Simply Triggers
Defensive Arts
Low Price Guns
Southwest Firearms
Gun Deals
Sporting Systems
Oregon Rifleworks
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Buster Beaver Cerakote
HighLine Firearms
J&B Firearm Sales
Messages
5,020
Reactions
11,250
Yes, but didn't DAd threaten him first?



And awshoot said: I watched that one too, as well as the one from the retired cop in TX linked earlier. Anyway, that pause reminds of the the Drejka case and that ended badly for Drejka.

"Zactly. Also with the distances involved in both cases, I wouldn't see a need to shoot unless the shootee was moving forward at the time.


Wow, that's a hell of a data dump. I for sure didn't read that far down into the statutes.
No - he threatened to take his ex wife, Mr. Carruth, and Mr. Carruth's soon-to-be-ex-wife at that point to *court* over the custodial interference. They'd already committed the felony custodial interference, and while Mr. Read was in his verbal exchange with the ex-wife, Mr. Carruth goes in and gets his gun, coming back out threatening Mr. Read, who had a court-order to be there to get his son. Carruth's demands were not only unreasonable, but further perpetrated his felony custodial interference.

At the point Carruth comes out armed, Read approaches and makes his verbal threat - but at that point its easily argued that he is acting in self defense, and since Read's ex-wife and Mr. Carruth were both engaging in a felony at that point, any argument they had for self defense is pretty much gone.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ken Paxton's (Texas state AG) office comes back with their guidance on this case this week, since its been a few weeks since this incident went down. I fully expect an arrest to come as soon as that guidance comes back, and he'll be brought to court the next county over, given his bad relationship with his judge ex-wife.

His ex, from what I read yesterday, filed for a restraining order against him as well citing his mental state and potential for violence. Mr. Read's most current wife has likewise filed for custody of Read's two youngest children, citing child endangerment by the ex-Mrs. Read ala her relationship with Carruth - alleging that the elder of the two kids said he plans to run away if he has to be in Carruth's presence again. IF we take that to be true, it sounds like Carruth may be abusive to the Read children, which would kind of fit the profile of him if you read into some of the things others have said about him.
 

Xaevian

Messages
3,665
Reactions
9,709
Interesting legal analysis thread here regarding in part, a unique TX law covering arming oneself to intimidate trespassers:
Without watching any video, just noting the TX statutory excerpts you provided, an attorney could argue firing the warning shot at the ground in front of the deceased does not meet the standard of firing "at or in the direction" of someone. Now, if the bullet struck the foot of the dead guy as some in this thread contend, that would be moot. Just food for thought.
 
Messages
5,020
Reactions
11,250
Without watching any video, just noting the TX statutory excerpts you provided, an attorney could argue firing the warning shot at the ground in front of the deceased does not meet the standard of firing "at or in the direction" of someone. Now, if the bullet struck the foot of the dead guy as some in this thread contend, that would be moot. Just food for thought.
The "warning shots" were literally aimed at his feet - they were in physical contact. Those shots may or may not have been intentional - could've just been the idiot with the gun having his finger on the trigger when it shouldn't have been, and he reflexively popped off the rounds. His girlfriend - the deceased's ex-wife was also down-range of them when those shots were taken.
 
Messages
6,956
Reactions
12,386
Its a bit subjective but my initial though was that was a warning shot but I was also completely surprised he didn't hit the guys foot or leg either.
Theres been some discussion here on the legality of warning shots and even if legal I took that as a threat to the dads life since he fired in the direction of the dad as they were close to their chest bumping phase.
 
Messages
320
Reactions
540

Give Buddy#1 that link and have him read paragraph 2(a). He's straight up wrong. The language is not really open to rational interpretation (EDIT -- by 'rational interpretation" I mean, there's no rational argument that it doesn't say what it says).

Buddy#2 is fine.
How does this say you can drive down the road with a loaded revolver in the console?


(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
 
How does this say you can drive down the road with a loaded revolver in the console?


(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
That bold, italicized, underlined part right there...

Subsections (i), (ii), and (iii) are considered to be alternative non-contrasting items/ideas (hence the use of the word "or"), not cumulative non-contrasting items/ideas (which would necessitate the use of the word "and" in the paragraph under consideration). That is, you don't have to be in compliance with all three subsections to be legal. You can be in compliance with any one of them and be legal.

It is interesting to note that this same nuance was what got Kyle Rittenhouse out of the gun charges in his case. Although in his case, the law said that he had to be out of compliance with two subsections (by the use of the word "and" in the relevant Wisconsin law), and he was only out of compliance with just one of those subsections, thereby making him not guilty of violating the gun possession laws of Wisconsin.

As I have said many times here before, "Words matter..."
 
Last Edited:
Messages
6,821
Reactions
17,577
How does this say you can drive down the road with a loaded revolver in the console?


(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
You said Buddy#2 has a concealed carry license.

So the law says:

You can't carry a loaded pistol in a vehicle but there is an exception for those who hold a concealed carry license (meaning they can carry a loaded pistol in a vehicle) when one of A or B or C is true:

A =the pistol is on your body; or
B=the pistol and you are in the vehicle; or
C=you leave the pistol in the vehicle but have it hidden from view and the vehicle is locked (a locked box would probably be OK too).
 
Messages
6,821
Reactions
17,577
If I was to rewrite that statute to make it clearer, I would say this:

A person without a license to carry a concealed pistol shall not carry a loaded pistol in a vehicle. A person with a concealed pistol license may carry a pistol in a vehicle if one of the following is true: The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
 
Messages
320
Reactions
540
Internet Police Guy did not read what I said which was "while driving"
How can you drive while away from the vehicle?
(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there,

or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
 
Messages
2,954
Reactions
7,301
Those shots may or may not have been intentional - could've just been the idiot with the gun having his finger on the trigger when it shouldn't have been, and he reflexively popped off the rounds.
Interesting thought, but in the face-off still photos accompanying a couple of articles I've seen he seems to using pretty good trigger finger discipline, so I'd bet against unintentional discharge.
 
Internet Police Guy did not read what I said which was "while driving"
How can you drive while away from the vehicle?
"Internet Police Guy"... :rolleyes: I'll just let that one go...

Let's try this again...

First, one must be in compliance with Section (2)(a) before anything else, as that is a primary requirement. That is, one must first have a valid concealed pistol license.

Then, one must be in compliance with any of the three follow-on subsections. That's where the "and" that you marked in bold comes in.

So you can either have it on your person (i), or have it within the vehicle as long as you are in the vehicle (ii).

The third subsection (iii) applies when you leave the vehicle but the loaded pistol is still "placed" [see (2)(a) again] within the vehicle. Hence the "or" that you marked in bold.

Perhaps it will make more sense if we strike out the alternative and cumulative sections that are not in play, thus:

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

Note that there is no "and" between the end of subsection (i) and the the beginning of subsection (ii). This makes subsections (i) and (ii) alternative requirements, not cumulative requirements. By complying with Section (2)(a), which is a primary requirement, and then either of the following two subsections (since they are alternative and not cumulative requirements), one can clearly see that driving down the road with a loaded pistol in the console is legal as long as you have a valid concealed pistol license on you. The third subsection only comes into play when one leaves the vehicle and the pistol remains behind, hence the "or" in the law.

Of course, either of subsections (i) and (ii) presumes the vehicle to be in motion, since why else would one enter the vehicle if not to drive it somewhere. I mean, it would seem pretty silly to have your CHL, get your pistol, and then just go sit in your car and not go anywhere.

Finally, one would have to be a complete idiot to not grasp the concept that subsection (iii) only applies once the vehicle is parked and stationary. The State has not yet amended this law to account for autonomous-driving vehicles. More to come on that...
 
Last Edited:
Messages
6,821
Reactions
17,577
...
Of course, either of subsections (i) and (ii) presumes the vehicle to be in motion, since why else would one enter the vehicle if not to drive it somewhere. ...
I'll quibble with that. It is not necessary to presume the car is or is not in motion. I understand why you making that assumption -- the poster seems to think that (i) and (ii) must be simultaneously true when it is only that one or the other must be (*). Anyway, there are many reasons a vehicle may be parked with a concealed pistol license holder sitting in it with the gun in the glovebox or center console, and many reasons that person may be actively driving the car somewhere. In either case, motion of the vehicle is not a necessary part of the statute.
Finally, one would have to be a complete idiot to not grasp the concept that subsection (iii) only applies once the vehicle is parked and stationary. The State has not yet amended this law to account for autonomous-driving vehicles. More to come on that...
There is just enough room with a literal reading of that line, to say that having the gun in a locked box under the seat within the vehicle while the licensee is away from the vehicle, is totally fine. It is actually silent on vehicle motion, and so here's an example of how someone might want to argue that: licensee leaves gun in a locked box in the vehicle, lends vehicle to friend who while driving gets pulled over, and somehow [insert blackbox criminal charge machine] the licensee gets jammed up. The gun is locked up in a box under the seat hidden from view. The licensee is away from the vehicle. The licensee will argue he did nothing wrong. Now, I'm not saying this is a good argument because I think you are entirely correct on the intent of (iii) -- it's to handle parking and going into the post office or something -- just that the language is open to this argument. I don't think it would be a good idea to try it out in real life though.

(*) In statutory construction, it is presumed that the legislature does not write useless/meaningless sections and that every part of a statute has meaning. If the legislature meant you have to carry the pistol on your body even in a vehicle, it would not have written (ii) because the extra verbiage would be completely unnecessary. The only way the mere existence of (ii) makes any sense at all, is if it means something different than (i). Thus, in addition to a plain reading analysis (which takes precedence over all forms of interpretation), the very existence of (ii) is evidence that it means something different from (i) and the only way to be different from "on your body" is for the gun to "not be on your body".
 

nobamaplease

Messages
499
Reactions
214
Not sure how long you tube allows the video but it clearly shows how things escalate to shooting.

Judge for yourself if the action was righteous.

This post is about escalating of use of force, weather the shooting of the dad looking for his son was justified or not.
Not if traveling in an auto with a loaded pistol with CCL is legal or not, I believe that there are other post that has that same topic.
 
I'll quibble with that. It is not necessary to presume the car is or is not in motion. I understand why you making that assumption -- the poster seems to think that (i) and (ii) must be simultaneously true when it is only that one or the other must be (*). Anyway, there are many reasons a vehicle may be parked with a concealed pistol license holder sitting in it with the gun in the glovebox or center console, and many reasons that person may be actively driving the car somewhere. In either case, motion of the vehicle is not a necessary part of the statute.
Quibble accepted. I know you know why I wrote what I did the way I did, so I will stipulate to your quibble. The emphasis is added for the edification of others reading this response.
There is just enough room with a literal reading of that line, to say that having the gun in a locked box under the seat within the vehicle while the licensee is away from the vehicle, is totally fine. It is actually silent on vehicle motion, and so here's an example of how someone might want to argue that: licensee leaves gun in a locked box in the vehicle, lends vehicle to friend who while driving gets pulled over, and somehow [insert blackbox criminal charge machine] the licensee gets jammed up. The gun is locked up in a box under the seat hidden from view. The licensee is away from the vehicle. The licensee will argue he did nothing wrong. Now, I'm not saying this is a good argument because I think you are entirely correct on the intent of (iii) -- it's to handle parking and going into the post office or something -- just that the language is open to this argument. I don't think it would be a good idea to try it out in real life though.
I would agree that argument is a stretch, and would not advise making said argument, due to the (obvious) intent of (iii). However, the Black Box Criminal Charge Machine could certainly counterargue that the licensee conducted an illegal transfer of the firearm (*)!

(*) The friend is now in possession of the firearm without completing a Form 4473, there was no BCG and (now) mandatory waiting period, and the transfer was not conducted through an FFL. All of these things make this an illegal transfer of the firearm, under WA State law. Other states' laws may vary.
(*) In statutory construction, it is presumed that the legislature does not write useless/meaningless sections and that every part of a statute has meaning. If the legislature meant you have to carry the pistol on your body even in a vehicle, it would not have written (ii) because the extra verbiage would be completely unnecessary. The only way the mere existence of (ii) makes any sense at all, is if it means something different than (i). Thus, in addition to a plain reading analysis (which takes precedence over all forms of interpretation), the very existence of (ii) is evidence that it means something different from (i) and the only way to be different from "on your body" is for the gun to "not be on your body".
Agreed.
 
This post is about escalating of use of force, weather the shooting of the dad looking for his son was justified or not.
Not if traveling in an auto with a loaded pistol with CCL is legal or not, I believe that there are other post that has that same topic.
I posted my last reply (immediately above) within 60 seconds of your post (quoted here) that reminds us of the subject of this thread. Therefore, I did not see your post admonishing those of us that are drifting the thread by discussing concealed carry law as it relates to carrying in a vehicle.

Earnestly and humbly do I beseech your forgiveness, and I will tread no more on this thread in divergent directions. But I will not delete my post, since I believe it is relevant to the discussion of late and is also conclusory in nature.

Cheers...
 
Messages
6,821
Reactions
17,577
...

I would agree that argument is a stretch, and would not advise making said argument, due to the (obvious) intent of (iii). However, the Black Box Criminal Charge Machine could certainly counterargue that the licensee conducted an illegal transfer of the firearm (*)!

...
Good call.
 
Sporting Systems
Copeland Custom Gunworks
Southwest Firearms
Cerberus Training Group
Let Freedom Ring
Advertise on Northwest Firearms

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors January Gun Show
Portland, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Redmond, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top