I'm sure this has already been discussed but didn't see it when I went through several pages going back a month…

Happened in Texas last month.

An ex-husband (Chad Read) is trying to pick up his son (rightfully and per the custodial agreement). His ex-wife (Cristina Read) is having an affair with a married man (Kyle Carruthers). It appears the entire confrontation is taking place on Carruthers' property.

Videos linked below. Linking NY Post because they show the entire thing and don't edit out the shooting.
Obviously Carruthers' attorney is claiming self defense but not sure I see that. Curious what others think. Either way seems like a senseless death.

https://nypost.com/2021/11/26/texas-man-shoots-partners-ex-amid-child-custody-battle-video/

Update: Kyle Carruth's lawyer, David Guinn, sends @KAMCNews an alternate view filmed from inside the house. He says he believes it supports Kyle's claim of self defense. This is, again, graphic and uncensored. A censored version is in our article below. pic.twitter.com/taZ6CRAF2Z

— Ryan Chandler (@RyanChandler98) November 24, 2021

Politics board is on it.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3252318/1

Ah. My bad. Don't visit that board much. Lol

Not self defense

Iffy, but I would say not self defense. He escalated that situation, and he and the ex wife were violating a custody agreement. Both should have called the cops to come settle it, but only one of them took the time to go get a gun and come back outside from the safety of their home. You don't have a duty to retreat in Texas, but once you have established your safety, you can't go back and put yourself in harm's way with a weapon and claim you feared for your life or great bodily injury. You've facilitated that situation and provoked it at that point. I understand telling someone to leave your property, but when you're holding their kid in violation of a custody agreement, you're in the wrong AFAIC.

If I'm on a jury and see that video, I'm voting guilty, no ifs, ands, or buts.

What a crap sandwich

That twitter video doesn't support self defense in my opinion. The shooter is running AWAY, turns, and fires while the one killed essentially stands still.

It MAY end up being self defense if all the facts come out, but the cut itself isn't supporting that.

I would not want to be the shooter in this situation. (Obviously, not the one shot, either, but I'm speaking legally). The jury is almost bound to get the idea that the shooter shot him because he was pissed at him, not because he feared for his life. That's what the prosecutor will go after him on if he takes the stand. You can bet that he'll argue it in closing if he doesn't take the stand (I suspect he'll get some testimony admitted from someone to that effect). Either way, the jury will have to overcome that to find this guy not guilty.

I would love to hear the answer to the question of "when he asked for his son, why did you not let him take (the son)?" Again, catch-22. Either he takes the stand and gives a bizarre answer (I can't imagine a non-bizarre one) or he doesn't and the jury wonders).

Neither person was being very smart. One is dead and the other one will probably spend 8-12 years in prison.

Self defense.

If I was on the jury that's not self defense like another poster said. He went inside and then came back outside brandishing the weapon.

All while the other guy appears to not have a weapon on him.

I agree with what several others have posted. calmly going inside and getting a gun and coming back out is likely going to end up being problematic to a claim of self defense. The other thing i haven't seen brought up here yet is just before the actual altercation happens he fires into the porch right in front of the now-deceased father. that's another potential problematic element as it feeds the narrative that he himself escalated the situation, as no real physical moves were made until that shot. The one saving fact might be the dad's words about "i'm gonna take it and f*** something something", sounds remarkably like threat, bolstering the self defense narrative.

The final piece that's problematic in my mind is that after the father grabs the barrel and flings him off the porch he raises his weapon and fires at a stationary/unarmed target that is now well out of arms reach. If i'm on this jury and watching that, if dad had taken a step in his direction and then was shot I probably begrudgingly give him the self defense out. Since technically the father did threaten him and then by grabbing the barrel and fling him seemed to be trying to act on that threat. So at that point if he takes another step in the shooters direction, i might have to disregard the escalation by the shooter up to that point. maybe. but the fact is that's not what happened. the father was motionless on the porch after the "fling" and the guy raises his gun, takes aim and shoots. So while the shoot may have technically followed an attack i would say at the moment he shot, a reasonable person should not have been in fear for their life. and due to the escalating factors i'd give him a heck of a lot less leeway in my interpretation of that.

those are my thoughts anyways viewing the available facts at hand.

Most questionable situations like this involve human tolerance stacking. Unlike a cut and dried "he broke in to my house" situation, in stuff like this its usually not one bad choice made by one person that leads to a bad outcome, but a series of small more trivial decisions by multiple people that when added up lead to a bad life or death result.

Dont know how the court case is going to go but there were a lot of opportunities to do something else for all parties involved. Sad that no one did so.

Here's the video with John Lovell and Colion Noir discussing it.

Edit: apparently you have to go onto YouTube to see it. For those that aren't familiar with John Lovell, Warrior Poet Society is his channel and where you'll find the video. Colion is a Texas attorney and very pro 2A

BenderRodriguez said:

---

Most questionable situations like this involve human tolerance stacking. Unlike a cut and dried "he broke in to my house" situation, in stuff like this its usually not one bad choice made by one person that leads to a bad outcome, but a series of small more trivial decisions by multiple people that when added up lead to a bad life or death result.

Dont know how the court case is going to go but there were a lot of opportunities to do something else for all parties involved. Sad that no one did so.

---

This was my thought as well. For the deceased father, the moment the homeowner came out with a gun he should have left. Unless he thought his son was in imminent danger, that's where you pack it up and come back with the police. Because the moment the gun came out, while he may have still been in the legal right, tactically he was f***ed in any plan but retreat.

Not even close to self defense. He is going to prison for murder.

Manslaughter. No way it's self defense. You cannot escalate the situation by bringing a rifle or whatever that is (I thought initially an O/U but watched the vid on my phone so can't really tell) to bear imo. The guy was 10 feet away from him. He wasn't an imminent threat, again imo

These situations tend to get heated and parties often do not act with common sense.

- police should have been called end of story
- father should have retreated and sought legal action
- not self defense

The boyfriend had plenty of opportunity to "escape" the situation and de-escalate but choose the alternative. The boyfriend was in violation of a court order thus "committing a crime". Both he and the ex-wife are guilty of breaking a court order and both should be held accountable. Boyfriend should ride the lightning.

Andrew Branca (long-time self-defense attorney, wrote a book on the subject, etc.) did some analysis on this for Legal Insurrection. His conclusion was that a claim of self-defense probably wouldn't fly.

I scanned some of the thread on Politics. Apparently the mom of the kid is the daughter of a local (female) judge. I think some thought Grandma Judge may have had the kid at the time.

In any case, both parties passed on several opportunities to de-escalate. Dead dad was probably in the right...but he's dead. I feel for him, and the anger at custodial interference, but he handled it poorly. Shooter/boyfriend is looking at lots of legal fees, possible jail. Some poor kid may end up living with a stepdad who killed his real dad.

What a s*** show.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I scanned some of the thread on Politics. Apparently the mom of the kid is the daughter of a local (female) judge. I think some thought Grandma Judge may have had the kid at the time.

In any case, both parties passed on several opportunities to de-escalate. Dead dad was probably in the right...but he's dead. I feel for him, and the anger at custodial interference, but he handled it poorly. Shooter/boyfriend is looking at lots of legal fees, possible jail. Some poor kid may end up living with a stepdad who killed his real dad.

What a s*** show.

---

This ties right to some advice my driving instructor gave me several decades ago that has always stuck with me. When talking about deciding who has the right of way in a situation he gave us the caveat about not always taking the right-of-way even if you legally have it because "It's fine to be right, but you don't want to be dead right". That line has stuck with me and carried over into multiple aspects of my life.


I also can't agree more with this being a terrible s*** show. And stuff like this is exactly why my wife is of the opinion that idiots shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and too many people are idiots. She doesn't want to implement that idea since there is no good way to do it, but cases like this make it really hard for me to fault her line of thinking.

There was only one reason to go inside and get a weapon, and that was to shoot the dad. Made it even worse to fire a round at his feet. Hope he get the chair. If he does not I hope the kid has some brains and gets him with some rat poison and his mom goes to jail for poisoning him. Poor kid has ****ty life to start. Pray for some great adoptive parents.

What I cannot get over is how the wife just kept filming and talking to the guy like nothing had happened after her husband was shot. It is like she didn't even see her husband laying there dead. Did she think he was faking it? When the video goes black you can hear her screaming "you really did it".

that's my take... wtf are they holding a conversation when the guy is laying there dying.

John Cocktolstoy said:

---

There was only one reason to go inside and get a weapon, and that was to shoot the dad. Made it even worse to fire a round at his feet. Hope he get the chair. If he does not I hope the kid has some brains and gets him with some rat poison and his mom goes to jail for poisoning him. Poor kid has ****ty life to start. Pray for some great adoptive parents.

---

It'll probably be no billed. If it does go to trial, expect a hung jury at best.

Once the stepdad fired the warning shot, I think it gave dad the right to defend himself, which is what he did by grabbing the gun.

This is murder.

My very, very judgmental take from a few minute video: everyone involved sucks. The mom, the boyfriend, the dad, and the dad's wife. The one exception may be the dad, but he's dead now. And based on his choice of company, he probably sucks too. None of them deserve the air they breathe and the kid deserves actual parents, not these asshats.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Once the stepdad fired the warning shot, I think it gave dad the right to defend himself, which is what he did by grabbing the gun.

This is murder.

---

Just from the legal analysis perspective, the dad having the right to defend himself doesn't necessarily make this murder. Legally, circumstances can exist where two parties are in confrontation with each other and both parties technically have the right to use deadly force in self defense since the legal analysis is entirely based on the perspective of the shooter.

using this case as an example, while both men were still on the porch, prior to the first shot at the floor, both technically could have been justified in the use of deadly force in self defense.

• The dad because the other man brandished a weapon at him, clearly a reasonable person could believe an imminent threat to their life existed.
• The homeowner, because the dad made a threat about taking the gun from him and using it against him, and then made a move to grab the rifle. a reasonable person could also believe an imminent threat to their life existed here.

So in that exact moment either party could have been justified in killing the other, if we assume that no additional facts come out, and that both parties were innocent to that point (this could be a stretch).


We saw this in the rittenhouse case too. The last few attackers could have genuinely believed KR was an active shooter and were earnestly seeking to subdue him under that belief. Had GG (the guy with the pistol and now missing a bicep) successfully shot kyle dead, he could have gotten off under self defense using the claim that he was pursuing Kyle under this genuine and possibly reasonable (though mistaken) belief. None of that mattered though because their claim to self defense did exactly jack sh*t to negate Kyle's claim to self defense.



all of that said, if this goes to court, I put my money on it ending up as manslaughter. I think the dad made enough boneheaded and aggressive decisions that it is enough to knock it down from murder.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Once the stepdad fired the warning shot, I think it gave dad the right to defend himself, which is what he did by grabbing the gun.

This is murder.

---

It's a tough one for sure. Time stack of events occurred that if you take out any one, my opinion will sway. Meaning it was series of decisions made from both parties right after another that led to this obviously. You stop at any point in that chain and I can see things differently from the previous decision.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to whether BioDad had a right to be on the property demanding his son vs the landowner wanting him off of it. Not a lawyer but just from my own thoughts I would side with landowner personally. Though, I also do not have kids so probs some subconscious bias there too. Or even lack of.

Case however is probably going to come down to if StepDad felt like his life is in danger at the moment he pulled the trigger. And I am conflicted at that point. I can make a case I think of that being so but this is why these things are never black and white and we see courts go both ways. Still think StepDad would lose though. Lot of juries still think shooting guns out of hands and "wounding shots" are valid and feasible actions so who knows.

Whole thing sucks and is stupid and NGL, sure as **** ain't losing any sleep over it but definitely watching to see what the end result is just for the curiosity.

rlb28 said:

---

that's my take... wtf are they holding a conversation when the guy is laying there dying.

---

F'ing surreal. I am a borderline sociopathic monster by most standards here and I am having trouble seeing how she is so detached.

There is no way he gets off. Murder. He had every chance to retreat, and did so going into his home where he could lock the door and be done. Yet he went to get a weapon and proceed to kill another man. Why the hell do you think the kid was not there in the first place like he was supposed to be. They didn't want him to be there to see it happen. I pray this guy has a LTC because he is definitely going down because he has been trained in class what to do in this situation.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Once the stepdad fired the warning shot, I think it gave dad the right to defend himself, which is what he did by grabbing the gun.

This is murder.

---

The "warning shot" is a state felony. This whole case is basically the "When keeping it real goes wrong" skit.
If you watch the video from the car, you'll see the deceased try to manipulate (its very quick and not a complete grab) the firearm because Chad is pointing it in his stomach.
I think that video makes or breaks the case. Arming yourself isn't brandishing in my opinion (it is his property after all). Kyle might have also had prior knowledge of the Chad's convictions for assault.
The questions in my opinion are:
1) Did Kyle come to Chad or Chad to Kyle on the porch?
2) Is flinging Kyle off the porch considered assault of Kyle on the habitation? If so, he may be justified. Since words alone apparently do not count as provacation.
3) What is the window of self defense if he is justified? Branca argues only while he's being flung and I say thats preposterous.
4) Does Kyle have knowledge of Chad's convictions or previous interactions have gone sour?

Like I said on the politics forum. Kyle should have never let Chad close enough to grab his rifle. And his dumb self should have not fired a warning shot period.

Everyone in this situation was wrong.

Edit:

Commentary I found. Fairy thought provoking.

But there is only one person who will be tried for murder, and possibly one more for lesser charge of planning it all.

Nobody seemed to give a rats ass that the guy was dead, even the lady I'm assuming was related to him videoing from outside the house? Dude is laying there shot and she just keeps yelling "its on video"? Thanks Karen.

DuncanLEO said:

---

Nobody seemed to give a rats ass that the guy was dead, even the lady I'm assuming was related to him videoing from outside the house? Dude is laying there shot and she just keeps yelling "its on video"? Thanks Karen.

---

Yeah, that is his wife.