TX - Chad Read 54, shot/killed by ex's bf, Kyle Carruth, in custody dispute, Lubbock, 5 Nov 2021

New Posts

@MollyDDD , I noted the multi videos and just assumed, maybe incorrectly, that one person started and the other lady decided she would too. I’m not sure about what kind of basis these ladies were on but they weren’t saying anything to each other that i her that I could tell.
 
Cryptic said:
<modsnip: quoted post removed>

Instead, once Christina failed to comply with the Court order giving him time with his son (apparently not the first time she has either not complied, or "played games"), he made a reasonable determination as to where Christine and his son might be found.

He was correct regarding Christina. He was also correct "in spirit" regarding his son as evidently he was strangely not with Christina despite the inpending turn over, but apparently nearby someplace.

This is more evidence of willful circumvention of the Court order at best, or maybe even a lure where once Chad made the reasonable assumption of where the child was an showed up, the games would continue. If Chad gave a pretense, he would be killed. If not, his child would be brought to him.

I really hope this couple is charged ASAP. At the very least, they severely provoked the deceased by keeping him from his son- then killed him when he attempted to see his son. At worst, they set up a contrived "self defense" situation as a cover for murder.
Click to expand...

I think presenting the firearm is provocative too. Then the man exits the dangerous conflict and returns. With the way the law is, They just need to legalize the killing of trespassers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
worm said:
With the way the law is, They just need to legalize the killing of trespassers.
Click to expand...
JayWill said:
It sounds like it already is.
Click to expand...

Texas law is not nearly so "gun smokish" as some self defense gurus think.

- If the couple either provoked the deceased, or was violating any law, they cannot use "SYG".

- The deceased was not committing armed robbery, arson etc. So, no deadly force presumed justifiable type conclusion.

- He never tried to enter the home, so no castle doctrine.

In short, the shooter's self defense claim seems to rest on: "I saw an angry guy on my property and armed myself. He then threatened to take the weapon away from me and kill me with it- then he actually tried to do so"

That defense might be strong. But..... it also appears that the couple provoked the deceased via "game playing" regarding access to his child.

I bet the prosecutor will be really interested in learning if the shooter knew about the custody agreement, and knew why Chad was there, and if the shooter in any way facilitated the "custodial game playing"

My guess is that the more "yes" answers to those questions come up, the chance of prosecution greatly increases.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
<modsnip: quoted post removed>

Instead, once Christina failed to comply with the Court order giving him time with his son (apparently not the first time she has either not complied, or "played games"), he made a reasonable determination as to where Christine and his son might be found.

He was correct regarding Christina. He was also correct "in spirit" regarding his son as evidently he was strangely not with Christina despite the impending turn over, but apparently nearby someplace.

This is more evidence of willful circumvention of the Court order. It could even indicate a lure where if Chad showed up, the games would continue. If Chad gave a pretense for "self defense", he would be killed. If not, his child would be brought to him- and the games would continue next time.

I really hope this couple is charged ASAP. At the very least, they severely provoked the deceased by keeping him from his son- then killed him when he attempted to see his son. At worst, they set up a contrived "self defense" situation as a cover for murder.
Click to expand...
<modsnip: rumors/reference to non MSM content>

As far as them being charged ASAP, most GJ's are set at certain times throughout the year. Not sure how it works in TX, but I assume the case will be presented to them the next time they convene. Might not be until after the holidays.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cryptic said:
<modsnip>

Instead, once Christina failed to comply with the Court order giving him time with his son (apparently not the first time she has either not complied, or "played games"), he made a reasonable determination as to where Christine and his son might be found.

He was correct regarding Christina. He was also correct "in spirit" regarding his son as evidently he was strangely not with Christina despite the impending turn over, but apparently nearby someplace.

This is more evidence of willful circumvention of the Court order. It could even indicate a lure where if Chad showed up, the games would continue. If Chad gave a pretense for "self defense", he would be killed. If not, his child would be brought to him- and the games would continue next time.

I really hope this couple is charged ASAP. At the very least, they severely provoked the deceased by keeping him from his son- then killed him when he attempted to see his son. At worst, they set up a contrived "self defense" situation as a cover for murder.
Click to expand...
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gardenista said:
<modsnip: rumors/reference to non MSM content>

As far as them being charged ASAP, most GJ's are set at certain times throughout the year. Not sure how it works in TX, but I assume the case will be presented to them the next time they convene. Might not be until after the holidays.
Click to expand...

Good information about Grand Juries and the need to be patient. I did not mean to imply that you thought Chad was acting out of bored aggression. Rather, I just wanted to illustrate that he had a valid reason for going there.

As for not complying with a valid Court order, my guess is that it is going to have to be pretty amazing reasons to have an impact.

My guess is that reasons for non compliance involving: "I think my ex is Hannibal Lector." , "So and so said, he is a 'chester- yes, so and so is a friend of mine" and "I read about sociopathy- and my ex clearly is one" are a dime a dozen in family court.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
worm said:
I think presenting the firearm is provocative too. Then the man exits the dangerous conflict and returns. With the way the law is, They just need to legalize the killing of trespassers.
Click to expand...
Yep, God forbid you complain about the tomatoes to the Produce Manager at the Piggly Wiggly. He may ask you to leave his place of employment and if you don’t, you’ll end up justifiably dead!
What’s this country coming too! IMO
 
Gardenista said:
<modsnip: rumors/reference to non MSM content>

As far as them being charged ASAP, most GJ's are set at certain times throughout the year. Not sure how it works in TX, but I assume the case will be presented to them the next time they convene. Might not be until after the holidays.
Click to expand...
^^bbm
And there's no statute of limitations for murder! I do think the shooter will eventually be indicted and arrested. MOO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MOO but I don’t think you have to own the property you’re “defending,” for example if you’re a renter and someone is breaking down your door, you still have the right to protect yourself and your home.

also JMO but if someone violates a court order, the place you take it up with them is in court.
 
Cryptic said:
<modsnip: quoted post removed>
Instead, once Christina failed to comply with the Court order giving him time with his son (apparently not the first time she has either not complied, or "played games"), he made a reasonable determination as to where Christine and his son might be found.

He was correct regarding Christina. He was also correct "in spirit" regarding his son as evidently he was strangely not with Christina despite the impending turn over, but apparently nearby someplace.

This is more evidence of willful circumvention of the Court order. It could even indicate a lure where if Chad showed up, the games would continue. If Chad gave a pretense for "self defense", he would be killed. If not, his child would be brought to him- and the games would continue next time.

I really hope this couple is charged ASAP. At the very least, they severely provoked the deceased by keeping him from his son- then killed him when he attempted to see his son. At worst, they set up a contrived "self defense" situation as a cover for murder.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. :cool:
 
asmi106082 said:
MOO but I don’t think you have to own the property you’re “defending,” for example if you’re a renter and someone is breaking down your door, you still have the right to protect yourself and your home.

also JMO but if someone violates a court order, the place you take it up with them is in court.
Click to expand...
And Chad does mention that on the video his wife was recording. Says and points to Christina and the others in the house that he was going to subpoena all of them.
 
TrustedTracker5097 said:
including a judge who had sentenced him before. That’s still so freaking weird to me. It’s all gone full circle.
Click to expand...
Little by little we’re seeing a picture of the players involved and in time everyone and everything involved will be exposed. It seems so cut and dry, but when I think about the sudden death of a man who I was watched die and for what, it’s just heinous and heart breaking. He has three kids who now don’t have a father in their lives. Their own futures are forever changed, and again, for what?
How is it a better world now that he’s gone? Just a waste of precious, delicate life and complete loss and devastation for all of those who knew and loved him. IMO
 
Cryptic said:
Texas law is not nearly so "gun smokish" as some self defense gurus think.

- If the couple either provoked the deceased, or was violating any law, they cannot use "SYG".

- The deceased was not committing armed robbery, arson etc. So, no deadly force presumed justifiable type conclusion.

- He never tried to enter the home, so no castle doctrine.

In short, the shooter's self defense claim seems to rest on: "I saw an angry guy on my property and armed myself. He then threatened to take the weapon away from me and kill me with it- then he actually tried to do so"

That defense might be strong. But..... it also appears that the couple provoked the deceased via "game playing" regarding access to his child.

I bet the prosecutor will be really interested in learning if the shooter knew about the custody agreement, and knew why Chad was there, and if the shooter in any way facilitated the "custodial game playing"

My guess is that the more "yes" answers to those questions come up, the chance of prosecution greatly increases.
Click to expand...
Excellent. :cool:
 
Cryptic said:
Good information about Grand Juries and the need to be patient. I did not mean to imply that you thought Chad was acting out of bored aggression. Rather, I just wanted to illustrate that he had a valid reason for going there.

As for not complying with a valid Court order, my guess is that it is going to have to be pretty amazing reasons to have an impact.

My guess is that reasons for non compliance involving: "I think my ex is Hannibal Lector." , "So and so said, he is a 'chester- yes, so and so is a friend of mine" and "I read about sociopathy- and my ex clearly is one" are a dime a dozen in family court.
Click to expand...
Seriously? And they get away with that? :oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 212 more.
Total: 3,348 (members: 213, guests: 3,135)

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
3,135
Total visitors
3,348
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,337
Messages
17,967,766
Members
228,752
Latest member
Cindy88
Back
Top