TX - Chad Read 54, shot/killed by ex's bf, Kyle Carruth, in custody dispute, Lubbock, 5 Nov 2021

[BeginnerSleuther]

The shooting looked justified to me.

Wasn't the victim there to pick up his kid? I felt like it was clear the killer was in the wrong and the shooting was illegal. I don't really understand how the castle doctrine applies here even. What am I missing here?

 

[Seattle1]

I live here in Texas, so none of this is surprising to me.

@worm - in Texas you are not likely to find a DA who isn't "pro gun," at all much less in a more rural area.
@BeginnerSleuther ,
@Seattle1 ,
@TrustedTracker5097 , and anyone else who might be baffled by why the grand jury declined to indict
- under Texas's Castle Doctrine law: The person defending themselves has no duty to retreat if they had a right to be in the location, did not provoke the person they used deadly force against, and was not engaged in criminal activity. Also, the judge or jury cannot consider whether an actor failed to retreat when determining whether the actor reasonably believed force was necessary.
MOO - My neighbors hold their guns and the right to use them to protect themselves or even their property close to their hearts and are more likely to side with Carruth. "Don't mess with Texas," didn't start off as a media campaign against litter.
Edited to add - this is by no means MY philosophy - just what I see all around me.

Thanks, @tamsidea for sharing your local perspective and well as the Castle Doctrine.

I'm somewhat partial to the Code of the West myself but I have to ask if "Don't mess with Texas" doesn't somehow differentiate between Texas residents, or does this stance expand to include "Texans against Texans?"

And does the doctrine encourage shoot to kill? I don't believe the victim was armed.

I respect a man asking you to leave his property except when the man is looking for his children.

Personally, I can't think of anything more provoking than refusing a man his children, or the location of his children, when he arrives to collect them on the Court Ordered date and time (and I believe location). JMO

 

[worm]

I live here in Texas, so none of this is surprising to me.

@worm - in Texas you are not likely to find a DA who isn't "pro gun," at all much less in a more rural area.
@BeginnerSleuther ,
@Seattle1 ,
@TrustedTracker5097 , and anyone else who might be baffled by why the grand jury declined to indict
- under Texas's Castle Doctrine law: The person defending themselves has no duty to retreat if they had a right to be in the location, did not provoke the person they used deadly force against, and was not engaged in criminal activity. Also, the judge or jury cannot consider whether an actor failed to retreat when determining whether the actor reasonably believed force was necessary.
MOO - My neighbors hold their guns and the right to use them to protect themselves or even their property close to their hearts and are more likely to side with Carruth. "Don't mess with Texas," didn't start off as a media campaign against litter.
Edited to add - this is by no means MY philosophy - just what I see all around me.

We have very similar laws here in SC and I think that “duty to retreat” thing was adjusted sometime in the 80s-90s. I remember at one time it applied to the home. At some point it changed and extended to the property and the “stand your ground” type rules came in.
I’m all for defending ones self and property for that matter but what rung the bell for me as @Seattle1 mentions above, I don’t see how the “duty to retreat” notion covers 1)walking into a safe place, 2)it’s possible to contact help, 3) getting a firearm, 4) returning to the conflict that one supposedly fears death or harm from.
I loath the idea of firing that gun and killing someone in the presence of a child. 100% legal or not, that man should have considered those others around there and their safety.

 

[worm]

@Seattle1, I’ve got a slightly different angle. I believe in property rights enough that even in a family situation the best thing to do is walk and unfortunately depend on the courts. However, I don’t think I have a right to present, threaten, aim, or fire a weapon if somebody refuses my request. I just did not see enough of a threat here, even tho the victim was a rather stout looking guy, to justify what happened.

 

[Seattle1]

@Seattle1, I’ve got a slightly different angle. I believe in property rights enough that even in a family situation the best thing to do is walk and unfortunately depend on the courts. However, I don’t think I have a right to present, threaten, aim, or fire a weapon if somebody refuses my request. I just did not see enough of a threat here, even tho the victim was a rather stout looking guy, to justify what happened.

That video was one of the most frightening things I've ever seen in my life.

I also saw no threat by the victim warranting the fatal shooting. The ex and the shooter had total control over resolving this situation! Seems to me this couple simply wanted the father dead!

The victim didn't just appear on the property out of nowhere -- his ex and her shooter boyfriend knew he was scheduled to collect his son at 3:15 pm on that date.

When dad arrived, the mother told him their son wasn't home but refused to tell him where he was located. Her excuse for the child not being ready for his dad was that she wanted to extend her visit with him! But it wasn't her decision to make.

For the convenience of all parties, the victim even offered to collect his child from wherever the mom left him, and still, she refused to comply. He would have immediately left the property given his child or the child's location!

MOO

 

[worm]

That video was one of the most frightening things I've ever seen in my life.

I also saw no threat by the victim warranting the fatal shooting. The ex and the shooter had total control over resolving this situation! Seems to me this couple simply wanted the father dead!

The victim didn't just appear on the property out of nowhere -- his ex and her shooter boyfriend knew he was scheduled to collect his son at 3:15 pm on that date.

When dad arrived, the mother told him their son wasn't home but refused to tell him where he was located. Her excuse for the child not being ready for his dad was that she wanted to extend her visit with him! But it wasn't her decision to make.

For the convenience of all parties, the victim even offered to collect his child from wherever the mom left him, and still, she refused to comply. He would have immediately left the property given his child or the child's location!

MOO

I agree and wonder why contempt for that court order was overlooked.

 

[Gardenista]

I agree and wonder why contempt for that court order was overlooked.

Maybe the media failed to order divorce records prior to publishing a story and weren't aware they were being fed incorrect info from Chad's wife?

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

Grand jurors are sworn to secrecy. Maybe some day Kyle or Christina will tell their side, or the media will dig like I did and find out the whole story. Hopefully, they already have and were just waiting on the GJ findings before they published.

Ah. Did not know this. Thanks for the info. So does this mean a prosecutor can never try to bring this to trial again? Since Kyle wasn't acquitted and murder has no SOL afak, could another grand jury be summoned again to give this case another shot?

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

There are no criminal charges here because the grand jury failed to indict Carruth based on the panel's belief that the accused acted in self-defense.

I disagree with the grand jury for a couple of reasons:

First, I think Carruth had the option to go inside the house, and call authorities.

But when Carruth went inside the house, instead of locking the door and waiting for the police to arrive, Carruth grabbed his long gun and went outside where he continued arguing with the victim.

Second, Carruth had the option to wound the victim in the leg (and go back inside his house)!

Instead, Carruth intentionally took two fatal shots at the victim's chest in front of his wife and child that we sitting in the car.

What a tragic ending. Condolences to his family and friends. MOO

While I understand the sentiment, I am highly against the concept of shooting to wound for pretty much the same reason I'm against warning shots: if you honestly believe your life is in imminent peril or you face suffering grave bodily harm, you ought not waste time trying to scare or wound your aggressor. Rather, deadly force ought to be used only in circumstances where killing the aggressor is the only option one has to stop an attack. If you try to argue your use of deadly force was being used simply to scare or injure, a prosecutor can argue your use of force was inappropriate and therefore unreasonable. After all, if you felt you could stop the attack through means other than killing the other person, why not use pepper spray or a taser? Prosecutors have gone after people in the past because they fired warning shots. It's simply a terrible idea legally, and shooting to wound has the same risks. Furthermore, legs present a smaller target than the chest area. If you miss and hit a bystander, that's on you. If you hit a major artery in the leg and the person bleeds to death, then you've killed them anyway.

Kyle Carruth effectively killed his case by firing into the porch. Had he shot Chad at the moment Chad made a gesture as if he was trying to grab the gun, a gesture made just after Chad had threatened to take Kyle's gun and use it on him, I think self defense would be easier to argue.

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

Also wanted to add I do think all of this could have been avoided had Kyle stayed inside and called 911. Not sure if coming out with the gun was illegal under Texas law, but it was certainly incredibly stupid to do and only escalated an already tense situation. I saw no point in the video, prior to that point, where Chad came off as a deadly threat. He was yelling, sure, but you don't get to shoot somebody just for threatening to subpoena your lover lol.

 

[Argonaut]

Also wanted to add I do think all of this could have been avoided had Kyle stayed inside and called 911. Not sure if coming out with the gun was illegal under Texas law, but it was certainly incredibly stupid to do and only escalated an already tense situation. I saw no point in the video, prior to that point, where Chad came off as a deadly threat. He was yelling, sure, but you don't get to shoot somebody just for threatening to subpoena your lover lol.

Texas law makes it clean that a property owner does not have to cower and hide inside of their house when threatened by an aggressor. Texas got it right.

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

Texas law makes it clean that a property owner does not have to cower and hide inside of their house when threatened by an aggressor. Texas got it right.

So in this case, it was legally sound, tactically stupid lol

 

[Seattle1]

Kyle Carruth effectively killed his case by firing into the porch. Had he shot Chad at the moment Chad made a gesture as if he was trying to grab the gun, a gesture made just after Chad had threatened to take Kyle's gun and use it on him, I think self defense would be easier to argue.

^^rsbm

Thanks for your reply @TrustedTracker5097 -- I wasn't aware that KC shot into the porch.

 

[Seattle1]

Ah. Did not know this. Thanks for the info. So does this mean a prosecutor can never try to bring this to trial again? Since Kyle wasn't acquitted and murder has no SOL afak, could another grand jury be summoned again to give this case another shot?

The prosecutor can still file charges but they typically do not if the grand jury did not indict.

If the grand jury does not choose to indict, the prosecutor still could bring the defendant to trial if he or she thinks there is a strong enough case against the person or group. The grand jury proceedings, however, often are used as a test run for prosecutors in making the decision to bring the case against a person.

^^sbm

 

[Seattle1]

- under Texas's Castle Doctrine law: The person defending themselves has no duty to retreat if they had a right to be in the location, did not provoke the person they used deadly force against, and was not engaged in criminal activity. Also, the judge or jury cannot consider whether an actor failed to retreat when determining whether the actor reasonably believed force was necessary.

^^rsbbm

Personally, I can't think of anything more provoking than refusing a man his children, or the location of his children, when he arrives to collect them on the Court Ordered date and time (and I believe location). JMO

The Texas Castle Doctrine says that KC /shooter had no duty to retreat if he did not provoke the victim.

How can anybody honestly say that this couple did not provoke the father into not leaving the property?!!

Had the ex produced his child or given him the location of the child he would have left. If they were not going to comply with a Court Order, they should have stayed inside their house. They had several options that didn't have to include shooting the father dead. MOO

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

^^rsbm

Thanks for your reply @TrustedTracker5097 -- I wasn't aware that KC shot into the porch.

Yup. It happens right before Kyle gets thrown off the porch. You can see him point the gun at the floor followed by a *POP*. Shortly after you can hear a little metallic tinkling noise created by the spent, ejected shell case from the fired round landing on the ground.

 

[Seattle1]

Texas law makes it clean that a property owner does not have to cower and hide inside of their house when threatened by an aggressor. Texas got it right.

Respectfully, I believe this law (Texas Castle Doctrine) says no duty to retreat IF YOU DO NOT PROVOKE the aggressor.

What can be more provoking than refusing to comply with a Court Order to produce a man's child? The victim was even willing to collect his kid elsewhere but they refused to say where the child was located!

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

Thanks, @tamsidea for sharing your local perspective and well as the Castle Doctrine.

I'm somewhat partial to the Code of the West myself but I have to ask if "Don't mess with Texas" doesn't somehow differentiate between Texas residents, or does this stance expand to include "Texans against Texans?"

And does the doctrine encourage shoot to kill? I don't believe the victim was armed.

I respect a man asking you to leave his property except when the man is looking for his children.

Personally, I can't think of anything more provoking than refusing a man his children, or the location of his children, when he arrives to collect them on the Court Ordered date and time (and I believe location). JMO

Here's how I see it. Generally speaking, guns tend to fall into a category of force known as "deadly force". Essentially, they are generally considered by default as weapons likely to cause death or grave bodily harm. This separates them from things like tasers or pepper spray. Therefore, from my own personal education and understanding of this subject, you should only use a gun if you are willing to kill whoever it is you are using the gun against. If you try to use it to incapacitate or to scare someone off, then in my opinion you are opening yourself up to a prosecutor arguing your use of force was unreasonable and therefore unlawful. That DOES NOT mean I think you should want to kill somebody. Self defense mandates people to ONLY use the degree of force necessary to stop a threat. Keep in mind I'm merely a layman, not a lawyer or self defense trainer. Please do your own research rather than simply take me at my word. I could be mistaken.

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

[Duplicate post

 

[Seattle1]

Here's how I see it. Generally speaking, guns tend to fall into a category of force known as "deadly force". Essentially, they are generally considered by default as weapons likely to cause death or grave bodily harm. This separates them from things like tasers or pepper spray. Therefore, from my own personal education and understanding of this subject, you should only use a gun if you are willing to kill whoever it is you are using the gun against. If you try to use it to incapacitate or to scare someone off, then in my opinion you are opening yourself up to a prosecutor arguing your use of force was unreasonable and therefore unlawful. That DOES NOT mean I think you should want to kill somebody. Self defense mandates people to ONLY use the degree of force necessary to stop a threat. Keep in mind I'm merely a layman, not a lawyer or self defense trainer. Please do your own research rather than simply take me at my word. I could be mistaken.

In other words, when KC came outside with his long gun, it was to kill the father. I suspected they wanted him to leave the property, forever.

One day the child will see the video and know the sad truth: no justice for his dad that died trying to see him (just as the Court provided in its Order).