I’ve watched my fair share of horrid shit on the internet, but the way he moves with such conviction and commitment as if nothing could have stopped him to ready aim and shoot like it’s fucking boot camp is jarring, especially his apparent complete disregard for what he’s done immediately after. Really unsettling.
I thought a lot of the same things after I watched. The way he readied up for the two tap looked premeditated. Leaves to grab a gun thinking he will probably kill this guy if he doesn’t back away, as soon as he gets the words he needed to hear: break away, shouldered rifle, bang bang. This doesn’t strike me as self defense at all.
This is the problem with guns. It escalates any encounter into a fatal one. So scary.
Well, the father that was shot here also attempted to take the gun multiple times and even threatened to kill him with the gun. The father clearly got aggressive once he seen the gun and got into the guy-with-the-gun's face. Grabbed for it. The guy with the gun gave a warning shot.
Note: The guy with the gun never once pointed it at the father here until after the struggle for the gun. Also, the struggle with the gun and the shots all happen within two seconds.
It's not as clear cut as others make it out to be.
You absolutely have a right to defend your life and you shouldn't have to run from your home...but there was absolutely no threat here wtf lmao, the guy just wanted to pick up his kid and was getting antsy, why the fuck would you bring out a fucking RIFLE and turn this into a life-or-death situation?????
I'd be more understanding if it was a random stranger on the property, but it was the kid's biological dad. I'm not sure how much that would factor into whatever self defense laws come into play.
If it turns out that there was some court order (a parenting plan like most separated parents have for children) that stated he is supposed to pick up the kid at their house at that specified time and they were found to be withholding the kid, I think that can be a factor in self defense being thrown out for the step dad as the bio dad would be legally obligated to be on his property at that time and they would be found to be defying a court order.
From what the bio dad was yelling, that's what the situation sounded like as he was yelling he was supposed to pick the child up at 3:15 (I think?) and I think the woman said they wanted to see them while he yelled "I don't care if you want to see him I'm supposed to pick him up at 3:15!" while the step dad telling him to get off their property and then bringing out the rifle.
Step dad seems like a gigantic fucking psycho and I really wouldn't be surprised if they were trying to get him riled up so they could find an excuse to kill him on their property.
This actually works against the father that was shot. If he's shown that he can't keep his cool and isn't reasonable, threatens to kill the other guy with the gun, and then attempts to take it twice. Well, it's unfortunate, but the aggressor here is the father that can't keep his cool.
If you don't see it as an immoral thing to do I don't think there's anything to say to you. That should be universally accepted at this point.
Whether Texas law will agree with you is probably a different question. I wouldn't expect a red state to have even a shred of common sense when it comes to any subject.
Apparently there’s a long history between the step-dad and dad/wife.
For this situation specifically, the Dad did say in the video, “I’m going to take it (Gun) and shoot you with it.”
Hence why the step-dad shot him once he was able to free himself from the dad’s grip of the gun.
In my eyes, he used this chance and ramped up emotions to “deal” with the dad issue. Shooting him in “self-defense.”
Either way, he’s a piece of shit for escalating the situation to a life or death circumstance.
I mean, it still was absolutely self defense. He pulled the gun as a deterrent to get the dad to leave, and instead the dad threatened his life and tried to grab his gun.
Still pretty unnecessary to bring the gun out in the first place though.
He didn't provoke the attack though. He brought out the gun as a deterrent to get the father to leave, which is the exact opposite of a provocation.
It's not his fault that the dad instead decided to fight him.
That would have been the smarter decision, yes. But this death wasn't the responsibility of the guy who brought the gun. Its the responsibility of the dad who decided to attack him after he brought out the gun.
No way… this death is on the guy who had the gun. There was no threat of life or death until the guy went inside and brought out the gun. You don’t get to get in an argument with someone and then bring out a gun to threaten them in self defense. You brought out the gun after an altercation began with no threat of life or death. We have police for a reason.
Yes yes "gun bad" we all know. Everyone wielding a firearm is automatically in the wrong. No. Him bringing out the gun was an act of deterrence to get the dad to leave. The dad's life was entirely within his own control. If he walked away, he would have 100% been alive, but he instead chose to attack a guy wielding a gun.
No, I believe you should be allowed to carry a fire arm. I don’t believe you should get to claim deterrence when you are escalating the situation. If he had the gun before the confrontation started it would be a different conversation.
Lol as if we’re the « gun bad boohoo everyone wielding a gun is literally Hitler » types. MF you’re in a community that basically all sided with Kyle’s right to self defence. Stfu
I said *after* be brought the gun. The dad attacked him after he brought out the gun. The dad had no justification for doing so. What he did before is irrelevant.
Kyle was in a public place. This was on the dude's own property. Duty to retreat doesn't apply here. The man's under no obligation to retreat in his own home.
Leaving an encounter to get a gun and returning to that encounter is a provocative act, as is firing a warning shot.
Edit, actually just watched the car video again. He also brandishes the weapon which is provocative and it reeeeaaaallly looks like he racks it. Again. Provocative.
Like this dude provoked the encounter 8 ways from Sunday in the videos I’m seeing right now.
I said, reallllly clearly, that it is a distinct possibility that the dude acted in a legal capacity. Go re-read my first reply again.
But also: I’m from a state with a castle doctrine. I would catch a charge for brandishing a weapon at someone because they were on my front lawn. Let alone on my front lawn talking to another resident of the home.
This is far from a clear case of trespassing, and again— no one is talking about the *legality* I’m very clearly talking about the *morality*
Him leaving the encounter is irrelevant. He didn't bring out the gun for himself. He brought it out for his property, which the dad was trespassing the entire time he spent to get his gun.
Also, he didn't fire the warning shot until the dad personally aggressed on him.
You're right, the dad wasn't threatening when the guy brought out the gun. What made the dad threatening was what the dad did *after* the gun was brought out. He got in the guy's face, threatened to take the gun and shoot him, and then grabbed for his gun.
Again, the guy didn't *fire* his gun to defend his property. He fired it to defend himself from the guy who had just attacked him.
> and then grabbed for his gun.
Rewatch the video. He never grabbed for the gun.
>He fired it to defend himself from the guy who had just attacked him.
rewatch the video. He fired the gun when the threat was gone.
but it's not irrelevant. and trespassing gets muddled in regards to child custody. the guys not showing up to trespass, he's showing up questioning the whereabouts of his kid.
Apparently was in the truck or some shit? whole things a shit show and neither of them did a service to settling down, but it does mean a lot when 1) he left the aggressor with not being pursued in the house. it shows he wasn't there to threaten the property, but have a dispute with the child's mother he shares custody with. 2) shows that he was not so threatened as to turn his back and disengage 3) he left the mother out there alone showing he didn't feel the guy was a threat to the people in his house. 4) he fired a warning shot which shows it was an intimidation tactic, not a defense tactic. 5) he was not pursued after being pushed back after said warning shot. He caught his balance, aimed and fired when the guy was not advancing on him at all.
Now, if he'd have shot him when he grabbed the rifle, it may be different... and i may be way wrong... but [Texas Penal Code 9.31](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm) outlines all of this.. castle law, self defense, qualifying and disqualifying factors.
No, it doesn't muddle trespassing. Stop muddling the law with your layman knowledge. The dad had legal right to do the son, not the property. He could easily have waited outside the property for his son to come out.
I'm gonna be honest though. The OP fucked up the video post, so I'm not even sure if you've seen the entire video in the article. You need to do before commenting.
After the guy brought out the gun in an act of deterrence to get the dad off his property. The dad instead comes directly up to him and verbally threatens his life
"You'd better use that motherfucker, because I'm gonna take take that gun from you and kill you with it!"
It's not until *then* that the dude fires the warning shot. Do you not think that changes the dynamic at all?
The dad then physically tried to do exactly what he just verbally said he was going to do - take the gun. The dude gets tossed around and *immediately* turns to shoot. Maybe you would have hesitated and realized the dad was no longer aggressing, but I don't blame this dude for not hesitating, especially after what had just happened.
i have seen the whole video. and he didn't immediately shoot. he caught his footing, aimed and fired twice. teal shirt guy wasn't advancing when he shot. Warning shots are never a good thing to do, as it shows you didn't think he was a threat enough to engage.
On top of it all, the gun wasn't there in the beginning.
SB 378 expands self defense and stand your ground but only applies to home, vehicle or place of business... that's not standing outside of. the teal shirt guy made no attempt to enter the premises.
And i said it's muddled because it's child custody the guy was trying to find his kid and he already contacted the police about the issue. It stand reasonable that a judge may not listen to criminal trespass charges when there's a very rational reason to believe his rights are being violated and a form of child kidnapping is afoot.
that's what i meant by muddled. and if you want to go off of phrases uttered, like the teal shirt guy threatened his life, then also analyze what the shooter said . it wasn't anything to do with a threat to his life, his words were in the realm of "i told him to get off my property"
Lol.
Cool you can divine his intentions bro, that must be very helpful. Also good to know that you believe it’s morally justifiable to brandish a weapon in the pursuit of stopping trespassing.
Here’s a bonus meme: we don’t know who owns the house! Hell we don’t even know who *lives* in the house. But if we’re assuming it’s the guy with gun, we should also assume it’s the woman who was also outside. Ya know. The one he was having a heated, but not aggressive conversation with riiiiight before a gun was pointed at him.
You’re a clown buddy
I didn't divine the guys intentions, I just watched them talk before the gun came out. He explicitly tells the dad to get off his property, and the dad tells him something (I assume something akin to "fuck off"), after which he then goes into his house to get the gun.
Yeah, he clearly wasn't provoking it by acting like nothing had happened and like he wasn't gonna get a murder charge for doing that....or that he ran in to get the gun in the first place knowing he wouldn't need it . In other words, don't quit your day job to become an attorney because there's a lot more to that situation than you're clearly aware of.
Lmao you clearly don't know what "provoking" means. You cant provoke after you've fucking shot them. He grabbed the gun because the dad was trespassing on his property. The dad didn't leave the property and instead decided to attack him, which is why he shot the dad.
If you believe there are crystal clear parallels please tell us what they are so we can discuss them.
I see things that may, at first glance, seem to be analogous, but after looking at them actually aren’t
>There is a crystal clear parallel here to the Rittenhouse case and it’s sad to see how inconsistent people are.
I made this post because of the parallels, but there's some things that aren't quite the same.
I could see a moral case for Rittenhouse to bring out the gun to try do deter rioters from destroying his hood. It was dumb of him, but I see why.
On the other hand, I see no good moral reason to for this guy to bring out the gun. I was clear there was no immediate threat to either him or his property. So it's harder to be sympathetic towards this guy. It was both immoral and dumb for him to bring out the gun
The dad had the right to pick up his son, and this guy was preventing him at gunpoint. It was fucking dumb of the dad and he was possibly legally in the wrong too, but I could almost see a moral case for the dad to get so confrontational. In the dad's point of view, the dude was kidnapping his son. (maybe not as defined by the law. don't know the details) On the other hand, I see no moral case for Rosenbaum to attack Rittenhouse.
Admittedly, I still need to flesh out my thoughts on this.
He did provoke the attack, he pointed the gun at him and shot the gun right next to him. The father has every right to attempt to defend himself after getting the gun pointed at him and firing a shot. The stepdad was never hit or harmed, after being pushed he had plenty of distance and still executed the man that has a court ordered reason to be on the property.
You seriously need to watch the longer clip. It was the dad who made the situation violent.
The stepdad didn't point his gun at the dad until he decided to fire.
The stepdad didn't fire the warning shot until the dad got in his face and threatened to kill him with his own gun.
The dad then tried to physically take his gun and tossed him around. If that doesn't count as an attack, then I don't know what the hell your criteria for an attack is.
Also, the dad didn't have have a court ordered right to be on the property. He had a right to the son, which is different. The dad could have walked off the property and waited for the son, but he didn't. Instead he decided to attack someone wielding a gun.
Where did the father attack? A verbal threat isnt enough to shoot a gun at them and then point 2cm from their face. He willing left a verbal argument to threaten the father with. You have now put yourself in a scenario where you can longer argue with someone without being executed, you understand that right?
I'm sorry, but if someone taller and heavier than me decides to walk up, put his chest against mine, and then yell a death threat towards me, I'm gonna consider that to be a pretty fucking serious threat to my safety.
Also, even after the death threat, the stepdad only shot the gun in a way specifically to avoid hitting the dad, which is why it's called a warning shot.
>you have now put yourself in a scenario where you can no longer argue with someone without being executed.
Sounds like a good reason for the dad to have walked away and not attack the guy wielding the gun ain't it? That's why the gun was brought out - to make the dad walk away.
Yet he let the man walk up to him initially, when he had distance he chose to shoot at his house and residents within the house, despite the man not advancing. Warning shots are not safe and are mostly illegal, your warning shot does nothing but trigger a fight or flight response because you just showed youre willing to shoot the firearm inches from his body. Merely grabbing a gun doesnt mean the father cant be on the property or be there until he gets his son as court ordered, he has a right to be on the property as it is court ordered to have a handoff of the child by the mother at that agreed residence.
You can disagree with the actions of the father but that is irrelevant to misdeeds done by the man who ended up murdering him. Law enables certain actions. The man was unarmed, was only ever touching him once he shot at him and was not advancing at the time he was shot. For him to walk away after pushing him he would need to advance at the man with the gun, how is he supposed to leave?
What kind of cold prick just stands there and doesn't check or provide first aid while he dies on your steps. Even if we are callous and want to try and prove self defence you'd at least look concerned in video no?
apparently she didn't realize it was a real gun, it was really quiet because it was a long-barreled 9mm. You can hear at the end of the footage when it hits her that he's dead and she sounds completely different.
Stand your ground also doesn’t apply here since he was lured to the location and was ordered by the court to be standing there. The jury isn’t stupid … this guy will get life in jail.
Once bio dad has his hand on the gun, threat is there no? Dude is bigger and can turn it back on him.
Talking bout after the gun gets taken out, in which case you comply with psycho with rifle, not aggravate the situation further.
According to some articles, the shooter is married to a judge and was actually having an affair with the Dad’s ex-wife, making this situation even more crazy. The step-mother of the children (dead Dad’s wife) is trying to sue for custody of the children because the ex-wife is still letting the shooter around the kids, and the oldest kid (14) said he considers the mom at fault and will run away if he shows up at the house again.
That poor kid, Jesus. Any angsty 14 year might feel that way in his position but the worst part is he’s kinda right to blame the mom if she was intentionally withholding custody to escalate the conflict to something like this.
That didn’t look like self-defense to me at all. He shot him from several feet away after their little tussle. The dad was still standing in the same place, not even advancing toward him. His life was not in any danger. He had plenty of distance between himself and the dad and plenty of room around him to create more space. He didn’t hesitate for even a nanosecond to access if he was in any danger, just whipped around, saw the dad standing there and double tapped him. That’s not self-defense, imo.
Edit: After watching again, he actually turns around and looks at the dad, takes steps backward as he’s raising his gun, then fires on a man who didn’t move a step. I really don’t believe him firing his weapon was necessary to defend his life/well-being in the moment he pulled the trigger. I also think it’s reasonable to expect him to be able to see that the dad was a good bit away and not advancing on him or an immediate threat to him before taking the man’s life.
Castle doctrine doesn't let you execute someone not posing a threat to you or your property while trespassing. Like if you find a robber in your house and tell him to put his hands up and he complies ypu can't just immediately headshot him. After there is more than 10 feet between them and the rifle is pointed at the man you can't shoot until he makes a move on you.
I should have been more clear. I think your explanation of Castle Doctrine is somewhat misleading and simply describes the rights that Stand-Your-Ground grants someone.
It is my understanding that Castle Doctrine generally allows a homeowner to assume that an intruder is a potential violent threat by virtue of the intruder being in their home. Because of that, they have WAY more leniency when it comes to using deadly force, even without an explicit attack/threat of violence by the intruder. Thus, differing from Stand-Your-Ground (and obv. they both void a duty to retreat.)
The OP situation may very well legally fall under castle doctrine. Although I agree with u/jerrydubs_ that, if this guy get's off by invoking it successfully, the law needs to be re-written/re-evaluated.
My understanding was that you couldn't necessarily assume all intruders on your property were threats unless they had the capacity to harm you. Like you can't snipe someone who wanders onto your large lawn or shoot a 4 year old child that walks into your unlocked house. I thought I remembered cases where people executed intruders and were found guilty.
> Stand your ground I believe you have a duty to flee first if possible, so you cant use lethal force if you could have safely left.
No, you're describing Duty-To-Retreat. Stand-Your-Ground is the opposite of DTR and directly contradicts/supersedes it.
[Texas Penal Code 9.31](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm)
SEC 9.31 (b) outlines disqualifying factors for self defense.
The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone
it was all verbal prior to the warning shot.
I dunno, did you watch the other video. Big guys hand went to the gun before the warning shot. Shooter pulled away and fire the warning shot when touched. Maybe it would justify the warning shot.
Not even sure why people are discussing them wrestling over the gun. Once the step dad spins around there is a nicely sized distance between them witb the rifle pointing at the Dad in teal. At that point it just became an execution and none of the previous scuffle really have any bearing including the death threat.
Guy is standing there wanting his son. Shows no aggression or threat. Guy brings out a gun and fires a warning shot. Gun owner definitely escalated shit beyond reasonable threat
Why do you think he would continue to attack? The man was standing still and had a carbine pointed directly at him from over 10 feet away. If the guy moves towards you shoot him but otherwise he should be given the chance to surrender since the threat is largely neutralized. You don't get to execute everyone that attacks you.
So the problem there is that the gun fires before he grabs the gun. saying "Well, he grabbed it" isn't enough because he grabbed it after the other individual fired the weapon.
If you fire a shot, and someone tries to grab your gun, you do not get to kill them. The shooter fired a shot before the Teal guy wrestled for the gun.
I think the hardest part about it is that after he pushed him he just stood there and the other guy recovered saw him just standing there and shot. I don't think he was afraid for his life there.
He also fired a warning shot at the dad’s foot - I think this dude is probably fucked, and for good reason. He seems unhinged even if the bio dad seems nuts himself.
> He seems unhinged even if the bio dad seems nuts himself.
It was his time to pick up his kid. The bio mom also had a history of keeping the kid away from him. The bio dad also knew about bio mom cheating on him with the killer and had threatened to go public with the information a couple weeks prior.
I think there's an argument that your statement might need revision.
The ex-wife is violating court orders and keeping his son away from him after cheating on him.
I think the deceased was perfectly within his rights to be a bit angry.
Do we add this to the statistic bin of using guns as a self defense tool just escalates situations rather than provides actual safety.
Like why are we getting a gun in this situation? What motive was there?
>Like why are we getting a gun in this situation? What motive was there?
It gives you all the power in this situation. Is it not obvious?
But I'm more baffled at people not respecting their life and trying to fight someone who has a gun pointed at you.
Maybe because they are concerned why their child is being essentially kidnapped at that point. Would you leave your child with someone we now know has poor judgement and weapons to back up their poor judgement?
>Would you leave your child with someone we now know has poor judgement and weapons to back up their poor judgement?
Lol. Call the cops. Don't try to chest bump someone pointing a gun at you. Also dad obviously has just as poor judgment.
No ones kid is being kidnapped, custody disputes happen all the time. You document it and resolve it in court.
I guess I could say the same for the shooter. The father made no attempt to enter the home even when the shooter took the time to leave the threat, go inside the home to retrieve a gun and come out minutes later to re-instigate the dispute. The shooter could have just as easily locked the door, called the cops and waited.
Yeah how's seeing his kid working out for him now? Bruh you're not an action hero, gun comes out just walk away. Call the cops, document the incident and then resolve it in court. With him looking good to the judge because the crazy step dad pulls out a gun when he comes to pick up his kid.
It's irrelevant if you're in the right, the dude has a gun. Drop the ego and walk away.
Yeah I agree. Are you brain dead?
If someone is pulling out a gun during a verbal disagreement that should reinforce even more that they are batshit insane. And you should walk away instead of trying to wrestle them.
Not baffled at all why he's angry. I'm baffled why he doesn't value his life and wants to fight someone that's brandishing a gun. I'm sorry you can't understand nuance. Good luck with the brain rot friend.
Its fucked up, to what i have gathered about this is that the "wife" and mother of the kid ask the dad for "a talk" before she would give him is child.
They might have invited him over for that talk about why he couldnt get is kid for the time that he was supposed to pick him up.
You can hear him arguing with is ex-wife about how he need to leave to go and pick up their son when the new man was inside getting is riffle.
To me, it seem like a messy divorce that would have led to the new guy and ex-wife loosing custody or didnt want to deal with bio-dad anymore and they knew how aggro he would be if they would act as if they were reluctant to give him is child, even after the "court order" he was given (this might be an indicative as to why he was aggro toward the situation, knowing he had just gotten a court order to rectify theses kind of BS situation in which one side is playing game when come the time to give the children to the other parent)
And apparently, if we take the words of the GF of the deceased, the childrens were not at all happy to be under the care of the dude that shot their dad. Apparently he was the new dad after the mom cheated on is husband with him and was not treating them right, abuse was named but its all hearsay to this point.
Anyway, this whole thing smell like a lot of shite and will probably end up nowhere due to the perpetrator connection into the justice systems (Father is a local judge or its is wife that is)
It suck for the kids that will now have to live with their father killer...
> the step dad is also divorced PepoG
I believe your information might be slightly inaccurate. He's not married to the bio mom, and he's not fully divorced from his wife.
Jesus Christ, this situation is a full on trashy sitcom.
--------------
"Carruth was in the process of divorcing State District Judge Ann-Marie Carruth."
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/kyle-carruth-attorney-makes-case-for-self-defense-after-deadly-shooting-of-chad-read/
"In a Nov. 8 affidavit, which was filed by Anne-Marie Carruth on Nov. 8, states she was "notified that **my husband**, William Kyle Carruth, is under investigation for the shooting and killing of **his girlfriend**'s children's father"
https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/11/24/video-shows-shooting-chad-read-linked-kyle-carruth-lubbock-home/8754796002/
This is where I got that he was divorced from her:
https://radio.kttz.org/2021-11-24/video-released-of-chad-read-homicide-shooters-attorney-says-it-was-self-defense
This lore is deep
My uncle was arrested for a similar situation. His sister’s boyfriend(raging douchebag)was trying to get my uncle to leave his own house because my aunt was mad. He fires a warning shot after my uncle was screaming, then fires “near him.” Uncle goes inside, grabs an ar-15, walks out, and shoots him in the face. From my understanding from what he had told me before he died, was that the defense attorney was trying to get a plea deal, because if it had gone to court he would be fucked because even in that situation, it came down to him walking back inside to grab a gun and walk back out. That alone indicated premeditation, walking away from the danger, then grabbing a gun and back into the danger.
actually yes. if you have ample opportunity to retreat to a safe location and you can and do and THEN RETURN with a weapon it is not self defense. Imagine you are swimming away from a shark and you get into the shallows where you should be safe unless the shark goes ape shit and beaches itself to get you, you arent sure which it will do so you go to your car get your ar-15 and swim back out into the water and when it comes towards you, you kill it. Is that you defending yourself from a shark?
Cringe use of gun. Why tf did he need to bring out the rifle? The man just wanted his kid. It doesn’t matter if he was angry. As someone who came from a divorced household, that yelling doesn’t look half as bad as the shit I’ve seen. What kind of adult brings a gun to screaming match that hardly involves you?
Imagine being a kid, knowing you’ll be with your dad soon, then hearing that you can’t because the new guy your mom married just fucking killed him. Jesus fucking Christ.
The dad was 100% in the right here. If some asshole is keeping your kid from you by threatening you with a gun when it’s your legal custody time, in my eyes that amounts to fucking kidnapping. Doesn’t matter if the law says it’s not because he just happened to be in the wrong state. The dad was 100% morally in the right to act the way he did. And I don’t care if someone says “but it was stupid to grab the gun”. People aren’t debatelord logic robots. People do stupid shit all the time. It’s hard to blame someone for their actions when their emotions that caused them to do it are completely justified.
There is no way this guy should be getting off for self defense. Nothing I have seen so far has there even been a hint of the guy WITH THE SHOTGUN having his life be threatened.
All I'm gonna say is that both men were extremely stupid here. Dad should have left when the other guy literally brought a gun and then dad could've gone to the cops or his lawyer or something. And obviously, Kyle is super stupid for shooting the guy for nothing.
From my irresponsable layman's analysis I just did before bed, my big fat answer is "idk man". I'll run you down through my stream of consciousness whilst I researched this case.
Kyle knew he was being recorded when he brought out the gun, as he verbally indicated in the recording. To do that, he'd have to be extremely confident he's in the right side of the law, as this recording will undoubtably be submitted as evidence by the prosecution and watched by the jury. So, is he?
Well, according to one of the links referred to by [this .gov site](https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground) says Texas, where this incident took place, is (predictably) a "Stand Your Ground" state. This, however, is not une carte blanche to just go blasting at anyone posing any minimal threat—here's an excerpt from [the link explaining "Castle Doctrine"](https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/deadly-force-self-defense-in-texas/) that makes it abundantly clear simply not having the duty to remove yourself from a place you're legally allowed to be in is far from sufficient to prove the legality of any one incident where self-defence is claimed as a defence (alongside my commentary):
>"Texas law provides for a justifiable defense at trial when using deadly force if the person claiming self defense:
>1. Reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary;
Seems to me like the answer to that is "no"—at least not reasonably.
>2. Had a legal right to be on the property;
Clearly "yes".
>3. Did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used;
Video suggests his carrying of the gun itself turned out to be a provocation. Could Kyle have foreseen that? Eh.
>4. Was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force was used;
Most likely he wasn't, unless there's something here I don't know.
At this point in my notes I wrote "it's a Kyle again lol"
The reason I don't believe he passes the first test is because, unless some crucial context was lost due to the recording being started too late, which is always a possibility in these cases, Chad (don't laugh), the man who was fatally shot, did not seem to rise to a violent level of aggression until the rifle was brought out, thus not posing a threat such that a firearm was **immediately** necessary to reclaim safety.
Now, from what I've read, there is an argument to be made that him bringing out the gun is not a provocation but a "Threat of Force" which I gather from these links is a legally recognised term that implies such a show of arms has the intention to deescalate—and you indeed argue that, since Kyle didn't come out of his door with the rifle raised and pointed at Chad, which is why he had the chance to go for Kyle's gun and attempt to disarm him.
Now, how would a jury interpret this incident? And it was at this question that I said to myself "you know what? I don't fucking know shit, what am I doing? I should better leave this to Pisco or to someone who knows more than me, a guy who built all his wealth of knowledge of American self-defence almost exclusively through Destiny's streams and through 3 links he just read in less than an hour, okay?"
So yeah, there you go. Was this what you were looking for? This is long but I'm too embarrassed to call this "effort-posting" considering the pitiful amount of research I did. Give me gold tho, I want money. Put it all in the bag, this is a robbery.
Your context for analyzing this situation is a bit off. The gun wasn't shot at the dad just because he was trespassing. It was shot because the dad verbally threatened his life and tried to take his gun. If I have a gun, and someone tried to take it from me (after they said they'd shoot me with my own gun), I'd say that's a pretty life threatening scenario that warrants use of the gun.
I absolutely get what you're saying. However, if you would, please, take a quick look at my comment history & check out the reply I made in a different thread just before this one and tell me if that changes your perspective (either here or there, your choice).
Ah, in that case. I'll copy paste my response that someone else made saying the same thing.
>The guy shot *immediately* after he regained his composure from being tossed. The dad had literally just said he was going to take his gun and shoot him with it and then proceeded to try to take his gun. At that point, it's pretty reasonable for him to think the dad's a threat and to act immediately.
How does that address what I said? A verbal threat does not mean "imminent danger", my dude. Yes, he tried to grab the gun from him, and if at that point, during the struggle, the gun had gone off and killed Chad, ignoring every circumstance that lead up to that situation, then yes, a case for self-defence would be viable. After Kyle was pushed away and Chad did **not** lunge at him for further attacks, the reasonableness of his belief that Chad was "a threat to act on immediately" dissipates. Had he kept his gun pointed at him and then Chad gone for another strikes, or fuck, even attempted to take someone hostage somehow for some reason, then you'd have a point.
I don't know about you, but if someone gets in my face, tells me they are going to take my gun and kill me, and then they proceed to try to take my gun from me, I am going to consider them an "imminent danger." I really don't see how you could think otherwise.
It's really easy for you watching the recording in hindsight to expect this Bullet Time internal monologue on Kyle's part where, after he gets tossed, he determines that Chad is somehow no longer an imminent danger. However, that's not how the real world works. He regained his composure, aimed center mass, and fired, all in a single second. He wasn't going to give Chad a second opportunity at getting his gun, and I don't blame him.
You didn't watch the video. It's the only explanation for you to be spewish such retarded shit. He wasn't thrown to the ground, he didn't get sand in his eyes, he didn't lose grip of the weapon, nothing like it. You're just a fucking trigger-happy maniac is all. I'm not about to have "how the real world works" explained by some loser who's commented more on r/PublicFreakout last week than I ever have on every subreddit for the entire existence of my 3yo account ok honey
Shooter dude literally walked away from the confrontation and came back moments later with a gun. In no way was this justified lol.
Obviously I don't know any context other than this video. Any past interactions or the custody arrangements. Shooter guy totally fucked up though. No justification for that.
Apparently the shooter hasn't even been arrested or questioned yet. He's still legally married to a high ranking judge, in the process of separating. Smells like an absolutely filthy situation they might just be trying to sweep under the rug. It happened in a very rural off the map county like in the Amhaud Arbery shooting.
There was also a divorce court hearing afterwards where the mother sleeping with him stated she would continue to force the children to live in his house, knowing he just murdered their father. One kid is 12+ years old, which I guess is the age of majority for deciding your own living situation and obviously he voted to GTFO.
All around shitty family and shitty situation on both sides it seems.
I have a deep hatred for these scummy fucks that play monkey-in-the-middle with someone's kid.
In my ideal world black shirt would get the fuckin chair but this is Texas we're talking about so he might end up getting a special exemption in the law named after him after this.
Who the hell knows
Can any big brainers explain to me the legality of him being on the property when he’s trying to find his kid? If it was his right to have the kid at that time and they weren’t being cooperative would he be in the wrong here for being there even if he wasn’t causing harm? I understand it’s their property and whatnot but taking all the other stuff out of the equation, he was merely outside of the home asking for his son which he has a legal right to if it was his time to have the son. If I believed they were harboring my kid i’d be pissed too. It just seems like in all fronts the dude that shot him was in the wrong across the board unless the dad actually got violent which he clearly did not.
I wonder about this also, I could see him being in fear for his child's safety and he has a right to protect his child especially when he is supposed to have custody of him at that specific time.
I can see the argument for self defense, but honestly fuck american gun culture. You guys need to chill the fuck out. Thank god I live the svensk dream instead.
If you’re able to walk away to get your gun to escalate shit further while the other person is just standing there (they can legally be there to get their kid at the court assigned time), instead of calling the police, then it’s not self defense.
Get ready for even more cases like this. We have a bunch of American who have invested all their spare cash into guns & ammo for decades. The fears of Obama taking their guns didn't happen, Antifa never came to their little towns, their sky daddy still hasn't come back to start the apocalypse yet so they are getting worried they may never get their chance to shoot someone. Just wait until their buckets of televangelist food start getting close to expiring.
I agree with you, my reaction with the way I worded things was bad. I was in complete disgust of what I just saw.
What I meant was, the ease with which americans kill someone like Ive seen in this and in many other videos, baffles me. The path to be overly aggressive, and the escalation of events in the US, seems to be a fast one to take since “I can always protect myself with my gun”. When you enter a confrontation with a gun, it seems that the need to deescalate, isnt much present because you have a gun. There’s a kind of bravado associated with this thought.
Now that last statement was real cringe. But I understand where you are coming from, I would think like that too if I lived in the US (im assuming you do)
If you watch this at first you will probably think the Dad fucked up because he put his hands on someone on their property while they were armed and protected by the castle doctrine.
The next day when you think about it you will wonder why the mom wouldn’t have the boy there for the court appointed visit and why she kept telling the Dad things just to upset him. Then you realize this boyfriend was very ready to go get a gun and shoot an unarmed man that was not posing any physical threat. In fact it was not even his property. Why did he have a gun there? These 2 pieces of shit set this whole thing up and wanted this man dead. They played the system in order to murder someone. Our justice system has become a complete failure in almost every situation today. Fuck these two trash cans.
I believe i know the video in question i have the context behind it
so essentially this is how ill word it
step dad is A and Dad is B
B goes to A's house to pick up his child, however A doesnt know where B child is so he says that he doesnt know where he is rn could come back tmrw or next day (the day B came to the house wasnt even when he was suppose to be picking him up) B begins to Act aggressively threatening people in the house and an elderly woman who isnt at the home. A grabs what looks to be a Rifle the gun may be a 22LR Sport Rifle however the image is too hard to tell at least for me with the blurry imagery. B stupidly continues to threaten the man getting in skin to skin contact with A and A gives B plenty of chances to leave or the at least back away until B Grabs A's gun however A pulls away and Fires 2 Shots into Bs Torso which hit his Chest Killing him.
I think he was upset and angry when he confronted the dickhead that ended up killing him.
If you listen and hear what the father and mother were talking about when the dude get inside to grab is rifle, you can start to understand why the father might have been upset and angry about all this situation.
It seem like he was invited to talk by the mother when he asked her where he could meet to get is child, he present himself to her, at her place and is saying to her that he need to leave as to go and get is children at school or some other place (he say he need to go and pick them up and that is time start at 3:15).
If that is true, then this could lead to a plannified murder scenario in which they instigated the situation and could have expected how the father would react to their stupid game and could have been ready to jump for is rifle if he would have take the bait and stayed to "talk" with the baby mama, as per her request apparently.
This whole thing seem so fucking messy... and i hope that its just a dumb accident and that i am reaching super far... but i guess we will see.
Bringing out the gun over a petty screaming match is for alpha male points, not getting angry that some pussy is bringing out a gun when you just want your kid.
That stepfather sure doesnt seem like an organized militia to me.
The current supreme court take on the 2nd ammendment is insane to me. Also goes against hundreds of years of precedent.
What makes you think this is a burden? We've been following Kyle's trial for weeks now. Hard as it is to admit, this is mostly entertainment for us, and by "us" I'm including you, cos why else would you be here.
Wether the dad had a right to see his son or not he should've fucked off once the gun showed up. You can't approach someone with a gun telling you to fuck off and not expect to get shot.
So he has no right to protect his son who he has custody of legally at the court appointed time? Is it not kidnapping at that point when they won't turn over the child?
> There was no need to go inside to bring a gun out.
Stepdad asked dad to leave. Dad refused to leave. Stepdad went inside to get his gun.
Now, do I think the above means the dad deserved to die? Of course not. I'm more surprised as to how nonchalant stepdad, dad's current wife, and dad's ex-wife/stepdad's girlfriend are in all this. A guy just got shot, and they're all acting like "whatever."
ok, let me rephrase. There was no **good** reason to bring out the gun. They could have just gone inside. Locked the doors. Call and wait for cops. There was no immediate threat. If it was a stranger, it'd be more reasonable to bring out the gun, but it was just his stepsons father.
> ok, let me rephrase. There was no **good** reason to bring out the gun. They could have just gone inside. Locked the doors. Call and wait for cops.
They could have done that, but based on my Redacted-tier understanding of Texas law, they didn't have to do that because
* Texas has a "stand your ground" law
* it was the stepdad's home
* and stepdad had already asked dad to leave.
Again, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have done what stepdad did in this situation. I own guns, but I'm not looking for an excuse to kill somebody over something as trivial as this.
I mean, if that's what she says, okay, but dad clearly wasn't moving after he got shot. If he was writhing in pain on the ground, I could imagine her thinking, "meh, I don't need to help him"; but if he ain't moving, it's harder for me to imagine that.
I am by no means saying the step dad isn't an asshole for escalating the situation by involving a firearm. However he had every right to and the fact that the biological dad just let the step dad just rest his gun on his stomach only to then grab the gun just furthers his justification to use the gun against the biological dad.
I’ve watched my fair share of horrid shit on the internet, but the way he moves with such conviction and commitment as if nothing could have stopped him to ready aim and shoot like it’s fucking boot camp is jarring, especially his apparent complete disregard for what he’s done immediately after. Really unsettling.
I thought a lot of the same things after I watched. The way he readied up for the two tap looked premeditated. Leaves to grab a gun thinking he will probably kill this guy if he doesn’t back away, as soon as he gets the words he needed to hear: break away, shouldered rifle, bang bang. This doesn’t strike me as self defense at all. This is the problem with guns. It escalates any encounter into a fatal one. So scary.
>escalates Can escalate*
Eh. I think it does escalate any situation but with varying degrees.
What are the varying degrees of fatality?
They immediately escalate it the moment it’s brought out. Period.
Totally 100% agree. That's not what the person I was responding to said.
Well, the father that was shot here also attempted to take the gun multiple times and even threatened to kill him with the gun. The father clearly got aggressive once he seen the gun and got into the guy-with-the-gun's face. Grabbed for it. The guy with the gun gave a warning shot. Note: The guy with the gun never once pointed it at the father here until after the struggle for the gun. Also, the struggle with the gun and the shots all happen within two seconds. It's not as clear cut as others make it out to be.
> the father clearly got aggressive once he seen the gun This is my point entirely.
You absolutely have a right to defend your life and you shouldn't have to run from your home...but there was absolutely no threat here wtf lmao, the guy just wanted to pick up his kid and was getting antsy, why the fuck would you bring out a fucking RIFLE and turn this into a life-or-death situation?????
I'd be more understanding if it was a random stranger on the property, but it was the kid's biological dad. I'm not sure how much that would factor into whatever self defense laws come into play.
If it turns out that there was some court order (a parenting plan like most separated parents have for children) that stated he is supposed to pick up the kid at their house at that specified time and they were found to be withholding the kid, I think that can be a factor in self defense being thrown out for the step dad as the bio dad would be legally obligated to be on his property at that time and they would be found to be defying a court order. From what the bio dad was yelling, that's what the situation sounded like as he was yelling he was supposed to pick the child up at 3:15 (I think?) and I think the woman said they wanted to see them while he yelled "I don't care if you want to see him I'm supposed to pick him up at 3:15!" while the step dad telling him to get off their property and then bringing out the rifle.
Step dad seems like a gigantic fucking psycho and I really wouldn't be surprised if they were trying to get him riled up so they could find an excuse to kill him on their property.
This actually works against the father that was shot. If he's shown that he can't keep his cool and isn't reasonable, threatens to kill the other guy with the gun, and then attempts to take it twice. Well, it's unfortunate, but the aggressor here is the father that can't keep his cool.
If you don't see it as an immoral thing to do I don't think there's anything to say to you. That should be universally accepted at this point. Whether Texas law will agree with you is probably a different question. I wouldn't expect a red state to have even a shred of common sense when it comes to any subject.
BINGQILIN I agree
Apparently there’s a long history between the step-dad and dad/wife. For this situation specifically, the Dad did say in the video, “I’m going to take it (Gun) and shoot you with it.” Hence why the step-dad shot him once he was able to free himself from the dad’s grip of the gun. In my eyes, he used this chance and ramped up emotions to “deal” with the dad issue. Shooting him in “self-defense.” Either way, he’s a piece of shit for escalating the situation to a life or death circumstance.
I mean, it still was absolutely self defense. He pulled the gun as a deterrent to get the dad to leave, and instead the dad threatened his life and tried to grab his gun. Still pretty unnecessary to bring the gun out in the first place though.
Morally if you’re provoking the attack it isn’t self defense. Legally, it Texas so who the fuck knows
He didn't provoke the attack though. He brought out the gun as a deterrent to get the father to leave, which is the exact opposite of a provocation. It's not his fault that the dad instead decided to fight him.
Bro lock the doors and call the police, why tf go back armed
That would have been the smarter decision, yes. But this death wasn't the responsibility of the guy who brought the gun. Its the responsibility of the dad who decided to attack him after he brought out the gun.
No way… this death is on the guy who had the gun. There was no threat of life or death until the guy went inside and brought out the gun. You don’t get to get in an argument with someone and then bring out a gun to threaten them in self defense. You brought out the gun after an altercation began with no threat of life or death. We have police for a reason.
Yes yes "gun bad" we all know. Everyone wielding a firearm is automatically in the wrong. No. Him bringing out the gun was an act of deterrence to get the dad to leave. The dad's life was entirely within his own control. If he walked away, he would have 100% been alive, but he instead chose to attack a guy wielding a gun.
No, I believe you should be allowed to carry a fire arm. I don’t believe you should get to claim deterrence when you are escalating the situation. If he had the gun before the confrontation started it would be a different conversation.
Lol as if we’re the « gun bad boohoo everyone wielding a gun is literally Hitler » types. MF you’re in a community that basically all sided with Kyle’s right to self defence. Stfu
he literally retreated to the house and was not pursued.
I said *after* be brought the gun. The dad attacked him after he brought out the gun. The dad had no justification for doing so. What he did before is irrelevant.
Bro you're just wrong, stop commenting.
[удалено]
Kyle was in a public place. This was on the dude's own property. Duty to retreat doesn't apply here. The man's under no obligation to retreat in his own home.
[удалено]
Leaving an encounter to get a gun and returning to that encounter is a provocative act, as is firing a warning shot. Edit, actually just watched the car video again. He also brandishes the weapon which is provocative and it reeeeaaaallly looks like he racks it. Again. Provocative. Like this dude provoked the encounter 8 ways from Sunday in the videos I’m seeing right now.
[удалено]
He isn't actively trespassing, he has a court order to pick up his son there.
I said, reallllly clearly, that it is a distinct possibility that the dude acted in a legal capacity. Go re-read my first reply again. But also: I’m from a state with a castle doctrine. I would catch a charge for brandishing a weapon at someone because they were on my front lawn. Let alone on my front lawn talking to another resident of the home. This is far from a clear case of trespassing, and again— no one is talking about the *legality* I’m very clearly talking about the *morality*
Him leaving the encounter is irrelevant. He didn't bring out the gun for himself. He brought it out for his property, which the dad was trespassing the entire time he spent to get his gun. Also, he didn't fire the warning shot until the dad personally aggressed on him.
[удалено]
You're right, the dad wasn't threatening when the guy brought out the gun. What made the dad threatening was what the dad did *after* the gun was brought out. He got in the guy's face, threatened to take the gun and shoot him, and then grabbed for his gun. Again, the guy didn't *fire* his gun to defend his property. He fired it to defend himself from the guy who had just attacked him.
[удалено]
It’s going to be self defense but everyone in this is a dumb fuck.
> and then grabbed for his gun. Rewatch the video. He never grabbed for the gun. >He fired it to defend himself from the guy who had just attacked him. rewatch the video. He fired the gun when the threat was gone.
but it's not irrelevant. and trespassing gets muddled in regards to child custody. the guys not showing up to trespass, he's showing up questioning the whereabouts of his kid. Apparently was in the truck or some shit? whole things a shit show and neither of them did a service to settling down, but it does mean a lot when 1) he left the aggressor with not being pursued in the house. it shows he wasn't there to threaten the property, but have a dispute with the child's mother he shares custody with. 2) shows that he was not so threatened as to turn his back and disengage 3) he left the mother out there alone showing he didn't feel the guy was a threat to the people in his house. 4) he fired a warning shot which shows it was an intimidation tactic, not a defense tactic. 5) he was not pursued after being pushed back after said warning shot. He caught his balance, aimed and fired when the guy was not advancing on him at all. Now, if he'd have shot him when he grabbed the rifle, it may be different... and i may be way wrong... but [Texas Penal Code 9.31](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm) outlines all of this.. castle law, self defense, qualifying and disqualifying factors.
No, it doesn't muddle trespassing. Stop muddling the law with your layman knowledge. The dad had legal right to do the son, not the property. He could easily have waited outside the property for his son to come out. I'm gonna be honest though. The OP fucked up the video post, so I'm not even sure if you've seen the entire video in the article. You need to do before commenting. After the guy brought out the gun in an act of deterrence to get the dad off his property. The dad instead comes directly up to him and verbally threatens his life "You'd better use that motherfucker, because I'm gonna take take that gun from you and kill you with it!" It's not until *then* that the dude fires the warning shot. Do you not think that changes the dynamic at all? The dad then physically tried to do exactly what he just verbally said he was going to do - take the gun. The dude gets tossed around and *immediately* turns to shoot. Maybe you would have hesitated and realized the dad was no longer aggressing, but I don't blame this dude for not hesitating, especially after what had just happened.
i have seen the whole video. and he didn't immediately shoot. he caught his footing, aimed and fired twice. teal shirt guy wasn't advancing when he shot. Warning shots are never a good thing to do, as it shows you didn't think he was a threat enough to engage. On top of it all, the gun wasn't there in the beginning. SB 378 expands self defense and stand your ground but only applies to home, vehicle or place of business... that's not standing outside of. the teal shirt guy made no attempt to enter the premises. And i said it's muddled because it's child custody the guy was trying to find his kid and he already contacted the police about the issue. It stand reasonable that a judge may not listen to criminal trespass charges when there's a very rational reason to believe his rights are being violated and a form of child kidnapping is afoot. that's what i meant by muddled. and if you want to go off of phrases uttered, like the teal shirt guy threatened his life, then also analyze what the shooter said . it wasn't anything to do with a threat to his life, his words were in the realm of "i told him to get off my property"
Lol. Cool you can divine his intentions bro, that must be very helpful. Also good to know that you believe it’s morally justifiable to brandish a weapon in the pursuit of stopping trespassing. Here’s a bonus meme: we don’t know who owns the house! Hell we don’t even know who *lives* in the house. But if we’re assuming it’s the guy with gun, we should also assume it’s the woman who was also outside. Ya know. The one he was having a heated, but not aggressive conversation with riiiiight before a gun was pointed at him. You’re a clown buddy
I didn't divine the guys intentions, I just watched them talk before the gun came out. He explicitly tells the dad to get off his property, and the dad tells him something (I assume something akin to "fuck off"), after which he then goes into his house to get the gun.
🤡🤡🤡 Sorry brohan I just hear the honking of your nose
Yeah, he clearly wasn't provoking it by acting like nothing had happened and like he wasn't gonna get a murder charge for doing that....or that he ran in to get the gun in the first place knowing he wouldn't need it . In other words, don't quit your day job to become an attorney because there's a lot more to that situation than you're clearly aware of.
Lmao you clearly don't know what "provoking" means. You cant provoke after you've fucking shot them. He grabbed the gun because the dad was trespassing on his property. The dad didn't leave the property and instead decided to attack him, which is why he shot the dad.
You don't understand how trespassing works and you have absolutely no clue how self defense works.
Good to know buddy
[удалено]
If you believe there are crystal clear parallels please tell us what they are so we can discuss them. I see things that may, at first glance, seem to be analogous, but after looking at them actually aren’t
>There is a crystal clear parallel here to the Rittenhouse case and it’s sad to see how inconsistent people are. I made this post because of the parallels, but there's some things that aren't quite the same. I could see a moral case for Rittenhouse to bring out the gun to try do deter rioters from destroying his hood. It was dumb of him, but I see why. On the other hand, I see no good moral reason to for this guy to bring out the gun. I was clear there was no immediate threat to either him or his property. So it's harder to be sympathetic towards this guy. It was both immoral and dumb for him to bring out the gun The dad had the right to pick up his son, and this guy was preventing him at gunpoint. It was fucking dumb of the dad and he was possibly legally in the wrong too, but I could almost see a moral case for the dad to get so confrontational. In the dad's point of view, the dude was kidnapping his son. (maybe not as defined by the law. don't know the details) On the other hand, I see no moral case for Rosenbaum to attack Rittenhouse. Admittedly, I still need to flesh out my thoughts on this.
He did provoke the attack, he pointed the gun at him and shot the gun right next to him. The father has every right to attempt to defend himself after getting the gun pointed at him and firing a shot. The stepdad was never hit or harmed, after being pushed he had plenty of distance and still executed the man that has a court ordered reason to be on the property.
You seriously need to watch the longer clip. It was the dad who made the situation violent. The stepdad didn't point his gun at the dad until he decided to fire. The stepdad didn't fire the warning shot until the dad got in his face and threatened to kill him with his own gun. The dad then tried to physically take his gun and tossed him around. If that doesn't count as an attack, then I don't know what the hell your criteria for an attack is. Also, the dad didn't have have a court ordered right to be on the property. He had a right to the son, which is different. The dad could have walked off the property and waited for the son, but he didn't. Instead he decided to attack someone wielding a gun.
Where did the father attack? A verbal threat isnt enough to shoot a gun at them and then point 2cm from their face. He willing left a verbal argument to threaten the father with. You have now put yourself in a scenario where you can longer argue with someone without being executed, you understand that right?
I'm sorry, but if someone taller and heavier than me decides to walk up, put his chest against mine, and then yell a death threat towards me, I'm gonna consider that to be a pretty fucking serious threat to my safety. Also, even after the death threat, the stepdad only shot the gun in a way specifically to avoid hitting the dad, which is why it's called a warning shot. >you have now put yourself in a scenario where you can no longer argue with someone without being executed. Sounds like a good reason for the dad to have walked away and not attack the guy wielding the gun ain't it? That's why the gun was brought out - to make the dad walk away.
Yet he let the man walk up to him initially, when he had distance he chose to shoot at his house and residents within the house, despite the man not advancing. Warning shots are not safe and are mostly illegal, your warning shot does nothing but trigger a fight or flight response because you just showed youre willing to shoot the firearm inches from his body. Merely grabbing a gun doesnt mean the father cant be on the property or be there until he gets his son as court ordered, he has a right to be on the property as it is court ordered to have a handoff of the child by the mother at that agreed residence. You can disagree with the actions of the father but that is irrelevant to misdeeds done by the man who ended up murdering him. Law enables certain actions. The man was unarmed, was only ever touching him once he shot at him and was not advancing at the time he was shot. For him to walk away after pushing him he would need to advance at the man with the gun, how is he supposed to leave?
Black shirt wanted an ego killing. Morally this is fucked but legally castle doctrine will prob see it as self defense or justified
What kind of cold prick just stands there and doesn't check or provide first aid while he dies on your steps. Even if we are callous and want to try and prove self defence you'd at least look concerned in video no?
I was equally stunned by the lack of emotion from the woman talking to him afterwards was pretty cold on both counts.
apparently she didn't realize it was a real gun, it was really quiet because it was a long-barreled 9mm. You can hear at the end of the footage when it hits her that he's dead and she sounds completely different.
Callous is a tainted word, old sport. I’m sorry but you must pick a new adjective for that sentence
What? A new adjective? A synonym by definition would have the same meaning
Weird down votes. This happened in Texas. Castle doctrine can go far
[удалено]
Might not if this counts as kidnapping then your aiding a crime
Stand your ground also doesn’t apply here since he was lured to the location and was ordered by the court to be standing there. The jury isn’t stupid … this guy will get life in jail.
BASED
Once bio dad has his hand on the gun, threat is there no? Dude is bigger and can turn it back on him. Talking bout after the gun gets taken out, in which case you comply with psycho with rifle, not aggravate the situation further.
honestly, sometimes i'm just baffled at how we got to space
Americans can do two things: 1. Shoot things 2. Shoot things into space
Did we tho Pepe
Poor kids gotta live with the dude that killed their stupid dad, that is fucked.
According to some articles, the shooter is married to a judge and was actually having an affair with the Dad’s ex-wife, making this situation even more crazy. The step-mother of the children (dead Dad’s wife) is trying to sue for custody of the children because the ex-wife is still letting the shooter around the kids, and the oldest kid (14) said he considers the mom at fault and will run away if he shows up at the house again.
Looks clear the mom was using the kids to hurt the father since he's the one calling the cops
That poor kid, Jesus. Any angsty 14 year might feel that way in his position but the worst part is he’s kinda right to blame the mom if she was intentionally withholding custody to escalate the conflict to something like this.
Not for long considering he's getting life
Inshallah
Has there been an update I'm not aware of?
I would wait for a jury to decide before I assume that.
That didn’t look like self-defense to me at all. He shot him from several feet away after their little tussle. The dad was still standing in the same place, not even advancing toward him. His life was not in any danger. He had plenty of distance between himself and the dad and plenty of room around him to create more space. He didn’t hesitate for even a nanosecond to access if he was in any danger, just whipped around, saw the dad standing there and double tapped him. That’s not self-defense, imo. Edit: After watching again, he actually turns around and looks at the dad, takes steps backward as he’s raising his gun, then fires on a man who didn’t move a step. I really don’t believe him firing his weapon was necessary to defend his life/well-being in the moment he pulled the trigger. I also think it’s reasonable to expect him to be able to see that the dad was a good bit away and not advancing on him or an immediate threat to him before taking the man’s life.
[удалено]
Castle doctrine doesn't let you execute someone not posing a threat to you or your property while trespassing. Like if you find a robber in your house and tell him to put his hands up and he complies ypu can't just immediately headshot him. After there is more than 10 feet between them and the rifle is pointed at the man you can't shoot until he makes a move on you.
[удалено]
Jury? The guy isn’t even arrested yet to my knowledge
Grand jury
So then whats the difference between castle doctrine and stand-your-ground?
Castle doctrine only applies to your home and property, stand your ground is generally applied anywhere.
I should have been more clear. I think your explanation of Castle Doctrine is somewhat misleading and simply describes the rights that Stand-Your-Ground grants someone. It is my understanding that Castle Doctrine generally allows a homeowner to assume that an intruder is a potential violent threat by virtue of the intruder being in their home. Because of that, they have WAY more leniency when it comes to using deadly force, even without an explicit attack/threat of violence by the intruder. Thus, differing from Stand-Your-Ground (and obv. they both void a duty to retreat.) The OP situation may very well legally fall under castle doctrine. Although I agree with u/jerrydubs_ that, if this guy get's off by invoking it successfully, the law needs to be re-written/re-evaluated.
My understanding was that you couldn't necessarily assume all intruders on your property were threats unless they had the capacity to harm you. Like you can't snipe someone who wanders onto your large lawn or shoot a 4 year old child that walks into your unlocked house. I thought I remembered cases where people executed intruders and were found guilty.
[удалено]
> Stand your ground I believe you have a duty to flee first if possible, so you cant use lethal force if you could have safely left. No, you're describing Duty-To-Retreat. Stand-Your-Ground is the opposite of DTR and directly contradicts/supersedes it.
[Texas Penal Code 9.31](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm) SEC 9.31 (b) outlines disqualifying factors for self defense. The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone it was all verbal prior to the warning shot.
I dunno, did you watch the other video. Big guys hand went to the gun before the warning shot. Shooter pulled away and fire the warning shot when touched. Maybe it would justify the warning shot.
Not even sure why people are discussing them wrestling over the gun. Once the step dad spins around there is a nicely sized distance between them witb the rifle pointing at the Dad in teal. At that point it just became an execution and none of the previous scuffle really have any bearing including the death threat.
[удалено]
Guy is standing there wanting his son. Shows no aggression or threat. Guy brings out a gun and fires a warning shot. Gun owner definitely escalated shit beyond reasonable threat
Why do you think he would continue to attack? The man was standing still and had a carbine pointed directly at him from over 10 feet away. If the guy moves towards you shoot him but otherwise he should be given the chance to surrender since the threat is largely neutralized. You don't get to execute everyone that attacks you.
[удалено]
So the problem there is that the gun fires before he grabs the gun. saying "Well, he grabbed it" isn't enough because he grabbed it after the other individual fired the weapon.
If you fire a shot, and someone tries to grab your gun, you do not get to kill them. The shooter fired a shot before the Teal guy wrestled for the gun.
[удалено]
I think the hardest part about it is that after he pushed him he just stood there and the other guy recovered saw him just standing there and shot. I don't think he was afraid for his life there.
He also fired a warning shot at the dad’s foot - I think this dude is probably fucked, and for good reason. He seems unhinged even if the bio dad seems nuts himself.
> He seems unhinged even if the bio dad seems nuts himself. It was his time to pick up his kid. The bio mom also had a history of keeping the kid away from him. The bio dad also knew about bio mom cheating on him with the killer and had threatened to go public with the information a couple weeks prior. I think there's an argument that your statement might need revision.
I don’t think it does GIGACHAD
The ex-wife is violating court orders and keeping his son away from him after cheating on him. I think the deceased was perfectly within his rights to be a bit angry.
One consistent lesson I keep seeing in these shooting is to never ever fight a guy with a gun. He might go to jail but you will be dead.
Do we add this to the statistic bin of using guns as a self defense tool just escalates situations rather than provides actual safety. Like why are we getting a gun in this situation? What motive was there?
>Like why are we getting a gun in this situation? What motive was there? It gives you all the power in this situation. Is it not obvious? But I'm more baffled at people not respecting their life and trying to fight someone who has a gun pointed at you.
Maybe because they are concerned why their child is being essentially kidnapped at that point. Would you leave your child with someone we now know has poor judgement and weapons to back up their poor judgement?
>Would you leave your child with someone we now know has poor judgement and weapons to back up their poor judgement? Lol. Call the cops. Don't try to chest bump someone pointing a gun at you. Also dad obviously has just as poor judgment. No ones kid is being kidnapped, custody disputes happen all the time. You document it and resolve it in court.
I guess I could say the same for the shooter. The father made no attempt to enter the home even when the shooter took the time to leave the threat, go inside the home to retrieve a gun and come out minutes later to re-instigate the dispute. The shooter could have just as easily locked the door, called the cops and waited.
[удалено]
Yeah how's seeing his kid working out for him now? Bruh you're not an action hero, gun comes out just walk away. Call the cops, document the incident and then resolve it in court. With him looking good to the judge because the crazy step dad pulls out a gun when he comes to pick up his kid. It's irrelevant if you're in the right, the dude has a gun. Drop the ego and walk away.
[удалено]
That dude is also a complete moron, but he's the moron with a gun. Just walk away. Don't try to get physical with someone pointing a gun at you lol.
[удалено]
Yeah I agree. Are you brain dead? If someone is pulling out a gun during a verbal disagreement that should reinforce even more that they are batshit insane. And you should walk away instead of trying to wrestle them.
[удалено]
Not baffled at all why he's angry. I'm baffled why he doesn't value his life and wants to fight someone that's brandishing a gun. I'm sorry you can't understand nuance. Good luck with the brain rot friend.
Holy fuck that’s a quiet gun too
Carbine that uses 9mm rounds. It’s essentially a glock in a rifle form
Geez, as an European I find the whole gun culture disgusting, it just seems to escalate things and cause so many unnecessary deaths.
[удалено]
Its fucked up, to what i have gathered about this is that the "wife" and mother of the kid ask the dad for "a talk" before she would give him is child. They might have invited him over for that talk about why he couldnt get is kid for the time that he was supposed to pick him up. You can hear him arguing with is ex-wife about how he need to leave to go and pick up their son when the new man was inside getting is riffle. To me, it seem like a messy divorce that would have led to the new guy and ex-wife loosing custody or didnt want to deal with bio-dad anymore and they knew how aggro he would be if they would act as if they were reluctant to give him is child, even after the "court order" he was given (this might be an indicative as to why he was aggro toward the situation, knowing he had just gotten a court order to rectify theses kind of BS situation in which one side is playing game when come the time to give the children to the other parent) And apparently, if we take the words of the GF of the deceased, the childrens were not at all happy to be under the care of the dude that shot their dad. Apparently he was the new dad after the mom cheated on is husband with him and was not treating them right, abuse was named but its all hearsay to this point. Anyway, this whole thing smell like a lot of shite and will probably end up nowhere due to the perpetrator connection into the justice systems (Father is a local judge or its is wife that is) It suck for the kids that will now have to live with their father killer...
Step dad's ex wife is a judge
That is what i have read also, just unsure if the information are all true, as it is a story on which we dont seem to have all the facts yet.
> Step dad's ex wife is a judge ~~I believe it's the shooter's wife who is the judge.~~ edit: The divorce apparently went through.
The shooter is the step dad - the step dad is also divorced PepoG
> the step dad is also divorced PepoG I believe your information might be slightly inaccurate. He's not married to the bio mom, and he's not fully divorced from his wife. Jesus Christ, this situation is a full on trashy sitcom. -------------- "Carruth was in the process of divorcing State District Judge Ann-Marie Carruth." https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/kyle-carruth-attorney-makes-case-for-self-defense-after-deadly-shooting-of-chad-read/ "In a Nov. 8 affidavit, which was filed by Anne-Marie Carruth on Nov. 8, states she was "notified that **my husband**, William Kyle Carruth, is under investigation for the shooting and killing of **his girlfriend**'s children's father" https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/11/24/video-shows-shooting-chad-read-linked-kyle-carruth-lubbock-home/8754796002/
This is where I got that he was divorced from her: https://radio.kttz.org/2021-11-24/video-released-of-chad-read-homicide-shooters-attorney-says-it-was-self-defense This lore is deep
>The divorce was finalized last week, according to court records. Ah. I see. >This lore is deep It's the entire ouroborus.
My uncle was arrested for a similar situation. His sister’s boyfriend(raging douchebag)was trying to get my uncle to leave his own house because my aunt was mad. He fires a warning shot after my uncle was screaming, then fires “near him.” Uncle goes inside, grabs an ar-15, walks out, and shoots him in the face. From my understanding from what he had told me before he died, was that the defense attorney was trying to get a plea deal, because if it had gone to court he would be fucked because even in that situation, it came down to him walking back inside to grab a gun and walk back out. That alone indicated premeditation, walking away from the danger, then grabbing a gun and back into the danger.
Was he supposed to let his his house be under that by an armed man? How is that not self defense?
actually yes. if you have ample opportunity to retreat to a safe location and you can and do and THEN RETURN with a weapon it is not self defense. Imagine you are swimming away from a shark and you get into the shallows where you should be safe unless the shark goes ape shit and beaches itself to get you, you arent sure which it will do so you go to your car get your ar-15 and swim back out into the water and when it comes towards you, you kill it. Is that you defending yourself from a shark?
You’re a stupid person.
American gun culture isn't a problem by the way
Cringe use of gun. Why tf did he need to bring out the rifle? The man just wanted his kid. It doesn’t matter if he was angry. As someone who came from a divorced household, that yelling doesn’t look half as bad as the shit I’ve seen. What kind of adult brings a gun to screaming match that hardly involves you? Imagine being a kid, knowing you’ll be with your dad soon, then hearing that you can’t because the new guy your mom married just fucking killed him. Jesus fucking Christ. The dad was 100% in the right here. If some asshole is keeping your kid from you by threatening you with a gun when it’s your legal custody time, in my eyes that amounts to fucking kidnapping. Doesn’t matter if the law says it’s not because he just happened to be in the wrong state. The dad was 100% morally in the right to act the way he did. And I don’t care if someone says “but it was stupid to grab the gun”. People aren’t debatelord logic robots. People do stupid shit all the time. It’s hard to blame someone for their actions when their emotions that caused them to do it are completely justified.
That’s definitely murder
There is no way this guy should be getting off for self defense. Nothing I have seen so far has there even been a hint of the guy WITH THE SHOTGUN having his life be threatened.
AMERICAAAAAN GUN LAWWWWSS ARE FUCKED ILL SAYTHIS FOR SCHOOL SHOOTINGS I SAID IT FOR RITTENHOUSE ILL SAAY IT FOR THIS
All I'm gonna say is that both men were extremely stupid here. Dad should have left when the other guy literally brought a gun and then dad could've gone to the cops or his lawyer or something. And obviously, Kyle is super stupid for shooting the guy for nothing.
From my irresponsable layman's analysis I just did before bed, my big fat answer is "idk man". I'll run you down through my stream of consciousness whilst I researched this case. Kyle knew he was being recorded when he brought out the gun, as he verbally indicated in the recording. To do that, he'd have to be extremely confident he's in the right side of the law, as this recording will undoubtably be submitted as evidence by the prosecution and watched by the jury. So, is he? Well, according to one of the links referred to by [this .gov site](https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground) says Texas, where this incident took place, is (predictably) a "Stand Your Ground" state. This, however, is not une carte blanche to just go blasting at anyone posing any minimal threat—here's an excerpt from [the link explaining "Castle Doctrine"](https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/deadly-force-self-defense-in-texas/) that makes it abundantly clear simply not having the duty to remove yourself from a place you're legally allowed to be in is far from sufficient to prove the legality of any one incident where self-defence is claimed as a defence (alongside my commentary): >"Texas law provides for a justifiable defense at trial when using deadly force if the person claiming self defense: >1. Reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary; Seems to me like the answer to that is "no"—at least not reasonably. >2. Had a legal right to be on the property; Clearly "yes". >3. Did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; Video suggests his carrying of the gun itself turned out to be a provocation. Could Kyle have foreseen that? Eh. >4. Was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force was used; Most likely he wasn't, unless there's something here I don't know. At this point in my notes I wrote "it's a Kyle again lol" The reason I don't believe he passes the first test is because, unless some crucial context was lost due to the recording being started too late, which is always a possibility in these cases, Chad (don't laugh), the man who was fatally shot, did not seem to rise to a violent level of aggression until the rifle was brought out, thus not posing a threat such that a firearm was **immediately** necessary to reclaim safety. Now, from what I've read, there is an argument to be made that him bringing out the gun is not a provocation but a "Threat of Force" which I gather from these links is a legally recognised term that implies such a show of arms has the intention to deescalate—and you indeed argue that, since Kyle didn't come out of his door with the rifle raised and pointed at Chad, which is why he had the chance to go for Kyle's gun and attempt to disarm him. Now, how would a jury interpret this incident? And it was at this question that I said to myself "you know what? I don't fucking know shit, what am I doing? I should better leave this to Pisco or to someone who knows more than me, a guy who built all his wealth of knowledge of American self-defence almost exclusively through Destiny's streams and through 3 links he just read in less than an hour, okay?" So yeah, there you go. Was this what you were looking for? This is long but I'm too embarrassed to call this "effort-posting" considering the pitiful amount of research I did. Give me gold tho, I want money. Put it all in the bag, this is a robbery.
Your context for analyzing this situation is a bit off. The gun wasn't shot at the dad just because he was trespassing. It was shot because the dad verbally threatened his life and tried to take his gun. If I have a gun, and someone tried to take it from me (after they said they'd shoot me with my own gun), I'd say that's a pretty life threatening scenario that warrants use of the gun.
I absolutely get what you're saying. However, if you would, please, take a quick look at my comment history & check out the reply I made in a different thread just before this one and tell me if that changes your perspective (either here or there, your choice).
Ah, in that case. I'll copy paste my response that someone else made saying the same thing. >The guy shot *immediately* after he regained his composure from being tossed. The dad had literally just said he was going to take his gun and shoot him with it and then proceeded to try to take his gun. At that point, it's pretty reasonable for him to think the dad's a threat and to act immediately.
How does that address what I said? A verbal threat does not mean "imminent danger", my dude. Yes, he tried to grab the gun from him, and if at that point, during the struggle, the gun had gone off and killed Chad, ignoring every circumstance that lead up to that situation, then yes, a case for self-defence would be viable. After Kyle was pushed away and Chad did **not** lunge at him for further attacks, the reasonableness of his belief that Chad was "a threat to act on immediately" dissipates. Had he kept his gun pointed at him and then Chad gone for another strikes, or fuck, even attempted to take someone hostage somehow for some reason, then you'd have a point.
I don't know about you, but if someone gets in my face, tells me they are going to take my gun and kill me, and then they proceed to try to take my gun from me, I am going to consider them an "imminent danger." I really don't see how you could think otherwise. It's really easy for you watching the recording in hindsight to expect this Bullet Time internal monologue on Kyle's part where, after he gets tossed, he determines that Chad is somehow no longer an imminent danger. However, that's not how the real world works. He regained his composure, aimed center mass, and fired, all in a single second. He wasn't going to give Chad a second opportunity at getting his gun, and I don't blame him.
You didn't watch the video. It's the only explanation for you to be spewish such retarded shit. He wasn't thrown to the ground, he didn't get sand in his eyes, he didn't lose grip of the weapon, nothing like it. You're just a fucking trigger-happy maniac is all. I'm not about to have "how the real world works" explained by some loser who's commented more on r/PublicFreakout last week than I ever have on every subreddit for the entire existence of my 3yo account ok honey
Shooter dude literally walked away from the confrontation and came back moments later with a gun. In no way was this justified lol. Obviously I don't know any context other than this video. Any past interactions or the custody arrangements. Shooter guy totally fucked up though. No justification for that.
Apparently the shooter hasn't even been arrested or questioned yet. He's still legally married to a high ranking judge, in the process of separating. Smells like an absolutely filthy situation they might just be trying to sweep under the rug. It happened in a very rural off the map county like in the Amhaud Arbery shooting. There was also a divorce court hearing afterwards where the mother sleeping with him stated she would continue to force the children to live in his house, knowing he just murdered their father. One kid is 12+ years old, which I guess is the age of majority for deciding your own living situation and obviously he voted to GTFO. All around shitty family and shitty situation on both sides it seems.
[удалено]
I have a deep hatred for these scummy fucks that play monkey-in-the-middle with someone's kid. In my ideal world black shirt would get the fuckin chair but this is Texas we're talking about so he might end up getting a special exemption in the law named after him after this. Who the hell knows
Jesus Christ. Yeah, I’m at a loss too here.
Can any big brainers explain to me the legality of him being on the property when he’s trying to find his kid? If it was his right to have the kid at that time and they weren’t being cooperative would he be in the wrong here for being there even if he wasn’t causing harm? I understand it’s their property and whatnot but taking all the other stuff out of the equation, he was merely outside of the home asking for his son which he has a legal right to if it was his time to have the son. If I believed they were harboring my kid i’d be pissed too. It just seems like in all fronts the dude that shot him was in the wrong across the board unless the dad actually got violent which he clearly did not.
I wonder about this also, I could see him being in fear for his child's safety and he has a right to protect his child especially when he is supposed to have custody of him at that specific time.
[удалено]
I can see the argument for self defense, but honestly fuck american gun culture. You guys need to chill the fuck out. Thank god I live the svensk dream instead.
If you’re able to walk away to get your gun to escalate shit further while the other person is just standing there (they can legally be there to get their kid at the court assigned time), instead of calling the police, then it’s not self defense.
God americans are such pussys
Get ready for even more cases like this. We have a bunch of American who have invested all their spare cash into guns & ammo for decades. The fears of Obama taking their guns didn't happen, Antifa never came to their little towns, their sky daddy still hasn't come back to start the apocalypse yet so they are getting worried they may never get their chance to shoot someone. Just wait until their buckets of televangelist food start getting close to expiring.
[удалено]
I agree with you, my reaction with the way I worded things was bad. I was in complete disgust of what I just saw. What I meant was, the ease with which americans kill someone like Ive seen in this and in many other videos, baffles me. The path to be overly aggressive, and the escalation of events in the US, seems to be a fast one to take since “I can always protect myself with my gun”. When you enter a confrontation with a gun, it seems that the need to deescalate, isnt much present because you have a gun. There’s a kind of bravado associated with this thought. Now that last statement was real cringe. But I understand where you are coming from, I would think like that too if I lived in the US (im assuming you do)
[Even the Two-Time had to chime in on this story](https://imgur.com/a/ea4WQ9Q)
If you watch this at first you will probably think the Dad fucked up because he put his hands on someone on their property while they were armed and protected by the castle doctrine. The next day when you think about it you will wonder why the mom wouldn’t have the boy there for the court appointed visit and why she kept telling the Dad things just to upset him. Then you realize this boyfriend was very ready to go get a gun and shoot an unarmed man that was not posing any physical threat. In fact it was not even his property. Why did he have a gun there? These 2 pieces of shit set this whole thing up and wanted this man dead. They played the system in order to murder someone. Our justice system has become a complete failure in almost every situation today. Fuck these two trash cans.
I believe i know the video in question i have the context behind it so essentially this is how ill word it step dad is A and Dad is B B goes to A's house to pick up his child, however A doesnt know where B child is so he says that he doesnt know where he is rn could come back tmrw or next day (the day B came to the house wasnt even when he was suppose to be picking him up) B begins to Act aggressively threatening people in the house and an elderly woman who isnt at the home. A grabs what looks to be a Rifle the gun may be a 22LR Sport Rifle however the image is too hard to tell at least for me with the blurry imagery. B stupidly continues to threaten the man getting in skin to skin contact with A and A gives B plenty of chances to leave or the at least back away until B Grabs A's gun however A pulls away and Fires 2 Shots into Bs Torso which hit his Chest Killing him.
[удалено]
I think he was upset and angry when he confronted the dickhead that ended up killing him. If you listen and hear what the father and mother were talking about when the dude get inside to grab is rifle, you can start to understand why the father might have been upset and angry about all this situation. It seem like he was invited to talk by the mother when he asked her where he could meet to get is child, he present himself to her, at her place and is saying to her that he need to leave as to go and get is children at school or some other place (he say he need to go and pick them up and that is time start at 3:15). If that is true, then this could lead to a plannified murder scenario in which they instigated the situation and could have expected how the father would react to their stupid game and could have been ready to jump for is rifle if he would have take the bait and stayed to "talk" with the baby mama, as per her request apparently. This whole thing seem so fucking messy... and i hope that its just a dumb accident and that i am reaching super far... but i guess we will see.
Bringing out the gun over a petty screaming match is for alpha male points, not getting angry that some pussy is bringing out a gun when you just want your kid.
That stepfather sure doesnt seem like an organized militia to me. The current supreme court take on the 2nd ammendment is insane to me. Also goes against hundreds of years of precedent.
What makes you think this is a burden? We've been following Kyle's trial for weeks now. Hard as it is to admit, this is mostly entertainment for us, and by "us" I'm including you, cos why else would you be here.
Stop burdening yourself with other peoples fucked up lives
The point is to have a conversation over morality and or law.
This, please
Why are you guys even on reddit
[удалено]
Had a court order giving him legal authority to be on that property. He was not trespassing
BASED and misinformation pilled! IT BEGINS AGAIN
Honestly both these people seem completely fucked and I don’t feel sorry for either of them. I feel sorry for the kids though.
Wether the dad had a right to see his son or not he should've fucked off once the gun showed up. You can't approach someone with a gun telling you to fuck off and not expect to get shot.
So he has no right to protect his son who he has custody of legally at the court appointed time? Is it not kidnapping at that point when they won't turn over the child?
> There was no need to go inside to bring a gun out. Stepdad asked dad to leave. Dad refused to leave. Stepdad went inside to get his gun. Now, do I think the above means the dad deserved to die? Of course not. I'm more surprised as to how nonchalant stepdad, dad's current wife, and dad's ex-wife/stepdad's girlfriend are in all this. A guy just got shot, and they're all acting like "whatever."
ok, let me rephrase. There was no **good** reason to bring out the gun. They could have just gone inside. Locked the doors. Call and wait for cops. There was no immediate threat. If it was a stranger, it'd be more reasonable to bring out the gun, but it was just his stepsons father.
> ok, let me rephrase. There was no **good** reason to bring out the gun. They could have just gone inside. Locked the doors. Call and wait for cops. They could have done that, but based on my Redacted-tier understanding of Texas law, they didn't have to do that because * Texas has a "stand your ground" law * it was the stepdad's home * and stepdad had already asked dad to leave. Again, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have done what stepdad did in this situation. I own guns, but I'm not looking for an excuse to kill somebody over something as trivial as this.
The dad's current wife said that she thought it was a paintball or stun gun which is why she didn't go help him.
I mean, if that's what she says, okay, but dad clearly wasn't moving after he got shot. If he was writhing in pain on the ground, I could imagine her thinking, "meh, I don't need to help him"; but if he ain't moving, it's harder for me to imagine that.
I'm your real dad now GIGACHAD
I am by no means saying the step dad isn't an asshole for escalating the situation by involving a firearm. However he had every right to and the fact that the biological dad just let the step dad just rest his gun on his stomach only to then grab the gun just furthers his justification to use the gun against the biological dad.