another self-defense killing?

Another interesting aspect to that point would be when the law is ambiguous you must rule in favor of the defense.
Click to expand...

The 'rule of lenity' which is a noble rule in theory, is not always how it is played in reality.

The problem, as indicated by this discussion, is that what is ambiguous for some is clear for others.
 
As I read through the discussion here, I am left with a feeling that there is some kind of search for a perfect legal storm in which if all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed then a situation exists where killing someone is legally protected.

What I'm missing out of this is that we can only deploy deadly force to stop a threat to great bodily harm or death.

In the last few seconds of the life of the man who died, I do not understand how he offered a threat of great bodily harm or death to anybody. What action or move did he take that represented a threat? He was clearly aggressive, but he never struck or attempted to harm the shooter.

I see that Stagpanther offered that he MAY make a move to enter the house, and therefore could be shot. But unless he is viewing something I am not, he never made any move to enter the house. So, what is the lawful excuse for deadly force?

I'm no lawyer, so I don't try to debate law in these cases, but I have a bit of a litmus test: if I take no action, will I face injury or death.

In the case of Rittenhouse; yes he was indeed facing death or injury had he not defended himself. In the Arboury murder case, if the defendants had done nothing, nothing would have happened.

In THIS case, if the shooter had stayed in his house, then presumptively nothing would have happened. At that point, if the deceased had attempted to enter the house, then there really would be no discussion about the lawfulness of a potential shooting.

I really do not see how this meets the 'only shoot to stop the threat' obligation.
 
ghbucky said:
What I'm missing out of this is that we can only deploy deadly force to stop a threat to great bodily harm or death.

In the last few seconds of the life of the man who died, I do not understand how he offered a threat of great bodily harm or death to anybody. What action or move did he take that represented a threat? He was clearly aggressive, but he never struck or attempted to harm the shooter.
Click to expand...
With the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer (we have some good ones here, but I'm not one of them), I respectfully submit that I think you are overlooking two things.
  1. Depending on the law of the particular state, the Castle Doctrine may (or may not) remove the criterion on being in fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. So there's the question of whether or not the Texas version of the Castle Doctrine still imposes that criterion. If it does, then the question is whether or not the "curtilage" (the porch and the front yard, in this case) fall under the purview of the Castle Doctrine.
  2. The second thing I think you have overlooked is that the question of fearing imminent death or serious injury is to be viewed through the eyes of the defendant (the shooter), knowing only what he knew at the moment. This is subject to the "reasonable man" test, but it still means that a jury has to put themselves in the defandants shoes and consider whether if THEY had been in that situation, if they would have felt themselves to be in fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. It's not a determination based on how it appears after watching the video in slow mention fifty times, it's a question of "If you were there instead of Kyle Carruth, would YOU have felt threatened with death or serious bodily injury?"
We're not going to resolve this. I hope we'll get the results of the grand jury inquiry. Whether or not the grand jury hands down an indictment will tell us a lot.
 
Depending on the law of the particular state, the Castle Doctrine may (or may not) remove the criterion on being in fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm.
Click to expand...
TX Castle Doctrine in no way changes what is required for a shooting to be justified, it merely shifts the entire burden of proof to the state if the qualifying circumstances apply.

Castle Doctrine states that if the qualifying circumstances apply (which they certainly do not in this case, but that's another story) that then the presumption of justification applies.

The justification required is still the exactly the same when Castle Doctrine applies as when it does not. The difference is that when Castle Doctrine does apply, the state in the absence of evidence to the contrary must assume that the the person did have reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm and was therefore justified.

That doesn't mean that the state is prevented from proving that justification doesn't exist. If there is evidence that there was no, or could be no, reasonable fear of death or serious injury, then the state is still free to bring that evidence and can successfully convict the person if that evidence is sufficient.
 
In the last few seconds of the life of the man who died, I do not understand how he offered a threat of great bodily harm or death to anybody. What action or move did he take that represented a threat? He was clearly aggressive, but he never struck or attempted to harm the shooter.
Click to expand...

Reed ( the decedent ) did in fact attempt to harm Carruth as he had just said he would . Literally , Reed had his hands on the gun 1sec before he was shot . Carruth had a reasonable expectation in that moment Reed was in fact trying to take the gun to use on him . Was Reed doing that , probably not ? However that does not matter as I understand self defense . The intent of the aggressor/attacker is not what matters but rather what the "victim" reasonably believes the attacker is trying to do . Not only did Reed threaten Carruth that he would take the gun and use it on him . Reed then made what could be reasonably thought to be an attempt to do that very thing when he grabbed the firearm as they both struggled .

These are those very types of scenarios that as the victim you can't allow the aggressor to take the weapon to see if they actually would do as they said they would . These are split second decisions and you better make the right one . I truly hope I never have to make that decision .

I'm still conflicted on this one . Rittenhouse seemed pretty straight forward but this one not so much . IMHO I believe Carruth was legally justified but don't think he should have shot . I honestly don't know what I'd do if I were on the jury knowing only what I know now . As I said before , the charges and jury instructions are going to be key in this case if it ever goes to trial .
 
I'm still conflicted on this one . Rittenhouse seemed pretty straight forward but this one not so much .
Click to expand...

Given the divided opinions before the Rittenhouse trial, I would say this case is every bit as straight forward as it was, LOL. Rittenhouse was only straight forward for those in which the verdict agreed.
 
Think through the potential scenario if Read hadn't been shot. I fully understand this is only a thought game, but to get a better feel for what Carruth was facing, it applies, in my opinion. Read was being verbally belligerent, had refused to leave the premises and when confronted with "force" he threatened Carruth. Upon grabbing the firearm, Read's strength and size advantage was certainly intimidating to Carruth. Once Read managed to swing Carruth off the porch, the future appears pretty damned bleak for Carruth. Does anyone believe at that point Read would calm down and leave? What would have happened if he wasn't shot? The interaction was ramped up to a level of high risk for Carruth. Split second decisions as we all know are often difficult to untangle because of the complexity of conflict. The best predictor of the future is the past. Read didn't back down, he didn't show any intention of leaving. The trajectory of the conflict to that point was not favorable to Carruth. Perhaps the shooting wasn't ethically or morally acceptable to us sitting at home, but to a smaller man that was confronted with possible injury or death, the decision to shoot was likely correct.
 
Not only did Reed threaten Carruth that he would take the gun and use it on him . Reed then made what could be reasonably thought to be an attempt to do that very thing when he grabbed the firearm as they both struggled .
Click to expand...
Read was being verbally belligerent, had refused to leave the premises and when confronted with "force" he threatened Carruth. Upon grabbing the firearm, Read's strength and size advantage was certainly intimidating to Carruth. Once Read managed to swing Carruth off the porch, the future appears pretty damned bleak for Carruth.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I see as well. only a split second after Read had unsuccessfully attempted to disarm Carruth , Mr. Carruth regained his footing and fired. Read had been aggressive and, could have been again easily. It was a decision he had to make. I believe it was the correct one.
 
The best predictor of the future is the past.
Click to expand...

A widely held belief, but "best" is not infallible or guaranteed accurate.

That being said, someone who 30 seconds ago (the past) said they were going to take my gun and use it on me, and then grabs my gun, I'd take that past as an accurate predictor of their intentions.

Its kind of stupid to wait until a growling snarling snapping dog bites you before deciding he's not there to give you doggy kisses.

:rolleyes:
 
Think through the potential scenario if Read hadn't been shot. I fully understand this is only a thought game, but to get a better feel for what Carruth was facing, it applies, in my opinion. Read was being verbally belligerent, had refused to leave the premises and when confronted with "force" he threatened Carruth. Upon grabbing the firearm, Read's strength and size advantage was certainly intimidating to Carruth. Once Read managed to swing Carruth off the porch, the future appears pretty damned bleak for Carruth. Does anyone believe at that point Read would calm down and leave? What would have happened if he wasn't shot? The interaction was ramped up to a level of high risk for Carruth. Split second decisions as we all know are often difficult to untangle because of the complexity of conflict. The best predictor of the future is the past. Read didn't back down, he didn't show any intention of leaving. The trajectory of the conflict to that point was not favorable to Carruth. Perhaps the shooting wasn't ethically or morally acceptable to us sitting at home, but to a smaller man that was confronted with possible injury or death, the decision to shoot was likely correct.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any physical stuff until Carruth got the gun and engaged in chest bumping with Reed. Although Reed's verbal threat proceeded that.

Legally and tactically I think Carruth should have stayed as calm as possible outside and brought his girlfriend inside. If Reed had made any attempt to enter the home then game over. He's lucky Reed didn't actually get the gun during the chest bumping.
 
I didn't see any physical stuff until Carruth got the gun and engaged in chest bumping with Reed.
Click to expand...

Understand that Read engaged Carruth with chest bumping (assault) and not the other way around. Carruth was standing still on the porch when Read took steps and then stepped up onto the porch made contact with Carruth while making verbal threats to harm Carruth.

Carruth was on Carruth property (no doubt which will be backed Carruth's father who will say his son had full authority to act as his agent) and had the legal right under Texas law to use force (display a gun) to get Read to leave Carruth property Read had already been told to leave.
 
Moderator Note: As y'all probably remember, we moderate L&CR with a pretty firm hand. With that said, let's see if we can avoid rumor-mongering and speculation (particularly with how this would have played out in other states). This case may, like the Rittenhouse case, present us with a claim of SD that we can watch from start to finish as it unfolds. Historically, that's been a pretty rare educational opportunity.
 
I think there is a lot of missing info in this case. From what I have seen, there is no camera angle that captures the deceased when the shots were fired, unlike Rittenhouse where we had multiple angles and cameras so that everyone involved was pretty much always in frame.

So we really do not know what the shooter saw when he fired.

The other thing, that is huge IMO, that is missing here is that these people were not strangers. They had an existing relationship (that afaik, we know nothing about) which will likely inform potential motives.
 
The other thing, that is huge IMO, that is missing here is that these people were not strangers. They had an existing relationship (that afaik, we know nothing about) which will likely inform potential motives.
Click to expand...
It's worth keeping in mind that it's actually quite common for a person to know the person they kill.
 
NOT INDICTED

The evidence simply wasn't there to support criminal charges for the shooting.

"The Office of the Attorney General, acting as Attorney Pro Tem, presented to a Special Grand Jury of Lubbock County, the investigation into the shooting of Chad Read by Kyle Carruth that occurred in Lubbock, Texas on November 5th, 2021. The presentation of the case included several eyewitnesses, family of Chad Read, and additional evidence that was not previously released to the public. After several days of thorough inspection of the evidence, the Special Grand Jury concluded their investigation into the matter and deliberated on whether the evidence supported the filing of criminal charges against Kyle Carruth. The Special Grand Jury voted today to not indict for any criminal charges against Kyle Carruth."
Click to expand...

https://www.everythinglubbock.com/n...e-carruth-not-indicted-in-death-of-chad-read/
https://kfyo.com/grand-jury-decline...-connection-with-shooting-death-of-chad-read/
https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ing-lubbock-grand-jury-no-charges/7239858001/
 
Well I thought it could have gone either way really . I would not have been surprised if it had gone the other way . I'm assuming the fact the incident happened in Texas and there laws had a big factor in the result . Here in CA Caruth would likely already be in jail for life or at minimum held with out bail until trial .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top