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

[TrustedTracker5097]

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).
.

I can't speak for KC, but watching him come out yelling at Chad to leave, it looks to me like he was hoping the gun would be enough to scare Chad off the property. It doesn't sound like that's illegal in Texas in and of itself, and personally I have no problem with someone displaying a gun while defending property.

If we look at what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse for example, he and his companions had rifles visible for people to see. The guns were being used as a deterrent against people who were trying to destroy property. WHAT'S VERY IMPORTANT WITH THAT EVENT is that Kyle Rittenhouse ONLY POINTED AND SHOT at people who were in the process of threatening him with deadly force. I know some people debate that use of force, but that's going to have to be an argument for another forum or a private conversation.

I personally think the place where KC and KR deviate is that KR shot at people who were trying to kill him. KC fired into his porch, which I think suggests he failed to understand the appropriate time and place to use deadly force. Whatever thoughts you have about the fatal shots themselves, that warning shot seals the deal for me.

 

[Seattle1]

11/26/21 Chad Read Lubbock shooting and Kyle Carruth: What we know

Through her attorney Anthony Buzbee, Jennifer Read filed a petition alleging that Christina Read has endangered the well-being of two children by allowing them to be in the presence of Kyle Carruth.

"The children are aware that Kyle Carruth shot and killed their father in front of their mother, step-brother, and myself," Read's affidavit states. "Christina's decision to allow either of these children to be in Kyle Carruth's presence has caused, and continues to cause, significant impairment of their emotional well-being. The oldest child has expressed to me that he blames his mother for the shooting, and that he will run away from home if he sees Kyle there again."

[..]

The document alleges her husband was unarmed at the time, had no history of violence, and that he and his wife Christina "were simply arguing, like they had done many times before" but that "this time was different" due to Kyle Carruth's actions.

The suit alleges an extramarital affair between Christina Read and Kyle Carruth "that resulted in ill will towards Chad Read", and says that Kyle "needlessly escalated the situation" on Nov. 5.

“Every Texan has the right to defend themselves and their property—no one, however, has the right to interject themselves into someone else’s conversation, return and bring a gun to an otherwise nonviolent argument, escalate the argument to violence, creating a violent situation, and then shoot and kill an unarmed man.”

Lawsuit docs and more news at link above.

 

[Seattle1]

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

^^sbm

OK, I think I answered my own question: In Texas, don't produce a weapon unless you intend to use it. And not for a warning shot, you must shoot to kill to avoid being indicted. Whether it be your UNARMED neighbor, wife, or brother, etc..

And Austin is a lovely town-- good bbq and friendly folks.

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

^^sbm

OK, I think I answered my own question: In Texas, don't produce a weapon unless you intend to use it. And not for a warning shot, you must shoot to kill to avoid being indicted. Whether it be your UNARMED neighbor, wife, or brother, etc..

And Austin is a lovely town-- good bbq and friendly folks.

Even if that isn't the law in your jurisdiction, I think that's still a good rule of thumb. Btw you might still be indicted even in that scenario. Killing people tends to do that regardless of the presence of lack of justification for doing so. However your chances of being successfully convincted are likely to go down if you use deadly force in the proper manner against an imminent deadly threat. That's my understanding of the legal system at least.

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

Found this piece of law:

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.


Got it from this link:PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

So it looks like coming out with the gun in and of itself may have been okay LEGALLY. Still think doing that caused things to escalate though.

 

[Seattle1]

Found this piece of law:

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.


Got it from this link:PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

So it looks like coming out with the gun in and of itself may have been okay LEGALLY. Still think doing that caused things to escalate though.

I agree that coming out with the gun in and of itself caused things to escalate, and why I found the video so frightening.

@tamsidea also shared the Texas Castle Doctrine up thread (which I believe was Carruth's defense)...

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.

^^rsbm

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

I agree that coming out with the gun in and of itself caused things to escalate, and why I found the video so frightening.

@tamsidea also shared the Texas Castle Doctrine up thread (which I believe was Carruth's defense)...

^^rsbm

Seems the point we disagree on is where the provocation occurred. You appear to think coming out with the gun was provocation. I'm inclined to believe that's probably not the case. To me, Kyle firing a warning shot was the provocative behavior that killed his self defense claim. At that point he's unlawfully, or at least unreasonably, used deadly force and therefore lost his status as an innocent victim.

Btw I'm probably coming off as a huge nerd with all these long posts. If you're curious where all my views on this topic come from, I highly recommend checking out Attorney Andrew Branca and his book on the Law of Self Defense. The YouTube channel Active Self Protection is good material as well.

 

[worm]

Agreed @TrustedTracker5097. The shot to the floor was the “provoking” to me.

 

[Cryptic]

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

Very well said.

If he was party at all to keeping a parent from their child, I would have easily convicted him. Being party to would include game playing such as:

"No, your son is not here, like he should be. But.... he can be brought here- if you beg nicely".

 

[tamsidea]

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 absolutely can try again if he or she chooses. In fact, I learned last spring from a Texas case that the prosecutor can choose to take a case to trial even if the grand jury declines to indict. I just found out the local DA recused themselves from this case (probably because Carruth's ex is a judge) It was a special state prosecutor and MOO is that they will be fine with the grand jury's decision.
The whole thing really is sad. Parents using their kids as pawns in a battle of wills. If she cheated on him with Carruth (as the case Seattle1 quoted says) and then they tried pulling crap when it was supposed to be his time with the kids - it's no wonder Read was so angry and loud. I agree it was Carruth escalated the situation by bringing out his gun. Even if he had the right according to the law, it appeared to be more acting tough against a guy who was much bigger than he is. My impression as a bystander to grand jury hearings recently is that the procecuter has all the say about what is presented. They can present everything that points to guilt with no input at all from the defense. Then the grand jury just decides if what the prosecutor has is enough to convict based on just that info (meaning without knowing the full story) That makes me believe that had the special prosecutor wanted Carruth indicted, he would be. Maybe the civil suit will be more successful.

 

[Cryptic]

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?

Expanding on @tamsidea 's answer, the Grand Jury process is not a constitutional protection.

Rather, it was implemented for a variety of reasons including to screen out cases were convictions are unlikely or to serve as safety measure against creative or malicious prosecution by stopping the proceedings short of a trial.

Some jurisdictions do not even use the Grand Jury process. But.... many jurisdictions that have Grand Jurys give Grand Jury opinions (and that is really all a Grand Jury decision is) alot of weight.

Prosecutions after a case has been rejected by a Grand Jury are rare, but they still occur. In many (or all states) a prosecutor simply needs to make a decision to reject the Grand Jury opinion and proceed with a trial. They do not need to summon another Grand Jury- though they can if they want to.

Recent examples of this include the case of the Costco shooting in Riverside, CA. Off duty officer claims self defense after unprovoked attack. Local Grand Jury rejected the charges. State prosecutors rejected the Grand Jury opinion and filed charges citing that deadly force was not justified after the attack.

In an less well known case in my Texas city of an off duty officer chasing, stopping and executing a teen age car burglar and wounding another, the DA announced in advance that his office would still pursue charges- even if the Grand Jury rejected the case.

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.

What if I provoke the aggressor by say, keeping a parent from their child?

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

Expanding on @tamisdea 's answer, the Grand Jury process is not a constitutional protection.

Rather, it was implemented for a variety of reasons including to screen out cases were convictions are unlikely or to serve as safety measure against creative or malicious prosecution by stopping the proceedings short of a trial.

Some jurisdictions do not even use the Grand Jury process. But.... many jurisdictions that have Grand Jurys give Grand Jury opinions (and that is really all a Grand Jury decision is) alot of weight.

Prosecutions after a case has been rejected by a Grand Jury are rare, but they still occur. In many (or all states) a prosecutor simply needs to make a decision to reject the Grand Jury opinion and proceed with a trial. They do not need to summon another Grand Jury- though they can if they want to.

Recent examples of this include the case of the Costco shooting in Riverside, CA. Off duty officer claims self defense after unprovoked attack. Local Grand Jury rejected the case. State prosecutors rejected the Grand Jury opinion and filed charges.

In an less well known case in my Texas city of an off duty officer chasing, stopping and executing a teen age car burglar and wounding another, the DA announced in advance that his office would pursue charges even if the Grand Jury rejected the case.



What if I provoke the aggressor by say, keeping a parent from their child?

Do we know that KC was responsible for that? It seems likely he knew where the kid was but idk if that's been proven. Afak it was Chad's ex who moved the kid around.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Do we know that KC was responsible for that? It seems likely he knew where the kid was but idk if that's been proven. Afak it was Chad's ex who moved the kid around.

I think the point people are making is that Chad had every right to be there to pick up his kid and the act of aggression was keeping the kid from him. I really don't understand what information the grand jury was given that this was their conclusion.

 

[Cryptic]

Do we know that KC was responsible for that? It seems likely he knew where the kid was but idk if that's been proven. Afak it was Chad's ex who moved the kid around.

For me, if it could be demonstrated to a good degree that:

-Kc and ex wife lived together.
- The kid was required to be at that location at that time.
- That the deceased was there to pick up the kid.
- That KC knew why the deceased was there (pick up kid)
- That the ex wife was playing games with the deceased ("No, kid is not here, but he can be brought here- if... I decide to")

It would be enough for me to say that he was party to the provocation. It would not matter whether or not the ex wife was technically the one who failed to produce the kid or that the ex wife was technically the one who was vocalizing the "games".

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

I think the point people are making is that Chad had every right to be there to pick up his kid and the act of aggression was keeping the kid from him. I really don't understand what information the grand jury was given that this was their conclusion.

Sure. I completely get why he was angry. Of course one could also argue that if a homeowner tells you to leave their property, it might be better to call the cops or reach out to the courts rather than stay and risk a trespass charge. And look at the outcome. If Chad Read knew that staying and confronting Kyle would cost him his life and leave his kids without their father, do you think he'd have done it? I feel awful for Chad and his family, but if there's anything that I think all the people who were involved here taught us, it's learning to pick your battles.

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

For me, if it could be demonstrated to a good degree that:

- The kid was required to be at that location at that time.
- That the deceased was there to pick up the kid.
- That KC knew why the deceased was there (pick up kid)
- That the ex wife was playing games with the deceased ("No, kid is not here, but he can be brought here- if... I decide to")

It would be enough for me to say that he was party to the provocation. It would not matter whether or not the ex wife was technically the one who failed to produce the kid or that the ex wife was technically the one who was vocalizing the "games".

Maybe that's true. It sounds like KC knew the kid wasn't where he was supposed to be, but for all we know he let his gf(Chad's ex) deal with that stuff and kept his nose out of the finer details. Not saying that's what I believe necessarily, but if you want to convince a jury that KC was part of a conspiracy to keep Chad's kids away from him, you gotta be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Sure. I completely get why he was angry. Of course one could also argue that if a homeowner tells you to leave their property, it might be better to call the cops or reach out to the courts rather than stay and risk a trespass charge. And look at the outcome. If Chad Read knew that staying and confronting Kyle would cost him his life and leave his kids without their father, do you think he'd have done it? I feel awful for Chad and his family, but if there's anything that I think all the people who were involved here taught us, it's learning to pick your battles.

I'm not familiar with TX law, but I doubt that trespass outside the house when the person has every right to be there, justifies killing them. MOO, but I can't see any way in which KC felt his life was in danger until he brought the gun out and upped the ante. He's the one who escalated the situation and provoked the victim.

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

I'm not familiar with TX law, but I doubt that trespass outside the house when the person has every right to be there, justifies killing them. MOO, but I can't see any way in which KC felt his life was in danger until he brought the gun out and upped the ante. He's the one who escalated the situation and provoked the victim.

Well you're right about trespass not warranting deadly force. However, I did post a link to a section of Texas Statute which suggests presenting a firearm on your property is not deadly force legally speaking. Seems like KC made the rookie mistake of believing his gun was a magic talisman which would frighten Chad enough to make him leave. I agree that act definitely escalated things unnecessarily, but provocation, legally speaking, is a different matter entirely. If coming out with the gun was lawful, I don't see how that could be legally determined to be provocation.

Remember, the legal definition of terms can often differ greatly from the layman definition. Was coming out with a rifle provocative in the lay sense? Absolutely. Was it legally provocation? Probably not depending on whether Texas law permitted it.

 

[Gardenista]

For me, if it could be demonstrated to a good degree that:

-Kc and ex wife lived together.
- The kid was required to be at that location at that time.
- That the deceased was there to pick up the kid.
- That KC knew why the deceased was there (pick up kid)
- That the ex wife was playing games with the deceased ("No, kid is not here, but he can be brought here- if... I decide to")

It would be enough for me to say that he was party to the provocation. It would not matter whether or not the ex wife was technically the one who failed to produce the kid or that the ex wife was technically the one who was vocalizing the "games".

What if?
-Kc and ex wife did not live together.
- The kid was not required to be at that location at that time.
- That the deceased was there to pick up the kid, against the terms of the custody order
- That KC knew the deceased was there (because he's a jerk)
- Chad was playing games with the ex-wife ("I know the kid is not supposed to be here, but I'm just mad my ex is in a relationship with someone who used to be my friend")

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

Please disregard. Post had bad info due to my own laziness.