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


      • 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…

        • 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. 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…

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

    • 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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!

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

    • Guess what boyz? Being larger than the other guy & “intimidating” will get you shot. And I paid child support years ago and picked up my son’s for visitations. They are 47&44. Never a problem(I deserved a problem for years). Duh…

      • The fact that another man feels intimidated doesn’t justify a homicide. A factor in everyone’s mind during that confrontation, was the fact that custodial parent and her new guy were violating a court order, thereby breaking the law. Big guy was full of bluster, but never posed any kind of physical threat to anyone. Not unless he has a history of violence and domestic abuse, in which case, Little guy just might get away with murder.

        • He didn’t pose a threat until he aggressively verbalized his intention to be a threat, and then reached for the gun to take it.

          The core issue is the moment Carruth pulled the trigger, at which point I personally believe (if I were on the jury) that the immenency of the threat had passed, and Carruth suddenly had not only distance between himself and Read, but a golden opportunity to back up and increase that distance, due to Read’s temporary disorientation.

          Instead, Carruth chose to play Call of Duty and pull the trigger. Not good.

        • No, violent criminal trespasser was blocking the homeowners re-entry into his home by standing on his porch in front of his front door.

          Homeowner had every reasonable expectation that violent criminal trespasser would continue his assault and attempts to gain control of the homeowners weapon.
          Because the violent criminal trespasser continued to block the front door, homeowner could not safely retreat into his home, so he was forced to act.

  13. This reminds me of those fat shirtless idiots disputing with their neighbor over a discarded couch. No good guys. Only idiots and losers.

    And for a woman with somebody else’s kids? Life really is cheap.

    • “That was murder. No reason for the gun, not in that situation.“

      So the homeowner should not possess a long gun on his own property, on his own front porch?

      But if the homeowner wanted to take his gun to a riot in another state and parade in the streets with it, that would be just fine, right?


  14. Damn . . . . . I don’t know the law in Texas; it might be wild enough to support this shooting – but from the looks of it, dude lost his cool and wound up killing someone who was unarmed and was supposed to be there to pick up his kid.

  15. ‘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.’

    Doesn’t this appear to be a color-commentary reenactment, with minor modifications, of the first of the Rittenhouse shootings–one upon which he was found ‘not guilty’?

    Big macho jerk is on someone else’s property and is asked to leave, but doesn’t. Big macho jerk threatens and tries to intimidate smaller man holding a RIFLE, fer crissake, says that he’s going to take said rifle–probably not to admire and then hand back–and proceeds to grab onto rifle and toss smaller man 10′, then acts all surprised when he gets shot for his efforts.

    The world is now rid of one more big stupid blustering macho jerk, and is a better place for it.

    Not guilty, Your Honour.

    • Nope – this story does not unfold like Rittenhouse. The little freak that Rittenhouse shot first had already tried to instigate physical confrontations with Rittenhouse and his friends, and told them that if he caught any of them alone, he would kill them. Rosenbaum delivered a verbal credible threat, before acting on that threat, and posing a credible imminent threat to Rittenhouse.

      We have none of Rosenbaum’s assholery or dickwaddery from the dead guy here.

      • “We have none of Rosenbaum’s assholery or dickwaddery from the dead guy here.“

        The big guy had already entered the homeowners front porch without permission, and after being ordered to leave, bumped the homeowner, grabbed his weapon and swung him off of the porch. All while saying he is going to take the weapon away from the homeowner on his own front porch.

        And all that is just fine with you, you don’t believe a homeowner should be allowed to have a long gun on his home front porch or defend his home from aggressive, physically violent intruders?

        “Rosenbaum delivered a verbal credible threat, before acting on that threat“

        Exactly as the big guy did here, threaten to take the weapon and assault the homeowner with it, all while physically attacking him, grabbing the weapon, and swinging the homeowner off his own porch.


        • I disagree. If Caruth had been sitting on the porch, cleaning his weapon when Big Guy arrived, then this scenario would resemble the Rittenhouse story more. If Big Guy had actually threatened to kill anyone before Caruth retrieved his weapon, the story would resemble the Rittenhouse incident even more. However, Little guy went into the house, retrieved his weapon, and threatened Big Guy before Big Guy ever posed any sort of threat.

          If I were on this guy’s jury, I’d find him guilty of something. Maybe not first degree murder, possibly not second degree murder, but certainly manslaughter. He is the aggressor here.

      • I disagree. The statement, “You better ******* use it, ************ because I’ll take it from you.” establishes the threat. One assumes that a larger, stronger man threatening to take your firearm from you, unless you shoot him first, will then–what? Compliment your choice of rifles? Ask what ammunition you’re using? Try to buy it? Offer to provide a sling for it, and then give it back? The logical assumption is that the larger, stronger man who takes your rifle from you intends to USE it upon you–just as did the blustering, insane fool who tried to take Rittenhouse’s rifle from HIM.
        By this logic, Rittenhouse should have allowed Rosencrantz, or Guildenstern, or whatever the corpse used to be named, to take his AR, thoroughly examine it, and discuss its breeding with him, on the implicit assumption that the gun would be promptly returned to him, butt first.
        That is not reasonable.
        The same is applicable here.

    • The world is now rid of one more big stupid blustering macho jerk,

      And soon will be rid of a meddling, cowardly asshole as well when gun boy is sent away for aggravated murder 2…

      • Except that, at worst, this would be a degree of manslaughter. If any charges are ever filed.
        Bluntly, big stupid blustering macho jerk was the instrument of his own demise. He was not on his home ground, and was in the wrong. He was in the position of aggressor. He chose poorly when he started chest-bumping a ‘meddling, cowardly a**hole’ holding a loaded rifle. News flash: A ‘meddling, cowardly a**hole’ is much more likely to shoot you dead than a brave man.
        Many a big, stupid blustering macho jerk has had to learn this lesson the hard way.
        Thus endeth the lesson.

    • Except he shot a child’s father who was there to pick him up. He’s a murderer, who initially didn’t have a gun, went inside to get the gun, then came back to escalate the situation.

      • My day has been fine, thanks for asking. As to the other, I regret that you are so upset over the loss of one of your kindred souls that you feel it necessary to insult me over a simple disagreement on a subject that has absolutely no importance to us whatsoever other than as an intellectual exercise.
        Pity, that.

        • “I regret ….that you feel it necessary to insult me over a simple disagreement on a subject that has absolutely no importance to us whatsoever other than as an intellectual exercise.”

          Well, John….sorry to break it to you, but….

          If you disagree with me on any matter, you are utterly and irretrievably wrong!

          It should be a crime for you to write or say anything that is not correct, according to me. Don’t talk to me about “rights”. We have too many rights as it is. People going about asserting their rights are making me feel bad, all the time. It’s gotta stop. Your right to your “rights” ends where all that righting interferes with my peace and comfort.

          So there.

  16. That’s right…One day the perhaps step-dad can tell his perhaps step-son how he killed his father coming to “legally” take his son for a visit.

    You produce a weapon you’d better have all the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed. In this case since the shooter knew a kid was not going to be produced a door should be kept locked and a call to the police would have probably saved the day.

    The shooter was aware the empty handed man at the door threatening no more than legal action was the understandingly upset father there to get his son. Because other options were available other than a firearm that weighs in this disgusting case. Retreat and stay put was clearly available. The onlooking x-wife was in no danger as the father kept distance from her. Instead of a time available basic lock down a firearm was fetched. This display of ignorance is clearly Not The Definition Of Justifiable Self Defense Use Of A Firearm. Expect an arrest.

    • “One day the perhaps step-dad can tell his perhaps step-son how he killed his father“

      A touching father/stepson moment…

      “Yes son, your bio-dad was an idiot who came to my home, entered illegally and grabbed my weapon.”

      “Reasonably fearing for my safety, I managed to get away from him and retain possession of my weapon, with which I terminated the threat.”

        • I can hardly believe I’m about to say this, but Miner (or whoever is impersonating him) is correct.

        • The internet is forever. That poor kid is going to see that video someday if he hasn’t already. He’ll draw his own conclusions, no matter how unrelated boyfriend frames it. That was his dad there looking for him.

  17. Rittenhouse, coffee, and arbery case all went the way they should have because it was clear who was the initial aggressor. This one is a little more confusing as they did switch aggressors at least once. Jury definitely needs to be involved in this case. Unfortunately flipping a coin is probably going to be a more accurate predictor of how this case turns out. IMHO this is what happens when you don’t let boys beat the crap out of each other anymore. Guy grabbed a gun thinking it was going to scare the big bad guy away, it didn’t. Once he retrieved a hammer he was just looking for a nail to hit because he was afraid he was going to get his @ss kicked.

    • I don’t think Big Guy ever became the aggressor. His only mistake was to let go of the weapon after he made first contact with it. Should have followed the actual aggressor to the ground, landing on top of him, and wrestled the gun away from him. Or, stated differently, he died because he wasn’t aggressive enough.

  18. Sorry, but, even in Texas, the video supports a murder conviction. No self defense involved.
    Had it come to a fist fight, both parties were belligerent and could be dropped as mutual combat. There was a legal and legitimate reason for the kids father to be there. And no reason for anyone to become belligerent.

  19. Lessons learned —

    Rule One, don’t bring a gun to a penis-measuring contest.

    Rule Two, don’t dare the guy who broke Rule One to go ahead and shoot you, because he probably will. Twice.

  20. The sad reality of this situation is that everyone involved will suffer, loss of a father, child support, civil suits. There are absolutely no winners here and the most innocent of all , the son, will pay the highest price.

  21. Poor kid….. 11 years old… losing his father like that. He’ll grow to resent his mother… he’s got a horrible road ahead of him.

  22. Someone will try to claim that carbine-guy had a reasonable self-defense claim once dead-dad threatened to take the carbine away from carbine-guy, use it on carbine-guy, and threw carbine-guy off the porch.

    The problem with that claim: I do not believe that carbine-guy had a justifiable reason to bring out the carbine in-hand in the first place. That action arguably created a reasonable fear in dead-dad that carbine-guy was an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm–and hence justified dead-dad’s actions of verbally and physically “resisting” carbine-guy.

    I am leaning heavily toward carbine-guy being guilty of Texas’ most egregious version of manslaughter. I don’t think carbine-guy’s actions rise to the level of 2nd-degree murder.

  23. Let me see if I’ve got this right:

    “I do not believe that AR15-guy had a justifiable reason to bring out the carbine in-hand in the first place. That action arguably created a reasonable fear in Rosenbaum that Rittenhouse presented an imminent threat of death or Grevious bodily harm.”

    And there you have it.
    You can’t have it both ways, that’s what’s known as a double standard.

    • Your silly argument is silly indeed. Rittenhouse was in legal possession of a weapon, which he never used to intimidate anyone at all.

      Shitehead in this case went to retrieve a weapon, which he used to intimidate a man with a legitimate grievance, standing in the front yard.

      Totally different circumstances. Now, go sit in the corner, and put the large “dunce” cap on your head. And, you can look up the word “hoplophobe” while you’re sitting there.

      • Paul,

        I will echo your statement.

        Here is why the situations are not remotely the same:

        Rittenhouse possessed a firearm prior to any heated confrontations. Furthermore, Rittenhouse maintained a relaxed physical and verbal posture prior to other people expressing physical and/or verbal threats. Finally, Rittenhouse was attempting to flee from people who were acting on their physical and/or verbal threats. Only then did Rittenhouse use his firearm.

        Carbine-guy was in a heated confrontation first–and then went and retrieved a firearm. Next, carbine-guy physically and verbally confronted dead-dad and fired his carbine at the ground almost hitting dead-dad’s foot. (Hint: that is an extremely aggressive physical and verbal posture.) Oh, and not only did carbine-guy NOT attempt to flee before shooting, but carbine-guy fired on dead-dad when dead-dad was several feet away and not attempting to overtake carbine-guy.

        As we stated, those two events are entirely different.

        • “As we stated, those two events are entirely different.”

          Patently not true, because……because……because….because, gun.

      • “Rittenhouse was in legal possession of a weapon“

        No, he was not. Rittenhouse was a felon in continuing possession of the fruit of a strawman purchase, a felony under both Wisconsin and federal law.

        By his own admission, Rittenhouse had entered into a criminal conspiracy with his sister’s boyfriend, Dominic black, to execute a strawman purchase of an AR 15. Black kept the weapon it is house and illegally transferred it to Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse arrived in Wisconsin, thereby consummating the strawman purchase, committing both a state and federal felony.

        It is as simple as that, and qualifies Rittenhouse for felony murder, along with Dominic black.

        • Miner49er,

          I am interested to see if it really was a straw purchase. Suppose for discussion that the rifle cost $900. Do we know for a fact that Rittenhouse handed $900 over to his friend Dominic who then purchased the rifle? And do we know for a fact that his friend Dominic transferred ownership (versus loaning it) to Rittenhouse on or before the day that Rittenhouse used it in self-defense?

          If Rittenhouse did not hand over the money for the rifle and his friend Dominic had not yet transferred ownership of the rifle to Rittenhouse, then it was not yet a straw purchase.

          Note: even if Rittenhouse gave his friend Dominic $900, they can claim that Rittenhouse gifted the $900 to Dominic to purchase a rifle for himself (“himself” meaning Dominic, not Rittenhouse) as long as the rifle still belonged to Dominic.

        • Uncle, I don’t understand why those who seem to be interested in the Rittenhouse case don’t actually conduct meaningful research into the facts of the matter.

          “Do we know for a fact that Rittenhouse handed $900 over to his friend Dominic who then purchased the rifle?“

          There’s the question, fortunately we have an answer:

          “Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse says he used money from a stimulus check to purchase the gun he allegedly used to kill two people and wound one other on the night of August 25.

          “I got my twelve hundred dollars from the coronavirus Illinois unemployment cause I was on furlough from YMCA. And I got my first unemployment check so I was like, ‘Oh, I’ll use this to buy it,'” Rittenhouse said in a phone interview with the Washington Post that was published Thursday.“

          When Rittenhouse went to Black’s home and received the AR 15, he executed the strawman felony transfer. Thus, by carrying that rifle to the protest he was engaging in a felony under both Wisconsin and federal law. When humans die during the commission of a felony, those engaged in the felony qualify for the felony murder charge.

          Personally, I think the Wisconsin prosecutor intentionally threw the case because he did not want to suffer the political ramifications in Republican dominated Wisconsin.

        • The fact is, Rittenhouse himself was stupid enough to admit in multiple interviews that he used his Covid unemployment money, gave it to his friend to purchase and hold the weapon for him until he could go to Wisconsin to receive it and later shoot three people.

          “The Nov. 19 story reads in part, “The Post found that Rittenhouse, who was too young to buy a rifle, had arranged for an adult friend to buy the weapon for him using money Rittenhouse had received from a government stimulus program.”

          That friend, 19-year-old Dominick Black of Burlington, Wisconsin, purchased the weapon for him at an Ace Hardware store in Ladysmith, Wisconsin, on May 1, according to a criminal complaint charging Black with two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to someone under 18, resulting in death. The gun was then stored at Black’s stepfather’s house in Kenosha, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.“

          Rittenhouse should have been charged with felony murder, along with his co-conspirator Dominick black.

          Hmmm, I wonder why he wasn’t charged…

        • Miner49er, I have some very bad news for you. It is not against Wisconsin Law to buy an AR-15. The straw buy maybe a Federal crime but that is not relevant to the case against Rittenhouse. The fact is that UNDER Wisconsin law he possessed the gun LEGALLY. Nice try. A local (that was what this prosecutor was) has no jurisdiction to charge someone with a Federal law violation.
          Keep trying eventually you will figure it out.

        • “It is not against Wisconsin Law to buy an AR-15.“

          So you believe it is not against Wisconsin law for a Wisconsin resident to buy a gun for a Illinois resident he knows is too young to legally purchase the weapon?

          And you believe a strawman purchase of a weapon in Wisconsin where the purchaser lied about who was actually providing the money and receiving the weapon, is not a felony crime in Wisconsin?

          Walt, I understand you spent years as a corrections officer in New York, but I don’t think you have a grasp of Wisconsin, Illinois or federal law…

          “Section 941.2905 – Straw purchasing of firearms
          (1) Whoever intentionally furnishes, purchases, or possesses a firearm for a person, knowing that the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 941.29(1m), is guilty of a Class G felony.“

  24. I’m not going to get into the who should have done what and why. What I will say is this.
    If a man pulls a gun on you and says LEAVE, if you are dumb enough to stay, you are dumb enough to get shot. I’m not saying the shooter was right or wrong. I’m just saying the dead guy was dumb.

  25. Shooter is a murderer, ex-wife is likely an accomplice or perhaps guilty of felony murder (if they have the concept in Tx); certainly if the two were trying to frustrate the Court’s visitation order.

  26. The full article is worth the time to read it.

    However, the presentation results in more than 240 characters, and, for that reason may deter a reader.

    As the old saying goes, “Forewarned is forearmed.”

  27. That mob was still arguing even after the little guy shot the ape dead and I’d bet the little guy can be charged with a LOT of offenses here. Most likely the reason he hasn’t been charged yet is because the prosecutor files charges. The prosecutor will probably do that after seeing the video. Prosecutor likely doesn’t do much during holiday season though and holiday season doesn’t end until Monday January 3.

  28. I’m going to take a safari into the weeds here. We need to seriously examine why mommy and carbine guy were refusing to present the child or children for court ordered visitation. If there were any valid excuses, I would expect that dad probably would not have gotten angry. My suspicions are based on FBI data on homicides of young children. The most likely murderer of a young child isn’t an anonymous bogeyman. The most likely murderer of a young child is mommy followed by mommy’s boyfriend or new husband. The most likely circumstances are during or soon after a marital dissolution with a prompt remarriage or partnering by mommy. Young children are often sacrificed by mommy to win the favor of a new man. Young children are often abused sexually as well as physically by mommy’s new boyfriend.

    I’ll wager dollars to donuts that there is a history of child abuse in this situation. It is likely that angry dad was aware of the abuse and livid because the courts were enabling the abuse. Judge mommy was no doubt complicit in the abuse. It is probable that the child was unavailable for visitation because there was evidence of recent abuse.

    Provide me with any evidence to substantiate these suspicious any any consideration of carbine guy’s right to self defense becomes irrelevant.

  29. I live in Texas, your front porch is not inside of a residence. The comments that say “it’s like being in your living room” are idiotic because he wasn’t in his living room and the laws of trespass say nothing of the sort. The father wasn’t trespassing. Dumbass with the rifle, should have gone inside called 9-1-1 and waited, he chose instead to execute this child’s father. He wasn’t defending himself, he was being a loud mouth thug

    • Well, it may not be inside, but it appears to be part of it nonetheless. From TPC 7:



      Sec. 30.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
      (1) ‘Habitation’ means a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes:
      (A) each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle; and
      (B) each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle.”

      Reading further, one finds this passage:

      “Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, a general residential operation operating as a residential treatment center, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
      (1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
      (2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.”

      One need not be “inside.”

  30. Did this occur at the Ex wifes house or the boyfriends (shooter)? Not real clear on this?
    If it was the wifes house does the boyfriend have “authority” to demand he leave? Unless he resides there as well? Seems like its the wifes house as that would make logical sense as to the location of the pickup.

  31. Sucked. Some one brings a gun out, leave. Get the law involved. To me, if some one takes out a gun with no other weapons, it shows pre-meditation. Killer was not threatened with a weapon. Once again, call the law. Killer should be prosecuted. Killer was just plain stupid.

    • “Never date single mothers. The end.” Perhaps the caution should regard a single mom who needs to be “fixed”, or “rescued”.

      Dated and married a woman who was not a mother at all; lasted eight years, ended in divorce.

      Dated and married a single mother; lasted 39yrs, and only ended due to her death.


  32. stupid people doing stupid things. Dumbass 1 could have left the property at any time and called the police instead of physically assaulting the armed person telling him to leave. Dumbass 2 could have called the police at any time instead of bringing a firearm into a verbal altercation so he could get an excuse to use it.

    I honestly don’t care if the guy gets charged or not.

  33. It was incredibly stupid to challenge the guy with the gun. Domestic situations are dangerous even for police and this dou– bag acts like he’s superman against a gun. That was ignorant.

  34. Is it me, or does it seem like most everyone in the video is taking the big guy’s death rather calmly? I get that people react differently to stress. But even so, it strikes me as a little odd.

  35. Not guilty, he was told by the owner to get off the property , made an attempt to disarm, and if nobody caught it the guy that got shot was intoxicated.

  36. If I go by the numerous and extensive laws of self protection that citizens of Texas have and the “porch being equal to the inside of the home” in Texas law…….

    I think the shooter won’t get charged and if he does, he will be acquitted of any murder charges.

    There is lots of unavailable information that I’m sure is yet to come. It may sway a jury one way or another. Should be an interesting look into the Texas judicial system if nothing else.

  37. You know that vaguely reminds me of the time I was instructed at gunm point to leave my girlfiends house( later to become wife) when caught in bed with her by my future father in law.
    We got into a threat of words and promises, with his ending in I’m getting my damn rifle . Which he did, and had that barrel stuck in my back all the way down the stairs.
    I got in my car and was getting my pistol out of the glove box, I was madder then hell and going to even the score. Just as I was getting back out “my gal” came running out of the house and jumped in the car with” Get me the fck outta here” .
    And off we went with a trail of smoke behind us.
    Oddly enough after the years went by me and Pops became hunting and fishing buddies.
    Is to remember, “I’m going to go get my gunm” is a no no, and if someone has the drop on you its, yes, yes, whatever you say.

  38. If I’m on the jury it would be a stretch to call this self defense. Grab the wife and retreat inside, locking the door.

    Interesting that we’ll see how the warning shot is handled.

  39. “He was trying to intimidate someone who wasn’t intimidated. The dad was stupid for physically engaging him.”

    If you watch the video, the dad was upset because his ex was screwing with him. She knew the rules of custody just as he did and the apparently deliberatly arranged for her son to be somewhere else and basically told him “FU, you don’t get him till 6 because I feel like it.”

    And the boyfriend, no doubt primed by her tales of how mean and abusive the dad was, was all ready to be the tough guy when that woman had already made sure the dad would be showing up there and be pissed about how she was using her son as an emotional weapon against him… probably yet again.

    The boyfriend was in the house only moments before he was back outside, carbine in hand, loaded and a round in the chamber. How is it, that this gun was so close to the door and ready before Dad got there? Unless, as I said, the ex-wife had that guy primed and ready.

    The Dad was pissed, but he never raised his hands or even his arms… not until boyfriend threatened him with a gun, and even then, he did not go chest to chest with him until he had the gun and still did not lift a hand until that first shot was fired.

    And even then, when he grabbed the gun, he swung the boyfriend away from him and let go of the gun and just stood there, showing no sign of charging after him, and the boyfriend shot him.

    Boyfriend, I think, is going to jail. But that woman never will, and she as good as pulled the trigger herself, in my personal opinion.

    • I suspect you have the right take on it, likely both men manipulated by the woman; and fairly clearly neither of these tools were particularly sharp.

      • Archie once told me, “No man was ever taken to hell by a woman unless he already had a ticket in his pocket, or at least had been fooling around with timetables.”

    • “How is it, that this gun was so close to the door and ready before Dad got there? Unless, as I said, the ex-wife had that guy primed and ready.“

      Really? Like everybody on this list doesn’t keep a loaded gun on their person or near the door of their home?

      Why do you think it would be wrong for this homeowner to exercise his Second Amendment rights just like everyone on this list does?

      Really a lot of weird takes on the situation, quite interesting.

      • “How is it, that this gun was so close to the door and ready before Dad got there?”
        The time he took inside to get the firearm doesn’t support that statement. He was inside for a lot longer than it would take to just a loaded gun from behind the door. He had plenty of time inside to consider the error of his next move. Not that I’d do it any different however. He was facing overwhelming odds considering the size of his visitor. Nevertheless, his visitor was all verbal and zero action other than chest bumping and I’ve seem any injuries result from chest bumping. The little guy was simply a coward, went and got an equalizer, and then carried out an action with forethought. The forethought was going to get a gun in the first place. To me, that’s premeditation. If you don’t want to shoot someone don’t grab a loaded gun, that’s a simple concept. With that said I live in very rural area and own many firearms. I always carry a gun to the door after dark if anyone knocks on the door. ALWAYS! And it’s always loaded and cocked. But that’s only after dark.

    • I completely agree with this assessment except for the “The boyfriend was in the house only moments” part. Count the seconds. He was actually inside for a while. He had plenty of time to gather the gun from storage and load it with a magazine and walk back outside. It obviously wasn’t right beside the door unless he spent that extra time calling the cops.

      As for self defense…I think from the looks of it that it wasn’t. He had no justifiable reason to doubletap the guy except that he wanted to. Just because as one commenter wrote “he was on the porch, which in Texas is considered as being inside the house thereby turning the big guy into burglar ” I didn’t see that as an overwhelming justification for shooting him. That, in this instance, is splitting hairs. By bringing the firearm outside did that justify the big guy to step on the porch? probably not. But how many of us lose rational thought in the heat of an emotional argument? I’d say everybody.

      I hope the child grows up knowing exactly what Mom did there…getting his Dad killed.

  40. Everybody is pretty chilled out seconds after killing a man on the front porch. No attempt to render aid. Cold blooded shit for somebody you know.

  41. I think that viewing this video should be mandatory for all couples getting a divorce where children are involved and custodial and visitation agreements to be followed.

  42. William Carruth’s biggest mistake was getting involved with a divorced mother with children, no upside to that relationship as he has discovered.

  43. This guy should be arrested. He killed a guy for doing what? Standing on his porch pissed off at his ex. This is why we cant have nice things. If this keeps happening gun control is next.

  44. Yeah, I keep a gun or two loaded in the house. But not right by the door. As fast as he was in and out with it in hand, I think it was placed there in anticipation of Dad’s arrival. And while Texas has the Castle Doctrine, I don’t think it will apply. As we saw, Dad didn’t even raise a hand, or threaten anything, not until he himself was being threatened with a gun.

  45. Knuckleheads all around. They all win stupid gold medals 🥇.

    My guess is that shooter gets a 2nd murder charge, pleads manslaughter and gets to spend some time in the hotel de la state penn.

    That being said, let’s discuss the elephant in the room. None of this would have happened if the x-wife didn’t push buttons and pull her $hit on the guy with a scheduled child custody pick up. Modern American women are nefarious.

  46. A few years ago, an old Florida guy shot a man over a handicapped parking space after the guy parking the car knocked him to the ground. Yes, a bullshit wanna was involved.
    Although the victim had knocked the man to the ground, he stepped back (seen on video) and the man now on his knees, drew his handgun and fired. Jury did not buy that the victim was an immediate threat as he was not moving towards the shooter.
    In the end the shooter was convicted
    If green guy was not moving towards the guy he just threw off the porch, it is not self defense. If you pull a weapon you have to judge this carefully. A reason not to pull a weapon and to have a PERFECT understanding of when it is justified to use it and when it is NECESSARY.

    • Yep – that incident was written about here on TTAG. What was shown & determined was that the shooter was the aggressor: couple parks in handicapped spot at gas station, man runs in with woman in car, shooter wants to play cop & gets aggressive with the woman about parking in the handicapped spot, man comes out & defends woman by pushing shooter to the ground, shooter thinks self defense & shoots man. Plus shooter had been arrested before for similar aggressive incidents.

      Key takeaway is who is the aggressor in each case?

  47. I get it that logic and Texas law may lead to different end results. The shooter was a bigger idiot to escalate from a stupid contest of who’s got the biggest d**k to bring that gun into it. The escalation did not look necessary to me. A call to 911 and staying inside the hoouse with the doors locked would have been much better.




  49. I’m going with how it looks. The little guy was not fearing for his life. He was able to go inside and take his time getting the firearm. That, to me, is premeditated. He intended to use that firearm which is what happened. He escalated the situation. The big guy Read never once lifted his arms from his sides UNTIL the firearm was brought into play. The little guy walked up to and got in Reads face with a firearm which I consider as an aggressive move. False courage. Read still just chest bumped him before grabbing for the gun. The verbal assault by Read was not aggressive in my opinion, until after the first shot was fired into the deck. The invitation he made to the little guy to shoot him was rhetorical since who really wants to die?

    After the shooting the little guy had zero concern about what he had done instead opting to explain his actions to all observers while Read was dying right there beside him.

  50. I’m not familiar enough with Texas Self Defense Laws to comment on what will happen if this goes to trial.

    Two things I see that don’t bode well for the Self Defense claim are:
    (1) Caruth escalated the incident. Reid did not make threats of violence, only threats of future litigation.
    (2) Caruth fired a warning shot. That too can be ruled/viewed as escalation and brandishing.

    As others have noted, this is going to be a real Schittshow.
    A Judge may very well lose her bench over this.

  51. I believe in “Stand Your Ground/Castle Doctrine” laws. I do not believe we should have a “duty” to retreat, especially on one’s own property. However, there are circumstances where common sense should prevail regardless of the technical aspects of the law. I submit that the emotionally charged nature of that argument—parent/child/parent—should cause anyone with a brain to go inside, stay inside, and call the police. Moreover, the only reason for the shooter to go back outside with a firearm is if the ex-husband was assaulting his ex-wife.

    The shooter may well escape responsibility on legal grounds, but I find him morally reprehensible, a detestable human being.

    • mkst, I also believe in the ‘Stand Your Ground/Castle Doctrine”, however there was NO threat directed at the homeowner. The father was exercising his right to visitation as outlined in the court order.
      While the father should have left when the visitation was denied, this did not give the homeowner the right to a) go get his gun and fire a warning shot nor b) shoot the father after the father grabbed him by the gun and tossed him off the porch. Clearly this is a case of excessive use of force.

  52. I think the thing to be learned from this video is to not be in a hurry to pull the trigger. His life or anyone else’s was not in danger or threatened. If he does not go to jail he will be lucky.

  53. Tragic.

    But, based on the video, justified.

    Parental rights don’t enter into this. The father was upset that the visitation hand off did not occur on time. He did not respond to the homeowners request to leave. He did not heed the warning shot. He took up an aggressive stance when the homeowner presented the weapon. He grabbed the homeowner’s weapon and physically slung him. He was still standing on the homeowner’s porch when he was killed.

    You may not like the paragraph above, but that is how a jury will consider the incident (if it ever makes it to a jury). The details matter. Had the father been retreating, it would not be legally defensible to shoot. Had the father been standing out in the yard, same thing. Had the father been parked at the end of the driveway and yelling, same thing. Unfortunately, he was doing none of that. He had just physically engaged with the homeowner.

    • Sid, I absolutely have to disagree. The father was threatened by the homeowner when the home owner fired the “warning shot”. The father after he tossed the gun bearing home owner off the porch did not advance on him. There was NO THREAT to the homeowner; in fact the homeowner committed Reckless Endangerment when he fired that “warning shot”. Remember, the father was UNARMED. When the homeowner went to get the gun he became the aggressor. The proper thing for the homeowner would have been to call the police. He didn’t and instead killed the father.

  54. [Quote]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.[/quote] that’s speculative and should be up to a jury to decide. Might make a nice argument but it’s not an argument that could qualify as negating the possibility of charges being brought against the shooter. He was not in fact trying to take the gun. See how quickly he let’s go of it? The decedent had an instinctive reaction to a gun being brought into play. He did in fact restrain himself and move the shooter out of direct contact and he did in fact stand perfectly still without further contact and he was shot dead by a shooter with a heart full of vengeance, not for an actual threat to safety. Contrary to popular belief, feeling fear does not then confer a right to use leather force. What is meant by fear in context what a rational person could deem a credible threat. The decedent made no violent contact even while being shot dead did not pose an immediate threat. The threats he made were bad behavior but I can not see they amounted to “I will kill you” there’s too many stupid women screaming over them to hear fully what was said. Even if you’re saying he tricked the shooter into shooting him, however credible, even you admit by that claim itself that he had not fully crossed the line. Was it stupid and instinctive? Sure. But it isn’t enough to prevent charges being brought. A jury deserves to hear this case.

  55. I understand the guy in the green shirt being angry about the custody situation, but when he’s told to get off the property, he should have gotten off the property. Maybe the other guy should have called police to get green shirt off the property, but that doesn’t change the fact that green shirt should have gotten his ass off the property. Castle doctrine or not, when someone says “Get off my property,” one should get off the property.

    We don’t know what the real situation was with custody of the child. Maybe green shirt was lying when he insisted that he should have had immediate visitation or return of custody at that time. Maybe he was confused. Either way, he should have left the property and called the police to handle the situation. He shouldn’t have stayed on the property using words and gestures meant to intimidate that woman. If he was in the right and the woman was violating some custody and visitation arrangement by not having the kid ready, then he should have taken the situation to the courts. If he was in the right, the courts should have then penalized the woman by changing the custody and visitation arrangements in the guy’s favor. If the courts failed to do that, then I agree that the man was being treated wrongly by the courts, but that doesn’t make his behavior at this time right.

    I understand the other guy getting a firearm. Green shirt was getting more and more aggressive with every moment. Green shirt could have hurt someone if he had continued his aggression. That he didn’t back down in the face of a rifle but instead escalated suggests that he was there to use violence to get what he wanted. He initiated the physical confrontation with the chest bump. He initiated the violence. The presence of a firearm for self-defense is not a provocation. No matter how much a crooked, incompetent DA in Wisconsin thinks that possession of a long gun is provocation, the man getting a tool for self-defense is not a provocation.

    Again, green shirt escalated the situation into physical violence. He moved towards the man with the gun, and he initiated contact. Everything after that is self-defense.

    If I’m on the criminal jury, I’m voting not guilty on any charges against the man with the rifle. If I’m on the civil jury, I’m voting not liable for any damages. Green shirt made the situation violent. Without his resorting to physical violence, no one would have been injured.

  56. I agree with most of what you’re saying but the facts are, it was NOT self defense at the time h shooter shot the decedent and the decedent was not in fact trying to take the gun as was claimed at the time the shooter very intentionallyand vengeful shot him dead. I’d even take your points a step further and claim the decedent tricked him into shooting him. This however is neither here nor there as it pertains to whether or not it was self defense at the time he was murdered. Texas so far ruled this “justifiable murder” which is a strange contradiction on terms I do not actually claim to understand. Whatever the case, there’s clearly enough here to bring charges. A jury of 12 should decide this case not some arbitrary pretrial that considered verifiably false facts. This isn’t anything like the Rittenhouse case where it was undeniably self defense with every single shot and without double tap kills hots. Despite your claims of already being decided before you even heard a well composed case as a juror, I think you’re more reasonable than you thik and you would infect listen to the case and review the evidence as presented. Lastly your comments about Wisconsin prosecutors, the Chicago area mafia slime bags have a particular gripe with self defense since most of them should be gunned down in cold blood for the betterment of humanity. Please don’t confuse those mafia grease balls with Wisconsin as a whole. You’d do well to recognize the distinction, I’m sure.

  57. From watching all this again and again, I can tell you, what made this man most upset was not the woman, the shooter, or the gun. It wasn’t anyone or anything there. It was something he couldn’t even admit. It’s that his son was not there when he was needed. It was the son’s rejection that crushed him and all he could do was vent. Had he lived 2 more minutes he’d had been sobbing uncontrollably. Clearly he loved his son more than his life which seemed in ruins anyway. With his last act he gave the last lesson he could give his son. The last goodbye of a loved one.

    • What? Where in the article does it say that the “son’s rejection” in the article? It was the MOTHER’S RESPONSIBILITY to have their son there at the appointed time.
      (rolling my eyes)

      • Did you ever try it? Being being tossed around every week? Like you had nothing else to do of your own? Having two sets of belongings? Having two sets of friends? Having two sets of step brothers and step sisters? “Had the responsibility….” now kid has whiney step dad blaming him instead of his own self…

        But none of that was in the article either. It’s as if there’s a real world out there or something?

        • Always forgetting a thing behind you needed, every week, every time. Living out of a travel bag that’s always missing a thing. It’s easier being homeless than having two homes.

          Responsibility times two for 4 people with -1/ea.

          Responsablity? Nice lesson….. not really.

        • ]2epo]v[an For your edification (although I’m sure it will enter your eyes and go out your ears), I was on the same end of this type situation as the father in this case. My Ex denied me in violation of a Family Court Order, visitation of my son twice for four mour month periods while I waited for the Family Court to adjudicate the violation. My response was to go to court. But then I’m a responsible individual who obeys the law. I guess you “think” that the child is the controlling factor? That is the usual Lefty response. I guess you think of a child as not having RESPONSIBILITY to obey the law. Apparently you think that responsibility is only for other people? There is no where in the article where it says that the child didn’t want to go with his father. As usual, you think it is perfectly OK to flaunt the law. No wonder the father was killed by another Lefty who thinks he is above the law. Get a frickin grip!

    • Really like this comment/response. It has a great start and backbone for a good novel (maybe a short story).

      Can I take it for my own, and get it published for my sole benefit?(no, I don’t share with others)

  58. How dark and empty, the place where your soul should have been.

    Go back and re-read all of them. Then answer your own question and don’t bother me with your ineptitude.

      • You say lies. That’s a strong word. While I admit, I couldn’t possibly knowa few thing and am extrapolating much how about yourself before claiming I’m knowingly and thoughtfuly writing lies? Why wouldn’t you say, “you couldn’t possibly know that?” Because you know you couldn’t possibly know I couldn’t know these things. That means even you think my scenario is perfectly plausible. Did you know his wife, the one suing, the one who recorded the video from the street, had filed for divorce? How would it not seem to this man that he had been abandoned by everyone? And then someone pulls a gun and clearly begins toeing the line. What else would make this man uncontrollably pissed? I know it, you know it, and everyone else can see it as soon as they honestly begin to weigh the facts.

        You can play all the legalese games you like, but you know in your dark maggot chewed dead heart, it was NOT self defense. Having a true belief in self-defense rights doesn’t end with being a partisan hack. It ends with calling a murder for what it is when and where that’s exactly what it was. I’m not at all sure arbitrarily declaring it a so called “justifiable murder” covers it, whatever that’s supposed to mean. What were you saying was a lie? That single dusty tear you shed when I wrote it? Why don’t you take your lustful trigger finger to iraq or somewhere worth your timeand stop bothering me with your hypocrisy. Next time at least have the decency to explain your counter claim. What are you saying was a lie? Your mom? Your soul? Your God? Why don’t you go pray to the fgt God of the fgt people that killed your renamed spiritual leader ji-zeus with a little care for the hell you belong to.

        • ]2epo]v[am ROFLMAO!Lefty, it’s you who lies. Extrapolate? That is an other word for lie. Here is the dictionary’s take on Extrapolate: extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable.
          In other words, you are clueless.
          I suggest that you sit back on your haunches and learn about firearms before you make a bigger fool of yourself. You take what is said and twist and turn it to fit your anti-gun radical agenda. You intentionally pose questions which you want your own answer to. That my Lefty adversary is how you lie.

        • Fgt had to look up extrapolate? And he publicly admits it?

          Dude must be either: Larry, Darrel, or Darrel.

      • It’s not your questions that bother me, it’s your lack there of. Your piddly lititle mind is so institutionalized you don’t even know there’s more kinds of people in the world than two measly political nouns.

        But I’m clearly just beating on some lowlife lower life form here so go ahead and flame away fgt. I know u will.

        • [2epo]v[an Oh, the questions do bother you. Big Time! My mind is miles ahead of yours, little fella. You can’t help it if you are a Leftist. It’s what your were indoctrinated to be. Your extrapolations are just your trying to justify your lies.
          There really are just two kind of people; good and bad. Those of us who support the Constitution, are the good; you Leftists are the bad.
          The only thing you are beating if your meat, assuming you have one. If you weren’t so pathetic, I would pity you.

  59. Walter

    “There is no where in the article”

    So this is the one article you read before you started posting about people’s real lives?

    I’m glad you got your possessions back btw

    Go die.

    • ]2epo]v[an Nice try. AGAIN just like every other Lefty, you take a phrase and make it my entire statement. I am far better read that your sorry posterior. All you read are your anti-gun radical rags and blogs. Real people? Are you really ‘real”? You can’t even put a coherent sentence together.
      Kiss my royal American…

      • It’s not your questions that bother me, it’s your lack there of. Your piddly lititle mind is so institutionalized you don’t even know there’s more kinds of people in the world than two measly political nouns.

        But I’m clearly just beating on some lowlife lower life form here so go ahead and flame away fgt. I know u will.

        • ]2epo]v[an Oh, but my questioning your motives does bother you. My mind is farther advanced than yours but of course that is not saying a whole lot for me. Your pathetic use of the word “extrapolate” is just cover for your intentional lies.
          Actually there are only two kinds of people in the world. The good and the bad. Those that are good support the US Constitution and/or what it stands for. Then we have the bad that want to get around the Constitution and the rights that it guarantees each American.
          You know if you weren’t so pathetic, I would pity you.

  60. “ROFLMAO lefty blah blah be scared to be a noun”

    I don’t know what kind of tactics you think will work on me but you can’t see they aren’t working you should just stop proving you’re just a partisan hack fgt.

    • ]2epo]v[an Don’t mommy love you enough as a child? Or are you still a child? Speaking of “partisan” to read your missives, one would think you have the intelligence of a flea.

      • It’s not your questions that bother me, it’s your lack there of. Your piddly lititle mind is so institutionalized you don’t even know there’s more kinds of people in the world than two measly political nouns.

        But I’m clearly just beating on some lowlife lower life form here so go ahead and flame away fgt. I know u will.

        • The only ones who are institutionalized are you Leftists who are indoctrinated rather than educated. Please don’t give us that crapola that you are an “independant”. That is a ration.
          The only thing you are beating if your meat, assuming you have any. You are lower than whale dung dropping to the bottom of the ocean.

      • Oh and look, a whole police department with jurisdiction, a district attorney with jurisdiction, an entire state with jurisdiction, a federal government with jurisdiction, saw it my way. But there ya are, still venting your vaginosis mouth…. im no fool for argumentum ad populum, but you’re the only fool who never watched all the vids saying your own piddly opinion is more important, anyway….


        • My question is how much were they paid? Seems the woman involved is a judge if I recall correctly.
          No, you are just a fool. No pun intended.

  61. Walter, you’re not fooling anyone.. you’re gutless. Too afraid to give up your partisan hack protections, probably guilty of something. Where were you when the state department was making us all complicit as an afghan pederast heroin cartel? Crushing some over prescribed pills I’d bet.


    • And I’m not an “independent” am an antipartisan, and while I hate your disgusting soul, that doesn’t make me the “leftist”. It makes me rational and in good taste.


      • pfft, Yeah, right. “antipartisan”. Do you mean an anarchist? Or a Leftist?
        You have no soul. I doubt you are even an American.

    • ]2epo]v[an, Gutless? ROFLAMO. I was a Sergeant in one of NYS’s prison system. You wouldn’t have the guts to serve behind the fences and walls.
      Where were you when the Peanut Man screwed up the Iran Hostage Crisis? Where were you when our soldiers went to war in Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan? I was a US Marine in Vietnam. The only think you have ever served is McDonald’s.
      Get a frickin grip, boy!

      • I’ve guarded the walls that guarded your walls fgt. Overseas no less. I’ve done sht you wouldn’t even believe if I told you not the least of which was getting an entire infantry battalion cut off of ther heroin suppliers. Take your puffery and cram it. I got movies about me.

        Go fkng die pig boy.

        • ]2epo]v[an The only thing you ever guarded was McDonald’s. The only time you have done sht is when you sit on the toilet. Stick your Leftist views and put them with your Red Chinese allies.
          Your mother probably served more than you have in the House with the Red Light.

      • ” I was a US Marine in Vietnam.”
        Which as far as I’m concerned just makes you a golden triangle junky self hating hippy.

        • pfft You aren’t fit to polish my boots. If I called you clueless, it would be an understatement.
          A Marine is the farthest thing from a hippy you can get, dumbo. I doubt they would even let your sorry behind in a doggie’s recruiting station.

        • ]2epo]v[an If you can’t figure that out, you need more medication. So what is the “decedent” had a criminal history. It has nothing to do with his murder.

        • “. It has nothing to do with his murder.”

          Hay look, complete flip flop. He was murdered now, not self defense very suddenly.

          “It’s rabbit season!” Let’s see if fko even remembers his position yet, lol. Probably too busy being a flaming fgt all over the net to remember which position he took where.

          Belive nothing a projectionist slime fgt like that says.

        • ]2epo]v[an Not a flip flop, dumbo. The father was murdered. The homeowner had no legal defense as the “decedent” as you call him posed no threat.
          Do you even know what a rabbit looks like? You have spent so much time in mommy’s basement I am sure the light would hurt your eyes.
          Oh, Incidentally, I’m not a dude. I’ve been out west, ridden horses and was a Town Marshall in Colorado. Now stick it where your mind is. If you cant figure out where that is, get a GPS.

    • ]2epo]v[an WAY OFF TOPIC! i know it’s difficult for a drugged out guy like you, but try staying on topic?

      • Dude doesn’t even recognize a participant’s criminal history as relevant. Even when it supports his position. Calls others “liars” whatta protectionist fgt. If I were a member of anything he claims to represent himself, I’d be disgusted. See? Junky nam vets really should have just been flushed down a toilet right along with their hippy kin.

        • ]2epo]v[an And this from a guy who has to hide his identity from everyone.
          His criminal history is irrelevant considering he was MURDERED. You don’t think that a person with a criminal history can’t be murdered?
          You are a liar as will as an imbecile. So to my being a”junkie”? I put junkies like you in jail and kept then there. Now by a good little boy and go flush yourself with an enema.
          “Birdie, birdie in the sky, I’m no doggie, I won’t cry, just thank God that cows don’t fly”.

        • “Murdered” – Walter

          so far that’s “justifiably murded” facts. And very possibly “assisted suicide”. If he entrapped the shooter and he very possibly did according to his blue collar crime history… I could see that going very strongly in the shooter’s defense against the “wrongful death by negligence” suit against him. The shooter owns a substantial construction business. I was interested to see a charge againt him so case law could further define the “justifiable murder” definition but it’s beginning to look like an entrapment plot.

          You can pretend to be whoever you want Walter but if you can’t see that’s irrelevant while flip flopping against your original self defense rights aruments when presented with the decedents blue collar criminal history, you have to admit you’re just a liar blowhard whore hole pig boy projectionist with a lackluster subpar delusional identy complex.

        • ” I put junkies like you in jail and kept then there.”

          You did nothing of the kind. You’re just a blow hard pederast junky pig.

        • “]2epo]v[an And this from a guy who has to hide his identity from everyone.”

          Here you post as “Walter E Beverly III” but on you post as “Uncle Dutch.” So which is it really, pig boy.

          Oh, and if anyone didn’t know, this schmuck is an fbi stooge.

        • pfft,There are a whole lot of junkies who would disagree with you. They did some pretty bad time doing time because I arrested them.

        • ]2epo]v[an Now there you go again. Making an utter fool of yourself. You are getting rather adept at it.
          I’m not the one hiding behind some fake screen name. That would be you, my Lefty adversary.
          Actually, I’ve never posted on “justrealpolitics”. Looks like Uncle Dutch is a pretty smart guy. But compared to you, a horse is smart and they only have a brain the size of a pea.

  62. A history of blue collar crime and a possible shooting entrapment is completely on topic.

    “I put junkies like you behind bars”-Walter

    You did nothing of the kind you homophiliac flip flopping blow hard whore hole. You’re no one you say you are. You’re just a projectionist flaming fgt, flaming.

    • pfft Speaking of being illiterate, I guess you don’t know how to do an enema? Well, I’m not a whole heck of a lot surprised. You are after all full of sh*t.

    • pfft Speaking of being illiterate, I guess you don’t know how to do an enema? Well, I’m not a whole heck of a lot surprised. You are after all full of sh*t. ROFLMAOBT!

  63. Doj artical lists him as 42 at the tme the decedent who was born in 1967 would be 42. It’s him.

    The decedent was a verified blue collar criminal and likely entraping a wrongful death suit.

    • ]2epo]v[an
      AGAIN, so what? I don’t give a rat’s behind if he was a “verified blue collar criminal.” The fact is that your wonderful homeowner used EXCESSIVE FORCE.
      Entrapped? ROFLMAOBT! I’m sure that the victim was just dying to entrap the homeowner into killing him. You are a real live piece of work.

      • At you would take for irrelevant is clearly any contrary point to your own. Whatever part of the decedent’s criminal history a judge would accept is not bound by your junky fgt opinion, Dutch. In a state trial the judge would decide if it were relevant, not some partisan puke like you. Now, currently, this is a civil suit where the decedent’s criminal history can absolutely come into play. Prove your basis for why a scmbg like chad should not be considered as the scmbg he is, excuse me, was. Do it or you can just shut your flip-flopping hore hole.

        • pfft Who taught you English? Was he Chinese or Russian? The decedent’s criminal history would have no bearing on the case provided that the decedent did not have a weapon and did NOTHING to warrant the use of deadly physical force.
          Civil suit be damned. Clearly you need to get a basic education before you start to practice law.

        • Walt, it is you who has trouble with the law. You don’t know how entering criminal history as evidence works, for starts. And you aren’t able to respect that the case has already been dismissed. Chad refused to leave, made threats, physically intimidated, issued insults in homophilic verse, dared the shooter to shoot him, I’m sorry for Chad’s family but being this guy was a felon, I can’t support his right to life under those circumstances and I think it meets a reasonable standard of the level of shit anyone should have to put up with. Maybe it doesn’t seem like sel defense if you only consider the right to protect life. You also have the right to protect property and be free from injury. What if the shooter fell when chad threw him? The gun could go off and hit who even knows. Chad wasn’t going to have this end any other way. It was recklace behaviour nearing suicidal behaviour. Chad didn’t care much about his continued existance and seemed suicidal. If Chad cared so little, that’s pretty scary, because why should anyone be expected to care more about you than you? After careful consideration and finding the felony charge, this court is dismissed.

        • ]2epo]v[an Well, Faker, apparently it is you who has a big problem with the law. Your case site is about weak on details. With your history, I would not be surprised if you made it up. I note there is no legal citation. So what if he was a “felon”. We only have your word for that and your word is not worth the price of a stick of gum. (Please note it’s SELF DEFENSE not sel defense). If in one hand and you know what is in the other? (RECKLACE???? ROFLMAOBT! You spelling needs some work as well) You really have to stop making up “case histories”. You see, if you copied and pasted, you would have spelt self defense and reckless correctly. In other words, caught your fgt arse lying again.

      • If some slime fgt like you came up on my property talking the shit you’re talking and wouldn’t leave, I’d shoot you also. Think it pretty well meets the reasonable person standard for the level of shit someone should have to put up with on their own property. If a jury isnt going to be the ones to decide that threshold. Case dismissed.

        And I know you’re a fake ass fbi agent.

        • ]2epo]v[an Being a fgt yourself, you know all about fgts, right? Then if I went on your fgt property, and had legal reason to be there, you better make it your best shot of your life because you damn well won’t get a second. Under the law in all 50 states, you cannot use deadly physical force because of a mere trespass.
          Being a clueless as you are, you would not have to worry about the jury. Worry about me!

        • Lies. I can smell a fake when I see one. Your cover is blown. Busted plame and an associate in 1999 on a plane. Find other ppl to investigate or go back to pencil pushing.


        • You say that like trespassing on property was the only thing this felon did wrong. Just daring someone to shoot ya is 75% of the justification necessary. Guy also made threats. Used physical intimidation. If entrapment is still illegal pfft fkit. Mostly everyone here but you can see it my way. I’m calling it a reasonable person standard sshooting. No one should have to put up with that sht. And you’re just a pig.

        • ]2epo]v[an FGTs like you are a nickel a dozen. I would love to have you try your crapola on me. Your arse would be grass and I’d be the law mower. For your edification, pig stands for PRIDE, INTEGRITY and GUTS. You know, those attributes you lack.

        • pfft Seems that his trespassing was the ONLY thing that he did “wrong”. FACT1, he had a license to be there as he was there to pick up his son at the APPOINTED TIME. FACT2 The Homeowner by getting the gun and pointing it in the direction of the victim makes the homeowner the AGGRESSOR. The father had every right to do what he did. He did not do anything other than grab the barrel of the gun and toss the idiot onto his lawn. That warranted his being killed? Sounds to me like the homeowner’s ego go in the way of common sense. But then you also lack that “commodity”.

        • Walter, you’re so far up your own ass it’s the only thing you recognize. And you’re an undercover fbi pig. Nuff said

        • ]2epo]v[an Well Faker, you know all about arse, being one.I’ll bet you are a real live shit packer.

      • ]2epo]v[an, Horse pucky. There was no “entrapment.” Entrapment is when you are lured to commit a crime you would not willingly commit by a person in authority. This “homeowner” made the conscious decision to get a gun and use it to threaten the father. That my Lefty adversary is not “entrapment.”

        • Well you seem to think your opinion is a higher standard than that of the persons with the actual responsibility to decide these matters. On occasion, that might be true but ut’s my opinion that you’re dead wrong. My claim the decedent’s actions amounted to entrapment wins. Note, when the decedent was presented with the shooters intention to go get his gun, the decedent openly invited it, wrong again walter. Likely wont be the last time either. You’re hell bent on this case for some reason. Go cry. Learn how to make a counterpoint with less homophilia unless you just want to present your sexual deviations.

        • Well you seem to think your opinion is a higher standard than that of the persons with the actual responsibility to decide these matters. On occasion, that might be true but ut’s my opinion that you’re dead wrong. My claim the decedent’s actions amounted to entrapment wins. Note, when the decedent was presented with the shooters intention to go get his gun, the decedent openly invited it, wrong again walter. Likely wont be the last time either. You’re hell bent on this case for some reason. Go cry.

        • pfft Are you a parrot? ROFLMAOBT! My “opinion” happens to be the legal definition of entrapment. No one in authority has said this was entrapment. That was your dumb idea. Where did you get your criminal law training? I did not know that Crackerjack boxes had that degree? There is no evidence that that father “openly invited the homeowner to get a gun. Are you ‘ass-u-me’ ing again?

  64. Well you seem to think your opinion is a higher standard than that of the persons with the actual responsibility to decide these matters. On occasion, that might be true but ut’s my opinion that you’re dead wrong. My claim the decedent’s actions amounted to entrapment wins. Note, when the decedent was presented with the shooters intention to go get his gun, the decedent openly invited it, wrong again walter. Likely wont be the last time either. You’re hell bent on this case for some reason. Go cry.

    • ]2epo]v[an ROFLMAOBT! My “opinion” happens to be the legal definition of entrapment. No one in authority has said this was entrapment. That was your dumb idea. Where did you get your criminal law training? I did not know that Crackerjack boxes had that degree? There is no evidence that that father “openly invited the homeowner to get a gun. Are you ‘ass-u-me’ ing again?
      Can I get you a crying towel to wipe away your tears?

      • Oh, thats the LEGAL definition? So you went and found a supporting citation? Oh, you didnt? My entrapment claims are solid. You failed to pose a counter point. And no, i watched the vid. He did as i said he did, openly invited the shooter to pull a gun and then waited. He would have the situation end no other way. It didn’t. If you think you cared so much, why didn’t you even watch the vids? Like the rest of junky America, just another case of suicide by another to try and entrap a wrongful death suit to pay for their kid’s college. Your mgib must have been useless to you.

        • ]2epo]v[an ROFLMAOBT! Again? Your opinion could not hold water. IN other words, you are full of HOT AIR.
          I did not know that Crackerjack boxes had law degrees? There is no evidence that that father “openly invited the homeowner to get a gun.” The homeowner went and got it on his own out of fear. “Vids”? There was ONLY ONE VID. Nice try, dummarse. Like may wannabe “lawyers” you are trying to write in between the lines that which is not there. You even try to make up your own definition of “entrapment. Are you ‘ass-u-me’ing again? Even when you care confronted with facts, you still persist with your idiocy. Tell ,e, did your mother have any children that lived?

        • Guy tries to say there was only one vid. In caps no less. You clearly have zero opinion on the topic. Opinions are based on facts and you never bothered to gather any facts on your own. You’re just a bag of air. There were, in fact, two cameras and two vids. You didnt even know this much. You’re clearly just some filthy internet grab-ass. Dismissed.

        • ]2epo]v[an ROFLAMO. That’s right, numbnutz, your second vid provides less than the first. . You make up your own definition of “entrapment” to fit your version of events. If you an prove different, provide this phantom second vid?
          I ask again, did your mother have any children that lived?

        • You an clearly hear both the shooter and tge decedents wife both express they were both recording but you never bothered to find the second vid besides the vid taken by the decedent’s wife? This shows you never really even watched the first vid. You’re just some internet grab-ass h0m0philiac. This walter guy you’re pretending to be is likely already dead. Your so called “opinion” is completely impeached.

        • ]2eopo]v[an The only think impeached here is your level of education. Trust me, arsewipe, I am very much alive.
          I strongly suggest that you take a good English language course, one that stresses capitalization, grammar, punctuation and spelling.

      • ]2epo]v[an Thanks for proving my point. You desperately need a that good English language course. Then you should go back to school and learn all those other subjects you failed at. Apparently your education was sorely neglected.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here