Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Texas home shoot video

Dont overlook the size difference. The dad was a lot bigger than the shooter.

1. He was lots bigger. The little guy would have probably lost a fistfight.

2. He was trespassing.

3. He threatened to assault, to take the gun away.

4. He did assault the man, by grabbing him and throwing him off the porch.

the shooter will walk

A LOT rides with who the aggressor is.

If the person using deadly force is determined to have provoked the encounter, it's an uphill battle to claim self defense.

Since both parties were White, it's likely that standard self-defense law will apply, in which case the shooter gets off. Were the dead buy black, however, there would be massive media pressure, and pressure from mobs designed to intimidate jurors, likely resulting in an injustice against the shooter.

My son, a Louisiana attorney familiar with Texas law says the shooter will not be convicted, that it is legal to brandish a firearm as the shooter did at his own home. We'll see.

Manslaughter... unless he gets a very sympathetic jury. Size disparity, yes. Justification no. Will be interesting to find out.

Here's the take from a note 2nd amendment, self defense attorney.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3JyVw5LU8EA&feature=youtu.be

Apparently it was her home and he didn’t live with her.

Yep. He became the Aggressor when he went inside, got the gun, and brought it back out.
You bring out a gun during a verbal argument, you provoked the encounter.
He should have stayed inside and minded his own business. It wasn’t his house, or his kids. Little Man Syndrome got the best of him.

Exactly. Nothing about that fight was “physical” or “life threatening”, UNTIL boyfriend LEFT, went INSIDE, got a gun, and brought it OUTSIDE. If the gun was already THERE, I might think differently.

The central question should be:
Was the Mom’s life in danger when boyfriend brought the gun out??

If the answer is “no”, then there is no legitimate reason to introduce a deadly weapon.

The pushing/shoving/grabbing didn’t start until AFTER boyfriend brought gun and, this, ESCALATED.

If MOM was worried about being PHYSICALLY assaulted (not VERBALLY assaulted), WHY did she ever go OUTSIDE??

MOM was not physically assaulted before gun.
BOYFRIEND was not physically assaulted before gun.
DAD did NOT try to follow boyfriend into house.

Once boyfriend left to go in house, the only thing he should of been grabbing was a phone. Unless there are criminal/hospital records saying Dad has physically assaulted Mom in past, this was nothing but a “verbal altercation” and trespassing, and boyfriend escalated it.

It is Texas. They handle these things different than most states. We will see. The man that got killed probably was not legally there. The other one was. It is a sad situation and the woman that caused it all will get to go on about her life and now has Social Security payments for her kids from the dead father.

Sounds like one is dead and the other two need jail time for just being stupid.

I did a search and found a news article from Lubbock in which Kyle Carruth was interviewed in 2015 as a member of the Lubbock 2nd Amendment Coalition. It's on KFYO.com

According to you and chlinstructor, a person doesn’t have the right to acquire the means to defend their self and others from a person refusing to leave the property, thus illegally trespassing and becoming hostile towards all of the people on the property as he threatens them.

You two are 100% wrong, and clueless.

The ex, Read, is the one who escalated the situation by not leaving, and threatening the occupants of the property.

Carruth had every legal right to take charge of the situation on the property to protect them both as long as the lady owner of said property allowed him to. The kids and house ownership has no legal bearing on this for the shooter, nothing.

You had a person who was asked to leave the property refuse, and become hostile and threatening to all occupants of the property, and then he committed assault and battery on the shooter.

Post the Texas State legal statute where he broke a law by obtaining a gun to defend himself against a hostile threatening trespasser.

I was getting ready to post something when I saw that CHL and fburgtx posted some similar stuff. I will go ahead and throw this up anyway. My apologies for any redundancy.





Yes to rockinbbar's post.

I don’t know if the shooter will ever spend any time in jail, because theory and practical reality (burden of proof, community attitudes, prosecutorial discretion) are two different things. But, for the sake of discussing theory, what constitutes the crime of “illegal trespassing” in Texas within the context of this situation? This does not appear to be an attempted burglary or theft or anything like that. It is just an irate, verbal playground squabble at the point when the shooter tells dad to leave. Is presence outside someone’s residence without permission, or after implied or express permission is revoked, a felony or misdemeanor in Texas? (I am assuming that shooter had sufficient interest in the property to lawfully request dad to leave.) Does Texas law allow you to retrieve a firearm, hold it in your hand, swing it up in an aggressive manner (whether or not it actually swept dad), and command dad to leave under a strongly implied threat to use deadly force?

The real aggression by dad toward shooter did not begin until after shooter swung the rifle. Before that, all dad did was point his finger and threaten the issuance of subpoenas and litigation. He kept his distance from ex-wife with his arms visibly away from his body, and he did not get on the porch. (New wife was filming, most likely to document the situation for dad’s lawyer, so dad appears to have been trying to be careful with spacing although his voice sounded angry and he did point in an accusatory manner.) If the law does not allow the shooter to do what he did, shooter is the aggressor threatening the use of deadly force, and dad thereafter could have defended himself against the threat of deadly force by being very aggressive in return. Again, I don’t know Texas law, but an aggressor generally cannot claim self-defense unless he disengages from the conflict in such a manner as to convey to the other party that he no longer wants to engage in such behavior. Here, as soon as the parties separated, the shooter fired, which strongly negates any intention to call a time out.

In the end, a life was lost. Some children lost their father because dad and ex’s boyfriend worried more about their egos than the kids.

It will be interesting to see how this thing turns out, although I don’t have a dog in the hunt.

You keep saying threatening, what did he threaten to do? Subpoena them? Lmfao

“Hostile threatening trespasser”.

You had a Dad pissed off because his kids weren’t there.

“Yelling and angry” (“Where’s the kids!! I’m going to court!”) is not the same as “hostile threatening” (“I’m gonna kill you!).

The Dad never made any VIOLENT threats (that I’ve heard so far), UNTIL boyfriend LEFT the scene, went INSIDE, and THEN produced a gun OUTSIDE.

That is ESCALATION.

Great video!

Here's your escalation:

Read asked to leave property > Illegal Trespasser > Assault & Battery > Dead

And those "facts" are "exactly" what the GJ will use when applying the law, if they even get it.

I'm not reading the whole thread (58 pages) but my take on this situation is it comes down to one common denominator and that is the ex-wife is a spiteful bitch that was and it sounds like has in the past, played games with the custody order, just to piss off her ex.

Women can be evil.

He was dealing with a hostile illegal trespasser on the property, and you think he doesn't have a right to obtain any tools to defend himself. That is the line of thinking of closet democrat commies, no right to self defense or guns.

You're out of the closet now.......

funny how chipmunks slayer forgets to mention that the shrimpy guy shot at the deceased's feet before the escalation. Warning shots are not allowed in Texas. The deceased never threatened violence only said he would take the rifle from him after the shrimp shot at him.

People tend to get upset when they are shot at ( deadly force) and can legally try and defend themselves after deadly force is used.All the deceased tried do is remove the deadly force from the shooter. He never threatened him. In fact no physical threats at all were made by the deceased during the altercation. Deceased Only said he would take the rifle ( threat ) from shrimpy. He was shot from at least 10 feet away standing, not moving toward the shooter with his hands in a non threatening manner at the sides of his body as before the firearm was retrieved when the shrimp shot at him.