Here We Go Again, Texas Edition - Man Killed Trying To Pick Up Son

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
Before video evidence became everywhere it would have gone like this:

1: Aggressor shows up at house.
2: In-face physical threat /conflict.
3: Self defense. Close closed.

But with it on video? The pause after they separated comes into focus. It is a real factual part of the case that would never have existed without the video to prove it. Does it prove murder? It is an interesting case, I'll say that. Does that pause matter? It probably should, but TX law might say otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,681
11,024
136
This happened more than 3 weeks ago. If any charges were to be brought, I'm sure it would have happened by now. Sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,719
136
Before video evidence became everywhere it would have gone like this:

1: Aggressor shows up at house.
2: In-face physical threat /conflict.
3: Self defense. Close closed.

But with it on video? The pause after they separated comes into focus. It is a real factual part of the case that would never have existed without the video to prove it. Does it prove murder? It is an interesting case, I'll say that. Does that pause matter? It probably should, but TX law might say otherwise.
Well, on the video he also says that he told yall this would happen… So planning and state of mind, intent… but that shit doesnt fly in court according to the Rittenhouse doctrine?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,614
13,297
146
White on white violence where's the outrage from conservatives?
There’s a white culture that glorifies guns, violence, drugs, and money. Maybe they should concentrate on bettering themselves than spending money on guns to shoot each other.
jnHWXN4.gif
 

nOOky

Platinum Member
Aug 17, 2004
2,827
1,849
136
Good example of why cops hate going to domestic disputes, the emotions run so high. There is so much wrong with what happened there it's not even funny. Chief among them imho is getting in the face of a nut that points a gun at you, and then shoots at your feet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Ajay

gothuevos

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2010
1,858
1,624
136
So, you're not going to acknowledge your error, or my citing of the successful undermining efforts of the NRA and their lackeys, and are now pretending that I had in fact submitted that Obama and others had met with great success after the tragedy? Oh dear.

You tried to attribute the nihilistic apathy of people like LaPierre to the whole country, while completely ignoring the facts of post Sandy Hook politics. We had a president literally breaking down in tears on national TV, NRA taking the event as an "existential crisis" yet 'no one batted an eye' according to you. It would be funny if it wasn't about something so sad.

My point stands, and I'll leave your attempt to deflect and move goal posts to any other poster that doesn't mind wasting their time.

What are you even saying? Obama cried on live TV...ok?

What has changed with respect to gun laws or even gun culture after Sandy Hook?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
Well, on the video he also says that he told yall this would happen… So planning and state of mind, intent… but that shit doesnt fly in court according to the Rittenhouse doctrine?

Intent is to piece together motive for a circumstantial case where you are simply guessing at who did it. Not sure how relevant it is for cases such as this.
Even a person with the worst intent is legally allowed to defend themselves, so long as they did not start it.

Now, normally I'd say a duty to retreat is in order. But Castle Doctrine sort of fucks that up? Man "attacks" you at your home, it could be a lot more lenient than most people would guess. Myself included. Returning with a gun is just protection of property. It is a warning to get lost. Instead the other man escalates.

A very interesting case, reasons for it to go either way. I don't know how it will play out.
 

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
6,803
581
126
I'm not sure why the pause matters. After the attempted disarming, the shooting was likely justified... if that's all that had happened. The real rub is gun guy committed assault first with that foot shot. That a) demonstrates gun guy likely didn't fear for his life, and b) caused unarmed guy to fear for his life, justifying his attempt to disarm gun guy. (Not saying any of this was smart by either party, but that should be obvious).
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
How does this differ from the Librarian case?

Well…if you are on your own property you apparently can shoot whoever you want so long as they are on your property and you fear for your life. But because the other party wasn’t on her property, they now have the right to shoot the home owner because they feared for their lives when she got her gun. Seeing how she’s the one that died, it’s pretty clear the motor cycle guy feared for his life more and is therefore innocent of any crime.


/eye roll
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

digiram

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2004
3,991
172
106
I don’t know if anyone has posed this question yet. If the dead guy was able to wrestle away the gun from the guy that shot him and shot and killed the guy, would he had been able to claim self defense as well. It’s just interesting that all you have to do to be in self defense is to be the one that do the killing.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
I don’t know if anyone has posed this question yet. If the dead guy was able to wrestle away the gun from the guy that shot him and shot and killed the guy, would he had been able to claim self defense as well. It’s just interesting that all you have to do to be in self defense is to be the one that do the killing.

And that’s precisely the problem with these stupid gun laws.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,670
1,250
136
I'm not sure why the pause matters. After the attempted disarming, the shooting was likely justified... if that's all that had happened.

Thought experiment for you: What if the pause had been a full two seconds without Chad making any aggressive motions towards Kyle? What if it had been five? Twenty seconds? A full minute?

See where I'm going? I hope we can all agree that all of those scenarios would be cold blooded murder.

What's the difference between a 0.65s pause and a 5s pause?

The difference is that in the later case, there's no plausible scenario where the shooter could maintain his perception of the victim as a threat.

It's not the length of time that matters, it's Kyle's state of mind. I think that's the fact question. It's possible that after the pause Carruth still perceived Kyle as an imminent threat, but it's not my perception after watching the videos.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,971
35,585
136
What are you even saying? Obama cried on live TV...ok?

What has changed with respect to gun laws or even gun culture after Sandy Hook?

I'm saying 'You should stick to your doom and gloom predictions and love of being scared. Or maybe try researching things before you post on them.'

When someone gives you a list of data that shows your premise to be dismissive hyperbole, maybe take that as incentive to refine your argument or clarify. Acting dumb is an option too I suppose.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,452
9,837
136
Well…if you are on your own property you apparently can shoot whoever you want so long as they are on your property and you fear for your life. But because the other party wasn’t on her property, they now have the right to shoot the home owner because they feared for their lives when she got her gun. Seeing how she’s the one that died, it’s pretty clear the motor cycle guy feared for his life more and is therefore innocent of any crime.


/eye roll
So you think this was a good shoot and the other was a bad shoot?

I personally think the instigator in both was the person that went inside and came back with a gun.

The issue is that everyone has a gun and have been told to use it any time someone bothers them.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,004
19,444
136
The ex wife didn't look like she felt threatened at all. It was just a disagreement and the one guy was upset and making no physical threats. The boyfriend that went to get the gun seems like he was just looking for a reason to kill. And he will get away with it most likely.

But again, this is the conservative dream world they want for the rest of us. Just a sick group of people.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
24,973
4,303
136
And the dead man's widow has filed a $50 million suit against the shooter and his business for wrongful death.

"Carruth was not standing his ground, nor was he acting in self-defense, the lawsuit said. Carruth was the aggressor in a non-violent situation, which led to the wrongful death of Chad, the lawsuit said."

We'll see how that goes.

 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
So you think this was a good shoot and the other was a bad shoot?

I personally think the instigator in both was the person that went inside and came back with a gun.

The issue is that everyone has a gun and have been told to use it any time someone bothers them.

It’s a commentary on how stupid the laws are and why using fear as a justification to commit murder is really stupid.
 

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
6,803
581
126
I don’t know if anyone has posed this question yet. If the dead guy was able to wrestle away the gun from the guy that shot him and shot and killed the guy, would he had been able to claim self defense as well. It’s just interesting that all you have to do to be in self defense is to be the one that do the killing.
Since gun guy shot first I would 100% say yes. This varies by state a bit, but that's one of the tricky things w/ self defense law and guns. The mere presence of a gun can set off a back and forth cascade of legally justifiable self defense.
 

MichaelMay

Senior member
Jun 6, 2021
453
465
96
Before video evidence became everywhere it would have gone like this:

1: Aggressor shows up at house.
2: In-face physical threat /conflict.
3: Self defense. Close closed.

But with it on video? The pause after they separated comes into focus. It is a real factual part of the case that would never have existed without the video to prove it. Does it prove murder? It is an interesting case, I'll say that. Does that pause matter? It probably should, but TX law might say otherwise.

1: Guy is trying to pick up his kids as he's supposed to do and gets told they are not there.
2: Guy gets mad, he wants to see his kid and insists on it by squaring off against the nutjob that is trying to force him to leave without his children using a firearm.
3: Nutjob shoots and kills the father who is there to pick up his children.

That is how normal people in sane nations view what happened here. The US isn't that though so who knows, depends on the judge.
 

MichaelMay

Senior member
Jun 6, 2021
453
465
96
Intent is to piece together motive for a circumstantial case where you are simply guessing at who did it. Not sure how relevant it is for cases such as this.
Even a person with the worst intent is legally allowed to defend themselves, so long as they did not start it.

Now, normally I'd say a duty to retreat is in order. But Castle Doctrine sort of fucks that up? Man "attacks" you at your home, it could be a lot more lenient than most people would guess. Myself included. Returning with a gun is just protection of property. It is a warning to get lost. Instead the other man escalates.

A very interesting case, reasons for it to go either way. I don't know how it will play out.

No, intent can be something like someone saying that he wish he had his AR so he could shoot people who then gets an AR and goes out to do just that. I mean, if the judge allows it.

The man was there to pick up his child as per agreement so he has EVERY right to be there and does not have to leave without them, insisting on that is not a provocation at all and NOT trespassing in any case. The guy getting the weapon is the problem, this could be handled by him just getting his kid as he was there to do and nothing else needs to happen.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,004
19,444
136
No, intent can be something like someone saying that he wish he had his AR so he could shoot people who then gets an AR and goes out to do just that. I mean, if the judge allows it.

The man was there to pick up his child as per agreement so he has EVERY right to be there and does not have to leave without them, insisting on that is not a provocation at all and NOT trespassing in any case. The guy getting the weapon is the problem, this could be handled by him just getting his kid as he was there to do and nothing else needs to happen.
It's also clear the ex-wife did not look threatened at all by her ex. At least she said nothing to that effect nor acted like it. There was no need to get the gun to escalate.

But American gun nuts love this shit. The majority of the gun nuts party has fought every single law and regulation, of any kind, to prevent the selling of guns at all and using them by white conservative gun owners.

All they have are thoughts and prayers. Horrific loons.