A Bone-Chilling Viral Video of a Shooting Sparks a Debate Over Self-Defense and Offers Some Important Lessons – Opinion

Now that the Kyle Rittenhouse case is closed and the teenager was acquitted of the charges, it has become a heated debate about self-defense laws. The majority of people agree that self defense with a gun cannot be justified. Yet, on the right, there are sometimes misunderstandings about when you can and can’t claim self-defense.

This viral video provides some valuable lessons. The situation is complicated but I’ll try to provide as much detail as possible. Chad Read was shot and killed in the incident. His ex-husband is Christina Read. On the other side, it was Christina Read’s boyfriend, Kyle Carruth, with whom she had previously had an affair, and who ultimately shot Chad Read.

Why was there such an argument? This was because Christina Read didn’t follow the court-ordered custody plan. Chad Read came to collect his child. That’s when the initial argument took place between the two men in question.

Kyle Carruth finally went in to buy a gun. That’s where the video picks up.

WARNING! Graphics content

It isn’t self-defense. Chad Read was murdered by Kyle Carruth. #ArrestKyleCarruth #KyleCarruthIsAMurderer
pic.twitter.com/Lxrj9MfZl2

— Lose Cruz Texas (@DumpTrumpTexas) November 26, 2021

Now, if your response to that video is “it was the shooter’s property, and the other guy was trespassing,” I’d encourage you to rethink that, if you are ever in the same situation. No matter how morally sound you are, Kyle Carruth will almost certainly be arrested after the grand jury is convened (Texas has a mandatory grand jury state). This is due to several factors.

It is crucial to remember that the arguments in the video were not triggered by the possession of a gun. You can complicate any self-defense claim if you start a conversation with another person and escalate the situation by getting a gun. That’s especially true if you started the confrontation. Again, I know it’s Carruth’s property, but the question isn’t what your opinion may be on property rights, but what the standards at play are in regards to self-defense.

If you’ve taken a concealed carry class, you were probably taught that you can’t start an argument and then finish it with a gun. That’s not to say that’s an absolute in every instance. If there is a clearly imminent risk of bodily harm, such as if you are shooting at someone who has been threatening to kill you (i.e. You can claim self-defense if the other person makes a clear imminent threat of bodily harm at the moment you shoot (i.e. To avoid an aggressive prosecutor, you will need to have sufficient evidence.

Still, in this case, the victim was unarmed while the shooter not only presented a gun first, but also shot at the victim’s feet as they were arguing. Only after the initial shot was fired, the shooter went to get the gun. Read releases the gun, and Carruth is about 12-15 feet from him. Carruth finally raises the gun again and fires twice at the victim, killing him.

So, now what?

Some have mentioned the castle doctrine as applying, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. Texas’ castle doctrine requires that a person commits a felony within the next 24 hours. You can fire at someone who is trying to break into your home in order to commit the crime of burglary. The question of whether to shoot them is another. Because taking someone’s life can be a very serious decision that affects a person’s health, however, it is likely that the law will protect you. In this case, Read wasn’t about to commit any felony. Shooting someone for trespassing violates the Texas castle doctrine.

How about reading threatening Carruth after the gun has been presented? It is illegal to shoot someone for a verbal threat. That’s where the excessive use of force standard comes into play. Even when Read got in Carruth’s face, he did not raise his hand or indicate he was going to physically harm Carruth.

This is where the disparity in force standard also becomes a problem. Read, a man of considerable size, walked towards the Carruth in order to confront him. Two men fighting isn’t considered to be a disparity in force. Now, if Carruth were a 110-pound woman, that could change things, but he isn’t.

We now get to the actual shooting. This is the reason Carruth almost certainly will not win a self defense case. Carruth is now only 12-15ft away after Read takes the gun. It is clear that there is no threat. Carruth adjusts his position, aligns his shot and then releases the trigger two times. Read falls to the ground after being hit by both bullets.

Further, while Carruth’s lawyer is claiming that Read grabbing the gun justifies the shooting, that’s going to be a tough sale because 1) Carruth escalated the situation by discharging the gun before Read grabbed it and 2) Read was a good distance away, no longer in danger of getting the gun when he was shot.

Carruth might have fired on Read as Read tried to reach for him, but he still has a weak claim because of his use of excessive force. A self-defense claim for self-defense is unlikely to succeed because Read had already disengaged and put distance between himself and the victim.

To reiterate, I’m not writing this to start an argument over which man was right or wrong. All people will be able to offer their opinion. Rather, I’m writing this as a warning to those who have firearms and could find themselves in a situation like this someday. Self-defense is not protected by the law. It’s even less kind to those who bring a gun to a verbal argument and ultimately end up killing someone.

Remember, even if you do everything right, all it takes is an over-zealous prosecutor to decide you didn’t for you to end up in court and eventually prison. Your perfect argument isn’t going to matter in that case, only what the prosecutor thinks he can prove. That means when you discharge your firearm at someone, you better know that you’ve done everything possible to deescalate the situation and that you had no choice because, at that moment, you were under an imminent bodily threat.

Lastly, I do want to address the difference between Read grabbing the gun here and Rosenbaum grabbing Kyle Rittenhouse’s gun. There’s a reason the prosecutor wanted to prove that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum could have defended himself and Rittenhouse would have been the aggressor. However, Rittenhouse cleverly withdrew, didn’t point his gun at anyone and fired only when Rosenbaum attacked him physically, which allowed him to win in court.

Carruth firing his gun before any physical altercations with Read was an escalated situation that allowed Read the right of self-defense by going after the gun. Had Rittenhouse done that, he’d probably be in jail right now. That’s how fine the line is.

Keep your eyes peeled. If you do not check all boxes, no amount of internet research will save you. Even if you are not charged, your life could be overturned. Sometimes it’s best to be the cooler head and take a hit to your pride than to be the one who kills someone and has to prove you were justified.