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

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

I was joking about you conflating race with ethnicity. She is clearly caucasian so they are not a racially mixed.

Well fuck me. All I know is that I wood and that’s good enough for me 

[Balcones 315]

5 minutes ago, F250 said:

I was joking about you conflating race with ethnicity. She is clearly caucasian so they are not a racially mixed couple.

Her maiden name is Saleh.

[SHOOTER12 8810]

4 hours ago, Zepol87 said:

Yea evidently some high school age kids had jump into a few backyards and stole some stuff in our neighborhood. Guy posted about it on Facebook neighborhood page and nextdoor. The comments were nothing but I really hope they try my backyard I have a few things waiting for them and agreeing how fun it would be. That's fucking insane imo but the norm in my neighborhood. I hate little elm 

That's why I keep a face eating monkey loose on my place.

[Brisketexan 105144]

That's why I keep a face eating monkey loose on my place.

Well, hello, Pole Assassin.

[F250 28777]

10 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Her maiden name is Saleh.

Do you not consider Semitic people as caucasian?

[workswithseed 2109]

48 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m not claiming there wasn’t. But to say there weren’t any high capacity SA arms is just plain fallacy. Maybe the poster didn’t know, but that doesn’t change the fact.  And those were legit war weapons that have circulated the general populace for the last 70 years. What many think the AR is, but ironically isn’t. 

That's why I put in the nice handy picture for easy use to show that assault rifles aren't actually being used by us civilians.

[Pato del Muerto 52499]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m not claiming there wasn’t. But to say there weren’t any high capacity SA arms is just plain fallacy. Maybe the poster didn’t know, but that doesn’t change the fact.  And those were legit war weapons that have circulated the general populace for the last 70 years. What many think the AR is, but ironically isn’t. 

M1 has like 6 in a clip?

[conVINCEd 21469]

56 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct. But the purpose and culture around them wasn’t “tactical I’m a militia!” Shit, I bought an M-1 carbine at a gun show in high school. I bought it because it was a cool piece of history, and it made a decent utility ranch rifle if I saw a coyote. That’s it. I didn’t buy tactical goggles and helmet and socks and shit to go with it so I could be Billy badass and take on all comers including the gubmint.

There was a serious difference in gun culture back then compared to today, and you know there was.

I was thinking about this a few days ago.  We had a fraternity brother shoot up multiple blocks of west campus in the 90’s.  There were a couple of guys hoarding semi-auto rifles and ammo because they thought Clinton was going to outlaw them and they could make a quick buck.  He got hammered one night and decided to take one of those rifles for a test drive.  He was literally walking around in his boxer shorts and ear protection lighting up every car in sight.  Nobody died, so yay, but he got what amounted to probation, which was crazy to me at the time and is more crazy to me now.

[Pato del Muerto 52499]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

stupid joke was stupid. 

This is the key takeaway from my post. It was a throwaway potshot.  All of you stop debating its merit. 

[DDD Dad 14339]

Her maiden name is Saleh.

And your point?

[fattyflattie 4639]

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

M1 has like 6 in a clip?

Garand. I have a box of 20 round .30 carbine magazines that are at least from the 70’s.  

[F250 28777]

11 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

There were a couple of guys hoarding semi-auto rifles and ammo because they thought Clinton was going to outlaw them and they could make a quick buck.

I loaded up on $80 SKS's at a gun show and flipped them for $150 during that period. Had a big stock of 7.62 I was selling too. If you jumped in before the scare it was definitely easy to make a quick buck.

Also tried to sell a couple pounds of weed we bought in Mexico but we smoked most of it.

 

[conVINCEd 21469]

Just now, F250 said:

I loaded up on $80 SKS's at a gun show and flipped them for $150 during that period. Had a big stock of 7.62 I was selling too. If you jumped in before the scare it was definitely easy to make a quick buck.

Also tried to sell a couple pounds of weed we bought in Mexico but we smoked most of it.

 

Did you use them to shoot up a couple of blocks in west campus?

[used2b 249]

Can we leave the sexist and insulting comments about the judge out of it? She didn't do anything wrong here and in fact is trying to protect her kids from their murderous dad.

She is not the crazy exwife. The crazy ex is Christina.

[ABSR 5314]

3 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Mixed race couple?

Seems a bit of a stretch.

Black hair, blond hair.   Do you even follicle purity bro!
 

If we don’t stop it here, the next thing will be letting red heads vote.

[4th and 5 4914]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

M1 has like 6 in a clip?

8 rounds of 30-06 typically

[kevwun 15789]

Yeah, I have a Garand.  The clips hold 8.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

22 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.

You don't even have to go so far as fighting/bullied conflict resolution in school. Just everyday things like kids organically getting together in a neighborhood to play a game are a relic of the past. At least I don't see it near to the level that I experienced growing up. Parent organized pay dates have all but eliminated this. Neighborhood games among a big group of kids was the place where most of my conflict resolution experiences took place. 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Catdaddyhorn

[Sbbruin 21855]

On 11/26/2021 at 10:00 AM, CooterBrown said:

They’re all really nonchalant about murder. Even the dead guy’s girlfriend who is filming nonreacts weird AF.

Just seeing this for the first time, and that was fucking bizarre.  He’s laying there dead and she’s continuing to argue about his justification.  What in the fuck?

[Goredho 17406]

12 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

This is simply not true. The 30 carbine and M1 Garand say hi. They were EXTREMELY popular and could be purchased thru mail order since not long after WWII. For like $20. Actual military surplus, unlike the AR15 which is not a military platform. While no one was probably hunting with them, I’d bet dollars to donuts there were some stored in the closets in your hometown in the 70’s. 

I’ll concede the point about availability, but I’ll stand by my assertion there wasn’t a huge demand for high capacity semi autos chambered in military rounds (i.e. optimal for human targets/defense) in the early/mid 70s relative to the demand that exists today.  Gun racks at the True Value back then didn’t look like this gun rack at a Bass Pro Shop today:

Something in the 80s time frame started a consumer shift to wanting more and more firearms that were less and less focused on hunting and rural/ranch utility and more and more focused on guns optimized for defense against human threats.

Again, not arguing whether any of this should be legal or not, just that there was a very noticeable shift in consumer demands from the civilian gun market.  I’m curious what were the various forces behind that shift.

Getting very off topic for this thread, I know.

Edited November 28, 2021 by Goredho

[crash_davis 23113]

27 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Just seeing this for the first time, and that was fucking bizarre.  He’s laying there dead and she’s continuing to argue about his justification.  What in the fuck?

She released a statement. Too lazy to look for it. She thought it was a stun gun or someshit. She didn't realize that it was a real gun and that he was dead, dead. 

 

edit: posted on first page.

https://www.kcbd.com/2021/11/24/attorney-chad-reads-widow-files-petition-take-custody-his-children-their-mother-releases-video-shooting/

“I recorded the shooting on my cell phone. During this entire incident, I didn’t realize that Kyle Carruth was holding and brandishing an actual firearm. At that time, I thought that it was some type of stun-gun or paintball gun. Even when Kyle Carruth fired the shots, the sound was very muffled and not as loud as I now firearms to be. It wasn’t until I got to Chad on the ground that I realized that he had in fact been shot and that the weapon held by Kyle Carruth was a firearm.

Edited November 28, 2021 by crash_davis

[Pasken 1309]

10 hours ago, used2b said:

Can we leave the sexist and insulting comments about the judge out of it? She didn't do anything wrong here and in fact is trying to protect her kids from their murderous dad.

She is not the crazy exwife. The crazy ex is Christina.

Wasn’t the dad the one that was murdered?

[Pato del Muerto 52499]

10 minutes ago, Pasken said:

Wasn’t the dad the one that was murdered?

Different kids.  The shooter boyfriend has kids with his now ex wife, who is the judge. He is dating/was cheating with the woman who the dead guy was married to. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

I’ve never been to a gun store before but that pic above makes me sick to my stomach.

[HRSchenker 2268]

12 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

She looks Hispanic to me?  I don’t know where the “mixed couple” lines start, but when I was in middle school, dating that chick would have a bunch of the Hispanic dudes pissed at you. Things were more chill by high school.  I’m sure that may not match some census check box.   Still, a far cry from a dude burning a cross because he killed another white guy.  Or I guess he’s a klan member because he had a gun. Don’t know, stupid joke was stupid. 

99% of Hispanics are white.

[Pato del Muerto 52499]

Just now, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

I’ve never been to a gun store before but that pic above makes me sick to my stomach.

That’s not even a gun store. That’s an outdoors megastore. Gun stores have pegboards full of all the tacticool accoutrement like rail systems and all the things that can be mounted on the rail systems, all different stocks, etc so you can modify the shit out of your platform. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Gun stores have a bunch of shit that makes you forget about your tiny pecker.

Absent any other reasonable explanation…

[TXSG8R 3362]

12 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

This is simply not true. The 30 carbine and M1 Garand say hi. They were EXTREMELY popular and could be purchased thru mail order since not long after WWII. For like $20. Actual military surplus, unlike the AR15 which is not a military platform. While no one was probably hunting with them, I’d bet dollars to donuts there were some stored in the closets in your hometown in the 70’s. 

Member all those times you saw guys open carrying their M1 Garands at subway and shit?  I member.

Your post partially explains why they were so popular.  You could get a reliable firearm for $20.  There was also a lot of reverence for them by the sons and grandsons of the greatest generation.  What you didn’t see is people buying them, covering them in accessories and open carrying them around town with bandoliers of HC magazines. Brisket is 100% correct, gun culture is very different now. 

A lot of guys buy ARs the same reason they buy F250s that they drive from their suburb home to their office in the city. Because fuck you/Murica, I’ll drive a 12MPG hard to park beast so I don’t look like a pussy when I’m with my fantasy football bros. Not painting all AR owners with that brush, but we all know at least one guy like that. They are the ones I fear because they aren’t good gun owners. Anyone that thinks “this situation is getting intense, I should pull a gun out to calm things down” is a fucking idiot that watches too many movies.

Full disclosure, I own an AR. I bought it for a pig gun on our hunting ranch. Thats the only time it has ever been pulled out of the bag. Between growing up with guns and serving in the army I also don’t have any big fascination with it over any other firearm. 

[Pato del Muerto 52499]

They’ve become more toys than tools.  Plastic feel, lots of parts to mix and match to make them “feel” cooler or to outdo your friends’ ARs. When you shoot them, you shoot them for fun almost exclusively.  And therefore the mindset shifts as well from care and safety to showing off and playing with your toy. 
 

I know that when I got my 9mm people were all you’ve got to get this site or get that site, or get this better trigger, or get this mounted flashlight, or whatever.  
 

all I’ve bought is what is required to clean it. 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Pato del Muerto

[bolverk 29682]

16 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

That could’ve been the agreed-upon spot, and his entry upon the property was legal, but once the owner or person in control of the property gives notice to depart and he fails to do so he is a criminal trespasser. 

 

15 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Not a lawyer here, if they (property owners) are violating the court order is he (deceased) still a criminal trespasser?

 

14 hours ago, hornian said:

Interesting angle (to me) is whether the shooter was actually in the process of helping the girlfriend commit a crime - interference within child custody.  

Not a lawyer, but would the following logic apply?

Yes, I understand that once the property owner asks someone to leave the premises who fails to comply, they're trespassing. 

Once the legal custodian of the children (after 3:15pm) requests them, and they're not produced, wouldn't that essentially make the property owner and that bitch Carole Baskin ex-wife "kidnappers?"

Is the dad, then, still trespassing if he's trying to retrieve his children/property?

[4th and 5 4914]

I don’t think the property owner would be a party to the crime of Interference With Child Custody or subject to being held in contempt of the court’s order regarding custody.

The dad is still trespassing. And she is guilty of the above. They are not mutually exclusive.

[TwiceHorn 31480]

21 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

 

Not a lawyer, but would the following logic apply?

Yes, I understand that once the property owner asks someone to leave the premises who fails to comply, they're trespassing. 

Once the legal custodian of the children (after 3:15pm) requests them, and they're not produced, wouldn't that essentially make the property owner and that bitch Carole Baskin ex-wife "kidnappers?"

Is the dad, then, still trespassing if he's trying to retrieve his children/property?

The way Texas self-defense law works doesn't require such a detailed analysis.

The fundamental question is whether the use of (deadly) force was reasonably necessary.

In certain circumstances, to wit:

Quote

The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the 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 aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(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.

 

A presumption is created that the use of force was reasonable.  That's how "castle doctrine" is implemented in Texas.  A presumption is not the end of the inquiry, the prosecution can attempt to overcome the presumption by proof that the use of force was not reasonable, but I think most prosecutors are going to view that as an uphill battle and decline to prosecute.

If the presumption does not apply, the jury is free to determine as it wishes.

Maybe (1)(A) can be applied, but I don't think so.  So this boils down to a question simply of the reasonableness of the use of force, as opposed to who was committing what crimes, etc.  Note that aggravated kidnapping probably doesn't include wrongfully withholding custody, as it requires a ransom demand or "hostage taking" and whatnot.

Edited November 28, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[TexasEd 8067]

The video does not support the shooter's future claim that he was in fear for his life.

[bolverk 29682]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Note that aggravated kidnapping probably doesn't include wrongfully withholding custody, as it requires a ransom demand or "hostage taking" and whatnot.

I googled aggravated kidnapping in Texas and found this: 

Quote

 

Aggravated Kidnapping Laws in Texas
According to Section 20.04 of the Texas Penal Code, an individual can be charged with aggravated kidnapping if they intentionally or knowingly abduct another person with the intent to:

Commit a felony or flee after the attempt or commission of a felony;

• Hold the person for ransom or reward;
• Interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function;
• Terrorize the individual or a third person;
• Use the individual as a shield or hostage; or
• Violate, sexually abuse or inflict bodily injury on the individual.

Additionally, an individual can be charged with aggravated kidnapping if they intentionally or knowingly abduct another person and use or exhibit a deadly weapon while committing the offense.

An intentional or knowing state of mind or mental state is a required element to an aggravated kidnapping offense. This means the defendant’s actions must have been intentional or knowing. As stated in the Texas Penal Code, these mental states are defined as follows:

• Knowingly – An individual can act knowingly if they commit some type of conduct and they are aware their conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result of the conduct.
• Intentionally – An individual can act intentionally if they commit some type of action and it is in their desire or conscious objective to engage in the action or to cause the result of the act or action.

 

Again, I'm obviously not a lawyer so I'll defer to you guys, but here's how my layman's mind interprets the above:

The shooter here was an accomplice with the ex-wife in knowingly withholding custody of the children from the father which went against a government function (court-ordered) and used/exhibited a deadly weapon while committing the offense.

The reason I'm focusing on this is that I don't want this little son of a bitch and the ex-wife to get off scot-free on some bullshit self-defense, "castle doctrine" grounds.

[TwiceHorn 31480]

11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I googled aggravated kidnapping in Texas and found this: 

Again, I'm obviously not a lawyer so I'll defer to you guys, but here's how my layman's mind interprets the above:

The shooter here was an accomplice with the ex-wife in knowingly withholding custody of the children from the father which went against a government function (court-ordered) and used/exhibited a deadly weapon while committing the offense.

The reason I'm focusing on this is that I don't want this little son of a bitch and the ex-wife to get off scot-free on some bullshit self-defense, "castle doctrine" grounds.

Well, we both got sidetracked into irrelevance on the kidnapping thing.

For the presumption to apply, Chad Read, the victim, would have had to have been engaged in aggravated kidnapping, and, regardless of the fine points of that, there's not even an argument that Chad Read was so engaged.  The only possibility is that by being on Carruth's porch, he was unlawfully in or attempting to enter Carruth's habitation.

[Balcones 315]

26 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I googled aggravated kidnapping in Texas and found this: 

Again, I'm obviously not a lawyer so I'll defer to you guys, but here's how my layman's mind interprets the above:

 

A lawyer is not going to decide his fate. Laymen will.

[DanRydell 799]

A lawyer is not going to decide his fate. Laymen will.

Not if he’s not even charged

[Balcones 315]

7 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

Not if he’s not even charged

Oh. I thought a grand jury decides if charges are brought.

[MissingInAction 25080]

Of course the dudes name is Chad.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, TexasEd said:

The video does not support the shooter's future claim that he was in fear for his life.

This. Looks like straight up murder to me. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

13 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

Not if he’s not even charged

He will get charged. I bet he gets convicted too. 

[4th and 5 4914]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The way Texas self-defense law works doesn't require such a detailed analysis.

The fundamental question is whether the use of (deadly) force was reasonably necessary.

 

 

That is not the law.
 

It is a reasonable belief (and not necessarily a correct one) that force or deadly force was immediately necessary. 
 

41 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I googled aggravated kidnapping in Texas and found this: 

Again, I'm obviously not a lawyer so I'll defer to you guys, but here's how my layman's mind interprets the above:

The shooter here was an accomplice with the ex-wife in knowingly withholding custody of the children from the father which went against a government function (court-ordered) and used/exhibited a deadly weapon while committing the offense.

The reason I'm focusing on this is that I don't want this little son of a bitch and the ex-wife to get off scot-free on some bullshit self-defense, "castle doctrine" grounds.

It is not a kidnapping because there is no abduction, as defined by the penal code. The kid was at his grandma’s. 

[Helobious 9454]

2 hours ago, HRSchenker said:

99% of Hispanics are white.

You must not watch the MLB much.

[bolverk 29682]

3 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

It is not a kidnapping because there is no abduction, as defined by the penal code. The kid was at his grandma’s. 

Okay, so it was confirmed that his children weren't present at the time but elsewhere. Got it.

[TwiceHorn 31480]

46 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

 

That is not the law.
 

It is a reasonable belief (and not necessarily a correct one) that force or deadly force was immediately necessary. 
 

It is not a kidnapping because there is no abduction, as defined by the penal code. The kid was at his grandma’s. 

My bad, I left out belief, so it is subjective.

Nonetheless, kidnapping is not relevant because if anyone was kidnapping anyone it was the defendant, not the victim.

[4th and 5 4914]

Well if the D is engaged in criminal activity at the time it matters for defensive use of force  

Here he might have been, but it doesn’t look like it was kidnapping  

 

[Sandman 3403]

On 11/26/2021 at 8:27 PM, Nicole44 said:

women and men getting screwed over by the courts

I gotta say, I'm pretty sure I've never heard of a woman getting screwed in a custody decision. Not saying it doesn't happen but I just can't think of an example. 

[TwiceHorn 31480]

18 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

Well if the D is engaged in criminal activity at the time it matters for defensive use of force  

Here he might have been, but it doesn’t look like it was kidnapping  

 

Doesn't look to me like Carruth gets any of the (1) factors, but I would defer to your knowledge of whether a porch is a habitation, etc.

Edited November 28, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[4th and 5 4914]

Entering or attempting to enter would arguably include a porch outside a habitation but I see no intent to do so. Which is why I said upthread that all 3 elements of the castle doctrine are problematic 

Edited November 28, 2021 by 4th and 5

[bolverk 29682]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

My bad, I left out belief, so it is subjective.

Nonetheless, kidnapping is not relevant because if anyone was kidnapping anyone it was the defendant, not the victim.

The potential charge of being an accomplice to kidnapping was the case I was trying to make was against the shooter. Sorry if I was unclear or bungled that.