This analysis by renowned self-defense attorney Andrew Branca employs legal concepts with which all gun owners should be intimately familiar… particularly given the insanity that is so pervasive in society today.
I agree with attorney Branca that self-defense, defense of dwelling, nor defense of property appear to justify this subject shooting and that a manslaughter charge would be appropriate.
I saw two videos.
I’d acquit.
That’s a good legal analysis.
At the moment Carothers fired the weapon no one was in imminent danger.
Texas has the castle doctrine. The trespassing gentleman had been repeatedly asked to leave the property. The landowner retrieved his weapon as protection after trespasser refuse to leave his property and had repeatedly acted aggressively toward the land owner. With weapon in hand the landowner once more asked the trespasser to leave his property. The trespasser answered with more aggression and physically butted himself up against the landowner. The landowner fired a warning shot into the ground which the trespasser answered by grabbing at the gun. The landowner managed to step back retaining the weapon after which the trespasser once more moved to take the weapon it was only when when the trespasser tried for the seconded time to take the weapon from the landowner that the landowner fired the fatal shots. Self-defenses and within the castle doctrine
Bkmk
I only saw the video once, but the thing that stood out to me was how everyone involved reacted after Read was shot.
Suggested a setup to me.
I watched the videos too. Behavior has consequences. I’d acquit in a nanosecond.
If not proven a setup, it would be difficult to convict on anything more than a lesser manslaughter charge. Even though the smaller man had the gun, the physicality and behavior of the larger victim is obvious and may well be considered contributory to the presence and use of a firearm in self-defense. Sad, sad, sad and stupid.
In West Texas, you go on a man’s property and start in angrily on his woman, you to have to die. It has always been thus and will forever be.
I ask myself…….would I have done the same thing under the same circumstances?
Going outside with a weapon to confront someone who is “bitching” and not vandalizing, or harming anyone is stupid and asking for trouble.
The shooter wanted the man off his property.
Ok, I have trespassers all the time on my property. Hunters, campers, etc. should I shoot them? Or call the State Police if they fail to leave?
None have refused to leave so far.
I carry a concealed weapon myself and if I’m home and on my land I open carry because of bears, Elk, wolves, etc.
I don’t unholster my weapon at the sight of trespassers.
Geeeez.
Call the cops, give them time to arrive.
Let the angry man carry on with his grievances.
2nd Degree Murder with the option for the Jury to take it down to Manslaughter.
Did the shooter even call the police himself?
Yeah, yeah, property owner rights and 2nd Amendment……I get it, I’m for it, but trespassing and complaining is not a capital offense in this country.
Excellent analysis of the shooting, showing it was not justified.
This was an obvious setup and am betting this wasn’t the first altercation over visitation rights. The shooter and wife were ready with a witness at the door, a phone for recording and a gun. They knew what his reaction would be when they told him he couldn’t see his son, it was completely staged and they baited him into aggressive behavior OR they did it intentionally to kill him, which is exactly what happened.
The key is going to be an investigation of previous issues and I bet this wasn’t the first time he went to get his kid and was denied visitation. They probably were in contempt of court orders.
I have changed my opinion from righteous shoot to guilty.
At first I didn’t realize the 10 ft separation had occurred. I don’t know if the first time I saw the video that it didn’t show that or I looked down at my keyboard and missed it.
He just plain killed the guy. Sorry, but he did.