Patterico's Pontifications

11/26/2021

Is This Self-Defense?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:40 pm



Even putting the self-defense issues aside for a moment, this is a mess:

The widow of a Lubbock father who died in a fatal shooting in South Lubbock earlier this month is seeking custody of her step-children to keep them away from the shooter, who is also in a relationship with their mother.

Jennifer Read, through her attorney, Matthew Harris, also released video of the shooting that she recorded.

No charges or arrests have been made yet in the Nov. 5 shooting death of 54-year-old Chad Read at a home in the 2100 block of 90th Street.

Meanwhile, investigators have turned over their files to the Texas Attorney General’s Office, who is handling any potential prosecution in the case after the Lubbock County District Attorney Sunshine Stanek recused her office from the case, citing that the suspect in the shooting was related to a local elected official who could be called as a witness.

Background details are available here. The local elected official is a judge who is the ex-wife of the shooter, Kyle Carruth, who is the boyfriend of Christina Read, the ex-wife of the decedent, Chad Read. Standing outside taking video is Jennifer Read, the wife (at the time of the shooting; now widow) of Chad Read, the decedent. Got that? It’s OK if you have to read it a few times to process it.

So Chad Read showed up at the home of his ex-wife Christina Read to pick up his son (their son) at a court-ordered time. The son was not available.

During the argument, Christina could be heard saying the child was not home and that she was going to fetch him. She also said that she didn’t abide by the court ordered deadline because she wanted to see their son.

“I don’t care if you wanted to see him or not,” Chad Read said. “I get him at 3:15 p.m. If you want to see him, you see him up until 3:15. You keep trying to keep my son from me.”

Chad Read started yelling about how he was going to subpoena everyone in creation, including Judge Anne-Marie Carruth. Kyle Carruth told Chad Read to leave the property; he did not. Then Kyle Carruth emerged with a rifle.

This video shows the shooting from two angles.

As Kyle Carruth emerges with the rifle, he says: “I’m glad this is on video. I’m very glad. Leave!” Instead of leaving, Chad Read gets in Kyle Carruth’s face, and yells: “Good. You’d better fucking use it, motherfucker!” Kyle Carruth responds: “I will.” Chad Read continues: “‘Cause goddammit, I’ll fucking take it from you and use it on you!”

(I will digress for a moment to say that I have read a lot of police reports of a lot of shootings. One of the most common things said by a shooting victim right before he is shot to death is some variant of the phrase: “If you’re going to shoot, shoot!” In the annals of Famous Last Words, that is a very common set of Last Words.)

Chad Read, in Kyle Carruth’s face, demands: “Where’s my son?” Kyle Carruth responds: “I don’t have your son.” Chad Read looks down at the rifle and moves his left hand towards it as if he is about to grab it. As he is doing so, Kyl Carruth says: “Get out of my face, you” as he backs up a step and fires a shot at Chad Read’s feet. Chad Read says “think that fuckin’ scares me, bitch?” and grabs both Carruth and the weapon. Chad Read sort of pulls/pushes Kyle Carruth off the porch and Kyle Carruth steps back a couple of steps away from the house. Chad Read says again: “Think that fuckin'” — which are the last words he ever utters, as Kyle Carruth then drops Chad Read to the ground with two shots.

Everyone seems eerily calm as Chad Read lies there dead or dying. Jennifer Read says: “Call 911! I have it on video, Kyle. You did it, not him.” Kyle Carruth says: “I told all of y’all to leave.” Jennifer Read says: “We came to get his son.” Kyle Carruth response: “He’s not here. This is my place of employment. [sic] None of y’all should be here. None of y’all should be here. I asked you to leave. I did everything. I did not want to do any of this.”

The usual rules around self-defense require that one use deadly force only in response to deadly force. It will be up to prosecutors, and (if charges are filed) jurors to decide whether Chad Read’s action in trying to grab the rifle constitutes a threat of deadly force.

I remember discussing the “deadly force in response to deadly force” concept in torts class in law school. In one of the few times I ever spoke up in our larger section, I challenged the professor, who said that if you draw your weapon and someone continues to advance on you, you can’t fire at him because he has not yet threatened you with deadly force. It was my contention that continuing to advance on someone who has produced a weapon signals an intent to wrestle the weapon away and use it on the person holding the firearm. Here, Chad Read didn’t just advance on Kyle Carruth; Chad Read actually grabbed for the weapon. But that was after Kyle Carruth had already fired at Chad Read’s feet. But that was after Chad Read had threatened to take the rifle from Kyle Carruth and use it on him.

Messy. Just like the whole situation. Jennifer Read has now filed a petition to get custody of the children from Christina Read:

Through an attorney, 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.”

I can see a prosecutor or jury concluding that this was self-defense. But I can see a jury deciding otherwise, too. Ultimately, I think Chad Read’s threat to take the rifle and use it on Kyle Carruth is likely what will decide the case in Kyle Carruth’s favor. But you never know.

178 Responses to “Is This Self-Defense?”

  1. Given the video and circumstance, I don’t think they can get him on murder, but if the prosecutor is smart, he or she will go for manslaughter and have a far better chance of conviction.

    Also, as the child of a single mother myself, that mom is a b**ch for passive-aggressively disobeying court-ordered visitations.

    Factory Working Orphan (490897)

  2. All of this is horrible, but the part that really bothers me is right after the shooting, where this guy is laying there dying and no one seems to care. They are still bickering about why the kid isn’t available. Kyle is just standing there with his rifle, making it impossible for anyone to help Chad.

    That decision was not self defense. I also don’t think Chad was a threat before Kyle got in his face screaming at him. Chad just wanted to pick up his son. Granted he was freaking out. Granted when the warning shot was fired and they were both trying to be the big man, Chad was a threat, but if someone surprised you with a rifle in your face, you won’t be able to make a good decision. You’ll go straight to fight or flight.

    Horrible people all around as far as I can tell. They do need to get the kid out of this home.

    Dustin (a145cf)

  3. Also, as the child of a single mother myself, that mom is a b**ch for passive-aggressively disobeying court-ordered visitations.

    Factory Working Orphan (490897) — 11/26/2021 @ 1:03 pm

    Yeah. That will come across as attempting to infuriate Chad.

    I think it would be difficult to get 12 people to agree on murder. But I hope this makes it to a jury.

    Dustin (a145cf)

  4. They should have listened to the woman at 1:19 who said “call 911″.

    steveg (e81d76)

  5. Another thought, Kyle ran away from Chad to get into a better shooting position maybe 15 feet away. Chad wasn’t really a threat at all. The only time Chad was a real threat was when he was trying to grab a weapon while being screamed at. The more I think about that, the less I think this is self-defense. Kyle had no duty to retreat, but he did retreat, and killed Chad anyway, apparently for trespassing, and not for self defense.

    Dustin (a145cf)

  6. Yeah, my main reaction to this was: 1) my God is everyone calm as Chad lies there dead, and 2) he had a right to see the kid. But in terms of technicalities, the threat to kill Kyle combined with grabbing for the gun a couple of times may be the clincher.

    Patterico (42d876)

  7. Another thought, Kyle ran away from Chad to get into a better shooting position maybe 15 feet away.

    Yeah, but he only sort of “ran away” because he also had been thrown off the porch in almost the same motion.

    There are no truly good people in this scenario.

    Patterico (42d876)

  8. Oh, I didn’t catch that he was pushed off the porch. Chad is a lot bigger and you can tell he wanted to beat the hell out of kyle at that point.

    Both these guys going to jail for a fist fight might have been the best resolution. This is a great case for gun control advocates. Beto must be very frustrated.

    Dustin (a145cf)

  9. Yeah, pretty shocking the callousness….Kyle looked as if he had just shot a raccoon…no more, no less. And no shock and alarm from Chad’s wife….trying to rush in or screaming

    It was clearly the big-man complex on full display….Chad should have immediately backed off when the gun came out….trying to take the gun and saying he was going to kill him…..turned the dial on the situation to 11. Even after a warning shot, Chad did not back off.

    Was the gun needed in this situation? Bringing it out certainly escalated the situation. It was an argument….that Chad’s ex-wife exacerbated. Chad was heated and the presence of the gun made him do something stupid. I don’t think it’s murder but manslughter? I come from a school that would hold that Kyle had some obligation to back away. Neither his home or wife were in immediate danger until he came out with the gun. He caused the situation to get out of control and though he did not intend to kill Chad when he came out….he did kill him. It will be interesting how he gets charged and what the jury will say.

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  10. I think Everyone in the video sucks. I hope the prosecutors look over the situation with an eye towards charging everyone involved if the broke the law. Had any of the participants been more mature this could have had better outcome. A complete tragedy.

    Time123 (3fd5c4)

  11. Awful situation. He’s going to jail, imo. Went into the house and came back out with a weapon, re-engaging in the conflict without anyone in imminent danger of harm. He could have closed the door and called the cops. Fired a “warning shot” which shows he knew his life was not in danger but he fired anyway.

    Chris (09d6dd)

  12. I agree with Dustin. None of those involved, should ever be around children. Im not shocked. It looked like no one was surprised that the guy who died; had it coming

    EPWJ (0fbe92)

  13. But the over calmness was surreal

    EPWJ (0fbe92)

  14. What I don’t know pretty much fills all the books in the Texas Law Library and Library of Congress.
    But thats never stopped me before so..

    Hostile exchange on the porch over visitation
    Carruth goes into house and gets a rifle, goes back onto porch instead of putting the former Mrs Read in the house and closing and locking the door, calling 911.
    Argument resumes on the porch, but now its about the firearm and it gets physical over the firearm.
    Carruth breaks physical contact, moves off porch, stops, shoots. From the size of the magazine looks like a small caliber rifle, sounds like one too, so the impact didn’t push Mr Read back, so it doesn’t seem like Mr Read left the porch in pursuit.

    I’m guessing Carruth wins if it goes to court because Mr Read tried to grab the gun, said he’d use it on Carruth, Carruth is the smaller man etc.

    Carruth probably came within 15 feet of being convicted. If Carruth had retreated another 10- 15 feet and then shot Mr. Read on the porch, self defense becomes a harder sell

    steveg (e81d76)

  15. He didn’t get the gun or fire the warning shot because he was afraid he would be harmed. He did that because he wanted Chad to leave.

    I bet a lot is made of whether Chad died because no one would help him as he laid there and Kyle is strutting like he bagged a 9 point buck.

    All that said, had Chad run away shouting ‘don’t shoot’ and showed that video to the court, he would be eating leftover pie with his son right now. Your ego is not your amigo. Running is a good first plan if you’re not on some kind of courageous mission.

    Dustin (a145cf)

  16. I’ll admit I’m trying to avoid the video for now. But I’d like to know about more confrontations prior to this because a) there’s is an odd clam from everyone especially the shooter and b) the

    None of y’all should be here. I asked you to leave. I did everything. I did not want to do any of this.”

    exchange seems odd. It might seem more organic in the video. But I can’t help thinking something is going on directly carried over from a prior exchange that goes beyond just ongoing frustration.

    frosty (1e6b9e)

  17. OMG I’m so scared of this guy on my porch I better run into my home, get my gun, and then get inches from his face screaming at him… I’m so scared right now guys.

    Dustin (a145cf)

  18. Also if Carruth wins either in court or by no charges filed, he should dump that woman

    Paul Simon has some advice

    You just slip out the back, Jack
    Make a new plan, Stan
    You don’t need to be coy, Roy
    Just get yourself free
    Hop on the bus, Gus
    You don’t need to discuss much
    Just drop off the key, Lee
    And get yourself free

    steveg (e81d76)

  19. 17. Good point. But you have the right to defend yourself and your property. But it’s a close call. The shooter can also use the argument that he went to get his gun, even fired a warning shot. And yet…

    EPWJ (0fbe92)

  20. True, SteveG.

    Dustin (a145cf)

  21. As a cop, I have a problem with Kyle going back into the house and retrieving the gun. It does not appear anyones life was in danger prior to that point. Chad was threatening to take people to court, not threatening physical violence. If he had been told to leave and refused, he was trespassing, but it does not appear he ever tried to force entry into the home itself. Maybe the idiot with the camera should have been calling 911 instead of filming (an unfortunately common situation, these days). It may not be premeditated murder, but I think there’s enough to bring a lesser charge like manslaughter.

    Edoc118 (0d80b9)

  22. It’s surreal that a man lays dead and/or dying on the front porch and no one cares. They’re more concerned with the “who did it” part of the event. IOW, how self-consumed must a person be that they don’t even react to killing someone or witnessing the death of someone? I can’t wrap my mind around that.

    I don’t see it as self-defense because deadly force wasn’t used in response to deadly force.

    Dana (174549)

  23. 17. Good point. But you have the right to defend yourself and your property. But it’s a close call. The shooter can also use the argument that he went to get his gun, even fired a warning shot. And yet…

    EPWJ (0fbe92) — 11/26/2021 @ 2:10 pm

    Great to see you, btw.

    I agree he’s got a self defense claim, and on the surface of it, it’s strong. The guy Kyle shot threatened to take his gun and shoot him with it.

    But the more I think about it, it’s basically the argument against Kyle Rittenhouse, only it’s fair this time. Why take a safe situation, where Chad’s in the right, then run up to him with a gun yelling at him until Chad taking the gun is the threat you need to kill Chad to prevent?

    All Kyle accomplished was that Chad didn’t get the gun that Kyle could have left inside the whole time. So this was really about the trespassing, not the threat.

    Dustin (a145cf)

  24. They’re more concerned with the “who did it” part of the event.

    Dana, it’s as though they’ve all ranted at eachother about blame many times before, and couldn’t resist falling into that instead of trying to stop the bleeding and get an ambulance. A lot of scoring by people who want to score a point and narrate history, and as usual with these sorts of debates, no one really cares about the kid’s best interest. They just redefined his childhood into a horror story.

    Dustin (a145cf)

  25. 23

    Its a mess that 911 could have fixed – sad all around

    EPWJ (0fbe92)

  26. A man’s home in his castle and Carruth was standing his ground in front of a guy who wouldn’t take “no” for an answer. Even if Read was in his legal rights claim custody of his kid at 3:15pm, he was threatening a man on his own property. Bad move.
    It’s a hot take, but I think Carruth shouldn’t be prosecuted, but he should pay through the nose in a civil case.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  27. congrats on the ex getting the dad out of the kid’s life

    she knew the pot she was stirring

    and she clearly doesn’t care that her son is devastated, scarred will hate her for the rest of her life

    i think the legal questions here are nice thought exercises but ultimately of secondary importance

    my brother went through the same nonsense of the ex playing games with the drop off times, and there was surprisingly very little legal recourse

    the dad is just supposed to take it, and when he doesn’t a mess can occur

    this crap doesn’t happen if the dad has some faith in a legal solution, and that’s where the legal thought exercises can actually do some good

    and, the wife was calm cuz she says she thought it was a paintball gun and not a real one

    JF (5d04c8)

  28. Kyle provoked a reaction…and in the heat of an argument….it was the wrong reaction by Chad. But introducing the gun into the argument transformed an imminent fist fight…into a struggle for the gun….and an unnecessary shooting. Kyle could have continued to retreat. Simply arguing that Chad was bigger doesn’t give license to shoot him on your porch. My snap, under-informed opinion would be manslaughter….and some counseling for the women….geeesh

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  29. Mr. Read would be alive and one up on his ex if he’d called 911 and said “my ex-wife won’t follow visitation rules for today for my son. I’m in my truck outside the home at 11 XYZ street where I’m suppposed to do the pick up”

    The winner in this bunch is the new Mrs Read, but she probably is unaware of her good fortune. Mr Read acted like a bullying rage- O- holic. ex-Mrs Read is the classic horrible woman who pits men against each other, Carruth sees Mr Read’s rage and goes full Jack Russell Terrier.

    A pox on all their houses

    steveg (e81d76)

  30. R.I.P. Stephen Sondheim, 91

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  31. And yes, every single participant in the exchange were a-holes and bad people.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  32. I hope the kids can move forward from this train wreck.

    mg (8cbc69)

  33. the shooter’s marital relationship to a judge is also fishy

    did this have any role in the shooter’s motivation to kill the deceased, who threatened to expose something?

    did this influence the decision not to charge the shooter?

    this isn’t just about the castle doctrine

    JF (5d04c8)

  34. A man’s home in his castle and Carruth was standing his ground in front of a guy who wouldn’t take “no” for an answer. Even if Read was in his legal rights claim custody of his kid at 3:15pm, he was threatening a man on his own property. Bad move.
    It’s a hot take, but I think Carruth shouldn’t be prosecuted, but he should pay through the nose in a civil case.

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 11/26/2021 @ 2:28 pm

    I don’t like disagreeing with you, Paul, but yes, a man’s home is his castle and Carruth was standing his ground from a man who wouldn’t take “no” for an answer, but Carruth greatly escalated the danger of the situation by bringing a firearm out from the house and confronting Read with it. Carruth could’ve called 911 from the porch. Read wasn’t armed. They (both Carruth and the woman) could have gone inside, locked the doors, and called the police from there. They chose not to.

    Moreover, while the men were scuffling, the woman standing there could have called 911 as soon as it became clear the dad was getting heated about the situation and/or when Carruth came out of the house with a gun.

    Dana (174549)

  35. Yeah, my main reaction to this was: 1) my God is everyone calm as Chad lies there dead,

    Yes. As if they were playing out a scene for a TV show. The stunning and utterly matter-of-fact, cold-minded, brain-dead reactions of all around after one idiot shoots the other idiot is quite disturbing. Nobody went to his aid.

    IMO, the proper response was to call 911, go inside, lock up and wait for the authorities. The escalation occurred when the angry imbecile brought out a gun. Always comes back to the same thing: the gun. No gun, no issue. Just hot air, maybe fisticuffs, but nobody shot dead.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  36. Dustin, really appreciate your input on this. It’s insightful. Thank you.

    Time123 (3fd5c4)

  37. Normally leaving your ex wife judge and moving in immediately with another woman would be seen as a negative.
    I can see judges recusing themselves because they might know the guy personally, but favorable treatment?

    steveg (e81d76)

  38. There are two video segments there, and the fist one is the kind that gets shown on TV and the second is what the jury sees. The first one seems horrific and without cause. The second one …

    I would be inclined, after a couple of viewings (and without reading any of the comments) to think that while self-defense might have been an issue at a few points, I would reject the defense as it happened, were I on a jury and no new facts were entered.

    1) Kyle went and got the gun, presumably to bluff Read off the property. Bluff did not work and now a pushing match (which could eventually have been dealt with by a 911 call) is now existential.

    2) Yes, Read does threaten to grab the gun and use it, but makes no serious effort to do so — he too is bluffing.

    3) At the point where Read’s hand(s) are on the weapon, there is a point of maximum danger and if the gun had “gone off” and killed Read at that point I think that no one would call it murder (although some might have a problem with the introduction of the gun, as per Rittenhouse).

    4) At the point where Kyle fires, Read is 6 feet away and not moving forwards. Had he been charging forward again, then we get back to point 3. But he wasn’t. We don’t know what was in his mind then, but it was not clearly further confrontation since his odds of charging an armed man were now poor.

    So, I don’t see the threat that I need to see to call it self-defense. Past threats in different circumstances are less important to me than current ones. Without further inspection or information, this looks like voluntary manslaughter to me.

    Also, the widow’s motion should be granted as Kyle and Christina were not abiding the shared custody terms and there seems to be no way they would going forward.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  39. Also if Carruth wins either in court or by no charges filed, he should dump that woman

    I was thinking vice-versa. Carruth is dangerous and I doubt he will even have a legal weapon again, not even in Texas.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  40. IMO, if he’d shot him once, in the arm or leg to immobilize him, s/d would fit– but two rounds dead center to the chest after a ‘warning shot’ to the feet, appeared to be squeezed off in the anger of the moment, not in fear or defense– especially after he did it and just stood there in a defiant stance and talked away– as no fear ever seemed exhibited or any what most of us would consider concern as a normal human reaction to what he’d just did. To be sure, the back story establishes ‘battlefield’ for the events. But he brought the gun to a ‘wife fight.’ What would they call it– manslaughter or 2nd degree murder… just don’t see a clear path to s/d IMO.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  41. This is Texas, and we cannot apply American laws of use of force. Remember the lady of Crawford who threatened the Danish reporter with a revolver because he was standing on her lawn? Not charged with anything. The guy who shot an escort in the back because she was walking away with his $150? Acquitted. And have we forgotten Joe Horn?

    nk (1d9030)

  42. But the more I think about it, it’s basically the argument against Kyle Rittenhouse, only it’s fair this time.

    Rittenhouse took the weapon with him prospectively — he had no target in mind, nor did he plan on using the gun in any way except as a visible deterrent.

    Carruth went and got the gun with the target in mind and a plan to use it if he “had to.” It took him a minute or two to retrieve the gun, load it, etc. Is that long enough for premeditation to occur? The “WTF am I doing?!” thought never seemed to come up.

    Also, Rittenhouse had not retreated inside a store to get his gun. If he had, and come out to face “the danger” the jury would have quickly convicted him of something.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  43. instead of trying to stop the bleeding and get an ambulance

    I had the feeling that the shooting didn’t seem real to them, or that no one really gave a damn about Read dying.

    Or maybe they were on to other thoughts:

    Kyle: “Got the ***ker”
    Christina: “Good!”
    Jennifer: “I am so going to clean up with this video!”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  44. the shooter’s marital relationship to a judge is also fishy

    I got that, too. It’s as if the judge’s connection was used in previous arguments and Read seemed to thing that Carruth was hiding behind her in some way.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  45. I am pretty sure this would be prosecuted in Los Angeles or Austin. What will Paxton do?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  46. Just an observation- but isn’t that blue sign in the yard for some home intruder alert company, too? Were they contcted/alerted in any of this?

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  47. 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.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    Did the decedent “create an apprehension of deadly fotce” or did he do more?

    Also, I see discussion in articles about self defense under the Castle Doctrine, but the shooter said this was his workplace. So the shooter may have a problem there, too.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  48. But maybe a threat to take someone else’s weapon is not the same as producing a weapon?

    DRJ (03cb91)

  49. AJ- Yeah, pretty shocking the callousness….Kyle looked as if he had just shot a raccoon…no more, no less

    A similar reaction; immediate to me was it looked, by his after shoot open stance, as if he’d just shot a lion on a hunt.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  50. I am not sure what kind of gun that was — a rifle o r a shotgun? It looked like a shotgun to me. If so, at that distance, there was not much point in trying to get help. He was dead.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  51. 46, might the security company be obligated only if an alarm (door, motion detector, garage) was activated and breached though they have camera service.

    urbanleftbehind (0e4b26)

  52. Edoc118,

    Agreed, especially since the shooter said this was his workplace. Maybe he worked from home but that is a different issue. Workplaces are typically open to the public and should be protected in different ways, typically by calling the police.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  53. I think Sec. 9.04 pretty much immunizes the shooter, DRJ. It makes it okay for him to go and arm himself and it makes it not an aggravated assault to point the gun at the intended shootee.

    That second is a much litigated question in these parts. Is the mere fact of pointing a gun the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm and does the gun-waver need a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm?

    nk (1d9030)

  54. I agree the shooter has no problems getting the gun and pointing it. I am not sure about the shooting.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  55. My Dad said to never point a gun unless you plan to shoot it. Never use a gun as a threat.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  56. DRJ, I think it was a 9mm carbine: https://ruger.com/products/pcCarbine/models.html

    Look for that little magazine.

    Your dad’s advice was wise. Nobody forgets a gun pointed at them.

    Dustin (a145cf)

  57. I get where you’re coming from, Dana, but I was thinking in primal caveman Montagu mode here. When the other Neanderthal crossed my firepit and started beating his chest and making ugly threatening noises, I was in my rights to wave my club around and then swing it when he didn’t leave my piece of dirt. The legalities of it are something else, I’m sure.
    I’m probably also thinking that I never should have claimed as mine the woman who put me in that situation. Also, the kids are probably better off if the clan raises ’em, not any of the troglodytes involved.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  58. Kevin M

    The reason I thought Carruth should leave the woman was she didn’t fulfill her responsibilities and then he’s left in an awkward spot that he is not capable of dealing with because he’s as hot headed as her ex..
    Carruth should acknowledge his limitations and decide not to be with women that do that kind of crap because he has no negotiation skills.

    The dynamic they have together is toxic, she clearly likes to be with hotheaded idiots (two in a row at least) and my bet would be she needs her fix of chaos again soon

    steveg (e81d76)

  59. R.I.P. Stephen Sondheim

    Icy (6abb50)

  60. Man’s gotta defend what’s his even if it is a miserable poor thing, Paul.

    nk (1d9030)

  61. I remember discussing the “deadly force in response to deadly force” concept in torts class in law school. In one of the few times I ever spoke up in our larger section, I challenged the professor, who said that if you draw your weapon and someone continues to advance on you, you can’t fire at him because he has not yet threatened you with deadly force. It was my contention that continuing to advance on someone who has produced a weapon signals an intent to wrestle the weapon away and use it on the person holding the firearm.

    Patterico, please let us know how the professor responded to your challenge. It seems to me that this is the crux of the issue (what determines “deadly force”).

    Dana (174549)

  62. Shooter’s counsel explains why it is self-defense:

    Carruth’s attorney, David M. Guinn with Hurley, Guinn & Singh, has argued that the shooting was self-defense.

    “All Texans may lawfully brandish a firearm to protect themselves, their property and their business.” Guinn said.

    Guinn told EverythingLubbock.com that Read threatened to take the gun from Carruth. He also said the manner in which Carruth advanced towards him poised “an immediate threat” to his client. 

    “This is a justifiable homicide,” Guinn contended.

    https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/news/2021/11/26/chad-read-shooting-kyle-carruth-lubbock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

    DRJ (03cb91)

  63. Basically, the same argument that Patterico made in class.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  64. This is a messy case. Perfect for a law school exam. It even has a DA named Sunshine.

    Even if it is legal to brandish a gun, does that make it legal/self-defense to shoot? I don’t think so, and I am not sure it is something that can be answered as a matter of law.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  65. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXqaL2wkTSY

    Somebody yells OMG or such in this version w/more audio

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  66. Patterico, please let us know how the professor responded to your challenge.

    It was Professor Anderson. (I think DRJ might be familiar with him.) I don’t remember his precise response, other than to say that simply advancing wasn’t deadly force. I left the exchange feeling unsatisfied.

    Patterico (379be7)

  67. My Dad said to never point a gun unless you plan to shoot it. Never use a gun as a threat.

    DRJ (03cb91) — 11/26/2021 @ 4:17 pm

    Your dad gave good advice. Similar advice is don’t point at something you don’t intend to kill/destroy.

    The shoot to wound stuff is nonsense.

    frosty (f27e97)

  68. Based on the headline I thought it would be about this story:

    Police in Orange City believe a woman intentionally hit a motorcyclist and took off before being shot and killed around 5 p.m. Saturday.

    Investigators say the motorcyclist and several witnesses followed her home, and there was then a confrontation right in her front yard.

    Police say 36-year-old Sara Nicole Morales had the intent to hit a motorcyclist on Volusia Avenue after some kind of incident and then took off. The motorcyclist was not seriously hurt. He then followed her, along with several witnesses to the hit-and-run, and one of those witnesses called 911.

    “The lady just took off and left. What kind of vehicle was it? It’s a blue Kia,” the caller said.

    Police say the motorcyclist and others were trying to get Morales to stop but that she refused. She turned onto east Wisconsin and drove a mile or more to her home with the hit-and-run victim and several others in pursuit.

    Police say Morales ran inside and came back out with a gun. On the call, you can hear Morales briefly yelling at the motorcyclist and then gunshots.

    According to police, multiple shots were allegedly fired at Morales by the hit and run motorcycle victim, after he claimed she pointed a gun at him. Several of the witnesses backed that up.

    A bonus twist: the decedent was pregnant.

    https://www.wesh.com/article/librarian-shot-killed-orange-city/38320147

    Davethulhu (67c626)

  69. This one really is a mess that just gets more messy.

    https://news.yahoo.com/know-fatal-shooting-chris-read-191842126.html

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  70. I had a Prof Anderson for Property. Maybe he taught Torts later but I don’t think Torts or Crim Law were his specialty, if it is the same professor.

    I didn’t talk much as a 1L either, except if a prof called on me, but I recall disagreeing with him once in class. It seemed to irritate him, which was unusual. Most professors liked to be challenged.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  71. “All Texans may lawfully brandish a firearm to protect themselves, their property and their business.”

    Was anyone in immediate physical peril (to justify going and getting a gun)? Was his property in jeopardy? Was Kyle in fear of Chad entering his house by force? Or was he just pissed off and wanted to intimidate Chad…and really didn’t think through what was going to happen if Chad did not back down or leave…and in fact physically challenged him? I see a disregard for human life. Texas likely does not have a duty to retreat….yes, I’m too lazy to go look…..but here Kyle made no effort to retreat away from Chad and de-escalate the encounter. He wanted a reason to shoot…and Chad gave him one. I think most juries will distinguish this from an out-of-control argument where these is clear violence. Chad reaching for the gun puts it into the gray…but if you want more people settling disputes by shooting people, don’t prosecute……

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  72. It seems odd that people kept videotaping after the shooting when someone they care about is hurt, but it is clearly a trend.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  73. I’m not sure that is the issue, AJ. Whether someone can legally brandish a gun is different than whether they can shoot someone else in self defense. That is why the shooters attorney said the decedent “threatened to take the gun from Carruth” and the manner in which Carruth advanced towards him poised “an immediate threat” to the shooter.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  74. He wanted a reason to shoot…and Chad gave him one.

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f) — 11/26/2021 @ 7:55 pm

    This is why I’d be interested in prior interactions. I don’t think fear of eminent death was the only emotion motivating the shooter.

    frosty (f27e97)

  75. This Trxas Tribune article says Texas eliminated the duty to retreat at home, work, or any place after the Trayvon Martin case. I did not know that.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  76. True, frosty. They knew each other.

    Clearly the decedent would have had reason to fear someone brandishing a gun, but that doesn’t mean the shooter had reason to fear the decedent. The basis for that is (perhaps) that the decedent was bigger, threatening, and had pushed the shooter off the porch. It can also be argued the decedent intended to grab the gun. But, to me, it is probably a question of fact for a jury whether that was enough to justify the use of deadly force.

    If they had been strangers, I doubt past actions would be admissible to guide a jury but in this case, they might.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  77. This story, especially the video, doesn’t feel real. It feels like performance art but it is real.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  78. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE.

    I would say the guy with the rifle was the one who brought “deadly force” into the argument, not the decedent who only reacted when a gun was pointed at him and a shot was placed at his feet.

    Calling the thing self-defense is ludicrous. Now if Read had taken the rifle away and clubbed Carruth with it, not a jury in the world would have called it assault.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  79. I am not sure what kind of gun that was

    Shooting a shotgun at the guy’s feet would have had a different result. And the would would be different, too. This was a small-caliber semi-auto rifle.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  80. I think Sec. 9.04 pretty much immunizes the shooter, DRJ

    Why, because Read threatened to sue him? The first threat of deadly force was the rifle arriving. That Read grabbed the rifle was the defense you are talking about. You may think that Read was trespassing, but a court visitation order gave him some rights to enter the property.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  81. … but if you want more people settling disputes by shooting people, don’t prosecute……

    I think the concern here for Texas gunowners would be in the brandishing more than the shooting.

    If people decide to brandish their guns to intimidate people who disagree with them, that is not helpful. The use of force and the threat of force should be used only if needed for protection. These were not strangers. Maybe the decedent had threatened them before and using a gun was needed for protection, but maybe not.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  82. Thanks, Dustin and Kevin. I see now it was a rifle.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  83. @76 If there had been prior episodes of “I’ll do X” and possibly gun brandishing and what not this can start to look more like the shooter just having had enough.

    frosty (f27e97)

  84. I won’t say this is premeditation, and I think this does go back to previous interactions, but the way Carruth went back for his rifle tells me that Read had made this scene before (and of course his ex is not absolved here), and Carruth decided beforehand that if Read pulls this stunt again, he was going to grab his gun and take the conflict to the next level, either as a deterrent or to shoot the mofo if he gets too belligerent. You could tell that this wasn’t the first time Read went off on people who didn’t give him what he wanted.
    I should also say that this is complete 100% speculation, spitballing as it were.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  85. Shooter’s counsel explains why it is self-defense

    Shooter’s mouthpiece is supposed to say that. But bringing out the gun in the first place caused the problem.

    Let’s recap:

    * Read has a court-order for visitation.
    * Despite that, Read’s ex is playing games with the kid and claims the child is elsewhere. “Because”
    * Read gets upset. Carruth steps in to back his shrew’s play.
    * Read gets more upset. Testosterone flows.
    * Carruth retreats into the house, perhaps fearing violence, although Read has made no move to close on him and makes gestures of exasperation, not a threat. No one is in any immediate danger, and Read turns away to talk to his ex, never coming close to her. He is clearly angry and this is not the first time this has happened. He threatens a lawsuit, which is probably not cause for violence, even in Texas.
    * Carruth returns with a semi-auto rifle of some sort and orders Read to leave. Read gets up in his face but has his hands at his side and does not attempt to grab the gun.
    * Caruth then soves Read back and puts a round into the dirt near Read’s feet. At this point Read attempots to get hold of the weapon AND THIS IS SELF-DEFENSE. He has committed NO act of aggression and Carruth has now committed two.
    * As read attampts to control the gun he says a few angry words. He has been kept from his child, who he had a lawful order to see, lied to, AGAIN, and now shot at, so maybe this is understandable.
    * Carruth spins away from Read’s half-hearted grab and at a distance of 10 or so feet turns and shoots twice, killing Read.

    In no way is this self-defense. After seeing this several times, I think that it’s murder 2, not manslaughter. Carruth had several opportunities and sufficient time to avoid shooting, and took none of them, starting with not coming out of the house with he gun.
    * Read DEFENDS HIMSELF by grabbing the rifle. Pointing a rifle at someone is an obvious threat of lethal force. Read then issues a threat himself, but does not act on it.
    *
    *Carruth shoves Read away and, in one fluid move, points the rifle at him and shoots twice

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  86. The last two lines there are extraneous.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  87. You could tell that this wasn’t the first time Read went off on people who didn’t give him what he wanted

    You could tell it wasn’t the first time that Read’s ex had refused his agreed-upon right to see the child. Sure, there was a pattern but the one (repeatedly) breaking the law was Read’s ex.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  88. “All Texans may lawfully brandish a firearm to protect themselves, their property and their business.”

    If lethal force is not OK in the situation prior, brandishing a weapon does not make it OK then.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  89. IN a situation where you cannot just pull a gun and shoot, how can you argue that you can pull a gun, warn, then shoot? The threat is already there, or it is not.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  90. “If lethal force is not OK in the situation prior, brandishing a weapon does not make it OK then.”

    I’m not sure that that is the law, but I agree with your conclusion. There was no imminent threat until Kyle made his own threats with the weapon. I think the psychology is that people don’t always act rationally when a gun is pointed at them….that’s why LEO’s have such a tough job (how much latitude should a perp get who is under stress?). Chad should have retreated…and certainly should have not tried to grab the gun. But when they separated, Chad was not yet advancing…what I saw was Kyle punishing Chad, not defending his own life. Guns and angry don’t mix.

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  91. Given the different perspectives of serious people here. Many disagreeing with each other with valid points. If I was the shooter, I might be leaning towards a bench trial

    EPWJ (0fbe92)

  92. At least he didn’t miss and kill someone else.

    mg (8cbc69)

  93. @89 This is my argument against brandishing and warning shots.

    You might “rack the slide” in a situation where a burglar is trying to break into your house but it feels like warning shots weaken the self defense claims in most situations. This is also a problem with concealed carry. Going from concealed to open doesn’t usually seem like a de-escalation tactic.

    frosty (f27e97)

  94. Well, EPWJ, if I were the judge, I’d only acquit this shooter if he showed me that heretofore he had a reputation for peacefulness and law-abidingness, that the deceased had a reputation for violence and disregard of the law, and that he (the shooter) and the twice-a-bride had not made a habit of f***ing with visitation, and that they did not conspire beforehand to yank the dead man’s chain in this, the last, encounter. Seeing as how “reasonable”, “imminent”, “danger”, “death”, “great bodily harm”, and “belief” (Did I say “belief”? Yes, yes, I did say “belief”!) are all questions of fact, and I can do that as long as it’s supported by the record.

    nk (1d9030)

  95. nk

    Good point about the chain yanking. A lot of this did look like a dinner theater group rehearsal.

    Here is a local article some interesting facts in it: https://uzax.com/0686ec78-33ea-37b4-baf6-ac86304f26eb

    EPWJ (0fbe92)

  96. Heh! Thanks for the link, EPWJ. So, the current District Judge is the shooter’s ex-wife? I wasn’t clear on that. An Abbott appointee, so clearly a part of the local political machine along with the DA. That could have been good if he hadn’t taken up with an “other woman”. Not so good that he did, I think.

    nk (1d9030)

  97. From EPWJ’s link, the following was an odd thing said by the newly widowed Mrs. Read:

    “You did it, not him.”

    Maybe it was a heat-of-the-moment thing, but I take this as Mr. Read doing this kind of confrontation before, that Mr. Read “did it” a previous time.
    BTW, looking back at my caveman “hot take”, I’m definitely stepping back because there’s still so much we don’t know.
    Another small detail. The shooting happened on November 5th, a Friday, so it looks like Mr. Read had the kids on weekends.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  98. This sentence from Kyles lawyer: “This is a justifiable homicide,” Guinn contended.”

    Homicide?

    The statement from the Widow: https://www.kcbd.com/2021/11/24/attorney-chad-reads-widow-files-petition-take-custody-his-children-their-mother-releases-video-shooting/

    EPWJ (0fbe92)

  99. To say anything intelligent would require watching the video. I can’t do it.

    Appalled (1495dc)

  100. Homicide?

    That’s how it’s classified. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The defendant must raise it with some evidence. Only then is the prosecution required to rebut it beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In the original Oresteia, Athena and Apollo had to come down and persuade The Furies that some homicides were justified. You know about that, right? Clytemnestra and her lover murder Agamemnon and his kids kill them in revenge and The Furies go after the kids?

    Oresteia in Lubbock. When Aeschylus had the royal house of Mycenae. We are in a populist era.

    nk (1d9030)

  101. EPWJ, I think you’re correct that what’s known right now could lead to a number of different conclusions. All of the arguments presented here are plausible. While I don’t think this looks like self defense I think this is similar to some of the recent high profile cases where we need an impartial finding of fact on some key details we can’t reliably get from videos and media reports.

    I will say that from what I’ve seen if this *is* self defense I think the legal definition probably needs some revision. But, I found Kevin Ms summary pretty persuasive.

    Time123 (0ef19f)

  102. The Tueller Drill and the Action-Reaction gap make it clear that advancing on someone with a firearm is an intent to engage in deadly force.

    At 21 feet, the action-reaction gap means that you cannot draw and fire a weapon without getting struck yourself.

    The more you point the weapon the faster it is; but still at arms reach, even if you have the gun pointed right at my chest, if I initiate action and you only defend you can be hit and die before you shoot me or before your gunshot takes effect.

    This is the mechanism of all firearms disarms. A firearm is pointed at you, you initiate action getting off the line of attack and getting control before .2 of a second reaction time takes place and the target reacts; you then continue to take control of the weapon.

    No, firearm disarms are not safe and guaranteed, but that is how they work and that illustrates the danger.

    A similar example is the ‘drop a ruler, drop a dollar bill’ trick. You hold up a crisp dollar bill, someone else puts their fingers apart at the bottom. They can only pinch their fingers once you drop it. They have to react to your dropping it. if they grab it before it slips through your figners, they keep it. Alternately, you drop a ruler the same way and see how many inches it falls.

    The fastest human reaction time will be 9-10 inches of drop; 11 inches is average. A dollar bill is 7 inches; it is impossible for a human to catch the dollar bill before it slips through his fingers UNLESS he cheats and anticipates the drop by watching the person, not the bill; or if the bill sticks to the person’s fingers and gives an additional fraction of a second. (You must use a crisp bill that sheets through the air quickly.)

    Advancing on a cop is an intent to use deadly force; therefore advancing on a citizen pointing a gun at you is an intent to use deadly force.

    Ingot9455 (44586b)

  103. Just for fun, assume that one man, or the other, was black.

    If Curruth was black, would he have been charged by now? Carruth has not been charged, 3 weeks on.

    If Read was black would Carruth be charged? Would Al Sharpton be in town? Would the FBI be there? Would we be hearing about this 24/7 from CNN?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  104. Watching the video, especially after the shooting, has me believing that there is a sordid history amongst these couples. Carruth looked ecstatic at shooting his wife’s ex, puffing his chest out like a real man.

    Carruth had better hope his victim does not have brothers or cousins, because this could get ugly.

    Hoi Polloi (f4e634)

  105. @98: The video, and its editing, remind me that we seldom see the full effect of a situation because the censors snip out important parts. They do so following “standards & practices” but it influences people’s response. This happens a lot and it probably isn’t a good thing. Sure, there are ghouls who would seek out violent encounters, but this bowdlerization alters the way things are perceived.

    Take the 9/11 event. The networks made a point of not showing, and not even mentioning, the (perhaps hundreds) of people falling from the top floors of the towers, trying to escape the flames. Would that have “inflamed public opinion” or did the censorship dampen the justified outrage by hiding the full horror?

    Not showing Read’s body after, and/or bleeping his threatening speech just before, also alters perception. Are we really that squeamish a people?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  106. Advancing on a cop is an intent to use deadly force; therefore advancing on a citizen pointing a gun at you is an intent to use deadly force.

    So what? Read is NOT advancing on Carruth when he is shot, and except for the point just after Carruth has fired at his feet Read has kept his hands to himself.

    OTOH, pulling a gun on someone IS intent to use deadly force. Why is Read not justified in attempting to disarm his attacker?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  107. Carruth had better hope his victim does not have brothers or cousins, because this could get ugly.

    Yet another reason he should be charged, so that the facts can come out in court and justice can be done. If the state does nothing and Carruth just “gets away with it”, those brothers and cousins will come into play.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  108. The widow’s statement adds helpful information EPWJ. Thank you.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  109. Carruth looked ecstatic at shooting his wife’s ex, puffing his chest out like a real man.

    Yeah it was a pathetic display. Even before the shooting, he’s waving the gun around with a huge grin on his face. He was not scared, he was trying to be a bully, and when you’re bullying a man from his child that almost guarantees things get bad.

    ; therefore advancing on a citizen pointing a gun at you is an intent to use deadly force.

    Ingot9455 (44586b) — 11/27/2021 @ 9:21 am

    I think this applies both ways. When Chad redirected the muzzle of the gun away from him, that was self defense. Suddenly a guy is screaming at him and shooting at his feet. The blood in Chad’s thinking part of his brain is now in Chad’s fight or flight lizard brain and his muscles.

    I don’t think Chad was ‘advancing’ towards Kyle when he was shot. I think he was just standing there, with no exit path as he had the house behind him and the screaming Kyle in front of him.

    Chad did say he wanted to take that gun and shoot Kyle with it, so the self defense claim writes itself. It’s a fair argument. But that argument against rittenhouse, the idea that you can bring a gun into a situation to make it a lot worse, seems much more appropriate in this case than it did there. There really was no threat, then Kyle spiced it up.

    The parts that might not matter legally fascinate me here. What did Kyle think Chad was going to do? His source for this would be Chad’s ex wife, the instigator that avoided many of the consequences. All she had to do was tell Chad where the son was and agree to hand him over quickly, and that son would be a lot better off today. The supposed reason for this meeting is barely a footnote.

    Dustin (150498)

  110. I haven’t watched the video, I am more discussing general use-of-force.

    When the gun came out, why didn’t person X put up his hands, back away, go to a safe place, and call the cops himself?

    A lot of people in this situation should have done that at various poitns, but they didn’t; that’s why someone is dead and we’re discussing it.

    Who made what bad action first? They are usually at the greatest fault. Who made what bad action second? Were they required to give ground/surrender/etc? And so on.

    Ingot9455 (44586b)

  111. For instance, the decedent’s wife says she thought the shooter had a paintball gun, not a real gun, and the shots were muted. She was filming and did not realize her husband had been shot.

    It also suggests plausible reasons why she thinks the shooter and Christina Read planned this.

    It struck me that the shooter got most upset after the decedent threatened to get subpoenas and involve shooter’s wife (the judge). That didn’t make sense at first but maybe that would make the affair public and cause political/local problems for everyone.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  112. My guess, and this is just a guess, is that the decedent stayed there with his ex-wife and her new boyfriend to find out where his son was. He was supposed to pick up his son at that location. He was told his son wasn’t there. It seems he was convinced that was true, but they had to know where the son was.

    In the video, it sounded to me like the decedent said he had called the police to his ex-wife’s mother’s house, because he believed his son was there. I don’t think Texas police will search for kids in custody disputes unless there are pending orders and past problems turning the kids over. So if the police were going to the mom’s house, there was a history there.

    Maybe he wanted to keep them there until that was checked out, or maybe he wanted to keep them from contacting whoever had his son.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  113. EPWJ
    So, Chad Reads widow wants to take custody of the three kids
    This is certainly an idea, but probably like many ideas in her life, one that gets an immediate “no”.

    These seem like the kind of people that spend day and night on the porch bickering, yelling, fighting with each other until someone walking a dog dares to let it put a paw on their unmowed lawn at which point they all boil off the porch and out of the house like yellowjackets.
    I had neighbors like this for a time. One day I hear Mom screaming, son yelling. I look over in time to see the son use a screw gun to secure the back door and then put plywood scraps over all the windows. The son was building himself a room in the garage and mom was yelling scorn and discouragement first from the porch and then after the doors were screwed shut, through the windows, so he was finishing up dealing with the windows.
    So I wander over. “Hey Dave, what are you working on today?” He says “I had to, she wouldn’t shut up”. Ah. Understand. Dave goes over to a boarded up window and yells “look what you made me do Mom”.
    So I ask him if he thinks this will violate his parole.
    Dave’s solution is to go up and down the sidewalk yelling: “none of you yuppie mfers better call the police, this is family business” Of course the neighbors ignored the advice.
    Cops show up, Fire Dept. lets the matriarch out and she starts pushing the cops around screeching at them for taking her boy away.
    Funny thing is, when he got out, his mom had him assemble a gazebo kit in the backyard and I hear Dave yelling “Mom, I told you its not ready! She’s horrible and yells that he doesn’t know bleep and she should of had his brother do it etc. So here we go again. It worked so well last time…

    steveg (e81d76)

  114. Why was ex-wife there? If she wanted to see her son, she was at the one place she couldn’t see him.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  115. Why was ex-wife there? If she wanted to see her son, she was at the one place she couldn’t see him.

    That’s a very good point. I suppose she was there for this confrontation, and her claim to want to see her son wasn’t very sincere. In the years to come she will probably want to see her son more than she will.

    Dustin (150498)

  116. The mother/ex-wife is still the custodial parent. But if it is shown the ex-wife conspired to hurt or kill her ex-husband (as the stepmother alleges), she could lose custody and the other custodial parent is dead.

    The grandparents/aunts or uncles would be the probable next choice but a custodial stepparent can seek custody, too. Blood relatives usually get priority but they aren’t always appropriate, willing or able.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  117. When the gun came out, why didn’t person X put up his hands, back away, go to a safe place, and call the cops himself?

    I don’t know but my guess is because this about a child in an ongoing, contested custody dispute. Both parents had new people in their lives,, and the mom’s person was also married. It is messy and there is clearly a lot of emotion involved.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  118. Instead of “custody dispute,” I should have said “visitation dispute.”

    DRJ (03cb91)

  119. The trespassing assertion doesn’t work.

    “Trespassing” means “enter the owner’s land or property without permission.” But he had been given permission by the court for the particular purpose at hand, so the entry was lawful.

    When Carruth refused to produce the child and then threatened deadly force to remove Read from the premises he was acting in violation of the court order. He had no right to refuse entry.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  120. My guess is the parents had joint custody with defined times to hand their son over. Or mom may have been the primary custodial parent and dad got visitation at specific days/times.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  121. Whoever has the kids has control of their inheritance too. Unless he made a will and cut them out when he remarried. Which I doubt. If he died intestate, the kids get two-thirds of his real and personal property, outright, right away, plus the one-third remainder interest in the real property after their stepmom dies. Her one-third interest of the real estate is only a life estate.

    nk (1d9030)

  122. When the gun came out, why didn’t person X put up his hands, back away, go to a safe place, and call the cops himself?

    As was stated, this, plus the video, would have ended the visitation dispute. Sole custody would have been granted to the father as long as Carruth remained in the picture.

    This may have been the new Mrs Read’s plan behind her video, but things spiraled out of control.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  123. We don’t know what any Order said, Kevin. Having been told the son wasn’t there, he might have no basis to refuse to leave. That doesn’t make it right to shoot him.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  124. Sole custody would have been granted to the father as long as Carruth remained in the picture.

    I don’t think so.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  125. This is another case where, without a video, there would only be conflicting testimony. Two against one. The new Mrs Read is claiming that the whole thing was premeditated, and maybe it was.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  126. I don’t think so.

    Maybe not, but I’d rather argue Read’s case than Carruth’s.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  127. Some courts favor custody with nonworking parents, usually mothers, and let them stay in the home so kids can stay home. All they ask of the custodial parent is discretion with any new partners. This boy is 11 so I doubt the court would expect too much discretion.

    Plus, the new partner is a judge’s husband. I am not sure how that factors in but Lubbock is not that big.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  128. Almost certainly life insurance with the kids as beneficiaries too. The divorce decree would have required it.

    Not Oresteia? Double Indemnity? It’s more American, anyhow.

    nk (1d9030)

  129. I doubt Read was well-to-do.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  130. If it is the same person.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  131. It is hard to tell.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  132. Ugly cases and bad case law. Some assembly required.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  133. Who was filming from inside the house? I hope it wasn’t a child, of anyone.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  134. Nice story, steveg.

    DRJ, I did read that was a kid filming from inside. I have no idea who that was, but they are lucky they weren’t shot. It’s pretty reckless to use your home as a backstop to ‘defend yourself.’ If this didn’t happen so fast I would say it was more like a trap.

    Dustin (150498)

  135. “If it is the same person.”

    The ages line up. Sounds like a pretty brazen scheme….but doomed to be discovered. I guess only a matural risk taker would gamble with grabbing for the gun…rather than retreating and calling in the authorities.

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  136. From DRJ’s link “If it is the same person”

    “Read’s ex-wife, Emily J. Read, a/k/a Emily Joe Khalili Read, was sentenced in September 2009, to 41 months in prison and ordered to pay more than $670,000 in restitution”

    Everybody in the larger story has a broken people picker.

    I hope and pray the kids break the cycle

    steveg (e81d76)

  137. I’m sure the custody dispute between stepmom w/ late dad and mom w/ dad’s killer will be really fun for them.

    I’m sure anyone who wants to raise them is worth a shot.

    😉

    Dustin (150498)

  138. It’s like a bad parody of the Sopranos, Lubbock chapter

    EPWJ (0fbe92)

  139. I had a Prof Anderson for Property. Maybe he taught Torts later but I don’t think Torts or Crim Law were his specialty, if it is the same professor.

    I didn’t talk much as a 1L either, except if a prof called on me, but I recall disagreeing with him once in class. It seemed to irritate him, which was unusual. Most professors liked to be challenged.

    This fella. Looks older now but I recognize him.

    Patterico (42d876)

  140. You know, watching this a few times, it almost looks “staged” – given the matter-of-fact reactions- as if for some kind of training tape for authorities or such– until you discover the fella is really shot dead.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  141. This story, especially the video, doesn’t feel real. It feels like performance art but it is real.

    Right. Got that impression as well.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  142. When Carruth refused to produce the child and then threatened deadly force to remove Read from the premises he was acting in violation of the court order. He had no right to refuse entry.

    That is true. Even though it’s on Carruth’s property, Read had the court-authorized right to pick up his kid there. The “tribal elders” of Lubbock clan gave Read such permission, and now I’m done with that analogy.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  143. 109. Dustin (150498) — 11/27/2021 @ 10:01 am

    What did Kyle think Chad was going to do?

    Stay there and scream at him and/or his ex-wife, until the child was produced, and at the same time prove he was bluffing with the gun and it was only what the Chinese call a paper tiger. It looked that way, especially since Kyle deliberately missed the missed the first time.

    But Kyle, faced with the alternative of being rendered helpless to chase him away, proves he wasn’t bluffing.

    Kyle and Cristina had had the alternative of calling 911, but they were in the wrong, and she stood to face some kind of penalty in court. And anyway Chad didn’t break the law by arguing, so he was going to stay there and scream and make it impossible for Kyle to work until the child was turned over. Chad didn’t try to grab the child because he didn’t know where he was.

    Nobody seems to have told the police, when they came, exactly what had happened, except that Kyle shot Chad.

    His new wife, Jennifer, who was shooting the video from her car, says (now) according to JF @27, that she thought it was a paintball gun. She moves the camera away from the confrontation just at the time of the shooting, (there is audio) then swerves it back.

    His source for this would be Chad’s ex wife, the instigator that avoided many of the consequences. All she had to do was tell Chad where the son was and agree to hand him over quickly,

    The interesting thing is that his ex-wife, Chistina, had said she would get him, so maybe he was in day care or school or by a neighbor. She claimed she wasn’t ready to turn him over at 3:15 pm because she wouldn’t see him again that day if she did. This was not a legally valid reason, as Chad pointed out to her.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  144. 112 DRJ (03cb91) — 11/27/2021 @ 10:15 am

    My guess, and this is just a guess, is that the decedent stayed there with his ex-wife and her new boyfriend to find out where his son was. He was supposed to pick up his son at that location.

    No, maybe some other place, but he wasn’t there.

    134. Dustin (150498) — 11/27/2021 @ 11:59 am

    DRJ, I did read that was a kid filming from inside. I have no idea who that was, but they are lucky they weren’t shot.

    Here is a clue:

    https://news.yahoo.com/know-fatal-shooting-chris-read-191842126.html

    “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.

    The question is, how could there be a step-brother?

    William Kyle Carruth and Christina Read weren’t married so this could not be a son of Kyle Carruth. Could it be that one of Chad Read’s three children wasn’t hers? What’x she doing having custody of him? According to his obituary, Chad Read had three children. and Jennifer Read also had children, but what would any of them been doing there?

    Anne-Marie Carruth married Kyle Carruth in 2008 or 2009. They separated in July 2021 and Kyle Carruth filed for divorce in September. The shooting took place on Friday, November 5. The judge countersued, and filed an affidavit on Monday, November 8, asking the court to exclude her husband from their 9th Street home. he divorce was finalized on or about November 19.

    Meanwhile, Chad Read married Jennifer Wilson Read on Sept. 4, 2021.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  145. Sammy, I specifically said Read knew his son wasn’t there. It was in the next sentence you edited out.

    As for a stepbrother, his mother may have had children from a prior marriage/relationship. You assume the stepbrother us younger but ge could be older.

    DRJ (02d0b8)

  146. That was my Prof Anderson, too.

    DRJ (02d0b8)

  147. DRJ, at 129-131. It sounds very much like it is the same person. https://www.lubbockonline.com/obituaries/p0163484

    nk (1d9030)

  148. Or it could be a brother from his Dad’s marriage to Jennifer, e.g., her son from a prior marriage/relationship.

    DRJ (02d0b8)

  149. Professor Anderson may have only been a little bit old-fashioned, and not necessarily “code of the West” old-fashioned, about shooting unarmed men, even though he might be considered quite quaint these days. When I was in law school, cops still carried “drop guns” in ankle holsters, to put in the hands of unarmed people they had shot. It was before police unions, use of force experts, cell phones that they thought were guns, and “reached for his waist”, and the police still carried nightsticks and blackjacks not Tasers and mace.

    nk (1d9030)

  150. Blackjacks are cool.

    Dustin (a145cf)

  151. He was primarily a media lawyer. He taught Torts and even helped write a textbook but his thing was media law. And he wasn’t old-fashioned at all when I was there. Too cool is how I would describe him.

    DRJ (02d0b8)

  152. Highly regarded in the laws of free speech, First Amendment, media.

    DRJ (02d0b8)

  153. For some reason one of the things that sticks out in my mind (and Christi’s) is that there was a fella in the class named Burt Martin, and Prof. Anderson always called him “Mr. Burtmartin” with emphasis on the first syllable (BURTmartin) but clearly as one word. It was just so funny and he did it every time.

    Patterico (42d876)

  154. Chad Read Shooting: Evidence Supports Manslaughter, Not Justification
    ……….
    there are essentially three grounds under which the Carruth shooting of Read might be legally justified.

    The first is defense of persons, so self-defense or defense of others.

    The second is defense of highly-defensible property, in this context Carruth’s home.

    The third is defense of mere personal property—here Texas is unique in that it does allow for the use of deadly force in defense of mere personal property under limited circumstances.

    Unfortunately, I don’t see evidence in these two videos of Carruth being justified in the shooting death of Read under any of those three legal justifications.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (125f65)

  155. DRJ: @112

    My guess, and this is just a guess, is that the decedent stayed there with his ex-wife and her new boyfriend to find out where his son was. He was supposed to pick up his son at that location.

    I said it could be that he was supposed to pick him up somewhere else.

    DRJ @145.

    Sammy, I specifically said Read knew his son wasn’t there. It was in the next sentence you edited out.

    The next sentence is:

    He was told his son wasn’t there

    When was he told? My understanding is: After he got there.

    That was not where he was supposed to pick him up, but when he didn’t find him there, he went to her home, where the confrontation took place. I say that because the mother made an excuse that she wanted to see him (again) that day (before the 3:15 pm pickup.)

    Presumably she was working, and pickup had been scheduled for school or day care..and that was where he was “supposed to” pick him up. At least, that sounds, at a minimum, like a very real possibility.
    Chad aybe doesn’t believe the mother that the child isn’t there – but he wasn’t.

    DRJ:

    Aa for a stepbrother, his mother may have had children from a prior marriage/relationship. You assume the stepbrother us younger but he could be older.

    But then he wouldn;t be a stepbrother but he’d be called a half brother, or simply a brother. He;d be called that if he shared even one parent with them.

    But then, again, Jennifer Read, or maybe just her attorney, could have misstated something or got something wrong in her affidavit attached to her petition to be granted custody of the children which, along with the 2-minute video, also probably filed with the court, that was released to the press on Wednesday November 24, the day before Thanksgiving.

    Jennifer Read, by the way, was described in an online obituary put up by the family on Nov 11 that described her as the “love of his life” despite marrying him only two months before. To justify that, I guess he must have known her 30 or more years ago. The obituary, which listed both of Chad’s parents as survivors, and didn’t mention his conviction, or any previous wives but named three children.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  156. DRJ (02d0b8) — 11/27/2021 @ 7:01 pm

    Or it could be a brother from his Dad’s marriage to Jennifer, e.g., her son from a prior marriage/relationship.

    I know, but then what’s he doing at his stepmother?

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  157. Great analysis by Legal Insurrection. The key point I draw is that Carruth had a valid claim for self defense at the very moment Read grabbed for the gun…there was both an imminent and substantial threat. But once Carruth was spun off of the porch….and still had possession of the gun…..and, critically, Read was not moving toward him….there was no imminent substantial threat. Read was not armed and was not close enough to pose a risk from his hands or feet. At that point Carruth was punishing Read for spinning him off the porch. Sure seems like voluntary manslaughter at that point.

    I also agree with one of the commenters who said that going toe-to-toe with a long arm and firing a warning shot also seem to call into question Carruth’s perception of an imminent and substantial threat. Another commenter questioned whether standing on the porch was equivalent to entering the actual home…legally. That being on the porch was equivalent to an illegal entry. That would seem to suggest that anyone standing on the porch could be legally shot….and even being Texas…..that would seem to be an awfully broad conclusion.

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  158. AJ

    Braca – I believe – is a California Attorney. He has written many eyebrow raising takes on self defense. He is very scientific, very precise. Highly intelligent, he helped a dear friend out of a jamb cause by a wierdo named Schmalfeldt.

    I think Braca errored here – Braca writes: ” Here’s the difficulty for Carruth in this context, however—at the decisive moment when he fired the shots into Read, Carruth was not inside his highly-defensible property—he was standing outside it—and there is no evidence I can discern from these videos that Read was making any effort at all to unlawfully and forcibly enter Carruth’s highly-defensible property.”

    Maybe the learned Texas lawyers here can chime in.

    This article refreshed my memory: https://www.alec.org/article/supreme-court-rules-to-protect-curtilage-of-house-from-warrantless-searches/

    EPWJ (0fbe92)

  159. Branca, not Braca

    EPWJ (0fbe92)

  160. EPWJ, still, Read had not been on the porch while he argued with is ex….he was on the walkway/driveway….and was making no effort to invade or encroach the dwelling. He only went onto the porch (one step away) when Carruth confronted him with a weapon (initiating a fight or flight). The implication here is that someone can order you off your driveway and then shoot and kill you if you do not leave. Was there an imminent threat by him being on the porch without a weapon? Was it proportional to shoot him for being one step on the porch, and was it reasonable for him to shoot Read when he was just standing there (not advancing)? I agree with Braca that the scope of the curtilage argument is different for 4A cases than self defense cases. Different purposes. Read may not have had a right to remain on the property….but that’s different from saying that Carruth satisfied all of the elements for self defense (IMO).

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  161. Read may not have had a right to remain on the property….but that’s different from saying that Carruth satisfied all of the elements for self defense (IMO).

    I agree. Carruth, the shooter, May have a problem with meeting those elements — such as the requirement that he did not provoke the incident/the decedent to act forcefully.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  162. The elements/requirements for a self defense claim in Texas are here. A person claiming self defense has to meet all the elements (including subparts) unless they are connected by the word “or.”

    DRJ (03cb91)

  163. My link is to Texas Penal Code 9.31, the self defense statute. Sections 9.32 and 9.33 apply to defense of others and defense of property, both of which will probably be argued by the shooter’s counsel.

    Patterico, I have a problem with describing Chad Read as a threat because he “continued to advance.” He had advanced n Carruth during their argument but he appears to be standing still when Carruth aimed his rifle at Read and shot. At that time during their confrontation, Read did not appear to be a threat to Carruth.

    Maybe the totality is what matters, not the moment of shooting. I don’t know.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  164. Maybe the totality is what matters, not the moment of shooting. I don’t know.

    Perhaps. but that does not work for Carruth. Read is far more controlled in the situation than most men would be, even after the gun is produced he treats it with contempt. It is only after Carruth excalates with a shot between his feet that Read attempts to control the situation by force.

    Had Read gotten control of the rifle and butted Carruth unconscious with it, there is no question in my mind that it would have been self-defense. Maybe even if he had shot Carruth with his own gun, but that would greatly depends on the circumstances at that point.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  165. I see that. My guess is this will end up before a jury, and IMO juries try very hard to follow the law. But …

    The defense usually has an easier time because the prosecution has the burden to prove murder or manslaughter, and the defendant only has to show reasonable doubt. The defendant will be Carrut but there is no doubt he killed Read, so the burden to prove self-defense shifts to the defense. That will make it harder for the defense.

    Even with the videos, it may come down to who the jury believes. Will they think Carruth provoked the altercation and/or Read was an imminent danger? In the end, who will the jury give the benefit of the doubt to?

    Even jury selection will be difficult with the relationship to a judge and Carruth as leader of a gun rights group. And if charges are filed, this case might be better in another venue.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  166. so the burden to prove self-defense shifts to the defense.

    Do they have to PROVE anything? Or do they just have to show it was past the point of second-guessing? I’m sure there is state law on the point.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  167. Let me add that even though there is no duty to retreat, many Texans will factor that into whether the conduct was reasonable. Why pick a fight if it can be avoided? That, I think, us why there will be pretrial battles about prior interactions, with each group arguing they were on this path because of the other group’s acts.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  168. Even jury selection will be difficult with the relationship to a judge and Carruth as leader of a gun rights group. And if charges are filed, this case might be better in another venue.

    The case is already with the state AG — local officials recused due to that relationship. I would expect that a trial would be in a somewhat distant county.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  169. I think the burden of proof is on defendant and the burden of persuasion is on the prosecution. The link is going to the spam filter.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  170. One of the parties has to request a change of venue, and they are rarely granted. Each party here may prefer a local jury, and there is even less basis to transfer venue with a neutral prosecutor already in place. If the problem is no judge is neutral, they will bring in a visiting judge.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  171. The prosecution bears the burden of proof (to provide evidence) and persuasion that Carruth killed Read.

    Then, the defense has the burden to provide evidence that satisfies the required elements of self defense. The prosecution can provide other evidence or rebuttal evidence.

    Then, the prosecution bears the burden to persuade the jury that self defense does not apply or exonerate him.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  172. Going back to the Rittenhouse case, it seems to me that the person most responsible for the deaths in Kenosha, Wisconsin on August 25, 2020 was a man named Joshua Ziminski.

    He’s the one who fired a gun into the air while Rittenhouse wasn’t looking, and turned the confrontation between Joseph Rosenbaum and Kyle Rittenhouse into mortal combat. He’s the person whom the prosecutor attempted to get a photographer to identify in a photograph, when he knew nothing of who he was.

    He’s being prosecuted for disorderly conduct-use of a dangerous weapon (in addition to somewhat unrelated felony arson of property other than a building that he also charged with in January) but morally, if not legally, he could be charged with something like depraved indifference to human life.

    It’s not just what discharging that firearm did, or risked doing, directly, it’s what it caused other people to do.

    I suppose he expected Kyle Rittenhouse to surrender and beg for mercy because KR would have perceived himself surrounded by many people in a mob, some with guns, and that would not be survivable. (instead, KR may have thought it was Joseph Rosenbaum who fired that gun, or decided to limit the number of people he shot)

    Unless Joshua Ziminski’s goal was something more Machiavellian.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  173. A New York Magazine article described what went down in the Rittenhouse case:

    I have highlighted in boldface and italics the crucial turning point:

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/rittenhouse-jury-verdict-self-defense-legal-analysis.html

    Before examining the substance of Rittenhouse’s defense, it’s worth reviewing the case’s undisputed facts. Bystanders’ cell-phone videos establish that 36-year-old protester Joseph Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse into a parking lot, shouted “F^&% you!,” and threw a plastic bag at his back; that a different protester fired a gun into the sky, and immediately following this shot, Rittenhouse ceased fleeing and turned around; that Rosenbaum then moved toward Rittenhouse, who proceeded to fire four times.

    Those shots attracted the attention of nearby demonstrators. One ran up behind Rittenhouse and hit him in the head, another kicked the gunman to the ground. Then, 26-year-old Anthony Huber whacked Rittenhouse with a skateboard and appeared to reach for his rifle; Rittenhouse shot Huber through the heart, instantly killing him. Gaige Grosskreutz, 28, approached and pointed a handgun at Rittenhouse; Rittenhouse nearly blew Grosskreutz’s right arm off.

    That “different protester” was Joshua Ziminsky.

    He was also almost the leader of the mob.

    https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-facing-charge-for-firing-gun-in-air-before-rittenhouse-shootings-now-charged-with-arson/article_c507fee0-f1ef-5205-ac8f-b320c41e036d.html

    LIVE
    NFL Sunday: Follow the latest scores and updates from the NFL
    TOPICAL ALERT TOP STORY
    Kenosha unrest
    Man facing charge for firing gun in air before Rittenhouse shootings now charged with arson
    Deneen Smith Jan 26, 2021 Comments
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Email
    Print
    Save
    A man who was earlier charged with firing a gun into the air just before Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people during protests in Kenosha was charged Tuesday with arson, alleged to have set a dumpster on fire.

    Play Video
    06:1106:13
    spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster
    ↑↓volume mmute
    ←→seek . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60%
    Warning: Video footage contains explicit language.
    Joshua Ziminski, 35, of Racine, was charged with arson of property other than a building, a felony, and disorderly conduct-use of a dangerous weapon. His wife Kelly Ziminski, 30, was charged in December with several misdemeanors for her actions at the same time.

    The charges filed Tuesday allege the couple were at the protests on Aug. 25. According to the complaint, video on Kelly Ziminski’s phone showed Joshua Ziminski tossing a match into a dumpster and then asking the crowd for lighter fluid to help the fire spread. He then pushed the dumpster into Sheridan Road as police vehicles were moving toward him. Kelly Ziminski is seen on video adding flammable material to the fire, according to the complaint.

    WATCH NOW: Video shows Rittenhouse was concerned with his social media in hours after shootings

    In another video, according to the complaint, Joshua Ziminski is seen near a trailer that is overturned and on fire in the 5800 block of Sheridan Road “manipulating the fire with his right foot.”

    In October, Joshua Ziminski was charged with disorderly conduct–use of a dangerous weapon, alleged to have fired a handgun into the air during protests on Aug. 25. That shot occurred near the intersection of Sheridan Road and 60th Street just before Rittenhouse — who was in the same area — is alleged to have shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, of Kenosha.

    It was not a coincidence that Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum right after he heard that gunshot, and saw that Rosenbaum was still advancing.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  174. Along the lines of DRJ’s point about reasonableness, there’s the concept of ‘provoking the difficulty,’ in this case, the issue of whether Kyle created the circumstances where Chad was a threat to him.

    https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/provoking-the-difficulty-a-limitation-on-the-right-to-self-defense/ This is a pretty good discussion of the concept.

    I think if you could somehow combine the ex wife and Kyle’s actions, enraging Chad about his son not being there, then abruptly shoving a gun into the situation while screaming and chest bumping Chad, Kyle did create a situation that was reasonably likely to provoke Chad’s attack. Shoot at a guy’s feet when he is amped up, and he’s going to want to take your gun from you.

    I think the problem is we just dont’ want to ever find it acceptable to threaten to kill someone, as Chad did. I think this should be an issue for a jury to discuss in determining if Kyle’s self defense claim stands. I really hope this makes it to that point, because as Kevin’s pointed out, we don’t want to just license this behavior that really does look a bit like a plot to put Chad in a bad situation.

    Dustin (150498)

  175. Patterico:

    I will digress for a moment to say that I have read a lot of police reports of a lot of shootings. One of the most common things said by a shooting victim right before he is shot to death is some variant of the phrase: “If you’re going to shoot, shoot!” In the annals of Famous Last Words, that is a very common set of Last Words.)

    This ought to maybe be more advertised, except maybe it might have a perverse effect on some people.

    Maybe a movie or television episode should show that. Maybe it could be in the opening of a show repeated every episode. Part of the set up for the series.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  176. This is what the New York Magazine article says about the Arbery case:

    McMichael has claimed that he killed the unarmed African American jogger in self-defense. In McMichael’s account, he and his two co-defendants pursued Arbery in hopes of making a citizen’s arrest, as they believed him to be responsible for a spate of neighborhood burglaries. After chasing Arbery down in a pickup truck, McMichael ran out and confronted Arbery. He alleges that Arbery then tried to grab his gun, at which point he shot Arbery in self-defense.

    McMichael’s self-defense claim looks dubious to my non-lawyer eyes. But even if we stipulate its truth and legal validity, it seems clear that Arbery had every bit as valid a legal basis for killing McMichael in this confrontation. Three strangers chased Arbery in vehicles and then ran toward him with guns. If Arbery had taken McMichael’s firearm and then shot McMichael with it, could a prosecutor have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Arbery hadn’t done so out of a reasonable belief that he faced an imminent threat of great bodily harm?

    You can have a situation where both parties have the right to self defense:

    In the firefight that led to Breonna Taylor’s death, authorities found that neither Taylor’s boyfriend Kenneth Walker, who shot into a group of plainclothes officers as they forced their way into her apartment, nor the police officers who fired 32 shots in response, killing Taylor, provably violated the law. Taylor had a plausible basis for believing that the police officers were actually intruders, and the cops a plausible basis for believing they were being deliberately targeted as officers of the law.

    The cops there, but the warrant as based on old and/or wrong information.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  177. The shooter escalated the confrontation. I didn’t see a real reason to go lethal. Texas a stand your ground state? I think this shooting could have been easily avoided, regardless of the taunt by the deceased.

    Rich (995a5b)

  178. Rich (995a5b) — 11/29/2021 @ 8:28 pm

    The shooter escalated the confrontation.

    You mean Joshua Ziminski?

    https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-facing-charge-for-firing-gun-in-air-before-rittenhouse-shootings-now-charged-with-arson/article_c507fee0-f1ef-5205-ac8f-b320c41e036d.html

    Yes he did.

    https://heavy.com/news/joshua-ziminski

    Ziminksi fired his handgun into the air when he was about 100 feet away from Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum, according to the Racine Journal Times. The newspaper reported that Ziminski admitted firing this shot, calling it a “warning shot.” He claimed the gun was stolen. [since that time -SF]

    Three seconds later, Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. During testimony in court, Rittenhouse claimed that Ziminski threatened him that night before Rosenbaum chased him. He claimed that Ziminski said, “get him” and “kill him.” Rittenhouse is heard on video saying, “friendly, friendly,” around the time of the encounter with Rosenbaum and Ziminski right bef+ore the chase, according to court testimony and the video.

    Authorities initially charged Ziminski with disorderly conduct but then dismissed that and refiled it to include a more serious arson charge.

    The initial criminal complaint alleged that Ziminski was “holding a black handgun” on video that night, “down at his side.”

    The complaint describes how the Ziminskis were walking near a fire in the area of a gas station when his arm was seen “pointing upward.” The detective “observed a muzzle flash emit from the handgun and heard a gunshot at the same time.”

    Both Ziminski and his wife admitted he fired a “warning shot” in the air, the complaint says. And he said the gun was stolen after the shootings.

    …..After Rosenbaum’s shooting, Rittenhouse ran down the road and fell. He was then rushed by Anthony Huber, who struck him with a skateboard and tried to grab the gun, according to video and court testimony. Rittenhouse shot Huber. He then shot Gaige Grosskreutz, who survived, and who testified that he was advancing on Rittenhouse at close range, three to five feet, and pointed a gun at him when Rittenhouse shot him.

    “Joshua Ziminski plays a central role in this scenario on August 25,” defense attorney Mark Richards said in court. “One, creating chaos and havoc with Mr. Rosenbaum, and two, more importantly, when we finally get to Car Source … Mr. Ziminski … fires the first shot that evening, behind Kyle Rittenhouse as he’s being chased by Mr. Rosenbaum.”

    “He [expletive] shot him. He [expletive] shot him. He [expletive] shot him … Get his [expletive],” Kelly Ziminski is heard on video after Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum.

    According to the Racine Journal Times, a voice identified in court as Joshua J. Ziminski then says, “That dude shot him. That [expletive] just shot that dude. Crazy on that boy, he just shot a man.”

    The prosecution claimed that Rittenhouse started it by pointing a gun at Ziminski while he was vandalizing cars.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6401 secs.