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

Also, “contempt” is up to the judge in Texas. It can be civil OR criminal (OR Both)..

Fer cryin’ out loud, go get a Snickers bar.

“Having a gun”, and “pulling it out in a verbal argument, and firing shots”, is two different things.

Pull out a gun when your drunk cousin won’t leave at Thanksgiving, and see how that goes...

In fact, that’s a good analogy, here. If all your cousin is doing is yelling and screaming, would you or would you not go and get a PC9 carbine and threaten his life???

And here again you gaslight me with your pathological lying.

It was 300 yards, not 400 you printed, and it was a driver not a 3 wood.

Typical lying closet commie biatch you are.

I'm sure you wouldn't

No real man should ever use the word gaslighting, let alone accuse someone of employing that tactic against him. That word is best left for use by certifiably insane women who are way out of touch with reality.

Thanks for having my back Paul. I was getting concerned

Ok, so you're going with the position he has no RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS........like all commies.

I shot someone who bumped my truck in the Safeway parking lot last Thursday while I was parking to run into the store to find some cranberries. I shouted "molon Labe" before I shot that dumb old aggressive bisssh when she exited the vehicle to apologize. But she had one hand in her coat pocket, probably to get her edc to kill me.

She was pretty old so I doubt she heard me.

More evidence you are violating a citizen's RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS you closet commie.

Show Texas statute stating specifically the actual act of acquiring a gun is escalating.

Of course he has the right to grab a gun (although God has nothing to do with this conversation, so kindly stick to the facts and leave out the bearded space alien for the moment), but he's also liable to face the consequences for his decision. He grabbed the gun hoping it was a deterrent. It escalated the situation, and then he made the decision to shoot the dude dead. If Read had escalated first (and don't give me any of the bullshit about how a chest bump is in any way similar to picking up a rifle) and pulled a pistol, Carruth would have been easily, 100% in his right to shoot Read immediately. But, Carruth escalated the force involved in the situation, which was his first mistake (just cause you have the right to do it doesn't make it a good decision). Even then, that specific part would not have gotten him in trouble if it had worked to scare Read away. But, Read didn't leave, and Carruth made the decision to shoot Read when there were plenty of other options available for dealing with the situation. If Carruth had shot when Read reached for the gun, odds are good this wouldn't even be debatable. But after space has been cleared and Read is just standing on the porch 8 feet away? That's an unjustified homocide.

I carry concealed. Never in fear of violence or expecting it but ready for it. Physical protection of the home? Whose residence it was would play a big part in Carruth's defense. I can find links saying it was Christina Reads house and that it was Kyle Carruth's place. If the latter I think Carruth is in a better position if a court case is brought forward. If it was Christina Reads place Kyle may be in a lot of trouble. Carruth does say in the video it is his place of business. Who knows but the news is not all that accurate. There are even links saying the shooting happened at Chad Reads home; https://celebsaga.com/kyle-carruth-shooting-lubbock-justice-for-chad/

Exactly what the video posted above said.

So now, not only does a citizen not have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in your eyes, a citizen has to ask a criminal to hold his beer while he calls the family court judge to see how he can proceed without going into legal jeopardy..........

Ain't fictional writers a hoot to read......

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS



Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;


"reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary"

Seems like a lot of reasonable people here don't think it was immediately necessary.

Was there any provocation?

I guess the sawed off twit is now asking himself if getting the gun and then using it was a good course of action.

I'll be honest, I couldn't read through 30 pages of this. I got through the first 3 or so, and then jumped to the end, so I'm not sure which video is posted. I've watched a handful on the situation, however, and that seems to be the general take from most functionally minded people.

This link calls it Read's ex wifes home.

https://editorials24.com/2021/11/wh...g-of-chad-read-and-suspect-kyle-carruth/

As does this one.

https://www.lubbockonline.com/story...ock-judge-case-investigation/8765295002/

This one says it is Carruth's home.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...custody-confrontation-front-porch-video/

“ (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;  and”

Bringing a gun (not there previously) into a VERBAL altercation, in which the “victim” was not engaged in anything that merits “deadly force” (arson, burglary, sexual assault, etc, etc), would be considered “provoke” (read: escalation). Boyfriend LEFT the argument, then took it a step further, by bringing the gun outside.

The “right to keep and bear arms” doesn’t currently extend to “loudmouth trespassers”.......

Your mind is that of a commie being you state the "gun" escalated the event.

That's the same as stating the "gun" killed the individual.

Blame it on the gun, like the good closet commie you are.

You lie after being called to the carpet about you thinking Carruth didn't have a right to bear arms, and state he does now, and then blame the gun for escalating.

So according to you now, he still can't Bear Arms, because the "gun" can escalate the situation as you stated above.

You're doing a heck of a job Brownie.

ElkSlayer91- “You’re all Commies!”

Take it down a notch.

We’re trying to have a reasonable legal discussion, while YOU are trying to get all personal and paint our houses “red”....

Outside so as to capture it on video, escalate the argument and eliminate the women’s custody problems all rolled into one.

This was a set-up.