Escalation to use of force.

[awshoot]

I think Carruth's main issue is going to be the heartbeat he took to aim and fire when Read swung him off the porch.

What's hard about that, is that taking aim and firing can become a stereotyped pattern with practice and so the brain signal to fire, sets this entire sequence of physical acts in motion (including the pause) and on video it looks really bad. Perhaps that is why Rittenhouse apears so circumspect in his defensive shootings -- he had only fired that rifle 1x before (and only a couple hundred rounds at clay pigeons) and so he hadn't practiced using it in any meaningful way. As a result he had to make a more conscious choice for each physical act of shooting and ironically on video, that may have appeared to be more fluid and perfect. Had he practiced more, elements of taking aim and firing might have gotten compressed into a single non-conscious stream of motions that included the pause to aim, and that would have looked bad on film even if it was only one conscious brain signal. I guess the takeaway is to practice shooting even more -- enough so the half-second beat for aiming is eliminated, because that pause might convict you even though it is just an unconscious pattern of behavior that is part and parcel of the "shoot" decision.

 

[Koda]

Normally, I would say, yes. But one must also consider the welfare of the child.
Consider the situation of where a "receiving" parent arrives to the custodial hand-off drunk/high/otherwise impaired. Would a judge/jury agree that the "giving" parent is guilty of a crime by refusing to hand the kid over the impaired parent?

yes, but that wasn't the case here.

 

[sobo]

yes, but that wasn't the case here.

Well, your question was broad in nature and you did not explicitly limit it to the Read/Carruth incident.

 

[sobo]

I think Carruth's main issue is going to be the heartbeat he took to aim and fire when Read swung him off the porch.

That's where Andrew Branca/LoSD is on this. Carruth waited too long between getting thrown off his porch and firing for it to be a SD shooting.

The Branca/LoSD analysis (posted by @Nick Burkhardt at this post) is well worth the half-hour spent watching it to get a real sense of Texas SD law.
It doesn't look good for Carruth, based upon Branca's review of the two videos, and Branca stresses multiple times that his analysis is predicated only upon the two videos, since that's all there is to go on at this point in time.

 

[Koda]

Well, your question was broad in nature and you did not explicitly limit it to the Read/Carruth incident.

true, I wasnt clear my bad... just my initial reaction was then if it was illegal to withhold the child then the shooter is screwed aiding a crime with a gun. The more we learn of this case the more it looks like murder.

 

[RVTECH]

Carruth was completely emotionless and acted pretty 'self righteous' standing on the porch with a dead man he just shot laying there, and NOT even attempting any assistance. This part is really telling : "I told you, I told all of y'all to leave," Carruth says to the woman filming from the car, as Read lies on the ground beside him. This statement really shows how withdrawn and closed off he is to reality in general.

After READING the article (as opposed to just watching the video) I developed my own 'profile' of the Carruth. Referred to as
'A land developer and estranged husband of Anne-Marie Carruth, a judge in Lubbock and Crosby counties' and then there is this part, 'Christina Read and Kyle Carruth had been having an "ongoing affair" despite him still being married, Jennifer Read said in her affidavit'.

Bottom line is Carruth is a sociopathic big talker and used to getting his own way and because he is of short stature might have a 'Napoleon complex' and most likely communicates through fear and intimidation. I'll add in 'womanizer' as well due to him having a relationship with Read, yet still married.

I know a few like him and they typically live very 'angrily' most of the time. They have few friends and are hated by most, other that those in their small 'circle' they associate with. They often express 'violent' tendencies by the way they talk and the empty threats they make. Some are really laughable and quite stupid to hear.

 

[sobo]

just my initial reaction was then if it was illegal to withhold the child then the shooter is screwed aiding a crime with a gun. The more we learn of this case the more it looks like murder.

I tend to agree, as does Branca and a few other attorneys that I've read.

 

[Koda]

I tend to agree, as does Branca and a few other attorneys that I've read.

its not a good sign when pro gun pro self defense lawyers suggest one committed murder....

 

[awshoot]

That's where Andrew Branca/LoSD is on this. Carruth waited too long between getting thrown off his porch and firing for it to be a SD shooting.

The Branca/LoSD analysis (posted by @Nick Burkhardt at this post) is well worth the half-hour spent watching it to get a real sense of Texas SD law.
It doesn't look good for Carruth, based upon Branca's review of the two videos, and Branca stresses multiple times that his analysis is predicated only upon the two videos, since that's all there is to go on at this point in time.

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.

 

[awshoot]

... estranged husband ... despite him still being married ... 'womanizer' as well due to him having a relationship with Read, yet still married.

Meh ... been there done that. There's often a period of time before a divorce is final but everything is totally over. In any event, it won't be a pertinent part of his trial.

 

[edzz]

If he had only heeded Branden's advice...
In the words of joe

 

[sobo]

If he had only heeded Branden's advice...
In the words of joe

Joe Brandon is a phuq'n idiot...

 

[mkwerx]

A few have mentioned Texas allowing you to use deadly force to protect property - failing to note the part of that law that says this is only acceptable *at night* unless the applicable self defense requirements of imminent threat have been met.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY



Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Self Defense, per Texas law

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly 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 an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(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.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.




Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Read the bolded, red sections. You cannot use deadly force IF YOU provoke the incident. Since Carruth and Mr. Read's ex were engaged in a criminal act themselves - that being a violation of Texas Penal Code 25.03 - Interference with Child Custody - their right to claim self defense is moot.

Sec. 25.03. INTERFERENCE WITH CHILD CUSTODY. (a) A person commits an offense if the person takes or retains a child younger than 18 years of age:

(1) when the person knows that the person's taking or retention violates the express terms of a judgment or order, including a temporary order, of a court disposing of the child's custody;

(2) when the person has not been awarded custody of the child by a court of competent jurisdiction, knows that a suit for divorce or a civil suit or application for habeas corpus to dispose of the child's custody has been filed, and takes the child out of the geographic area of the counties composing the judicial district if the court is a district court or the county if the court is a statutory county court, without the permission of the court and with the intent to deprive the court of authority over the child; or

(3) outside of the United States with the intent to deprive a person entitled to possession of or access to the child of that possession or access and without the permission of that person.

(b) A noncustodial parent commits an offense if, with the intent to interfere with the lawful custody of a child younger than 18 years, the noncustodial parent knowingly entices or persuades the child to leave the custody of the custodial parent, guardian, or person standing in the stead of the custodial parent or guardian of the child.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the actor returned the child to the geographic area of the counties composing the judicial district if the court is a district court or the county if the court is a statutory county court, within three days after the date of the commission of the offense.

(c-1) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(3) that:

(1) the taking or retention of the child was pursuant to a valid order providing for possession of or access to the child; or

(2) notwithstanding any violation of a valid order providing for possession of or access to the child, the actor's retention of the child was due only to circumstances beyond the actor's control and the actor promptly provided notice or made reasonable attempts to provide notice of those circumstances to the other person entitled to possession of or access to the child.

(c-2) Subsection (a)(3) does not apply if, at the time of the offense, the person taking or retaining the child:

(1) was entitled to possession of or access to the child; and

(2) was fleeing the commission or attempted commission of family violence, as defined by Section 71.004, Family Code, against the child or the person.

(d) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

Mr. Carruth and Ms. Read were both party to the felony of custodial interference. Mr. Carruth then escalated the encounter by attempting to intimidate Mr. Read with his firearm - essentially Aggrevated Assault under Texas law

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:

(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or

(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if:

(1) the actor uses a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault and causes serious bodily injury to a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code;

(2) regardless of whether the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2), the offense is committed:

(A) by a public servant acting under color of the servant's office or employment;

(B) against a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant;

(C) in retaliation against or on account of the service of another as a witness, prospective witness, informant, or person who has reported the occurrence of a crime;

(D) against a person the actor knows is a process server while the person is performing a duty as a process server; or

(E) against a person the actor knows is a security officer while the officer is performing a duty as a security officer; or

(3) the actor is in a motor vehicle, as defined by Section 501.002, Transportation Code, and:

(A) knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of a habitation, building, or vehicle;

(B) is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied; and

(C) in discharging the firearm, causes serious bodily injury to any person.

(c) The actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant or a security officer if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as a security officer.

(d) In this section:

(1) "Process server" has the meaning assigned by Section 156.001, Government Code.

(2) "Security officer" means a commissioned security officer as defined by Section 1702.002, Occupations Code, or a noncommissioned security officer registered under Section 1702.221, Occupations Code.

So reading the applicable statutes, I don't see any way shape or form that Carruth gets a pass on this one. The local PD sent the case for review to the state attorney general's office for review before filing charges - that is why Carruth hasn't been charged yet. Also the local prosecutor's office has asked for change of venue, because Carruth's ex-wife is a judge in the district.

I don't think Carruth is going to wind up getting the death penalty, but I think he's going to wind up spending the rest of his life, or a very large portion of it, in the care and custody of the Texas prison system.

 

[Jay Walk]

People interpret laws to fit what they want to do.

My buddy has no concealed permit and states that he is legal in WA because he places his loaded pistol in plain sight on his passenger seat.

A neighbor with concealed places his loaded revolver in his closed center console while driving.

 

[awshoot]

People interpret laws to fit what they want to do.

My buddy has no concealed permit and states that he is legal in WA because he places his loaded pistol in plain sight on his passenger seat.

A neighbor with concealed places his loaded revolver in his closed center console while driving.

RCW 9.41.050: Carrying firearms.

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.

(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.

 

[Koda]

People interpret laws to fit what they want to do.

My buddy has no concealed permit and states that he is legal in WA because he places his loaded pistol in plain sight on his passenger seat.

A neighbor with concealed places his loaded revolver in his closed center console while driving.

This is actually a pretty big problem in the pro gun community. To a lesser extent with gun laws, but to a large extent with use of force laws. The last few days of discussing case verdicts and other actual recent shootings is evident not everyone understands use of force laws or how to apply those laws to their pre-thought out responses to situations.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1464690063615348739

 

[wired]

 

[bbbass]

Interesting legal analysis thread here regarding in part, a unique TX law covering arming oneself to intimidate trespassers:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1464331435062534147

Yes, but didn't DAd threaten him first?

That's where Andrew Branca/LoSD is on this. Carruth waited too long between getting thrown off his porch and firing for it to be a SD shooting.

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.

A few have mentioned Texas allowing you to use deadly force to protect property - failing to note the part of that law that says this is only acceptable *at night* unless the applicable self defense requirements of imminent threat have been met.

Wow, that's a hell of a data dump. I for sure didn't read that far down into the statutes.

 

[Koda]

Yes, but didn't DAd threaten him first?

Not in my opinion, I haven't seen anywhere where the dad threatened him. I do see the homeowner threaten the dad when he came back out with a gun.

 

[sobo]

Yes, but didn't DAd threaten him first?

Not in my opinion, I haven't seen anywhere where the dad threatened him. I do see the homeowner threaten the dad when he came back out with a gun.

Agree with Koda.

Dad (Mr. Read) did not threaten Mr. Carruth in any way until Mr. Carruth made an implied threat of grievous bodily harm (by brandishing the PCC) that provoked an escalatory response, to include an explicit threat from Read (that Read would take Carruth's PCC from him and shoot him with it).

At that point, Carruth was the only armed individual in this altercation, and it would have been wise for Read to disengage from the kerfuffle at this point, as I have pointed out previously. IMHO, Read was a moron for not swallowing his pride/anger and skedaddling once the PCC was introduced. We all know what happens next when two immoveable forces are squarely met with no quarter given.

Lastly, I submit that had Carruth not introduced the PCC into the situation, then it is likely that Read never would have made the threat to shoot him with a firearm that was not present in the altercation. Then things very well could have turned out differently and less tragic had that been the case. Cooler heads may very well have prevailed, and no one would have died, no one would be going to prison, a few kids would still have a father, and it just would have ended up in Family Court for the judge to sort out. Tragic, all around...