Video of Fatal Lubbock Shooting Doesn’t Appear to Support a Claim of Self-Defense…Or Does It?

Previous Post
Next Post

Few situations are more volatile than domestic disputes. That’s exactly what took place prior to in a shooting in Lubbock, Texas earlier this month. A scheduled handoff under a custody agreement escalated when the child was not available at the court-ordered time.

Video of the argument and shooting was released over the weekend and has provoked much discussion regarding the circumstances, especially in light of recent decisions in the Rittenhouse and McMichael cases.

Video of the confrontation is below. The man in the green shirt is Chad Read and appears to be unarmed. He argues with his ex-wife, Christina Read, over the custody arrangements. Christina’s boyfriend, William Carruth attempts to intervene and orders Read off of the property.

When Read doesn’t leave, Carruth retrieves what appears to be a Ruger PC Carbine from the home.

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

Texas has a number of laws covering the use of justifiable deadly force. Carruth has claimed self-defense in the case.

Texas has a range of laws covering the use of deadly force in defense of life and property. Like most states’ laws, they hinge on the reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm and a reasonable, proportionate response. Application of those terms in any given situation by police, prosecutors, or a jury are always highly subjective.

Note that while Read was angry, he only threatened legal action. No threat of violence is heard on the video. The situation escalated with Carruth produced the carbine. Read then chest bumped him and verbally challenged him.

Read said, “You better ******* use it, ************ because I’ll take it from you.” Carruth then fired a warning shot at Read’s feet. Read then grabbed the carbine and swung Carruth out off the porch into the yard, about 10 feed away. That’s when Carruth raised the gun and shot Read twice, killing him.

Carruth has not yet been arrested or charged in the case. Again, his lawyer is asserting that the shooting was justifiable self-defense.

While I’m certainly no attorney, I wouldn’t want my freedom hanging on the evidence presented in the two videos of what happened that day. The videos can be seen as raising more than reasonable questions of provocation and the degree of imminent threat. Certainly questions enough for a prosecutor and grand jury to charge and indict.

For a thorough analysis of the evidence in the videos by an attorney experienced in firearms and self-defense law, I suggest you read Andrew Branca’s detailed write-up of the Read-Carruth altercation at Legal Insurrection here.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • she’s been laid off for two months, the previous month her paycheck was $20328 ONLY working at home for a couple of hours each day…

      check out… GoogleJoin1

      • Didn’t look like self defense to me.

        It’s more like, lets try and piss this guy off so I can legally blast his ass. That’s what it looked like. Everyone in the video were retards.

        My only disappointment, was that they didn’t all die. Bitch mom will have to use the new boyfriend for funds to take care of the children, since no more child support.

        • “The children are aware that Kyle Carruth shot and killed their father in front of their mother, half-brother and me,” Read’s affidavit states. “Christina’s decision to allow one of these children to be with Kyle Carruth has caused and continues to cause a significant deterioration in their emotional well-being. The eldest child has revealed to me that he accuses his mother of shooting and that he will flee home if he sees Kyle there again.”

          Great job parents!

          Guinn said that Read threatened to take the gun from Carruth. He also said the way Carruth progressed towards him was an “immediate threat” to his client.

          Right. He was. Until Read threw him aside and was no longer progressing towards him.

          The whole problem with this story, is Carruth didn’t do his job to avoid looking like the aggressor. No. Instead he confronted the guy outside his home with firearm in hand and proceeded to do the chest bump, then made it look more like he shot him because he wanted to shot him, rather than for self defense reasons. Gaggle of retards, all of them.

        • Wow you are one happy camper. Hate to see your family. But at least the frontal allows you to still put crayon to paper.

    • No kidding. Nobody in this mess is blameless.

      WRT Andrew Branca’s analysis over at Legal Insurrection (which has published some of my articles in the past, BTW), while I have a lot of respect for Andrew I don’t think his analysis fully understands the quirks of Texas law. As I posted over at LI:

      Was bringing a long gun into this situation wise? Nope.

      Were the shooter’s tactics (bringing a long gun into a close contact situation, with a significantly larger opponent) wise? Nope.

      Was the homicide criminal under Texas law? We’ll see. While I greatly respect Mr. Branca’s analyses, I agree with the commentator above [at LI] that Mr. Branca misses (or at least understates) two related aspects of Texas law.

      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). That’s a much lower threshold than Mr. Branca’s analysis suggests.

      Will the shooter be indicted / convicted? We’ll see, and we all need to let the process work and see what other evidence emerges. But remember, folks, this is Lubbock, Texas — up in the Texas panhandle, one of the most conservative parts of a conservative state. It is definitely not somewhere where the prosecutors, judges, and juries are hostile to armed self defense under the law.

      Will there be civil liability? Under CPRC §83.001, “A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s use of force or deadly force, as applicable.” Now, burden of proof here will be on the defense to prove this by a preponderance on the evidence, not on the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt, so it is entirely possible that there could be civil liability even if the shooter is no-billed or acquitted.

      Again, this is a horrible event for all involved, and all of this could and should have been avoided with the application of more common sense and less ego from all the parties.

      • this case just as if it all happened with an uninvited person in the living room.

        The man (Read) was there legally under a Court ordered custody agreement to pick up his child… “Invited” is a subjective term since both parties took part in the agreement… Gun boy was wrong; he could have gotten up off the ground dusted off his “pride” and gone in the house and called the cops… Read did not become physical until the asshole fired a “warning shot” at his feet which could be breaking Texas law by recklessly discharging a gun in a public place other than a shooting range. That also includes firing a gun on private or public property within cities that have a population of 100,000 or more.

        • A typical custody order does NOT authorize one party to go into the habitation of another, nor to remain there after being told by the owner to git. I challenge you to point me to a single Texas case saying otherwise (or to show that the particular custody order had some unusual provision that specifically authorized the decedent to go into the habitation of the shooter).

          (Actually, while pretty stupid tactically, the warning shot is probably going to be a lot more defensible legally as self-defense under 9.42(a)(2).)

        • With what limited information I’ve been able to read/see, I tend to agree with your assessment. Read was agitated, but allegedly was there on the property per a Court-recognized agreement. Neither Carruth nor anyone else there appeared to be under imminent threat of bodily harm or death. Carruth presented a gun, and Read then presented his (verbal) intention to take the gun by force. At the point when Read grabbed the gun, Carruth had justifiable cause in that moment, but once he was swung a distance away from Read and was still in retention of the gun, the situation quickly changed and he was arguably no longer in the same level of imminent danger.

          Situations can be highly fluid and change quickly. At the precise moment in which Carruth pulled the trigger, it might be successfully argued by a D.A. that he exercised an unnecessary level of force.

          Carruth should have just called the cops. Unless there is more evidence we haven’t been able to see (such as additional verbal or bodily threats by Read), it appears that Carruth acted with unjustified deadly force.

          My two cents.

      • “First, the porch is considered part of the “habitation” under Texas law.”

        Florida is similar, as the mother of a 15 year-old car burglar inside a car parked under an attached carport found out.

        Homeowner heard noises, investigated, found kid inside his vehicle and shot his ass dead.

        The mother of the charming youth got all bent out of shape when the state refused to charge the homeowner with killing the kid. Should have raised your kid not to steal, lady…

      • Guy was picking up his kid, so he had a valid reason to be on that porch. Any reasonable person would agree

        • LKB has it right:

          A typical custody order does NOT authorize one party to go into the habitation of another, nor to remain there after being told by the owner to git. I challenge you to point me to a single Texas case saying otherwise (or to show that the particular custody order had some unusual provision that specifically authorized the decedent to go into the habitation of the shooter).

          (Actually, while pretty stupid tactically, the warning shot is probably going to be a lot more defensible legally as self-defense under 9.42(a)(2).)

        • Yes, but when the child was not ready for pickup for whatever reason, his recourse was not to get into a shouting match with former wifey and her now husband. It was to call the police and request law enforcement assistance in executing a court ordered visitation right. That’s the whole purpose of our system of laws and courts, is to avoid the kind of confrontation that Read, the shootee, created by his flying off the handle on property, that while he had a right to be on, he didn’t have a right to create a civil disturbance on.

          The instant his former wife said the kid wasn’t ready he should have turned around, stating that he would be back with law enforcement, go sit in his car and phone the cops and ask for assistance in exercising a court ordered child visitation. Law enforcement gets these kinds of calls on almost a daily basis and by l.e.o. intervention, this kind of problem is avoided. The next step after that is to have a court hearing and have the wifey held in contempt of court and issued a stiff fine. That’s the civilized way to handle a situation like this. I can see why wifey and Read are no longer a pair. She was wrong not to have the kid ready and was in violation of the law even though she is reportedly a “judge”. She should know better. Husband was wrong in engaging in a shouting match — actually the shouting looks pretty much one-sided unless wifey is quietly egging him on with snide comments. Not unknown to occur in such instances.

          I spent a whole year working as a court reporter in domestic relations court. Women used to say to me, “Oh, it must be so interesting listening to juicy divorces.”

          My rejoinder was, “Are you kidding? Ever been to a party where a couple is having a spat? What did you think? Was it interesting or did you think ‘Are they ever going to just shut up?'”

          The response was always, “Yeah, I guess it’s not that interesting after all.”

          It was a busy court. We would hear up to 30 cases in the morning and up to 30 in the afternoon. I was never so glad to get out of an assignment. It wasn’t as bad as working a child torture case, however. That was the absolute pits. Give me a plain old misdemeanor murder case where one drug dealer offs another drug dealer. A twofer. Get rid of two birds with one stone.

        • Old Lefty, You are right on one point. The father’s recourse would have been to file a petition with the Family Court alleging a violation of the Visitation Order. However, that did not give the homeowner the right to go get his gun and shoot an unarmed man. The Homeowner’s recourse was to call the police.
          This is conjecture on my part but the homeowner was showing off to his “wife” trying to assert his manliness when in fact he 1) fired an illegal warning shot (Reckless Endangerment which in Texas is a FELONY) and 2) then shot an unarmed man who did not advance on him. The unarmed man’s transgression was apparently making the homeowner look bad in front of his wife when the father grabbed the gun and tossed him off the porch.

      • Gee throwing someone down on their property after being ordered off it doesn’t constitute assault in your book? What are you a Harvard Law School graduate.

        • Sorry Commissar, but for there to be an assault there has to be physical injury or the imminent threat thereof. Seems you don’t know very much about law.

        • Sorry Mr. Beverly, but you do not know Jack about Texas law.

          Texas Penal Code 22.01(a)(3) which defines assault as including:

          “intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.”

          Methinks you are confusing assault with aggravated assault.

        • LKB, Before I sent mypost, I reviewed Texas law. You see there is one major problem with your defense. The contact ceased AFTER the homeowner had been tossed gun and all off the porch. This homeowner was not attempting to stop and assault, he was initiating one of his own when he a) fired the warning shot and b) after being tossed from the porch his ego got in the way of common sense and he shot the father.
          Do you understand now?

        • No, Mr. Beverly, you fail to understand.

          You’ve stridently said no injury, no assault. Absolutely wrong as a matter of Texas law.

          You’ve confidently postulated no burglary, based on a definition that has nothing to do with the TPC elements. Wrong as a matter of Texas law.

          You say a habitation must be enclosed. Nope, porches and open carports count as the habitation if adjacent to the house, under the statutory definition.

          Sorry, but being able to read (actually misread) a statute doesn’t count as knowing how to do actual legal research. And most LEO’s I know are smart enough to know the wisdom of the philosopher Eastwood: “man’s gotta know his limitations.”

        • LKB, I find it amusing how you refuse to put the facts of the case in the mix. That’s right there was no burglary. I guess you are reading in between the lines. A porch that is not enclosed is not considered habitable. I contend it is you who is “misreading the statues”.
          Yeah, I have found that a “man’s gotta know his limitations.” That includes lawyers.

      • “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). That’s a much lower threshold than Mr. Branca’s analysis suggests.”

        I have to disagree. There was no “burglary”. Burglary is to enter and remain unlawfully with the intent of committing a crime therein. There was no “assault”, a chest bump, yes, but that is considered harassment under the law, which at best is a violation, i.e.: not a crime.
        This is a simple case of excessive use of force. The perpetrator should be charged with Murder.

        • Sorry, Walt, while I don’t know what constitutes an assault under Texas law, any unlawful touching is an assault under California law, assault, actually is a much lower act than a chest bump. An assault is where you get in someone’s face shouting and yelling. A chest bump moves it into the assault and battery stage of the fracas. So Mr. Read, under California law would have committed an assault and battery although not to the felony level.

          And each state has a different definition of what constitutes assault and what constitutes battery, so unless you are a Texas lawyer, you really are not qualified to pass an opinion on what constitutes assault and battery. Then there is always the question of how the local DA sees the whole thing. He might consider what Read did just a simple assault, assault and battery or just Texas style mas macho as a court TV lady judge used to call it.

        • Old Lefty, Regret to inform you that California law hold no water in Texas. IN Texas as well as most other states, in order to be able to charge someone with “assault” you have to have “PHYSICAL INJURY”. It is not “assault and battery” in the case of a “chest bump” as there is no physical injury to the person who was chest bumped. I suggest that you Google Texas law on the subject.

        • Mr. Beverly simply knows nothing of what the Texas Penal Code actually provides.

          Reed indisputably committed an assault as defined by TPC 22.01(a)(3). Because he entered a habitation to do so (which under the TPC definition includes the porch of a house), that was burglary. TPC 30.02(a)(3). The self defense analysis is thus under TPC 9.42(a)(2).

          And BTW, I passed the Texas Bar and was admitted to practice many decades ago, and have practiced law in Texas since then. Pray tell us the extent of your legal training?

        • LKB, apparently you have not waited for my response to your last missive. Under Texas law from what I understand, the porch has to be ENCLOSED to accommodate bedding etc. This porch is an OPEN porch not suitable for such? Are you forgetting Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.?” How about TCP 9.31 (a) (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; or (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
          It seems that the homeowner fired a warning shot which is a violation of TCP Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. This might well apply as : Family Code Sec. 71.003. FAMILY. “Family” includes individuals related by consanguinity or affinity, as determined under Sections 573.022 and 573.024, Government Code, individuals who are former spouses of each other, individuals who are the parents of the same child, without regard to marriage, and a foster child and foster parent, without regard to whether those individuals reside together.
          I may not be a lawyer but I certainly do know how to do legal research. You see, I am a retired Law Enforcement Office with 35 yrs experience in two states.

        • Here we are a few months later . . . and Carruth has been no billed by the grand jury, pretty much as I predicted.

          The “retired law enforcement officer” is now conclusively proven not to know jack when if comes to Texas law, or how to do actual legal research.

        • LKB, Apparently you were in hibernation due to the winter? Whether ‘no bill” was returned or not, my position still stands. If you don’t like it, stuff it.

        • @LKB
          You dont actually think you’ll get a vaginosis reprobate like walt to re examine one of his own opinions, do you?

        • ]2epol]v[an Not a damn thing to “reexamine”. You have your opinion and I have the truth.

    • I’m no expert on Texas law and their castle doctrine but I would not want to fall into the Hands of the Living God after killing someone like that!

      • Gods dont take murder very seriously.

        Side note, living gods are mortal gods. Someone like that might get upset but then again…… not like there isnt something you could do about it if they did, is there.

        Was not murder tho. It was more like entraping a wrongful death suit.

  1. The wages of sin is death. The real sin here is divorce. Women should not be allowed to take kids away, then demand big daddy government enforce the husband to give her money.

    This was clearly not self-defense. Green shirt wasn’t attacking the man with the gun, unlike the “jogger”.

    This is murder.

    • The husband doesn’t “Give her money”

      The former husband continues his obligation to support his children, regardless of his relationship to their mother.

        • That’s why you go for joint custody. The courts have spent decades favoring women in divorce and custody battles because of sexism. The tides are finally turning.

        • No. The father is compelled by government force to pay money to his ex, to be used at her discretion.

          Not anymore. New daddy is going to have to pay now. And i’m guessing new daddy won’t feel comfortable raising the offspring of the father he just slaughtered. So – looks like the taxpayers are going to have to pay for these retards.

      • A libertarian who supports big daddy gov using threat of prison to force him to give money to his ex-wife who left him and broke their marriage contract.

        Libertarians are a joke.

        • How do you know she broke the marriage contract? You are making a lot of assumptions. How do you know what she is doing with any money the ex is giving her? What does this have to do with the two men at the center of the final conflict? There are no winners here.

      • Hope she didn’t count on that money as necessary income because gun boy just closed that bank account… Might be some kind of payout to the kid from SS but momma would have to document every expense paid for from that…

    • Hey defund…The jogger had a right to defend himself anyway he sees fit against an ignorant pos who appears out of nowhere…as would you or anyone else. The only leniency in the mcmichael case applies to the yeah-george that filmed it. I suggest you and your ilk pull your heads out of your law ignorant behinds otherwise one day you may find yourselves sharing a cell with the mccmichaels.

      • Have to disagree with you there Deb. The “jogger” wasn’t “jogging” until he was seen at a residence that he is on video previously burglarizing. Further, he is a suspect in the theft of a handgun from the truck of the men ultimately convicted of killing him. Georgia law at the time specifically allowed a citizens arrests on “reasonable suspicion”, which the pursuing men clearly had. The joggers attempt to take the citizen’s gun in resistance to a legitimate citizens arrest justifies shooting him in self defense.

        The conviction of the McMichael’s is wrong and may well be overturned on appeal. Personally I think it stems from nothing more than a cowardly jury who were afraid Georgia would burn if the men were acquitted.

        • “he was seen at a residence that he is on video previously burglarizing. Further, he is a suspect in the theft of a handgun from the truck“

          Neither of your claims is true.

          No evidence Arbery ever committed a burglary in the neighborhood and no evidence Arbery was ever involved in any theft from the truck.

          Please don’t lie to support your racism, it only makes you look more ignorant.

        • Show us the proof that Arbery burglarized the property. Show us the items he stole. I haven’t seen proof that Arbery ever entered the building. Nor is burglary an offense punishable with capital punishment. The video clearly shows that the armed men intended to pose a threat to Arbery, while Arbery posed no threat to anyone, until he was chased down and confronted.

          If the McMichaels had a valid concern (debatable) they could have just followed Arbery, while contacting the police, without ever actually physically confronting Arbery.

          Bottom line, the McMichaels intended to “teach dat nigga a lesson!”

          Unjustifiable, from start to finish.

        • It is probable that Arbery did take a self-guided tour of the unoccupied construction site (as did several other adults and juveniles) but he never stole anything on the video and certainly hadn’t the day he was assaulted by the McMichaels.

          In any case, the McMichaels had never witnessed Arbery commit any crimes in the neighborhood, and they never claimed citizens arrest at the time of the interaction.

      • Miner tells us a career felon has the right to defend himself after casing his next thefts and being detained by those who object to his noctural raids. Sob. Tell us which federal recreational institutions were you hosted at? Asshole felon assaulted these men and anyone with an IQ of 35 knows you do not grab a weapon if you are innocent. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. What is amazing is how cowardly those goons in Georgia are. But having served on several juries its amazing what the IQ of an “average” juror is. About 34 in my opinion.

        • Sorry again, Commissar, but that the guy may have been a “career felon” does not mean that you can use deadly physical force. Being a felon does not mean that you are in the midst of committing a crime. These men were illegally trying to detain the man. They did not see a crime committed, nor did they have any evidence that this “career felon” committed a crime, ergo, they assaulted, unlawfully imprisoned, and then murdered him.

        • Having disagreed with Walt on what the shootee in the main article did, I have to agree with him in his post about the McMichael case. They were real vigilantes out to teach “a ni@@er not to be in their neighborhood after dark.”

          Should have phoned the cops, followed him and kept their guns out of sight. If the cops didn’t show up, they could have identified the address he returned to and taken that information to the DA who was certainly friendly to the McMichaels as she didn’t file a complaint against them until after the beans got spilled and public outrage forced her to file a complaint and proceed with the prosecution.

          No comparison between the above shooting and the McMichael shooting. They weren’t on their own property, they were chasing a man on public property. Oops, big no-no. They continued the chase on foot. Oops, another big no-no. Running through a residential neighborhood after dark with a shotgun in your hands is liable to get yourself shot by some third party who only knows that there is some guy running through his yard with a shotgun. Running with a loaded shotgun and probably his finger on the trigger means if he trips in the dark and falls, he shoots a shotgun blast into some totally innocent household with the possibility of seriously injuring or killing someone totally uninvolved. No evidence as to finger on the trigger, but given all the surrounding circumstances, although not a betting man, were I to bet on the situation I would go for finger on the trigger as opposed to hand safely away from trigger.

        • Old Lefty, disagree all you want. Again, California law holds no weight in Texas. As I stated the use of deadly physical force requires that the person using such force be in imminent danger of serious physical injury or death. The father was UNARMED and made NO threatening movements toward the homeowner.
          This is a clear case of use of excessive force and the homeowner should be charged with murder but if he is lucky will wind up with Manslaughter.

  2. “estranged husband of state judge Ann-Marie Carruth.”

    Uh, yeah, no matter which direction this goes it won’t be clean.

  3. Emotions out of control. Where/why is the kid not available for visitation / co-parenting.
    Clearly bad shoot.

  4. Sorry guys, but this is why a pu$$y doesn’t need a gun. The puss was offended that the dad wasn’t listening to him when he told him to leave. The dad had every right to be there if that was the court ordered time to pick his son up. The puss wanted to be the man and scare the dad off with his gun. There was zero reason to introduce a gun in that situation. Now that kid is going to be messed up for life, all because the puss wanted to be the man.

    Yes, the dad shouldn’t have gotten into an ego battle with someone holding a rifle. That was stupid. The problem is, dad probably wasn’t thinking clearly because he was busy dealing with his crazy ex. I’m not sure of the laws here, but I hope puss boy spends time in jail.

    • Not jail, prison. Other than that, beautifully said. Don’t ever, ever, EVER get into an ego battle with a gun. You’ll lose every single time. If they outdraw you, you lose. There are plenty of other ways to deal with that later, if you just can’t stand the situation. You can (and SHOULD) leave immediately, you can come back with the cops, with neighbors, convert to a Monastic lifestyle and renounce all forms of violence, hell you can show up at 0200 and burn the house down if you want. But you aren’t doing anything after arguing with that piece.

    • Once he is told to leave the other guys property he is obligated to do so. Go to the public street and call the cops. If you get shot by a man on his own property who has told you to leave and you just tried to take his gun and just slung him off his own porch like a rag doll, well you get what you deserve it.

      • It may have been a legal shoot. We need more information. That doesn’t mean he deserved to die because of a lack of judgement in the heat of the moment due to dealing with an ex that wasn’t keeping her end of the bargain and her stupid, compensating boyfriend. If we all died when we made poor decisions, there wouldn’t be many of us left.

        • “That doesn’t mean he deserved to die because of a lack of judgement in the heat of the moment“

          Are you talking about Rosenbohm, who was suffering from a mental illness and was unable to get his medication that morning because the pharmacy was closed?

          Oh that shoot was OK because he was supporting BLM, I get it.

          In the case at hand in Lubbock, it was a good shoot. The aggressive father should have have left, and notified the court that visitation was not being permitted.

          Instead, he continued his unlawful occupation of the other man’s porch (same as interior under TX law) and even moved aggressively and made contact with him after being ordered to leave and a warning shot fired.

          Your double standard is showing…

        • “Oh that shoot was OK because he was supporting BLM, I get it.”

          That’s your problem Miner. You view everything through a political lens. I don’t care about their politics. It should be irrelevant. There’s no double standard. You can’t attack people because they’re open carrying. That isn’t why Rosenbohm attacked Kyle anyway. Kyle even tried to run away, but your pedo comrade wasn’t having it.

        • While we’re on the topic of self-defense, you mentioned that you think it’s okay to pull out a gun and kill someone for getting pepper sprayed. If that’s the case, then a mugger or rapist would be able to murder a woman trying to defend herself. I suspect you held that position because two Antifa guys shot to kill when they were sprayed last year. Imagine the body count if the police did that to the BLM-Antifa nuts spraying them in 2020? You would have gone off over that, and everyone here knows it. Try to leave politics out of it. It clouds your judgement.

        • Duty, those are completely different situations.

          A mugger initiates the attack, therefore they cannot claim self-defense.

          And what’s the problem with this homeowner arming himself with a long gun on his property? If it is OK for Kyle Rittenhouse to arm himself with a long gun and go to a riot in another state different from his residence, then why is it not OK for a man to arm himself on his own front porch?

          There’s that double standard I mentioned…

        • “A mugger initiates the attack, therefore they cannot claim self-defense.”

          Good luck deploying pepper spray after you’ve already been attacked. I think people keep pepper spray to back someone off or allow time to get away. If some guy was being inappropriate with a woman in a dark parking lot without people around, would you be okay with the guy shooting her dead if she sprayed him because she felt threatened? Of course you wouldn’t. Both of those guys that used their spray were carrying pistols. If they were looking for a deadly attack, they would have pulled their guns, not their spray. There has to be an imminent deadly threat.

          It can’t be a double standard when it’s a completely different situation. The boyfriend went to retrieve his gun because he was pissed off. You should NEVER pick up a gun in anger. He was trying to intimidate someone who wasn’t intimidated. The dad was stupid for physically engaging him. I’m not familiar with Texas law, but there usually has to be an imminent deadly threat unless the person is in your house, AND they don’t belong there. It seems like the dad was there legally if he was picking up his son at the court ordered time, and he wasn’t in the house. Was angry dad still a threat after they broke away? He just stood there on the porch. Watch the video again. The confrontation could have been over at that point. It would have been more like the Kyle situation if the dad had then chased puss around the yard. But that didn’t happen, did it?

          I’m surprised you don’t see this as an unnecessary killing. Both guys were stupid, but there was no reason to retrieve the gun. That doesn’t mean he can’t open carry a rifle, but that wasn’t what he was doing. You’re trying to equate two completely different situations.

        • “The boyfriend went to retrieve his gun because he was pissed off.“

          No, he retrieved his weapon because:

          1. He has a second amendment right to open carry his weapon on his own front porch.

          3. The criminal trespasser continued to illegally occupy the homeowner’s dwelling place in a belligerent manner.

          And sure enough, as soon as the homeowner merely held his weapon on his own front porch, the belligerent criminal trespasser advanced into physical contact, grabbed the weapon and slung the homeowner into the yard in an violent attempt to disarm him, all while loudly proclaiming that he would take the weapon and use it on him.

          Once the homeowner had recovered in the front yard, the criminal trespasser was occupying his front porch and blocking the homeowners entry into his home, and continuing his violent threats.

          The homeowner had every reasonable expectation that the belligerent criminal trespasser would continue his violent assault and attempt to take the homeowners weapon. Because the criminal trespasser continued to block the entrance into the homeowners front door, he had no way to safely retreat from the threat.

          That’s all she wrote, it’s all over but the shouting.

        • Honestly, I feel like that’s an embellished stretch. He didn’t just decide to start exercising his 2A right to carry while he was in the middle of a difficult situation. He decided to go retrieve his balls extension. As soon as he walks out with the carbine he yells,” LEAVE! NOW!” while holding the carbine up. He wanted to intimidate big guy that wasn’t intimidated by little guy.

          There’s no indication that the dad was going to block little dude from going back into his house. There was no indication that little dude even wanted to go back into his house. Little guy wasn’t backed against a wall, so saying there was nowhere to retreat to isn’t true either, not that he had to retreat. He had plenty of distance to pop dad if dad became threatening because he already had a long gun at the ready.

          As for the laws, that’s a different story. I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t play one on the internet. The way I understand it, Texas is pretty lenient when it’s your property and someone won’t leave. It gets complicated because it looks like dad is only there to pick up his son at a specific time laid out in a court order. The bottom line is, this is a tragedy that didn’t have to happen. It wasn’t just some random belligerent trespasser. It was someone’s dad there to pick up his son. Dad should have left. Little guy had no reason to introduce a gun to the situation. If he was smart, he was already conceal carrying. When you carry, you don’t use your gun as a balls extension. You only bring it out when you need to defend yourself or others.

        • Miner49er I agree with your #1, the home owner did have a right to have his firearm on the porch.
          On #2, you are dead wrong. While “Criminal Trespass” is a crime, the man had a right to be there by virtue of the court order to pick up his son for a scheduled visitation which the mother and her boyfriend or new husband were in violation of. There was no threat by the father towards the new husband. In fact the new husband in firing a “warning shot” violated the Texas law “A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. (2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied. … An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.”
          Firing that warning shot endangered the father and anyone with “imminent danger of serious bodily harm” in the vicinity from a ricochet. The homeowner was armed while the father WAS NOT. The father did NOT step toward the homeowner after he tossed the homeowner off the porch due to the homeowner firing the warning shot (illegally). This action did not give the homeowner the right to use deadly physical force against an unarmed man. His way was NOT blocked as he could have walked around him but made no effort to get past the father.
          Nice try, but your version of events is poppycock.

      • I can see your point. Unwise as all this was on both sides. Once asked to leave was the big guy trespassing. He doesn’t have to leave the easement or vehicle to pick up anyone. I think the slinging off the porch maybe an extreme attempt to disarm little guy. In the legal assessment link, one commenter points out you can see big guy take a step off the porch toward little guy. Little guy may have had a right to be there with his firearm and to ask big guy to leave. Who in their right mind wouldn’t peacefully leave when faced with a deadly weapon?
        If someone tried to disarm a police officer, it maybe considered lethal force. Little guy may not be here if big guy took his gun and used it on him. There’s also a significant differential in physical force ability between big guy and little guy. What did they say about Sam Colt?
        It’s possible little guy may be able to articulate he was in fear of his life because of the assault and two sequential attempts by big guy to disarm him and saw big guy stepping toward him for a third try. That may be enough justification in a LE shoot too.

    • , all because the puss wanted to be the man.

      Correction: the puss wanted to ACT like he thought a MAN would act… A MAN would have stayed out of it unless it became physical between Read and the Ex…

  5. He grabbed the gun, at that point, I think we’ve established that this was an attack that was going to lead to a self defense claim. Were I on the jury, I would need nothing more.

    Someone comes out with a gun at me, I either engage, or back the hell off. No reasonable 3rd choice exists.

      • If I grab the gun, then either I’m going to plead self defense, or he is. Thats my only point. May not hold up, The arbury case in Georgia is proof of that.

        • Kyle, IF he had held onto the gun you would be correct. However he let go of the gun, stood still and was then shot. The victim ceased to be a threat when he let go of the gun and the perpetrator stood about 10-15 feet away and fired.

        • Also, in the Asbury case he was on a public road & approached by the 3. Big difference than if he was on their property.

  6. Is that a Ruger PCC? Double tap center mass with a pistol caliber immediately dropped him for good, and we sweat over which rifle bullet to go with for defense.

    • Dude, I’ve seen more than one man dropped with a .22 LR. Doesn’t make it the best self defense caliber.

    • 9mm out of everything from Lugers to M9’s have killed people at least somewhat effectively for around a century. Shot placement works poor marksmanship doesn’t. Smallest caliber I have ever seen used in person was 25 acp and underpowered or not the area around the eyes isn’t that terribly tough.

  7. Yeah, he brought a gun to a verbal argument and fired a shot at his feet.. this isnt justified self defense.. the shooter is going to prison for voluntary manslaughter at the least

    • The outcome of this will hinge on two factors:

      1) Does the child live at carbine-guy’s home? If so, then dead-dad was not trespassing and dead-dad could argue that carbine-guy and the ex-wife were attempting to kidnap their child. At that point dead-dad is trying to recover his child, carbine-guy cannot claim justifiable homicide, and carbine-guy is guilty of some degree of murder.

      2) If the child did not live at carbine-guy’s home and there was no evidence that the child was at carbine-guy’s home, then dead-dad was trespassing after carbine-guy ordered him to leave. Does Texas law allow a property owner to use deadly force to remove a trespasser? If so, then carbine-guy is in the clear legally. If not, then carbine-guy cannot claim justifiable homicide and is guilty of some degree of murder.

      • “Does the child live at carbine-guy’s home? If so, then dead-dad was not trespassing and dead-dad could argue that carbine-guy and the ex-wife were attempting to kidnap their child.”

        Granted I am more familiar with PA law than Texas law, but that does not comport with my general understanding of tress pass law. my understanding is that once a property owner has told someone to leave they have to leave. There is generally no other option. Leave the property and call the cops. I think the key here that dead guy did not leave when told to multiple times, and the statement dead guy made that he will take the gun, and the ensuing attempt dead guy made to do so.

        I am also not certain that delivering a child late to an exchange constitutes kidnapping.

        There has also been suggestion that shooter guy is married to another woman and is having an affair with dead guys ex which dead guy was threatening to expose. So this is all as clear as mud.

        • The Crimson Pirate,

          You could very well be right on all accounts. This is definitely a case of “the devil is in the details”.

          I agree that a child being a few minutes late for scheduled visitation is not reasonable grounds to assume kidnapping. It depends on whether or not the child was actually there and visible. (This story claims that the child witnessed the whole thing–I did not see any children visible anywhere in any of the videos.) If the child was not visible, the mom was there, the mom refused to disclose the location of the child, and the mom was claiming that it would be a few hours before the child was available, that would be reasonable grounds (in my opinion) to suspect that the mom was attempting to kidnap the child, especially if that was the legal address of the child.

        • There has also been suggestion that shooter guy is married to another woman and is having an affair with dead guys ex which dead guy was threatening to expose.

          Shooter guy was divorced from a district judge Ann-Marie Carruth…

      • “Does Texas law allow a property owner to use deadly force to remove a trespasser?”

        I believe so, but he wasn’t trespassing if he had a legal right to be there. If his kid wasn’t there yet, then he should be able to wait until they bring the kid like they were supposed to. The truth is, we don’t have all of the facts and laws laid out, but it was a terrible and completely unnecessary outcome.

    • I think maybe you keyed on the most important bit there. The “warning shot” was most certainly not warranted. At no time, up to that point, had the big guy threatened any violence. All he had done was to raise his voice, and demand to be heard, and demand that a court ordered turnover be carried out. I see some kind of homicide charge found in this case. The act of bringing the rifle to the porch may or may not be justifiable, but that first round sets off a series of actions that can’t be revoked or changed.

      As has already been pointed out, Big Guy screwed up. Once he laid his hands on that weapon, he never should have let go of it. Should have followed Little Guy to the ground, and wrestled the gun from him. The “fight” was over when Little Guy was allowed to stand up again, still in possession of the rifle.

      • After viewing the video a few times, I’m of the opinion that Carruth ND’d due to adrenaline and poor trigger finger control. I don’t believe it was an intentional warning shot.

  8. Start with what is not talked about, “CHILD VISITATION” he had right to be there, he had a right to retrieve his child until the courts rule otherwise! both the Ex-wife and the murder were preventing legal and established “CHILD VISITATION” hence the stand your ground does NOT apply! Both the Ex and the shooter need to be tried for murder!

  9. Dad’s mistake was not following through on disarming the butt hurt butt head. Dad should then fire the entire magazine from the carbine prior to inserting in butt hurt butt head’s butt up past the magazine well.

    Why is this stupid bitch allowed to have custody much less be a judge? Why would either of these guys marry her.

    • Sadly, cute trumps quality when men choose women. these guys should have vetted her for drama issues, now one is dead and one is facing a heap of trouble thanks to being involved with her.

  10. Man, fuck custody battles. This was not self defense. Green shirt wasn’t presenting a credible threat to the shooter or anyone else. The shooter had the right to defend himself only if he reasonably believed his or someone else’s life was in danger. I’d call it second degree, but I’m not a lawyer.

    • “nor would I have brought out the weapon in this situation.”

      Thank You, someone else sees the problem here. The introduction of the weapon basically created the “self-defense” situation. If you create the situation where you apply force its not self-defense, even in Texas.

      Green shirt guy was venting. Gun guy left to go inside and get the gun. Then gun guy and green shirt, gun guy standing his ground and green guy instigating, chest bump’s and they exchange words. Gun guy fires a shot at porch floor around green shirt guy feet, while green shirt says he would take the gun away from him and kill him with it – this threat is probably where the defense is going to claim self-defense started. But then both leave the porch in what looks like a “struggle” for the gun and green shirt guy looses his grip (maybe he let go maybe not) and remains in place and doesn’t look like he is going to engage further while gun guy backs up and raises the rifle and fires.

      If gun guy believes green shirt is a threat worthy of force application then why does he leave the area to get the gun and leave everyone else there exposed to the threat?

      Had gun guy not have bought the rifle out its likely that green short guy would have just continued to vent and basically it appears that’s all he wants to do for a bit, to blame someone and bitch at them for the kid not being available. Until the gun appeared thats basically all green shirt guy was doing, even with gun guy before he got the gun, just venting and not presenting a threat. There was an option here (that I know the jury will ask themselves), if gun guy did not want green shirt on the property why didn’t he just call the police when he went inside AND wait for them to handle it – green short guy was not escalating anything, was venting some anger and frustration verbally, he stayed pretty much the same just venting, he didn’t touch anyone of have a weapon or threaten to kill any one, and until gun guy appears with the gun green shirt guy appears he is wrapping up with his venting maybe, but that all changed when gun guy gets the gun and shows up with it outside.

      Gun guy created the situation by getting the gun, then he first fires it at green shirt guy feet. I’m not sure about others but if an imminent threat causes me to draw my weapon I’m not going to first do the chest bump tango with the threat and fire a round at the threat feet. This sort of indicates that gun guy did not believe green shirt guy to be a threat, but rather testosterone and anger are driving this. If green shirt guy were an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death then why does gun guy bother to do the chest bump tango and only fire a round at the guys feet?

      In Texas, self-defense is not a viable defense if the person claiming the defense provoked the person they were defending against or in response to verbal provocation (alone).

        • hmmmm… i’d take a second look at that if I were you and read very carefully…

          Section 9.31 of Texas Penal Code:

          “Knew the intruder unlawfully with force entered into his home ….”

          “unlawfully with force”

          at what point did green shirt guy enter the “home” (even if staying on the porch counts as “home”) unlawfully WITH FORCE?

          He didn’t have a weapon, all he was doing was mouthing off and venting, he never went past gun guy, he did not show “violent aggression”, he didn’t touch anyone, he stated a decent distance from the woman, he even stayed a decent distance from gun guy until gun guy went to get the gun.

          Its going to be a real hard sell to show that green guy was a “home invader” unlawfully “entering” WITH FORCE

          Green shirt guy was not a “home invader”. Just saying “yep, he was on the porch” or “had been told to leave” is not enough to show him a “home invader”, there needs to be an intent displayed for unlawfully “entering” WITH FORCE and green guy did not do that. It was not until after gun guy appeared with the gun did the situation change. Gun guy created the situation by getting the gun and brandishing the gun.

          according to the video green shirt guy was never “ordered” to leave the porch. He was ordered to leave the property. Green guy was not even on the porch until gun guy came out with the gun.

          no matter whats discussed on the internet though, based upon the video this was not self defense.

        • Would you seriously be that trigger happy in the real world Miner? I’m all for self-defense, but I don’t want anyone to be shot dead if it can be helped.

    • “…but I would not have shot, nor would I have brought out the weapon in this situation.”

      That’s the crux of it. This was a very stupid situation.

      I’ll pass judgment: Green shirt guy was stupid and deserved to get shot. The other guy was stupid, will probably go to prison, and probably deserves to.

      Neither of them *had* to escalate that confrontation, but neither of them had the smarts/self-preservation/self-awareness necessary to disengage. Nobody wins, everybody loses. That’s what happens when stupid meets stupid.

      • Yup. Sadly, if they had just handed over the child per the custody agreement then none of this happens. If I am the deceased’s family a civil case seems a safe bet for winning. Plus the mother will probably lose custody.

  11. I have a hard time seeing this as self defense, but it may come down to a very strict interpretation of Texas law. Either way, Carruth should not have fired a shot at Read’s feet, and the lack of concern after the shooting is not going to look good in front of a jury. I’d also be interested to know if Carruth called the police while retrieving his PCC.

    • At most had he left the weapon in the home to be used if Dad entered home.
      Bringing the gun out will be what he regrets most as the process unfolds. To the child witness he is the one who murdered his mental well being.

  12. And remember an armed society is a polite society. (sarcasm)

    Sad to say but Texas is the most uncivilized society in the U.S. and this killer will walk for sure. In any of the more civilized states he would go to prison.

    • Nice to be so clairvoyant. You know the outcome of a trial before it is even on the docket.
      I lived in Texas many years ago. People were more civilized there than many I met in many Democrat controlled places.
      Just curious about something. Have you ever been anywhere outside of your Mother’s basement or a college dorm? Your outlook seems limited to what you read somewhere but, with very limited actual experience.

      • In Texas a few years ago a Hillbilly was told to stay in his house after he reported a robbery in progress across the street. No one was home at the house being robbed. The Hillbilly took a shotgun and killed two unarmed men for stealing some almost worthless household items and he walked free. In more civilized states he would have went to jail for murder because killing someone to save a piece of property is not allowed. Ohio is just one of the states that prohibit this. Now tell me Texas is civilized. They value property over human life. This has always been the hall mark of the vicious, stingy, penny pinching Far Right Storm Troopers.

        Texas is the worst state in the Union to live in because human life is considered cheap and expendable.

        • dacian, I guess you figure robbing people’s home is perfectly OK, huh? In most states if you are inside a home of another person robbing, that is called BURGLARY. Most states allow the use of deadly physical force against a burglar. Even here in NYS.
          I don’t know what incident you are referring to in Texas, but I’m more than sure that these burglars did more than just rob the place to get shot. Give us a link that describes the incident in total. I’ll bet you are “cherry picking” describing the incident.
          Yep, Texas is civilized. Your criminal buddies, not so much.

  13. Also- a woman as judge? Why are we letting women work outside the home? This just destabilizes families.

    To any guys out there, don’t date single moms. This is the end result.