Can’t understand the jury decision.
    Decedent’s son is the BIG loser. He has last his bio dad for life over stupidity. Decedent loses visitation for eternity. Dumb Shit Awards for all.

    • I don’t think this will result in anything bad for gun owners, carriers, or fathers. If told to leave someone’s property, leave and call the cops. If a guy goes inside in the midst of a conflict, that may be a clue. As John Correia says “He isn’t going inside to get you flowers.” Also “Don’t get into ego battles.” If he comes back out with a gun, that is another clue. Time to leave, and call the cops, not to put your hands on him. AS JWT said “Bad, legal shoot”

      • “If a guy goes inside in the midst of a conflict, that may be a clue. As John Correia says “He isn’t going inside to get you flowers.””

        Preach it. That’s the clue to leave…

    • Yeah, no. If someone points a weapon at you and you decide to play the Tough Guy, don’t be shocked if they refuse to wait and see where you’re going with it before they put a bullet in your ass.

    • “A little good-ole-boys’ tussling“ mayvresult in serious injury, especially considering the size differential between the two male antagonists.

      I know of a fella who was accosted in a bar, smacked the guy in the face, and went to prison for six years for manslaughter.

      Nothing like a subdural hematoma to ruin your whole day.

    • In my book, anyone who disregards a man with a gun in there face, even has the firearm discharge letting them know the gun WILL BE USED. And then CHALLENGES the person with the gun is a person the world is probably a little bit better without.
      Sounds a lot like the people who cut you off and give you the bird. Sorry not sorry.
      The entire situation was terrible but the dude made his choices and they had consequences.

  4. The dude missed the perfect opportunity to gain more custody of his kid. Timetable was missed, instead the household involved a firearm in a non violent thus far argument. He had them in the bag if he would have just walked off and called the police and an attorney.

    He chose to be dumber instead. As soon as he put hands on he gave him the reason to shoot on a silver platter.

    • THANK YOU. His divorce lawyer would probably have been SALIVATING over being able to go into court and being like “She was witholding custody as per our agreement and her crazy BF pulled a gun on him.” Odds are high she’d have to lose the guy or lose custody.

  5. Having played referee to more domestics than I can count I can tell you how this probably went down prior to the man showing up to get his kid. Kid asked the mom if he can go play and she said yes so he did. Mom told him to be home by a certain time but being a kid he wasn’t home. Dad shows up and over reacts while Mom says I’ll go get him. That wasn’t good enough for Dad so he had to swing his dick around a little bit on someone else’s property who was willing to kill him over it. He should have just said I’ll be waiting in the car or asked the mother where the kid was at and picked him up from there. Right after he got shot I hope he had a brief opportunity to contemplate the lesson that he learned right before taking his last breath.

    • Must of missed that whole part about how she has a history of with holding the son. Also being a judge I’m sure the police won’t do anything about it.

      If you really are a police officer you need to resign, it is not the job for you.

  6. Talk about an article full o’spin, this particular one is whirling like a top.

    “Read became agitated when informed his son wasn’t even there“

    Read was informed the child wasn’t there, he should have left and petitioned the court.

    The homeowner, Caruth, ordered him to leave his property immediately. Reed refused and became belligerent, advancing on the homeowner.

    “Carruth escalated the situation with the firearm“

    Caruth ordered him to leave the property, and when the large angry male refused to leave the property and continued his aggressive language and posturing, the homeowner armed himself and once again ordered Read to leave his property.

    “After firing a shot that struck the ground at Read’s feet, Carruth was out of arm’s reach when he fired the shot that killed Read.“

    Blatant spin, conveniently leaving out Read’s physical assault of Caruth and his attempt to forcefully disarm the homeowner.

    Read became even more belligerent advanced and made physical contact with the homeowner, first threatening to take the gun away from him, and then physically assaulting the homeowner, attempting to pull the gun from his grasp.

    Because Caruth maintained his grip on the gun, the large male was able to swing Caruth off of his own front porch and into the front yard.

    Now Read occupied the homeowners front porch, blocking his retreat into his home and continuing to threaten the homeowner.

    The homeowner terminated the threat, Read fell across the front porch in front of the homeowner’s door.

    Read was required by law to leave the property when the property owner demanded he do so.

    Read was warned to leave the property again by the now armed homeowner, yet Read advanced and attempted to forcibly disarm the homeowner, then blocked the homeowners retreat into his home.

    From the video and other information presented here, the shooting was justified as lawful self-defense as the grand jury found.

    • You keep coming back to the attempt to disarm thing. There would have been no gun to grab if the gun wasn’t bought out in the first place, and then it was bought out in anger, and both reacted to further inflame the situation.

    • “The homeowner terminated the threat”

      You can’t be serious. You see that as a threat? After the big guy shoved him off the porch, you can see him relax on the porch (as seen in video taken from inside the house). He wasn’t in the process of coming after him. There was now more distance between them, small dude is pointing a rifle at him, yet big guy is a threat that must be eliminated? Just because something is legal, doesn’t mean it’s right.

      • “you can see him relax on the porch (as seen in video taken from inside the house). He wasn’t in the process of coming after him“

        Are you serious? It wasn’t his friggin front porch to relax on.
        He had physically assaulted the homeowner and slung him off of his own front porch, then blocked the homeowners retreat by standing in front of the homeowners front door occupying his porch.

        What do you expect, the homeowner is somehow obligated to just walk away and leave the man who assaulted him in possession of his home?

        Weird position.

        • “Weird position”

          You know what I find weird? You keep talking about this physical assault as if he was beating him senseless. It was a freaking shove. What sort of man freaks out over a shove? And what kind of man refers to a shove as a physical assault? That is weird.

          According to you, that’s a death sentence offense. I’ll keep that in mind the next time you’re crying about a criminal that got shot while he was resisting arrest.

    • “Now Read occupied the homeowners front porch, blocking his retreat into his home”

      That’s hilarious. What makes you think he wanted to retreat into his home? He already freely walked into the safety of his home to retrieve his rifle. If he was interested in retreat, then why didn’t he stay in his house and call the police? You’re making up justifications for killing someone.

      • Really, you might benefit from reading LKB’s explanation posted above, he’s an actual attorney and is citing the relevant Texas statutes to justify his assessment.

        Unlike the rest of you who are just spouting nonsense based opinions.

        And you do know, a grand jury of this man’s peers considered the evidence and found no true bill for criminal prosecution.

        • Miner,
          Do you think the comment you’re replying to was some sort of legal opinion? What led you to believe such a thing? I even already stated somewhere on this page that just because something is legal, doesn’t mean it’s right.

          Nonsense based opinion? You’re the one saying the guy had to kill someone because he was blocking his retreat into his house. That’s you’re opinion, but there is no evidence that he was trying to retreat back into his house. Instead of backing up your opinion with evidence, you resort to personal attacks.

  7. People getting played by some dumb c—! Fing b—- was playing ignorant head games. The dead guy let emotions get in the way of better judgement and decision making.

    • “Mom loses out on child support, boy toy gets sued for $50M.”

      And by suing him, insures he won’t be interested in her anymore.

      Stone cold…

    • Nope. More than likely the father was forced per court order to carry a life insurance policy in case of his death to care for the child.

  8. Without hearing and seeing all the gr.jury evidence I won’t comment on the shooting. Or knowing Texas laws.
    But there appears to be a substantial amount of evidence that the bio mom ignored the courts orders on the visitation. It won’t help the deceased or the child but she should be made to stand before the judge and explain her actions. Publicly. Then receive the harshest penalties the judge can impose.
    Feel sorry for the kid. His mom’s a twat.

    • Twat is too kind.
      There are a fair number of people who screw around with custody.
      A friend once had to give up after his ex wife constantly just didn’t answer the door and each time the judge just verbally admonished her it cost my friend about $1500 and she kept telling the boys he would hurt them so bad they became terrified of him and after about $60,000 he gave up. The losers were the boys and my friend.

  9. Without knowing the secret stuff not revealed to the public it is impossible to see this as a justified shooting.

    I firmly believe in and support Stand Your Ground laws, but there have to be some basic rules that are inviolable. You cannot be the aggressor. You cannot safely leave the incident, fetch a gun and return to shoot the other person. If the aggressor quits, gives up, surrenders, runs away, you may not chase the idiot down and shoot him.

    So far, nothing released about this incident shows the shooter’s life to have been in danger.

    It’ll be interesting to read details of why this was decided the way it was, if that info is ever released.

    • If someone holds a gun at you and tells you to leave, JUST LEAVE. You’re free to bow up on them in defense of your pride if it’s really that important to you, but don’t expect the rest of us to write songs about you after you’ve bled out on their porch.

  10. I wouldn’t have been surprised if it had been thrown out at a trial, but the fact that the grand jury said no charges and no trial amazes me to no end.

  11. Carruth introduced the rifle but it was Read who appeared to be pushing the disagreement. How and why did he get close enough to Carruth to possibly disarm him? Read is several inches taller than Carruth. The jury may have decided that was enough to put Carruth at a significant disadvantage in hand-to-hand combat. That would excuse his bringing a rifle to a fist fight.

    Under the circumstances, Read began as the victim of his ex-wife’s games with child custody. What Read should have done, with the support of his current wife’s video to document the ex-wife’s failure to comply with the custody order, was complain to the court about her behavior. It’s one thing for a judge to be biased in favor of mothers. It’s entirely another for a parent to disobey whatever custody order the judge hands down.

    • Never been to Family Law court have you? Mothers routinely violate the custody order with absolutely no repercussions. In some states it even rises to a criminal offense. Even if the mother is written up by police several times for visitation interference and video evidence is presented to the state’s attorney they will STILL refuse to charge mom for the crime OR hold her in contempt of court for violating the visitation order. Go to any Father’s Rights website and do a little reading or ask those of us with first hand knowledge.

  12. And the Far Right scream “An armed society is a polite society”. Without a firearm there is a very good chance that the husband would still be alive today.

    More proof the Stats are indeed accurate because they prove most people are killed with firearms by people they know, not by strangers on the street and not in break ins.

  13. Murder. And the way he stood over the body afterwards like a victorious hunter that just bagged a hog says it all. An injustice that he wasn’t charged. I don’t understand what’s going on with the courts in this country.

  14. Legal shoot? Under the laws of the state, yes. A morally defensible shoot? I don’t personally think so.

    It may seem petty and vindictive of me, but I hope Carruth and the ex-wife are shunned and shamed by their friends and neighbors.

  15. Many of you commenting have obviously never had to deal with a vindictive ex that uses the child as a weapon knowing full well that the family law court will not do a damn thing if she flagrantly violates the court order. This case tells me to wear body armor at the visitation exchange and if someone comes out with a gun then draw and fire first and refer to this case as the reason for such.

  16. They were all idiots and escalating things rather than being rational.
    That being said, the homeowner had an angry intruder without any legal reason to be there on his property, got a gun which is perfectly allowed on your own property, and shot the intruder after he yelled that he’ll take the gun and tried to grab it.
    An intruder taking your gun away is a lethal threat.
    Stupid, but somewhat legal.

      • Whatever right he had to be on the property ended when he was informed that his son was not there.

        He had a legal obligation to unass the property when the homeowner demanded he leave immediately.

        • I’m not sure about the legal procedure while he’s waiting for his son. At a minimum, he should have gotten back into his vehicle, but let’s not pretend that he’s the same as some stranger that’s trespassing on the property. A little common sense goes a long way.

    • According to our very own Miner49er, you deserve to immediately be shot dead if you use pepper spray. Two antifa assassins actually did that. One ended up dying in a shoot out with the police, and the other one was arrested, then not prosecuted.

      • “According to our very own Miner49er, you deserve to immediately be shot dead if you use pepper spray“

        Incorrect, you are intentionally mischaracterizing my statements.

        We were discussing an armed individual who was pepper sprayed by an antagonistic who had accosted him at a protest.

        As someone observed above, when a subject attempts to disarm a legally armed person, it is considered a lethal threat.

        • “you are intentionally mischaracterizing my statements.”

          That’s your opinion, but it’s wrong. You said on both occasions that they had to be shot because they sprayed pepper spray.

          “when a subject attempts to disarm a legally armed person, it is considered a lethal threat.”

          Spraying pepper spray isn’t trying to disarm someone. It’s almost always used defensively to stop the confrontation without escalating to deadly force. Both guys that used pepper spray were armed with guns. If they wanted to kill, then they would have pulled their guns. It was a nonlethal interaction until your antifa brothers decided to kill someone they politically disagreed with.

          I’ll remind you again how many BLM-antifa protesters would be dead today if the police responded to their pepper spray, bricks, and frozen water bottle attacks with deadly force. I have a feeling you wouldn’t be on here defending the police.

  17. As I commented all the way back when this was first on TTAG…..

    I knew he wouldn’t be prosecuted and I said as much.

    Not surprised by the outcome.

    I’ll just take my smug self over there and sit in the uncomfortable chair…..

  18. A grand jury outside of the influence of local judges and prosecutors was used. Those citizens looked at the presented evidence, and Carruth was lucky that they decided there wasn’t probable cause to charge him with murder. That doesn’t mean somebody else taking the same actions wouldn’t get a different result before the jury. Juries are fickle and can make weird decisions. Don’t leave your life up to a bunch of people too bored or dumb to get out of jury duty.

  19. Not mentioned, the ex-wife can now look forward to zero financial support for her child, as dead men don’t pay child support.

  20. All parties acted foolishly. But only the actions of one party resulted in the death of another. Carruth should fry in the chair.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here