Quoted:


Do you have a duty to retreat in Texas?

No?

Okay, so where did shooter violate Texas statute by going outside, onto his own porch, to confront a trespasser?

  He didn't violate a statute by going outside, onto his own porch, to confront a trespasser.  It's a red herring.

He violated the statute by pulling the trigger multiple times. *That* is the problem. If I were on a jury, I would not buy the argument that his life was in a clear and immediate danger that warranted lethal force. It just doesn't seem like it at all. Contrast that with KR case.  

Crickets.

So many people here seem incapable of applying basic tenets of the law to a given situation. If A is prohibited, and B is not prohibited, examine situation and see whether it meets A or B.



My point gets illustrated immediately: do you have a legal right to be on someone else's property? No. Not even if you're there to pick up a kid (who apparently isn't even present).

Or put it another way, and imagine the kid is literally the property of the dad..let's say it's a stolen car. Shooter has stolen the vehicle and hidden it inside his garage. Car owner shows up, and refuses to leave. Is it trespassing? Absolutely. Does the car owner have the legal right to forcibly enter the dwelling to get his property back? No. He would be committing a new, separate offense.

Dad didn't have a legal right to be on the property once told to leave. Homeowner steps out with a firearm to defend himself, family, and property. Decedent explicitly stated his intent to take the firearm from homeowner and attack him. Bingo, the intent is formed. Decedent then starts grappling with him. Ability and opportunity come into play.

It's a good shoot, period. The people here saying otherwise have been brainwashed into thinking we have a legal duty to avoid all confrontation ever. Sure, it's the best policy to take for your own life...but that doesn't make it the law.



Loudly stating that you intend to take the lawful resident's firearm away and attack him, and then proceeding to do so, is the threat.

People need to get the fucking word "unarmed" out of their vocabulary. We are tool-using, murderous primates who managed to claw our way to the top of the global apex predator spot because of our brains, and the ability to use our brains to find exciting new ways to impart lethal violence upon others every bright new day. Scour history, and you can find enough graves to cover the entire surface area of Lichtenstein with men, women, and children who were killed by "unarmed" opponents. When a man announces his intent to inflict great bodily injury to you, and then starts down the road of doing so, the only sane response is to begin inflicting central nervous system hits with the closest slugthrower at hand.

Quoted:
What’s Texas law in regards to “warning shots”?


He fired a warning shot when his life wasn’t in danger.

He then broke contact (was on no danger) and then calmly fired a kill shot.  


At no point did I see the shooters life in danger.

Quoted:
How hard is it to just say to the guy, "I'm sorry, let's try to figure this out.  Let's talk about it."

Quoted:
What’s Texas law in regards to “warning shots”?


He fired a warning shot when his life wasn’t in danger.

He then broke contact (was on no danger) and then calmly fired a kill shot.  


At no point did I see the shooters life in danger.

Quoted:



Pretty much

The bottom line it does not meet the criteria of "My life was in imminent danger" standard and you can't just blow retards away who stand on your porch and ran their mounts off. Trespassing - maybe. use of lethal force? No.  No jury will be sympathetic too that. This is especially aggravated by the child involved. As this places him there for a legitimate reason.

What a dumpster fire.

Quoted:



So an angry man trying to take his gun from him to use it on him isn't dangerous?

So many of the "Bingers" in this thread seem to either be from liberal/up north states or have their state hidden (can assume they're hiding it to avoid criticism) and it is telling.

Quoted:

He never tried to take the gun physically until the shooter fired a shot and endangered the life of the dead guy.  At what point can dead guy defend himself against unlawful force?

He was there for his son.  He had a legal right to have custody of his son at that time and place.  The shooter was preventing legal custody.  

Shooter is a murderer.

Quoted:
I was reading some of the news articles. They are indicating the shooting was around 4:20PM. On the video, the deceased is saying he was supposed to pick up have his son at 3:15pm. I am interested to see what transpired over that hour.

Quoted:

@762AR25

Please stop calling people "Bingers" because they a deadly force situation differently from you. This is you final warning before you are removed from the thread. Stop trying to instigate fights.

Quoted:



The custody issue has zero to do with the shooting from a legal standpoint.  

Quoted:
Y'all know what I love about cases like this?  Everyone has their opinion and no matter what, won't be persuaded otherwise.  

Quoted:


I take pride in being silenced and censored.

Quoted:


The judge wasn't there. She filed for divorce in September.

https://www.kcbd.com/2021/11/23/court-records-connect-kyle-carruth-deadly-shooting-chad-read/

In the affidavit, according to the newspaper, Anne-Marie Carruth wrote she was "notified that my husband, William Kyle Carruth, is under investigation for the shooting and killing of his girlfriend's children's father after he attempted to pick up his children late Friday afternoon. My knowledge of the incident is very limited at this time, and it is my understanding that the police are still investigating."

Quoted:


No one was chasing this guy down a street.  This guy was on private property and was ordered to leave.  He refuses to do so, he became the aggressor and tried to follow thru with his threat to take his gun and kill him and failed.

Quoted:

Someone's read Verbal Judo.

/media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/nod-3.gif

Quoted:

No, it actually has almost everything to do with it.  


Legal right to be there.  Especially if it’s spelled out in the custody agreement.  Even a verbal invite to exchange at that place will hold up.


I have a feeling you have little to no experience with these types of situations either personally or professionally.

Quoted:



So an angry man trying to take his gun from him to use it on him isn't dangerous?

So many of the "Bingers" in this thread seem to either be from liberal/up north states or have their state hidden (can assume they're hiding it to avoid criticism) and it is telling.

Quoted:
Holy shit, "Bingers" is now a bannable offense?  

Quoted:
What’s Texas law in regards to “warning shots”?


He fired a warning shot when his life wasn’t in danger.

He then broke contact (was on no danger) and then calmly fired a kill shot.  


At no point did I see the shooters life in danger.

Quoted:

I am not saying you can't have a differing opinion than them and I am not censoring you. Hell, your opinion may be right. I don't know. I am just telling to stop calling other people names and trying to instigate fights. Act like an adult please.

Quoted:
Nope, now she gets paid by social security until the kids are 18.

Quoted:
I thought the guys in the Arbrey case were going to get off since the "jogger" grabbed the gun when it wasn't pointed at him.
Now I look at confronting someone with a long gun differently.

Quoted:
Again you're ignoring the facts.  He threatened to takes his gun and kill him with it and then tried to do just that.

He lost his life in a Darwinian fashion and it was completely legal.

Quoted:
We've even had out of state posters mention "first degree murder" which is not a thing in Texas and that about sums up the quality of the opinions from the out of state posters.

I take pride in being silenced and censored.

Quoted:
How can members of a gun forum be so obtuse?