Posted on 11/25/2021 8:45:32 AM PST by yesthatjallen
On Wednesday, the wife of Chad Read, a man shot and killed November 5, released the video of the confrontation leading up to and the shooting itself.
The video was released by attorney Matthew L. Harris, who is representing Read’s widow, Jennifer. It was released in conjunction with a petition that seeks to take custody of Chad’s children from his ex-wife Christina Read.
According to the release, the video depicts William “Kyle” Carruth shooting and killing Read during a confrontation.
As of Wednesday, Carruth had not been arrested or charged with a crime. While his name was associated with the shooting in family court documents, police have not officially released his name because he has not been charged.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at everythinglubbock.com ...
“Don’t know how the legalities will shake out but grabbing a gun held by someone else is rarely a good idea.”
He didn’t try to grab the gun till after the shooter fired it at his feet. Prior to that, talk is cheap. The shooter may have a property situation but it’s a long way from having the shot man threatening to take the woman to court and the man shooting him when he was still on the porch, and not moving toward the shooter at the time of the shot, whether one or two as different videos display. And the shot man didn’t grab him until after he fired at his feet and then threw him away from him. So which one was warding off the threat? Castle doctrine doesn’t work that way in any state I know of.
At the time he shot the man, the shooter was not under threat by the positions of the bodies being apart and not charging the shooter as he was still in the same location on the porch. Could get interesting. I can almost be sure there will be a wrongful death suite if it doesn’t go criminal.
wy69
This is why I would prefer a sword rather than a gun when confronting an angry person who is bigger than I would like to get into a brawl with.
He might doubt I would really shoot him — he’s not going to doubt I would stick him, and trying to grab a sword’s blade just leaves you with a very bloody hand.
The guy with the gun should not have gotten that close or allowed the other guy to get that close to him.... especially since he was holding a long gun.
Best thing to do is go in the house and call the law. If he breaks in the house..... then KAPOW
“The guy with the gun should not have gotten that close “
He wanted to ‘get in his face’!
This story is sounding more convoluted now.
“He retreated into the house ...”
That wasn’t a retreat.
I believe it's straight forward.
After the divorce the wife wanted to get back at the husband by withholding visitation. The wife hypes up the threat from her ex to her new boyfriend who is blinded by the new love of his life and naturally takes her side. When the ex husband shows up asking to take his son, the right he has, the wife plays innocent. 'Help. My ex husband is violent and threatening me.' The 'sucker', I mean her new boyfriend, comes to her defense and kills the ex husband.
Can't wait to see this on some show called, "How to get away with murder".
“…there was no immediate threat of the victim obtaining the gun and then shot him. I don’t know the law where they are, but this shooting is questionable whether it was self defense or not. There are no winners in this.”
******************************************************************
Yes, there was no immediate threat and the shooter gave no evidence of being in fear for his life so it certainly wasn’t self defense.
The children are losers as they lost their father and must live with their father’s murderer. The unremorseful mother of the children can get her grubby hands on the social security survivor benefits of the two children until they’re age 18 and possibly she could get spousal survivor benefits during that time.
The shooter should NOT escape justice.
I wonder what kind of rifle it was. It sounded like a pellet gun. But, a one shot kill with a pellet gun? Didn’t see a suppressor on it. Not as loud as a .22.
Kenosha was hands-down self defense. This one isn’t You could make the argument that the shootee was unable to retreat; he had a house behind him. Like all self defense cases, context matters.
No question that was a bad mistake.
But regardless the bully tried to take his gun away while trespassing and acting belligerent.
But as someone said earlier, a clash between two assholes.
I will admit to not knowing that when I posted. Every prosecutor I have read about took the position that as long as the bad guy was outside and you were inside, he could not hurt you and therefore you could not claim self defense.
On the other hand, some state’s trespass law says you can take the necessary action to remove a trespasser if he refuses to go.
I think that law leads to misinterpretation as bad or worse than the citizen arrest laws. Too easy to get trapped.
I retract my earlier statement. When the shooter went in his house he should have stayed there and therefore he can not claim self defense in my state or most of the 50.
But Texas is different and I don’t know how their law would interpret this even.
In my state he would go to prison.
The warning shot didn’t help. If you’re fearing for your life, are you going to point the gun at the ground and fire? Or are you going to back off a pace and aim the weapon at the imminent threat?
I don’t know if I’d convict, but I would true bill if on a Grand Jury.
It looks like an inexpensive 9mm Hi-Point carbine.
It looks like an inexpensive 9mm Hi-Point carbine.
The only winners are the Lawyers. Children lose a father, the shooter and his wife will lose his savings. The shooter may irritate his employer and lose a job.
And at the other end of scripture,
Rev 6:3When He opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, “Come [b]and see.” 4Another horse, fiery red, went out. And it was granted to the one who sat on it to take peace from the earth, and that people should kill one another; and there was given to him a great sword.
This could darn near be argued as a premeditated murder. Not saying either guy was right. Bad situation for both involved. Especially the dead one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.