Man in Texas killed trying to pick up kids from ex-wife

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

8 hours ago, Hairy Biped said:

After thinking about this for a little while and trying to consider all possible points of view, I just can't wrap my head around how the shooter could at anytime feel reasonably threatened for his or anyone else's life.  Especially after he retrieved the firearm.  To me that's straight up murder and the shooter should do hard time for it.  And I'm a very pro 2A, pro right to self defense kind of guy.  But I just don't see how the angry dad did anything to rise to the level of being a genuine threat to hurt or kill anyone.  It's sad that we as a country seem to be moving farther and farther away from learning and using the art of conflict resolution and reason as a means of decision making in situations like this.  It feels like nowadays people see every situation as binary, and think they have to react one way or another in an instant.  Certainly those situations exist, but not nearly as often as we see it play out now.

I like many of your points. I've been thinking about this whole issue, and some of the comments other posters have brought up.

We've stopped kids from settling issues among themselves now.  Bullying seems to be getting worse not better (is that just perception or reality).  If you defend yourself in school you get punished. A couple swings, some landed blows, and usually that was it, and life went on.

There just doesn't seem to be actual resolution for either party today, and could that lead to pent up aggression, and anger ?  That skill set of settling school yard issues seems to be a training ground for dealing with the real hard shit that lives throws at us.

We don't let a kids being bullied fight back.  We don't let kids defend themselves. We make them come to the authorities.   I don't know how good a thing that is in the long run. People have to learn how to deal with issues on their own.  Conflict resolution is a valid process, but in the end one has to rely on the,selves to get thru life and the shit that comes their way.  

I don't know if this is all BS or not, but anger, and emotions sure seem to get out of control damn fast today.

Edited November 27, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[Balcones 309]

Shooter is still married apparently. To an appointed judge in Lubbock (Anne-Marie Carruth). The widow is going to go on a money grab. 
 

Curious how that will look in both the civil cases (divorce and wrongful death (or whatever)). What side will Anne-Marie be on?
 

 

[Goredho 17413]

11 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

It was in the link I posted: But...This is a very complicated case, @Pato del Muerto. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in Nicole44's head. Luckily I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, limber.

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

Wood.

Only 1 out of 5 stars, would not...

wait for it...

BANG!

[used2b 249]

17 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Shooter is still married apparently. To an appointed judge in Lubbock (Anne-Marie Carruth). The widow is going to go on a money grab. 
 

Curious how that will look in both the civil cases (divorce and wrongful death (or whatever)). What side will Anne-Marie be on?
 

 

They are divorced. The judge has filed to keep their kids from him. She doesn't support her ex in this in any way.

Edited November 27, 2021 by used2b

[Balcones 309]

The couple separated in July and William Kyle Carruth filed for divorce in September. The court documents were sealed when the divorce was finalized, on November 19. Both parties agreed to seal the divorce records and a judge determined the reasons were valid.

 

According to the news reports, they were married at the time of shooting.  My question is around liability and assets and how she will navigate it.

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2078]

4 minutes ago, Balcones said:

The couple separated in July and William Kyle Carruth filed for divorce in September. The court documents were sealed when the divorce was finalized, on November 19. Both parties agreed to seal the divorce records and a judge determined the reasons were valid.

 

According to the news reports, they were married at the time of shooting.  My question is around liability and assets and how she will navigate it.

District judge who was JP first who had what appears to be a mediocre law career before.  She doesn’t have any more assets than any other middle class schlub.  

[Balcones 309]

2 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

District judge who was JP first who had what appears to be a mediocre law career before.  She doesn’t have any more assets than any other middle class schlub.  

Ok. Does the widow get to go after 100% of the assets or just the shooters portion?

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2078]

3 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Ok. Does the widow get to go after 100% of the assets or just the shooters portion?

I know that’s what you’re asking.  I don’t know.  I’m just saying it’s immaterial because all her assets will be exempt. 

[Jkwellborn 6718]

I know this one goes in the gun thread and will be deleted...are you left or right eye dominant? I feel the same way, about y'all golf fuckers. I can never get the grip right. I was a golf beer cart driver to make money for a bit in my youth. To go back to this thread...I can't see how this wasn't a set up. Apparently, according to his obit he did have some money. Some type of inventor. 

Left handed, left eye dominant.

[Helobious 9464]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I like many of your points. I've been thinking about this whole issue, and some of the comments other posters have brought up.

We've stopped kids from settling issues among themselves now.  Bullying seems to be getting worse not better (is that just perception or reality).  If you defend yourself in school you get punished. A couple swings, some landed blows, and usually that was it, and life went on.

There just doesn't seem to be actual resolution for either party today, and could that lead to pent up aggression, and anger ?  That skill set of settling school yard issues seems to be a training ground for dealing with the real hard shit that lives throws at us.

We don't let a kids being bullied fight back.  We don't let kids defend themselves. We make them come to the authorities.   I don't know how good a thing that is in the long run. People have to learn how to deal with issues on their own.  Conflict resolution is a valid process, but in the end one has to rely on the,selves to get thru life and the shit that comes their way.  

I don't know if this is all BS or not, but anger, and emotions sure seem to get out of control damn fast today.

I was in high school <10 years ago. If you got in any fight at school forget just being “punished”, you’d get arrested. Handcuffs, a court date, $200+ ticket, all of it. And then in school suspension on top of that. Doesn’t matter why the fight started. Zero tolerance. You’d have to literally be standing there doing nothing and get jumped out of nowhere to not get in trouble for fighting back. So if you’re getting bullied, you can either tell someone and get labeled a snitch by everyone, or stand up for yourself and risk getting in a LOT of trouble. It’s horrible.

[TwiceHorn 31519]

34 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

I know that’s what you’re asking.  I don’t know.  I’m just saying it’s immaterial because all her assets will be exempt. 

I believe that both sole (his, but not hers) and joint management community property is liable for tort claims in Texas.  And it appears that the claim accrued prior to the divorce. But yeah, they probably didn't have much.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Helobious said:

I was in high school <10 years ago. If you got in any fight at school forget just being “punished”, you’d get arrested. Handcuffs, a court date, $200+ ticket, all of it. And then in school suspension on top of that. Doesn’t matter why the fight started. Zero tolerance. You’d have to literally be standing there doing nothing and get jumped out of nowhere to not get in trouble for fighting back. So if you’re getting bullied, you can either tell someone and get labeled a snitch by everyone, or stand up for yourself and risk getting in a LOT of trouble. It’s horrible.

That's absolutely ridiculous. We didn't have that level of fuckery around here, but our son got expelled in middle school because he fought back against a bigger kid who kept bullying him.  

I have no idea what kind of message that teaches kids, but it sure is hell isn't one of self responsibility.  I think that kind of shit only makes people have to bottle up their emotions, and frustrations.  It teaches a damned dangerous lesson about thinking someone else will handle ALL your problems for you.

[Brisketexan 105196]

I was in high school

There’s definitely something to this. 35+ years ago, had an older kid who would bully me before school in jr high. One day, I just whirled around and started swinging. Took him to the ground, kept swinging till I got pulled off. First class of the day, principal comes to my class to pull me out - “want to tell me what happened?” “He kept fucking with me.” Long pause. “Ok. Go back to class.”

Private Catholic school, but still. That was the right way to handle it.

Release heat and pressure before the boiler blows. Our institutions and schools need to deal with bullies and bullying, but there has to be some space for judgment for kids to solve their own problems.

[MrBig 5424]

Judge Anne-Marie and the shooter Kyle. Never trust a man with a bow tie.

http://electcarruth.com/about.html

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

24 minutes ago, MrBig said:

 Never trust a man with a bow tie.

http://electcarruth.com/about.html

You will be receiving a very strongly worded letter from the national AIA, I can assure you of that sir.

Edited November 27, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[workswithseed 2109]

14 minutes ago, MrBig said:

Judge Anne-Marie and the shooter Kyle. Never trust a man with a bow tie.

http://electcarruth.com/about.html

[hornian 5222]

1 hour ago, Balcones said:

The couple separated in July and William Kyle Carruth filed for divorce in September. The court documents were sealed when the divorce was finalized, on November 19. Both parties agreed to seal the divorce records and a judge determined the reasons were valid.

 

According to the news reports, they were married at the time of shooting.  My question is around liability and assets and how she will navigate it.

Community debt doesn’t exist, that’s a common misnomer. It’s either a debt of the husband for which he is liable, a debt of the wife for which she is liable; or a debt that both husband and wife are liable for. In this case, any tort claim (wrongful death, etc.) would only be against the husband, snd any judgment would only be collectible against him. It doesn’t matter that they were married at the time. The date of judgment will be post divorce anyway, so there isn’t a community estate with his ex any longer. 

[txhorns 2413]

I like how everyone is acting like if the dad had just called the cops then this would have all been solved.  The cops wouldn’t have done a damn thing about him getting his court appointed time with his kid.  They would have told him to call the attorney general’s office and escorted him off the property.  At least he is still alive then but he’s not getting to see his kid.
 

Then when he calls the attorney general’s office to report it the will apologize and promise to deal with it.  But all they will do is call the mom and give her a scolding, doesn’t matter how many times she has done this.  
 

This is probably the 10th time this has happened to the dad and he was just so fed up with it that he boiled over and ended up dead.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Lubbock...

Child custody, undefeated issues at play

A gun

A dude named Chad and a dude named Kyle. 

Inevitably, there would be bloodshed.

[Jkwellborn 6718]

I like how everyone is acting like if the dad had just called the cops then this would have all been solved.  The cops wouldn’t have done a damn thing about him getting his court appointed time with his kid.  They would have told him to call the attorney general’s office and escorted him off the property.  At least he is still alive then but he’s not getting to see his kid.
 
Then when he calls the attorney general’s office to report it the will apologize and promise to deal with it.  But all they will do is call the mom and give her a scolding, doesn’t matter how many times she has done this.  
 
This is probably the 10th time this has happened to the dad and he was just so fed up with it that he boiled over and ended up dead.

In reality, this is probably correct. He didn’t lose his shit for the first time.

Women that pull this type of nonsense with kids are the worst. Anyone actually, but it seems like the moms almost always get them.

[ChickenSandwich 9848]

30 minutes ago, txhorns said:

I like how everyone is acting like if the dad had just called the cops then this would have all been solved.  The cops wouldn’t have done a damn thing about him getting his court appointed time with his kid.  They would have told him to call the attorney general’s office and escorted him off the property.  At least he is still alive then but he’s not getting to see his kid.
 

Then when he calls the attorney general’s office to report it the will apologize and promise to deal with it.  But all they will do is call the mom and give her a scolding, doesn’t matter how many times she has done this.  
 

This is probably the 10th time this has happened to the dad and he was just so fed up with it that he boiled over and ended up dead.

Agreed the police wouldn’t do anything about custody, but they sure as hell could have dealt with trespassing. Get dad off the guys property. The shooter said he asked them to leave and they did not. He went inside and should have called the police if he was that threatened. 

[Balcones 309]

37 minutes ago, hornian said:

Community debt doesn’t exist, that’s a common misnomer. It’s either a debt of the husband for which he is liable, a debt of the wife for which she is liable; or a debt that both husband and wife are liable for. In this case, any tort claim (wrongful death, etc.) would only be against the husband, snd any judgment would only be collectible against him. It doesn’t matter that they were married at the time. The date of judgment will be post divorce anyway, so there isn’t a community estate with his ex any longer. 

So the move is if you kill someone (or get into any situation where you can be sued for damages) get a divorce after and make sure wife gets as much as possible? Then, when judgement comes you don’t lose as much? Doesn’t seem right.

[hornian 5222]

14 minutes ago, Balcones said:

So the move is if you kill someone (or get into any situation where you can be sued for damages) get a divorce after and make sure wife gets as much as possible? Then, when judgement comes you don’t lose as much? Doesn’t seem right.

If you file for divorce after you kill someone, creditors can “pierce the veil” so to speak. Technically tort claims can go after non-exempt community property, but they are supposed to go to the tortfeasor’s separate property first, then the tortfeasor’s sole management community property (things like his income; bank accounts in his own name; things titled in his name only), then and only then after non-exempt community property (homestead, most retirement, etc. is exempt from judgment).

In this case, the divorce was filed well ahead of the tort; and it sounds like it was probably settled in mediation (reading between the lines based on how the divorce was granted with little fanfare - so probably the decree was based on a mediated settlement agreement). If that’s the case, all community property would have been partitioned as of the date of the MSA, meaning there is no longer any community property even before divorce is granted. The only thing that a spouses’s separate property is liable for is “necessaries” (living expenses, medical bills, etc.) for the other spouse. So no way a tort judgment can reach the ex’s separate property. 
 

So there’s little to no chance that the ex wife is liable for his tort claim since it occurred well after separation and after the divorce was filed; and even if there was some community liability her exposure would only be to non-exempt community property (of which there is likely none). 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I like many of your points. I've been thinking about this whole issue, and some of the comments other posters have brought up.

We've stopped kids from settling issues among themselves now.  Bullying seems to be getting worse not better (is that just perception or reality).  If you defend yourself in school you get punished. A couple swings, some landed blows, and usually that was it, and life went on.

There just doesn't seem to be actual resolution for either party today, and could that lead to pent up aggression, and anger ?  That skill set of settling school yard issues seems to be a training ground for dealing with the real hard shit that lives throws at us.

We don't let a kids being bullied fight back.  We don't let kids defend themselves. We make them come to the authorities.   I don't know how good a thing that is in the long run. People have to learn how to deal with issues on their own.  Conflict resolution is a valid process, but in the end one has to rely on the,selves to get thru life and the shit that comes their way.  

I don't know if this is all BS or not, but anger, and emotions sure seem to get out of control damn fast today.

These dudes were in their 40s? 50s?

Edited November 27, 2021 by DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt

[SHOOTER12 8819]

13 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Had the dead guy been a little calmer, he would be alive and could have ended up with full custody of the children.  Their mom was fucking around with custody times, and had a bf who was unhinged enough to ultimately shoot towards the house, putting the lives of the kid(s) inside in danger.

Hopefully the widow ends up with the kids.

In all honesty, none of those idiots deserve the children IMO.

[workswithseed 2109]

2 minutes ago, hornian said:

If you file for divorce after you kill someone, creditors can “pierce the veil” so to speak. Technically tort claims can go after non-exempt community property, but they are supposed to go to the tortfeasor’s separate property first, then the tortfeasor’s sole management community property (things like his income; bank accounts in his own name; things titled in his name only), then and only then after non-exempt community property (homestead, most retirement, etc. is exempt from judgment).

In this case, the divorce was filed well ahead of the tort; and it sounds like it was probably settled in mediation (reading between the lines based on how the divorce was granted with little fanfare - so probably the decree was based on a mediated settlement agreement). If that’s the case, all community property would have been partitioned as of the date of the MSA, meaning there is no longer any community property even before divorce is granted. The only thing that a spouses’s separate property is liable for is “necessaries” (living expenses, medical bills, etc.) for the other spouse. So no way a tort judgment can reach the ex’s separate property. 
 

So there’s little to no chance that the ex wife is liable for his tort claim since it occurred well after separation and after the divorce was filed; and even if there was some community liability her exposure would only be to non-exempt community property (of which there is likely none). 

So what will happen to his property? If I'm reading this correctly, she won't receive anything that he doesn't owe her?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

These dudes were in their 40s? 50s?

I don't know. The shooter looks like he could be 30's the other guy looked a bit older.  

[ABSR 5321]

16 hours ago, closetohumping said:

I don’t think the dad should be dead.  He did try to wrestle for the gun though.  But I thought the perp has probably been waiting for a moment like this

I am fine with weapons and the castle doctrine.  In seeing the video if the man had been shot when he grabbed the weapon then for better or worse that would fall within my understanding of a legal shooting.   However, after the gunman was tossed away the victim did not move toward the shooter or do anything aggressive beyond talking.   
 

Shooter was not in imminent danger at that point, and someone not leaving your yard, who you know is there for a legally approved reason, is not defending your property or yourself.

Murder, or at least some type of homicide that should put him in jail….Not sure that happens however.

[MissingInAction 25156]

What if the shooter was a cop....

People see cops kill people every day. Cops are the law, so why not emulate their behavior? 

Edited November 27, 2021 by MissingInAction

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I don't know. The shooter looks like he could be 30's the other guy looked a bit older.  

Yeah 40s and 50s. Any other theories?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Yeah 40s and 50s. Any other theories?

Maybe they're just dicks, you're fitting that bill nicely right now, how typical.

[Balcones 309]

https://kfyo.com/kyle-carruth-talks-possible-lubbock-city-council-ban-of-firearms-video/

Thursday on The Chad Hasty Show, Kyle Carruth from Lubbock 2nd Amendment Coalition joined Chad in the KFYO studio to talk about the upcoming Lubbock City Council meeting where the possible ban of licensed carrying of firearms on and in city property will be a large part of the agenda.


there is going to be a ton of information in the discovery phase of this lawsuit.

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Maybe they're just dicks, you're fitting that bill nicely right now, how typical.

Don’t shoot me, please.

[hornian 5222]

21 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

So what will happen to his property? If I'm reading this correctly, she won't receive anything that he doesn't owe her?

His property was awarded to him by the decree, and it is subject to judgment by the widow. 
 

If he owes the ex child support, he still has to pay that even if the widow of the other man takes all of his property. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Don’t shoot me, please.

For being a dick ? Nah I'm used to that from you.

[aggie08 21513]

So the theory is that this idiot being a pussy with a gun is a symptom of not being able to fight more in school? Is that roughly accurate?

Edited November 27, 2021 by aggie08

[closetohumping 17456]

4 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

So the theory is that these this idiot being a pussy with a gun is a symptom of not being able to fight more in school? Is that roughly accurate?

I’d bet green shirt probably would’ve whipped his ass.  Yes.  
 

green shirt was 53

[closetohumping 17456]

29 minutes ago, ABSR said:

I am fine with weapons and the castle doctrine.  In seeing the video if the man had been shot when he grabbed the weapon then for better or worse that would fall within my understanding of a legal shooting.   However, after the gunman was tossed away the victim did not move toward the shooter or do anything aggressive beyond talking.   
 

Shooter was not in imminent danger at that point, and someone not leaving your yard, who you know is there for a legally approved reason, is not defending your property or yourself.

Murder, or at least some type of homicide that should put him in jail….Not sure that happens however.

Morally guy in the black shirt is a pos.  I just don’t know if there’s enough there for the courts to lock him up.  Verbal threats, bigger dude.   Here’s the other thing looks like he fired a “warning” shot at his feet.  That to me would be enough for the green shirt to attack him, only green shirt got in his face first 

[CooterBrown 18022]

So the theory is that this idiot being a pussy with a gun is a symptom of not being able to fight more in school? Is that roughly accurate?

I think a lot of people misremember the number of situations that actually got resolved by friendly fisticuffs back then. Same as anything else, it’s viewing the past with rose colored glasses. In reality, bullies rarely got their comeuppance.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

10 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

So the theory is that this idiot being a pussy with a gun is a symptom of not being able to fight more in school? Is that roughly accurate?

I took it more to mean that any altercation these days is either solved by the authorities, guns, or both.  

[Deej 76879]

14 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

I am certified prone, sitting and standing.

[Goredho 17413]

49 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Yeah 40s and 50s. Any other theories?

I saw the dead father was 51.  Dunno about the shooter.

[Balcones 309]

2 hours ago, MrBig said:

Judge Anne-Marie and the shooter Kyle. Never trust a man with a bow tie.

http://electcarruth.com/about.html

Something doesn’t smell right about her hair color.

[Macanudo 13005]

5 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Something doesn’t smell right about her hair color.

She's part skunk.   I mean, skank.

[Brisketexan 105196]

So the theory is that this idiot being a pussy with a gun is a symptom of not being able to fight more in school? Is that roughly accurate?

I took it more to mean that any altercation these days is either solved by the authorities, guns, or both.  

It means “bring a gun, shoot somebody” is a solution that is much more popular than it once was. And it’s tied to our culture and the way we think.

E.g., 35 years ago or so, I had a shotgun in my car for probably 4-5 months of the year (we’d go to and from dove and goose hunts directly from school). I mean, it was right there in the parking lot, every day. First….the culture was such that the fact that I had a gun on school property didn’t flip anyone out. Admin was well aware that we kept our shotguns in our cars; our dean of students even helped us move them between cars one Friday afternoon as we were chatting.

Second….it never even OCCURRED to me to go get my gun to resolve a dispute. And yeah, I had a fair number of disputes and even physical fights in high school. But it literally didn’t even cross my mind to “get my gun to protect myself.” I never thought that way. Honestly, I still don’t. I don’t keep a gun in the nightstand or under the bed (I actually did for a few weeks this year when we were sheltering a victim of domestic abuse and there was a specific threat, and it made me pretty uncomfortable).

There has been a shift in thinking to “a gun would be a great solution to this problem,” and it’s not a positive shift for us.

[Pato del Muerto 52553]

3 hours ago, MrBig said:

Judge Anne-Marie and the shooter Kyle. Never trust a man with a bow tie.

http://electcarruth.com/about.html

Smart to take the pic before lighting the cross. Could ruin the lighting. 

[fattyflattie 4638]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Smart to take the pic before lighting the cross. Could ruin the lighting. 

Fucking racist mixed couple white dude killing guy. 

[workswithseed 2109]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Fucking racist mixed couple white dude killing guy. 

Yeah, guns equal racist.

[closetohumping 17456]

31 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Yeah, guns equal racist.

Cross burning is usually a signal though 

[Balcones 309]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Fucking racist mixed couple white dude killing guy. 

NM

Edited November 27, 2021 by Balcones