The real question is how far can you throw a manlet?

If black shirt is charged, I think the prosecution will be hard pressed to fine 12 guilty votes in west Texas.  If they move it to Austin, maybe.

All the custody talk and trespassing talk and who is divorced from who is all noise.  Did black shirt act reasonably in that moment, was he in fear of great bodily harm?  I think one can reasonably assume that green shirt attempted to take the gun from black shirt.

The time difference in black shirt being slung off the porch and green shirt taking 2 rounds to the chest was less than 1 second.  I’m of the opinion that 1 second is indeed, “in the moment”.  3, 5, or 10 seconds later, would be an unreasonable amount of time to decide to shoot, IMO.

Kyle has just shot on the deck near Chad.  Chad responded by grabbing the gun and swinging Kyle into the yard.   Chad should have tackled or otherwise beat the hell out of Kyle and taken the rifle to end the threat.

Kyle had a legal right to have the firearm whether Chad was present or not.
When Chad then rushed up to and chest bumped Kyle then Kyle had a legal self defense right to shoot Chad.
The fact he fired into the deck, he missed the shot, is irrelevant.
Anything Chad did after that short of retreating with his hands up could still be deemed as a further threat.

I’m so glad you mentioned that as I forgot to.

Kyle should claim that was an NG, a reaction to jerking back when Chad raised his left hand towards the rifle.  An NG looks better, albeit minor, than a warning shot.  Branca mentioned that this was a moment that Kyle would have been justified had he shot at this point.  Branca’s opinion is, once that “moment” was over, Kyle lost the ability to claim self defense as the moment had passed.

Far be it for my dumb ass to counter anything Branca says but if we all took places of these men and timed the sequence of events out, many wouldn’t be shocked at how fast this can and did happen.  Add fear, anger and adrenaline to that mix and it turns explosive in the blink of an eye. I think Branca is not taking into account the 1 second between slinging Kyle off the porch and the shots happening less than 1 sec later.  (I’ll have to find the cite for the time frame but it was mentioned during Branca’s interview)

To include Chad stopping all movement and just standing there?  

For self-defense, that's the legal issue at hand.

Chad really is in a pickle at that moment.  Kyle C. is amped up, and it would be hard to do anything right.  (Granted, he got himself that far into the situation.)

Lol....depends on where you are. A lot of states only one party needs to know its being recorded.

Best post in this thread. And worth 100 youtoooobs videos of lawyers talking out their ass.

This is wasn’t about a child custody, it wasn’t about trespassing, it became a problem when Green shirt guy w ent hands on with the nipple rub. He should have left when he found out the kid wasn’t there.

I don't care if his actions were within the boundaries of the law, I think the shooter's an idiot. Even if he is acquitted - even if he's not charged - this is gonna cost him. I simply can't imagine shooting someone over this.
Next time you take a dump, reach back, grab a handful of shit and wipe it all over your face. No one's gonna stop you. It's perfectly legal. It's pretty dumb, IMO, but it's perfectly legal.

Absolutely what happened. Which is why he didn't know how to respond when green shirt went chest to chest with him instead of doing what he wanted. Got inside his OODA loop.

If you were in legit fear for your life of someone, would you let them get chest to chest with you, with your weapon literally touching their arm?

When brandishing the gun didn't achieve the desired result, he fired at the guy's feet. I don't buy the idea that that was an ND, black shirt deliberately looks down to see where he's aiming before pulling the trigger, likely to ensure he didn't actually hit green shirt but got close enough to scare him.

And when that didn't work, he resorted to the last step on the ladder and shot the guy, despite there not being an imminent threat to anyone at that moment.

Black shirt is not Kyle Rittenhouse. Those defending this bring discredit to gun owners by justifying a bad shoot and making us seem incapable of distinguishing good shoots from bad ones.

People who think people shouldn’t discuss events in General Discussions shouldnt be allowed to speak.

See we can all have different opinions.

Indubitably.

You forgot your tagline.

Someone chest bumping you is not an imminent threat of death/great bodily harm.

I guess the answer is "If you can't throw him far enough to be out of shooting range, maybe you should keep your fucking hands to yourself."
Unfortunately for all the Chads, Chad-wannabes, and recent divorcees in this thread, it looks like this is just another case of a legally-armed Kyle defending himself against an unarmed attacker who clearly enunciated a verbal threat and then attempted to follow through with physical assault.

I'm guessing this Kyle will stand before a jury as well, but the odds of getting capped for Murder are very low.

We can parse it down to the tenths of a second now (video evidence), black shirt can parse it down to the tenths within a second now (hindsight), but do you expect you could do that under such circumstances? This is a luxury we are afforded but did black shirt have that same luxury while under the circumstances which culminated in the shooting of green shirt? It takes discussion and review to break their actions down into tenths to opine if either, more specifically black shirt, could’ve or shouldn't have done one thing or another. This review, hours of it, to break down down a couple of seconds or three of the critical moments is a luxury we have that was not afforded to black shirt during those moments. I argue last second was pure reaction, black shirt is now running on pure reflex. It doesn't matter if it’s 2/3/5/10/15 feet to black shirt at that moment because their is no discernible difference to him, for all he knows green shirt still inches off his back; he turns 180 degrees, his assailant is in front of him following a fight to retain control of his firearm. When is he supposed to perceive the threat to his safety has ended? His mind isn’t processing Yes/No at that point, he is in reaction mode. There were no indications green shirt was going to relent so when black shirt turns and gets his sights on his assailant he fires two rounds COM. He stops the threat after breaking free from the assailant who just a moment before was trying to rip the firearm from his hands - in the space of around 1 second** and +/- 15 feet.

Someone asked me earlier “If I were in black shirt’s shoes…”. This is imagining I am in black shirt’s shoes. I have green shirt refusing to leave my property after being told to. I arm myself; this my home, my property, and there is someone refusing to leave and being argumentative. I make no move to advance on him but demand he leave the property again. At that point he rushes me, verbally threatens to cause physical harm and take my firearm, physically contacts me and my firearm which further escalated into a physical struggle over the firearm. I am able to break free while retaining control over my firearm. Where do I have the luxury at that moment to think back and see a point of deescalation? When did green shirt give me any indication of some boundary he would not cross? Up to that point, he has refused to comply with my demands to leave, became verbally threatening, physically assaulted me, and attempted to forcefully take my firearm. What indicators do I have he will stop at some point?

ETA: ** Black shirt doesn’t have approximately one second to aim and fire, it takes approximately one second to travel +/-15 feet, turn around, aim and fire.

That’s your opinion. The context as a whole prove otherwise.

ETA: *Does anyone believe green shirt would not have used the firearm on black shirt if he were successful in wrestling it away? *Potential

It's hard to say because prior to Carruth firing at Read's feet, the carbine was held directly against Read's arm without him grabbing for it.

Once Carruth turned the non-deadly encounter into a deadly one by shooting first, who knows. My hunch would be he wouldn't shoot because he was there for a mission, to pick up his son, and he was earlier saying he was going to get law enforcement and the courts involved to resolve the situation.

GOOD SHOOT

So much bickering about who's right.

I say Blue shirt fucked around and found out, and if black shirt gets a decent attorney ,I believe he will beat the case.

And that’s what he should have done.

That goes both ways in this case. Carruth could have called the police to have Read trespassed. There was never an imminent threat that prevented him from doing that. He chose to go get his gun because he wanted to show how tough he was by scaring off a bigger man.

WTF are you talking about. LOL  

In Texas an individual has the RIGHT to protect their home & person by BRANDISHING a gun, OR USING IT.

Did you even listen to what Read was saying ?

None of those people had a right to be at Carruth's home.

The kid they were looking for wasn't even there.

Read fucked around and found out., nothing more.

Please cite with video time stamp when Chad was told specifically the child wasn’t on the premises.

@exponentialpi

Not looking for the time stamp but its at the end of the video when kyle is on the porch after the shooting.

Listen to what Kyle says.

Remember , CHAD had NO reason to be at Carruth's home.

Even if Chad may have "thought" his kid was there, HE still has NO RIGHT to be at Carruth's home.

It’s between the 00:20 and 00:24 second mark in this video you can hear green shirt is (again?) informed the child is not on the property.

What was the threat to Carruth's home posed by Read standing in the yard?

What exactly is your point? If a property owner tells you to vacate, you vacate.

ETA: Does it matter if it’s little bo peep standing in your yard? If you tell little miss bo peep to get off your lawn then she needs to get her adorable ass off your lawn.

The point, that so many of you are missing, is that in order to be justified in using deadly force in this kind of situation, you need to be faced with an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

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.

You cannot shoot someone for mere trespassing or because their chest brushed against yours.

Yes, Read should have left when asked. That's a separate issue from whether shooting him was justified.

Wrong.  If the arranged child hand-off was to be there, he has every right to be there.

And again, green shirt was not shot for trespassing. He was shot because he became an active threat.

AFTER the ex-wife says "I wanted to see him" which kinda makes the assertion that the child is not there less than credible.

Yes.

And if the tresspasser refuses to vacate - you call the law.  It isn't open season, no bag limit, shoot them where they stand.



If Bo Peep doesn't vamoose you don't get to burn powder on her.

This thread needs more poll and less getting shot for trespassing

Who brought a gun to the discussion and discharged it before Chad "became an active threat"?  Is this not what the law calls "creating your own exigency" and a bad thing for a self-defense claim?

The ex-wife being on that property (with permission) could allow some sort of implied permission by the property owner but that order is predicated on the parties behaving in a civil manner. Once the arguing started and civility ended, the property owner (black shirt) should not be expected to endure any argumentative or uncivil behaviors.

Until the child isnt there.

Its not a blanket warrant to be there at all hours day or night.

That’s not all that was said. Listen again.

Which did not happen. At all. You’re ignoring the actual verbal threat(s), physical assault, and wrestling for the firearm that happened between the demand to leave and shots placed on COM.

If we're being honest, he was shot for not "respecting authoritah", because he wasn't an imminent threat. "Active threat" means nothing.

And the only reason you could even claim he became an "active" threat is because he was shot at without lawful justification. You cannot provoke a person to attack you and then use their attack to justify your killing them, unless you have attempted to retreat and they continue to present a deadly threat.

Black shirt demanded someone leave his property. Any child custody issues green shirt and the ex-wife is up the family courts, not to be settled on black shirt’s porch. Black shirt has every right to arm himself. Green shirt certainly did become an active threat the moment he rushed up into the porch, use verbally threatening language, making physical contact.

No he wasn’t. He could’ve been shot the moment he rushed up onto the porch but was not. I am talking about what did happen, not what could’ve happened.

ETA: The only person provoking green shirt was himself. He fed himself.

It's not the hand off point and they weren't supposed to be there.

I don't think they get it ....

No point in wasting your time.

Did anyone else see that Kyle Carruth is in the process of divorcing a state judge.

Don't know him , but I'd say he's not worried about charges.

What did happen was Carruth shot at Read before Read had so much as cocked his fist. You cannot shoot someone over verbal provocation. And at no point was anything resembling a threat of imminent deadly force coming from Read until Carruth shot at him.

You cannot respond to non-deadly force with deadly force. That's the whole concept of proportionality when it comes to the elements of self-defense.

Chad (green shirt) was not a threat.   Kyle was the only person who was a threat...and just for the record, shot and killed a man.

Welcome to page 1.  

Nah, 2 white guys.

The simple act of going to retrieve a firearm is unnecessary and is a clearly imminent threat to green shirt.
You can't escalate/create a situation and then claim self defense.
I'd make the argument that black shirt threatened green shirt by retrieving and introducing the firearm into a situation that he had no business being involved in.

That deserved to die for his ignorance , come to my house and try that bullshit.

Especially if I lived in TX , except I would have had a TX legal suppressor on my 9mm carbine.