Quote:
The problem everyone has here is Kyle introducing a gun into a domestic dispute that could easily be handled without the gun. And because of that, they want to throw out Kyle's right to self defense. That's disturbing to me. Just like all those who wanted to convict Rittenhouse because he shouldn't have been running around on streets with a long rifle.
No, the question here is did Carruth unnecessarily escalate or provoke the situation to such a degree that his self defense defense is diminished under the law and if so, how diminished? That is more of a fact question.
Was Carruth brandishing the gun? Fact question for the jury.
Was Read's physical contact, chest bump, of sufficient force to cause Carruth to fear for his life or imminent bodily harm? Fact question.
Were Read's words in conjunction with that contact sufficient to cause Carruth to fear for his life or imminent bodily harm? Fact question.
Were Carruth's words and manner during the confrontation consistent with someone in reasonable fear for his life and imminent serious bodily harm? Fact question.
And here is where it gets very gnarly, Carruth firing the gun towards Read's feet at very close range and with Read's ex standing in the line of fire behind Read? Say the confrontation had stopped there and no other shots were fired that day. Would Carutth's actions in firing the gun constitute reckless endangerment in the discharge of a weapon? That would have been a charging decision by the prosecutor but also something the family court judge would take into consideration in a future court hearing and such would be expected to be bad for Christina Read.
So does Read now have the right to self defense after he's just been shot at by Carruth? IOW, has Carruth lost his claim of self defense by firing the gun in the direction of Read's body? Fact question
If the answer to that is yes, Read now has the right to defend himself from an attack with deadly force, did his swinging Carruth away, using the gun but then releasing the gun a reasonable use of force to that deadly force attack of Carruth's Fact question.
If the answer to that question is yes, then Carruth does not have a perfect self defense defense to thereafter fire the gun and killing Read.
That's how complicated this case is. It goes frame by frame of who is the aggressor, who uses force, how much force, and was such use reasonable? It can be seen in a jury's eyes that it goes back and forth between the two. That will be the argument, anyway.
FTR: I am not taking a position one way or another, just pointing out the fact questions in this very tough case.
