Lubbock Shooting

156,740 Views | 1748 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by FobTies
Kvetch
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to panhandlefarmer • 12:48p, 11/25/21
panhandlefarmer said:
A lot of arguments here are like the Rittenhouse case where people said he shouldn't have had a gun or he shouldn't have been there. They are about his judgement and not the law.

Here, just like the Rittenhouse case, it comes down to did the shooter have the right to use lethal force to defend himself? With what I see and here, yes.

And, he probably could have done many things differently that would have prevented this, but none of that matters.


This is like the Rittenhouse case in almost 0 respects other than the fact that the guy is claiming self defense. Identifying the aggressor matters. Rittenhouse would've been guilty had he actually been the aggressor. Not to mention the fact that these two parties obviously knew each other and had a legal dispute.

The absurd arguments are the ones here acting like you can use a gun in whatever fashion you please because it's your property and you have absolute domain over it. That's just 100% false and will get you thrown in prison if you act as such.

ETA the law definitely considers judgement in this case. In fact, it's paramount.
Reply Quote
2 edits
sam callahan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:49p, 11/25/21
Confirmed head shot?
Reply Quote
Who?mikejones!
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to panhandlefarmer • 12:51p, 11/25/21
panhandlefarmer said:
A lot of arguments here are like the Rittenhouse case where people said he shouldn't have had a gun or he shouldn't have been there. They are about his judgement and not the law.

Here, just like the Rittenhouse case, it comes down to did the shooter have the right to use lethal force to defend himself? With what I see and here, yes.

And, he probably could have done many things differently that would have prevented this, but none of that matters.


No, totally different.

The shooter here went inside and got the gun which did not appear to be the appropriate amount of force for the situation

It's one thing if the shooter would have had the gun, then the dad arrive and start things.


It's totally different for there to be an argument (and a pretty benign one at that), then for one party to bring out a gun.

Rittenhouse and this case are not the same.
Reply Quote
2wealfth Man
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to panhandlefarmer • 12:53p, 11/25/21
panhandlefarmer said:
A lot of arguments here are like the Rittenhouse case where people said he shouldn't have had a gun or he shouldn't have been there. They are about his judgement and not the law.

Here, just like the Rittenhouse case, it comes down to did the shooter have the right to use lethal force to defend himself? With what I see and here, yes.

And, he probably could have done many things differently that would have prevented this, but none of that matters.
These folks have prior relationships and that is key here. This shooting wasn't some perp walking onto the property. That context is absolutely critical in this case.
Reply Quote
Texaggie7nine
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 12:54p, 11/25/21
It's not about deserving to die, it's about deserving to protect yourself from having to fight when you are not the agressor with whatever means is necessary.
7nine
Reply Quote
Kvetch
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 12:55p, 11/25/21
Texaggie7nine said:
It's not about deserving to die, it's about deserving to protect yourself from having to fight when you are not the agressor with whatever means is necessary.


Everyone takes a beating sometimes. Get with the times.
Reply Quote
JFABNRGR
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Kvetch • 12:56p, 11/25/21
I do not believe anywhere did I state you have absolute right to use lethal force. I have read this article 3x and believe it supports my position that this could go either way legally. In all other posts I have stated this was tragic and unnecessary. I think maybe you took it personally that I disagreed with your comment.
“You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Reply Quote
Post removed:
by user
12:58p, 11/25/21
chickencoupe16
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 1:01p, 11/25/21
Texaggie7nine said:
It's not about deserving to die, it's about deserving to protect yourself from having to fight when you are not the agressor with whatever means is necessary.


Maybe your argument has taken a turn into the weeds and if so, my comment doesn't pertain, but the aggressor of this situation was definitely the shooter. There was zero reason to go in and get the gun.
Reply Quote
Kvetch
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JFABNRGR • 1:04p, 11/25/21
JFABNRGR said:
I do not believe anywhere did I state you have absolute right to use lethal force. I have read this article 3x and believe it supports my position that this could go either way legally. In all other posts I have stated this was tragic and unnecessary. I think maybe you took it personally that I disagreed with your comment.


I don't take offense. I just think you're wrong. For one, he is possibly in violation of point 3 (he is the aggressor) and 4 (he is possibly committing a crime by violating custodial rights) required for the use of Castle Doctrine self defense.

Further, there has been no forcible entry to the property, no threats towards his life or property have been made, and no reasonable person would believe he was in fear for his life prior to grabbing the gun and escalating the confrontation. This all boils down to who the aggressor is. It seems pretty apparent that it's the guy who grabs the gun unless you obtusely believe that gun rights mean you are always justified to grab a gun when on your property. That's just not the case and it never has been.

This is obvious murder based on the video. If he can prove self defense in court, good for him. I don't see it based on this. A man is dead and it is clearly his fault.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Texaggie7nine
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to chickencoupe16 • 1:05p, 11/25/21
If you repeatedly tell someone to get off your property and they refuse while being aggressive, it's your right to brandish a gun.
7nine
Reply Quote
rosshoss00
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:08p, 11/25/21
Ok, I know both parties involved. Ex wife and chad have had these problems with custody for a while, she plays lots of games. The judge and shooter have been in middle of divorce for a while, because shooter was having an affair with the ex wife. Judge and shooter have 2 kids together, she has zero to do with any of this. The new wife of Chad has told everyone she didn't think it was a real gun cause of how quiet it was, that's why she seemed calm at first. The most disturbing part is how calm the ex wife is through the whole thing. She didn't seem to mind at all. Horrible deal all around, kyle shouldn't have got a gun, Chad shouldn't have tried to take it. Bunch of kids without dads now.
Reply Quote
Quincey P. Morris
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:08p, 11/25/21
That whole situation is moronic. There's no world where that guy should get off with no kind of charge and he should get murder.

Also, the reactions from all of them are so odd. No attempt to actually check on the guy. Nothing. Just more grand standing and arguing.
Reply Quote
dermdoc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 1:25p, 11/25/21
Texaggie7nine said:
It's not about deserving to die, it's about deserving to protect yourself from having to fight when you are not the agressor with whatever means is necessary.


So bottom line you think the guy who shot the gun acted appropriately?

And that anything in that video indicated a gun was even needed?

And if you do not want to, do not fight, just wait for the cops to get there.

I see no physically threatening behavior from the dead guy prior to the gun being produced and the warning shot fired, do you?

How many rational people go and grab a gun in a situation like depicted on the video? Are you that scared?
Weird take imho.
Reply Quote
2 edits
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Kvetch • 1:35p, 11/25/21
Kvetch said:
JFABNRGR said:
I do not believe anywhere did I state you have absolute right to use lethal force. I have read this article 3x and believe it supports my position that this could go either way legally. In all other posts I have stated this was tragic and unnecessary. I think maybe you took it personally that I disagreed with your comment.


I don't take offense. I just think you're wrong. For one, he is possibly in violation of point 3 (he is the aggressor) and 4 (he is possibly committing a crime by violating custodial rights) required for the use of Castle Doctrine self defense.

Further, there has been no forcible entry to the property, no threats towards his life or property have been made, and no reasonable person would believe he was in fear for his life prior to grabbing the gun and escalating the confrontation. This all boils down to who the aggressor is. It seems pretty apparent that it's the guy who grabs the gun unless you obtusely believe that gun rights mean you are always justified to grab a gun when on your property. That's just not the case and it never has been.

This is obvious murder based on the video. If he can prove self defense in court, good for him. I don't see it based on this. A man is dead and it is clearly his fault.
Why would he NOT have the write to arm himself? He came out with the gun after repeatedly asking the aggressive ex husband to leave the property. Tough man taunts guy with gun telling he better be ready to use it and that he is going to take it away from him.

Guy with gun demonstrates the gun is operable, loaded and he knows where the trigger is. Aggressor doubles down and engages in an assault on the gun guy.

I do not recall a rule where you have to take a punch (any punch could be lethal) or that the other guy has to have a gun in order to be shot. What nonsense is that?

Laughable on point 4 committing a crime with the child custody dispute. By you logic, he could not defend his house if tough guy kicks the door in and levels a weapon at him because he gives up any self defense due to a child kept beyond a certain time of day (that the homeowner may not even be aware of)? What world would you like to live in?

I prefer the one where dumbarse tough guy played a stupid game and won the grand prize.
Reply Quote
Kvetch
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fka ftc • 1:49p, 11/25/21
fka ftc said:
Kvetch said:
JFABNRGR said:
I do not believe anywhere did I state you have absolute right to use lethal force. I have read this article 3x and believe it supports my position that this could go either way legally. In all other posts I have stated this was tragic and unnecessary. I think maybe you took it personally that I disagreed with your comment.


I don't take offense. I just think you're wrong. For one, he is possibly in violation of point 3 (he is the aggressor) and 4 (he is possibly committing a crime by violating custodial rights) required for the use of Castle Doctrine self defense.

Further, there has been no forcible entry to the property, no threats towards his life or property have been made, and no reasonable person would believe he was in fear for his life prior to grabbing the gun and escalating the confrontation. This all boils down to who the aggressor is. It seems pretty apparent that it's the guy who grabs the gun unless you obtusely believe that gun rights mean you are always justified to grab a gun when on your property. That's just not the case and it never has been.

This is obvious murder based on the video. If he can prove self defense in court, good for him. I don't see it based on this. A man is dead and it is clearly his fault.
Why would he NOT have the write to arm himself? He came out with the gun after repeatedly asking the aggressive ex husband to leave the property. Tough man taunts guy with gun telling he better be ready to use it and that he is going to take it away from him.

Guy with gun demonstrates the gun is operable, loaded and he knows where the trigger is. Aggressor doubles down and engages in an assault on the gun guy.

I do not recall a rule where you have to take a punch (any punch could be lethal) or that the other guy has to have a gun in order to be shot. What nonsense is that?

Laughable on point 4 committing a crime with the child custody dispute. By you logic, he could not defend his house if tough guy kicks the door in and levels a weapon at him because he gives up any self defense due to a child kept beyond a certain time of day (that the homeowner may not even be aware of)? What world would you like to live in?

I prefer the one where dumbarse tough guy played a stupid game and won the grand prize.


Except you don't have the right to commit assault with a deadly weapon just because someone refuses to get off your lawn. Grabbing the gun is the aggressing action that leads to the ultimate conclusion. That's not self defense and not covered under castle doctrine. Also, warning shots ain't a thing. If you fire, you better be ready to kill.

As for point 4, I said possibly because I don't know if violation of custodial rights is considered to meet that threshold. However, those of you acting like you can pull a gun because it's your property DO NOT understand the law or self defense. You do not have an absolute right to brandish a weapon. If fact, you rarely do.
Reply Quote
BuddysBud
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Repeat the Line • 1:51p, 11/25/21
Thomas Bingers Trigger F said:
Little bearded fellow went to tceh. Is anyone surprised? Big green fellow (Chad) actually owned the property that little angry tceh fellow was yelling for him to leave. You can hear chickens clucking and actually sense the chicken poop / pig crap aroma drifting in from a dirty West Texas wind. I can think of few things more depressing than taking your last breath of life in Lubbock.


Did you say that the guy that got shot owned the property? How do you know this? Would that change any argument about the shooter being justified?
Reply Quote
sam callahan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:51p, 11/25/21
Agree with the reaction part being the weirdest part of the whole deal.

It's like a bad high school play.
Reply Quote
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 1:54p, 11/25/21
dermdoc said:
Texaggie7nine said:
It's not about deserving to die, it's about deserving to protect yourself from having to fight when you are not the agressor with whatever means is necessary.


So bottom line you think the guy who shot the gun acted appropriately?

And that anything in that video indicated a gun was even needed?

And if you do not want to, do not fight, just wait for the cops to get there.

I see no physically threatening behavior from the dead guy prior to the gun being produced and the warning shot fired, do you?

How many rational people go and grab a gun in a situation like depicted on the video? Are you that scared?
Weird take imho.
I think you meant to say, if you do not want to fight, offer guy a beer and to sit down peacefully with you until law enforcement arrives, which could be up to 12-20 minutes, during which time you will sing campfire songs and maybe perform some goat yoga.

At 0:28 through 0:45 bio dad is continually aggressive to the ex-wife forcing her to back up in order for her to maintain what she feels is a safe distance from the threat.

Bio dad is aggressive at the gun guy, getting in his face, leaning into him and using extremely threatening language.

If bio dad successfully gets gun, you think maybe its plausible he uses on the guy he grabbed it from?
Reply Quote
GenericAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:58p, 11/25/21
Why post this on Thanksgiving? Weird.
Reply Quote
Old RV Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fka ftc • 2:00p, 11/25/21
fka ftc said:
dermdoc said:
Texaggie7nine said:
It's not about deserving to die, it's about deserving to protect yourself from having to fight when you are not the agressor with whatever means is necessary.


So bottom line you think the guy who shot the gun acted appropriately?

And that anything in that video indicated a gun was even needed?

And if you do not want to, do not fight, just wait for the cops to get there.

I see no physically threatening behavior from the dead guy prior to the gun being produced and the warning shot fired, do you?

How many rational people go and grab a gun in a situation like depicted on the video? Are you that scared?
Weird take imho.
I think you meant to say, if you do not want to fight, offer guy a beer and to sit down peacefully with you until law enforcement arrives, which could be up to 12-20 minutes, during which time you will sing campfire songs and maybe perform some goat yoga.

At 0:28 through 0:45 bio dad is continually aggressive to the ex-wife forcing her to back up in order for her to maintain what she feels is a safe distance from the threat.

Bio dad is aggressive at the gun guy, getting in his face, leaning into him and using extremely threatening language.

If bio dad successfully gets gun, you think maybe its plausible he uses on the guy he grabbed it from?
Well, you proved dermdoc's point. You are one of those people who are that scared. Everything you pointed out above is pretty wimpy - and they aren't justification for getting out a gun.
Reply Quote
Texaggie7nine
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 2:02p, 11/25/21
dermdoc said:
Texaggie7nine said:
It's not about deserving to die, it's about deserving to protect yourself from having to fight when you are not the agressor with whatever means is necessary.


So bottom line you think the guy who shot the gun acted appropriately?

And that anything in that video indicated a gun was even needed?

And if you do not want to, do not fight, just wait for the cops to get there.

I see no physically threatening behavior from the dead guy prior to the gun being produced and the warning shot fired, do you?

How many rational people go and grab a gun in a situation like depicted on the video? Are you that scared?
Weird take imho.


Since we can't really see what the guy that got shot did right before , I cannot say. If he was lunging at him then I don't see an issue with taking the shot.
7nine
Reply Quote
SpreadsheetAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:06p, 11/25/21
Not sure where I land on this, but scared or wimpy should not be conflated with illegal.

What are provocation laws in Texas? What takes precedence - Castle doctrine and stand your ground on your own property or provocation?

To me bio dad was provocative by his mere presence and trespassed after being asked to leave. When the gun was brought out to coerce cooperation to leave the property he then got aggressive. The mere presence of a gun or introduction of a self-defense weapon should be a deterrent to most rational people.

I'd definitely have to know the laws better to come to a conclusion but this one could swing either way until I hear the arguments and read the laws.
Reply Quote
1 edit
MaxPower
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 2:09p, 11/25/21
Considering he knew the deceased, I think history of behavior will be critical here. Has he ever hit his ex or the kid? Do they have police reports to support it? If the only history of behavior is they argue frequently over their kid then the shooter is gonna have a hard time squaring the self defense circle.
Reply Quote
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old RV Ag • 2:10p, 11/25/21
I disproved dermdoc's point. Neither he nor you have the absolute authority to decide what a reasonable person feels is aggressive or "pretty wimpy". I would put money on bio dad having a history of violent behavior, and as such the gun guy believed punches were about to start and he would be disadvantaged in hand to hand combat.

There is also a difference in displaying a weapon and "brandishing" a weapon. Simply holding the weapon pointed at the ground is not holding the gun in a menacing way to induce fear on the other guy. It is saying I have a gun, please leave. When he begins to level it at someone its a different story. This was the mistake made by St. Louis couple.

I understand a warning shot is not required and does not justify in itself the further use of deadly force. In fact, I would see that being a charge against gun guy. But if nothing convinced bio dad to leave, including that shot, then bio dad owns any subsequent aggressive action.
Reply Quote
itsyourboypookie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Who?mikejones! • 2:13p, 11/25/21
Agthatbuilds said:
Unless there's more to the story, the dead guy wasn't being super aggressive until boyfriend brings out the gun.



I can walk around the grocery store with that gun.

It doesn't give people the right to attack me.

Dead guy said use the gun or he was going to take it from him.

Pretty easy case of self defense.
Reply Quote
EclipseAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:21p, 11/25/21
They are all so nonchalant after the shooting. It's bizarre.
Reply Quote
Martin Cash
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to itsyourboypookie • 2:22p, 11/25/21
itsyourboypookie said:
Agthatbuilds said:
Unless there's more to the story, the dead guy wasn't being super aggressive until boyfriend brings out the gun.



I can walk around the grocery store with that gun.

It doesn't give people the right to attack me.

Dead guy said use the gun or he was going to take it from him.

Pretty easy case of self defense.
Legally yes, but an incredibly stupid thing to do.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Ecclesiastes 10:2
Reply Quote
Esteban du Plantier
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:23p, 11/25/21
Martin Cash
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:23p, 11/25/21
Boyfriend should fry on this one. He had no business inserting himself into a dispute between the father and his shack up. Absolutely no call to go get a gun and there was no threat to him when he shot the father in cold blood.
An overly macho idiot who needs to spend about 20 years in prison.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Ecclesiastes 10:2
Reply Quote
tamuwx
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CheeseSndwch • 2:27p, 11/25/21
As a father that has dealt with custody issues with the other parent, I hope those parents burn in hell. Work to make issues with a dad seeing his kid and then kill him.
Reply Quote
fullback44
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:27p, 11/25/21
Wow.. that escalated very quickly, I'm not sure which way this will go, I'm thinking the homeowner probably should have just went inside and not brought out a gun but I don't know the history of the guy in the green, he may have been a hot head that escalates things .. but who knows ?

I'm thinking the homeowner eventually gets stuck with something like involuntary manslaughter .. basically coerced into getting his gun to protect his property and himself ..

But I'm no attorney and have not idea how this plays out ..

Reply Quote
itsyourboypookie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Raiderjay • 2:28p, 11/25/21
raiderjay said:
Seriously!???? You had to make this a Tech thing??? What the hell dude, the guy is a total ***** and should go down for this, but come
on, grow up….


User name checks out
Reply Quote
Duckhook
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to EclipseAg • 2:32p, 11/25/21
EclipseAg said:
They are all so nonchalant after the shooting. It's bizarre.

Yeah, there's so many layers to this thing. But the first thing that struck me as really strange the first time I watched this was the first response of the woman in the truck: "I've got this on video." Dude is laying there dying/dead and nobody seems real concerned about that.
Reply Quote
fullback44
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:44p, 11/25/21
Looks like There is a second video in this article .. seems his attorney is saying it is self defense ..

https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/kyle-carruth-attorney-makes-case-for-self-defense-after-deadly-shooting-of-chad-read/

This happened almost 20 days ago today, LPD has not filed any charges although the shooters ex wife is a state district judge for Lubbock county, it looks like Lubbock county office has recused this case to the Texas AG office and I would assume they will take this to a grand jury?

Wonder if the shooter thought he was protected because his ex wife is a state district judge ?
Reply Quote
3 edits
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.