“I’m Glad this is on Video, I’m Very Glad:” Texas Shooting Raises Difficult Questions Under Texas Self-Defense Law

Chad Read’s widow files petition to take custody of his children from their mother, releases...

Carruth is a land developer and the house may be both his home and his office. Read’s widow, Jennifer, alleges that he and Christina Read plan to get married once his divorce is finalized (The widow is seeking custody of her two step sons and saying that the relationship is harmful to the boys since they know that Carruth shot by their father when he was trying to see them).

The videotapes show Carruth ordering Read off his property as Read demands to see his son. Chad Read can be heard saying “I don’t care if you wanted to see him or not. I get him at 3:15 p.m. If you want to see him, you see him up until 3:15. You keep trying to keep my son from me.” He then threatens to subpoena multiple people, including Judge Carruth.

As the couple argues about the court order, Carruth goes back into the house and retrieves his rifle. That is when things rapidly escalate.

Carruth can be said “I’m glad this is on video, I’m very glad.”

Carruth keeps the gun pointed at the ground as the two men bump chests and Read dares him to use the weapon.

Read says “Do it. You better f*cking use it, motherf*cker.”

Carruth then fired a shot at the ground near Read’s feet, and Read grabbed the barrel of the rifle and pushed away. Carruth then moved back a few steps and immediately fired twice at Read who collapses in front of the house. Just before he is fatally shot, Read can be heard saying “Think I’m f*cking scared?”

Immediately after her husband is shot, Jennifer Read remains remarkably focused assigning responsibility as opposed to Chad Read who is now lying dead in front of the house. She is heard saying “You did it, not him.”

Kyle responds, telling her “I told all of y’all to leave. None of you all should be here. I asked you to leave. I did everything … I did not want to do any of this.”

There are two videos in evidence: one taken from the house and one taken from the truck by the current wife of Chad Read.

Carruth from House Video

Carruth from Truck Video

As a threshold matter, it does seem like this tragedy could have been avoided if Carruth had just called police and not escalated the encounter. Read was unarmed and has no criminal record. He remained six feet from his ex-wife during their altercation.

Yet, the question is not what Carruth “should” have done but what he is legally required to do.

The common law protects not just self-defense but mistaken self-defense where a person may have erroneously (but reasonably) thought that he was under attack. The common law has always recognized the right to stand your ground and did not require a person to retreat before using force.

The Texas  SYG law states in part:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Under this law, Carruth is not required to retreat or avoid the confrontation, but still must show a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary. Carruth is likely to argue that, when Read grabbed his weapon, he was acting to stop the “attempted use of unlawful deadly force.”  He will use Read’s threat that “You better f*cking use it, motherf*cker” as further supporting his view that he was being threatened.

However, those words are commonly used in anger and could be viewed as standard bravado or defiance to the threat presented by Carruth. While the videos are not entirely clear, it does not appear that, after pushing him away, Read was charging or moving toward Carruth. Carruth still was the only person with a weapon at the scene.

Read notably kept his arms rigidly by his side through much of the encounter. The chest bump could be cited by Carruth as assault or, at least, a physical escalation justifying his firing of a warning shot.

In addition to a claim that he was acting in self-defense (§ 9.31. Self-defense) or defense of others (§ 9.33. Defense of third person), Carruth could raise a claim under the Texas Castle doctrine.

Under Texas Penal Code § 9.31, a person is allowed to use deadly force in their homes to repel intruders.  The law requires that the use of force is “reasonable.” However, it is reasonable if there is unlawful and forceful entry or attempted entry. It can also be based on an attempt to remove the actor from the home. Moreover, he could claim that Read was attempting to take his weapon (though Read’s estate can claim that this was an act of self-defense).

The use of the Castle doctrine would be based on the claim that the struggle, while not in the home, was within the “curtilage,” the area immediately around a home. The curtilage is often discussed in search and seizure cases under the Fourth Amendment. The area of the struggle would be within that area. However, Carruth then drops back from the front of the door and a court may have to decide if position of the shooting was within the curtilage. Again, it is likely within that area.

Nevertheless, there are other possible problems in applying the law. To use the law, you must show that you did not “provoke the person against whom the force was used.” Carruth can claim (correctly) that he has every right to brandish a weapon, even if many of us believe it was ill-advised and provocative. It was Read who approached him. Yet, it was Carruth who first fired a shot at Read’s feet — triggering the response from Read. This can be the ultimate jury question.

Moreover, the law expressly says that it is not to be used for “verbal provocations.” The encounter with Read (before Carruth pulled out a gun) was a purely verbal provocation. However, it then escalated. Again, Carruth had a right to brandish his weapon. When Read grabbed the gun, it was no longer a verbal confrontation.

This is not an open-and-shut case but Carruth has cognizable defense claims. I say that even though I have little sympathy for him. I do not see the need to use lethal force in this circumstance. He had separation and he had the gun. He could have waited. Instead, he immediately fired the rounds. Indeed, I do believe that he escalated the situation unnecessarily and that this death could have been avoided by simply waiting for the police. Moreover, his relationship with the ex-wife creates concerns over his motivation in using force. That is similar to a prior case we discussed where a Montana man was accused of luring the enraged lover of his wife into a garage and then shooting him. (He was cleared under the state Castle doctrine law).

Castle doctrine cases often raise concerns over enabling the wrong people; empowering those who are predisposed to the use of force as in the infamous case of Tom Horn in Texas.

On all of these different defenses, Carruth will argue that he was fully within his rights in coming outside of his house and demanding that Read get off his property. He did not point the weapon at Read until the physical struggle. The question then becomes that, once he gains separation, was it justified to fire the two rounds killing Read. That will have to be based on the fear that Read was intent on disarming him and taking his weapon.

There is still no decision on whether Carruth will face charges. There is already a civil lawsuit filed by the widow of Read.

Here is the Castle doctrine law;

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.  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.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter;  and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;  or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor’s differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02 ;  or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05 .

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;  and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32 , 9.33 , and 9.34 .

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.




124 thoughts on ““I’m Glad this is on Video, I’m Very Glad:” Texas Shooting Raises Difficult Questions Under Texas Self-Defense Law”

  1. The fact that the only “threats” Read made was that he would consult his lawyer and sue them indicates that he was not in any way planning to harm the couple. Carruth needlessly and recklessly escalated the situation. Hope he gets plenty of jail time.

  2. A father tying to see his children. His ex hoping for a confrontation to get him out of the picture.
    And now he is.
    The problem was caused by the child custody court system, giving custody to one parent over the other, almost always the mother.
    It is inevitable that this will occur.
    The shooter is the murderer. Father came unarmed with a court order of visitation, no forcible entry, words were spoken, emotions were high, but new boyfriend decides to play big man protector of the conniving mother, and goes inside to get a gun.
    Father scuffles but then steps back showing no further physical aggression, then the boyfriend murders the father.
    I guess that custody issue has been solved.

    So archetypal that a video clip was made of virtually the same confrontation:


      1. Gary Trieste,

        The issue with embedding crops up occasionally with regards to the comment section. I have not yet determined with certainty as to why this happens, nor even close recently. About five or so years ago WordPress’ system started a behavior where some videos from the same domain were embedded and others would only pass as hyperlinks. At the time, it seemed to usually matter if secure http was used or not (Either https or http). Now it is not fully.consistent either but a bit more predictable.

        There is a possibility that something is going on at YouTube’s end that the WordPress software doesn’t like and as a result WordPress defaults to only scripting the hyperlink. Unfortunately I would have to have access to WordPress’ server side code to see and few outside the company probably have such information. There is a setting that YouTube allows its users (that is those who posted the video to begin with on YouTube) to only permit the video to display if it is accessed from the webpage on youtube having the video, as opposed to hotlinking it from somewhere else (in this case wordpress) . YouTube can see this happening if when it gets a request from a client web browser for a video and in that request if the “referrer” is not YouTube’s web server, as it would be if the video was requested in the process of reading a youtube webpage, youtube will then instead send a video that indicates the requirement that the video be viewed directly from youtube itself or it can issue a some kind of error back to the requestor. I suspect it might be one of the problems you are experiencing.

        So in essence what could be happening, and this is speculation on my part, is that when you create a comment having a hyperlink to a youtube video and then click send, wordpress then parses your comment to render it into html for later incorporation into the webpage. It then makes a request to youtube to call the video. Youtube then errors out and informs wordpress of the error. WordPress takes this exception and does not encode the embedded html and instead supplies an anchor reference (link) to the video. That way others have some backward compatible way of still seeing the video and not some broken error message youtube furnished wordpress.

        I will look at this in a litte more detail later and get back to you. If someone else has more info that would help.

        1. Gary:

          I tried to find some better information as to why some youtube videos embed while others do not. I spent some time on this but was unable to find anything relating strictly to the comment section on webpage. There was much available for posts (that is the main articles by the blog owner) but nothing I could find for comments. I suspect essentially that most of the code that renders the embedded videos for the article/post is used to script the embedded videos in comments. For that here is what I found:


          “…Not all videos can be shared this way, though. The publisher needs to “Allow Embedding” in the settings of the video and some publishers restrict the countries, where videos can be shared…”

          That leads me to believe that something similar to what I mentioned in the above comment might be in play. If this was the case, it is going to be hit-and-miss for each commenter wanting to embed a video. I believe most youtube videos might work since their user doesn’t care or is not aware of an ability to limit hotlinking of their videos so most can go through. One reason for not allowing hotlinking and thus the ability to embed videos here in the comments is that the youtube user wants the viewer to only be able to see their page along with ads and other attributes. Unfortunately I am not aware of any ability to predict if a particular youtube video is embeddable before the commenter chooses to use it. Of course someone could try it on their end by scripting a wepage locally on their computer to test whether or not a video will be embeddable but its a lot more work and it will not succeed in embedding a video that is not able to do so.

          Wish I had a better solution. But it is what it is.

        1. Gary, it is possible that the browser you are using is determining whether a Youtube link is displayed in full like mine or merely posted as a URL. Darren has the ability to view all posts and determine the commenters IP address and their browser/operating system. He can compare users who post YT videos and see why some users links are displayed in full or not. FWIW, I use Safari on either my iPad Pro or MacBook Pro. I posted the last few comments from my office at the university

          I hope this helps

        2. Estovir, great you did it, thanks! But how?
          I was using Opera browser.
          I was pretty sure I posted the full URL, with https, you can see what I posted there, and I believe that embedding is being allowed at the youtube site for this video.
          And thank you to Darren for taking the time to research it. Still a mystery somewhat so far though it seems.

      2. Gary see my comment below Darren’s. Additionally you need to provide the entire URL not the abbreviated / shortcut URL. When I have used the abbreviated URL for Youtube links, the video is not displayed. When I provide the entire URL, the video is displayed.

        1. Gary, Estovir:

          I believe Estovir found the best solution, as he mentioned above. I tested by using Opera, as Gary mentioned posting both the shortened URL, that is the youtu.be domain and it did not post embedded video but the full URL using the youtube.com domain worked.

          I suspect that to forestall this from happening to others is to not just go to a youtube or other video page and only right-click on the video to retrieve the URL of the video. This probably only gives the shortened form. If that is what you get you can just paste it into the address bar of a browser and hit GO. Then YouTube will redirect it to the full URL and that would be what should be instead pasted into the comment text field, as Estovir mentions.

          1. Damn, the brokenness doesn’t end with this embedding issue.

            Just after I finished writing the above solution I found another problem. I noted that Gary in one comment did supply the full URL and it did not embed. So something else is going on.

            As you can see above I made two test comments with one having the shortned URL and the other the full URL. Shortened did not embed, and the full one did. So then I decided to make a control.

            I went in and edited the comment (using the administrative page) and to the full URL I added a [CR-LF} and a [space] after it. (A CR-LF is a pair consisting of a [Carriage Return] and a [Line Feed] character which your keyboard sends the browser as an [Enter] button which is what makes when you are typing a “new Line” and then hit the space bar on the keyboard. Guess what happened, the same video that was formerly embedded now just devolved into a Hyperlink. I then removed the [CR-LF] and the [Space] chars and wordpress then restored the video as being embedded. Back to the drawing board.

            I’ve seen this type of behavior before, and still have no idea why. Sometimes you make a comment with an embedded video with text below it and it embeds and sometimes it doesn’t. Only WordPress knows why.

            You have to wonder if this type of randomness might be mitigated by installing radiation hardened memory and chips. Perhaps too many cosmic rays are flipping bits.

          2. I started using Dreamweaver in the early 2000s when Macromedia launched it. Since then Adobe acquired the software, and the growth, improvement and advancements within HTML language and Dreamweaver have left me in the dust. Dreamweaver has a feature to preview HTML code in multiple browsers. Dreamweaver features a dual pane view, with code on one side, and “real time preview” on the other side. On a Mac, you can preview HTML code on Dreamweaver under the File menu, scroll down to Preview. It is a useful feature for web designers to see how their code appears in the browsers used by their target audience. I recall agonizing for hours on how to make my HTML pages look clean and organized on specific browsers.I think Gary’s problem can be tackled with the above method, but I could be wrong.

            If Darren has the time, he can copy and paste Gary’s comments on a Dreamweaver type dual-pane platform, and use the preview feature I mentioned, to determine what it is about Opera’s input of characters that is preventing youtube video links be embedded, as compared to Safari. We now know this: Opera and Safari reflect Youtube links differently.

      1. He had a court order for visitation.

        He did not have a court order to trespass.

        Please provide a citation for legal trespass and citizen’s arrest, or citizen’s arrest and abduction of children.

        These parties must have had the court order executed by appointed officers of the law.

          1. Possession order is the court’s phrase for parenting time. Sometimes it is also called visitation. Parenting time/possession orders state when the child (ren) will be with each parent or guardian.

            In most cases, both parents share parental rights and responsibilities (called joint managing conservatorship).

            Usually, one parent has the right to determine where the child (ren) lives. (This parent is also called the custodial parent.)

            Texas has a standard possession order (SPO) for most parents. This is a plan for parenting your child that describes the minimum amount of time your child will spend with each parent. The parenting plan splits time between the noncustodial parent and custodial parent while still allowing the child to have a stable schedule.


            Law states you pick up child at their home.

            Sec. 153.312. PARENTS WHO RESIDE 100 MILES OR LESS APART. (a) If the possessory conservator resides 100 miles or less from the primary residence of the child, the possessory conservator shall have the right to possession of the child as follows:


            Generally, the visiting parent collects the child at the beginning of the visit at the home of the parent with the right to determine the primary domicile of the child. Texas Family Code Section 153.316. However, the court may make appropriate orders for the exchange of the children at another location.

            If you refuse to allow visitation, you could be held in contempt of the order, fined, possibly jailed and be ordered to pay attorneys fees. Courts in the Dallas area have little tolerance for refusal of access to the child under a standard order.

            Check your order again, send her notice in writing for the dates to which you are entitled, then show up at her house to pick up the child according to your schedule.

    1. Incorrect
      Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

      (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

      (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

      (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

      (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

      (3) he reasonably believes that:

      (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

      (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

      The use of force against another is not justified:

      (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

    2. Longtime gun owner and NRA member here. If I were on the jury, law or not, he would be going to prison (via jury nullification, if necessary). Perhaps Texas law is on his side, but the moment Carruth injected a firearm into a heated verbal dispute, I believe everything that followed falls on him from a moral standpoint. Owning a gun isn’t a game. It’s a tremendous responsibility and requires the owner to control his or her emotions. Neither man did. Even if he wins in criminal court, I think he will lose everything he owns in a civil case, as he well should. I don’t feel a lot of sympathy for either man–the big losers are the children involved. Their lives will never be restored to normal.

    1. The criminal trespasser, during his commission of the crime of trespass, criminally assaulted and battered the property owner (or his agent) while attempting to criminally gain possession of the property owner’s firearm.

      The criminal trespasser clearly exhibited an intent to criminally gain possession of and discharge the firearm against the property owner.

      The property owner was provided and obtained no alternative course of action but to defend himself, his family/friends/principal and property.

      Justifiable homicide.

      Next case.

  3. A confrontation between Chad Read, 54, and his ex-wife Christina Read over visitation with their son led to the intervention of William Kyle Carruth, who is reportedly in a romantic relationship with Christina Read. (He is the husband of Judge Anne-Marie Carruth, who is seeking a divorce).

    And yet there we no adults present. Middle aged, emotionally stunted, testosterone driven, eunuchs, too focused on proving something, all the while proving how broken our middle aged population is. If these individuals have living parents, it would be an informative case study to investigate where the pathology began, and grew, and grew, and grew.

    We have lost a sense of the sacred. Thank you Earl Warren

    1. “We have lost a sense of the sacred. Thank you Earl Warren”

      Wait until you read the FDA’s docs just released to the public, that they’ve been covering up their mRNA Jabs were/are Murdering Thousands right out of the gate.

      Jones’ crew will have the links up anytime now or anyone can now traces back to the doc elsewhere.

      What will the reaction of the general population be when they find out the big Pharmas drug dealers mRNA shots are a mass extermination tool meant to kill them?

      1. Wellllllll, I had both dosages of Pfizer vaccine in Jan 2021, and my family in April 2021, yet here we are, alive and kicking.

        Here is an excellent video on history of COVID-19 prevalence, mortality rate, and lockdowns thereafter, interviewing Dr Jay Bhattacharya MD, PhD from Stanford.

        1. Looking into a completely unrelated subject the other day I heard a gentlemen use a word I hadn’t seen before.

          It made me think about people like you, I & others:


          We know what we think we are seeing/know. We know there’s plenty of things we don’t know.

          But what is in plain sight we just can’t see as we’re blind to it for some reason?

          Lots of people do not appear to have had any adverse effects to mRNA jabs yet. That’s anecdotal evidence, but studies are coming out faster now.

          I’ve not been feeling up to speed again lately, but those world know Docs/Pros names I’ve posted here have websites up in there names which show their rigorous scientific methods/studies that they’ve investigated & their conclusions.

          (Sic, Dr Peter McCullough, Dallas Tx, Richard Fleming Dallas Tx, Richard Bartlet, Midland Tx, Dr Ardis, etc)

          BTW: In the last month there has been so much new info regarding the mRNA jabs I haven’t even been able to just save all the links to files.

          Staying up to midnight, 1am or 2 is causing my productive to drop it a rock. Sometimes do it longer is a waste of time long term.

          I’ll be looking up those new FDA mRNA info releases later & likely will post them.


          November 23, 2021
          Print This Post Print This Post
          American Heart Association Journal Publishes Data that UK Medical Doctor Claims are “Proof” that COVID-19 Vaccines are “Murder”
          Total Views : 9,603

          by Brian Shilhavy
          Editor, Health Impact News

          The American Heart Association Journal, Circulation, has just published an abstract on mRNA COVID-19 shots that UK medical doctor Vernon Coleman has stated: Finally! Medical Proof the Covid Jab is “Murder”

          Here is the Abstract:

          Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.

          Here are Dr. Vernon Coleman’s comments:



          One could also quickly scroll of at some of this websites recent headlines.


            1. I am impressed you caught this Gary. Well done. However, the information is an abstract. One can not conclude anything based on an abstract. Abstracts are summaries of a scientific article to help the reader decide if the article is worth reading. One needs to read the entire article, particularly methods and results sections. The abstract fails to provide any details. In medicine we go on details.

              Inflammatory markers are my area of focus in cardiology, and they have recently been introduced as measurements in all things cardiology. That the author investigated an association between these markers and COVID vaccines, was wise. Incidentally, SARS-CoV-2 itself promotes inflammation at the cellular level.

              It will be interesting to see how the author responds to the skewering he has received from left leaning medical researchers. I’m neither left nor right. I’m strictly “just the facts” type of person in all things. I hope the author is able to respond because otherwise if he has no data to provide support his conclusions, he will have suffered significantly as to his reputation.


              Questions Raised About Study Linking mRNA Vaccines to Increased ACS Risk
              An “expression of concern” has been attached to the abstract, which made the rounds on social media among vaccine skeptics.

        2. Crewing all I can:

          Global Criminal Nightmare! Pfizer and FDA Work Together to Suppress Evidence that COVID Shot Killed Thousands in First Month



          Dec 1, 2021
          The Alex Jones Show
          The Alex Jones Show

          Alex Jones breaks down the BOMBSHELL evidence proving the FDA and Pfizer colluded to cover up thousands of deaths in the first month of COVID injections.


        3. Estovir,


          you’re link I felt was worth the hour I spent on it, though a few points I seriously disagree with.

          It’s 1:15 am here.

          I’m thinking I’ve never tried 70’s low grade vintage cannabis or mushrooms I’ve never used & Tchaikovsky: “Melodie” (vaimusic.com)

          Just wondering. G’nite.

        4. “. . . interviewing Dr Jay Bhattacharya . . .”

          He is amazingly good! He’s knowledgeably, calm, thoughtful — with an excellent sense of the bigger picture of public health policies. He, as opposed to phonies like Fauci, is a true scientist.

  4. “Although I did not serve in Vietnam, I have seen first-hand the effects of military action,” Saint Blumenthal U.S. Senator

    We have leaders who make a mockery of truth, integrity, and a commitment to righteousness. We have citizens who look up to and follow them.

    Ancient Hebrews were wise. If we were to obey the ten commandments, we would save billions on law enforcement.

    1. Imagine, if you can, if everyone loved God all out, with all their hearts, minds, souls and strength. LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU. There are no answers for this mess we live in outside of toial love for Him and one another.

      Over 500 homicides in Philly so far this year.

      1. Richmond surpassed, year to date, several months ago, violent crime compared to all of 2020. Church attendance here is dismal and across the nation, mockery (pride) reigns, propped by wrath, resulting in chronic medical illness (gluttony, sloth), and very unhappy people (envy, greed). The Cardinal Sins are our normal today.

        We have read the Good Book, and we know what became of the Jews in the Old Testament

        When the people saw that Moses was delayed in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said to him, “Come, make us a god who will go before us; as for that man Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.”
        Aaron replied, “Take off the golden earrings that your wives, your sons, and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.”
        So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron.
        He received their offering, and fashioning it with a tool, made a molten calf. Then they cried out, “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you* up from the land of Egypt.”

        Exodus 32:1-4


    2. Oh, my! Thank you so much. “Ancient Hebrews were wise,” Don Blacke. Yes, yes they were.

      Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America cannot find even moral grounds to establish and support America’s borders; a mini-gun every 1,000 feet would do nicely.

      Cretins and parasites breech the boundaries at will.

      Americans dawdle passively and procrastinate as China and Russia plot their annihilation.

      The Israelites killed every living thing in Jericho in order that they would not be attacked from the rear as they proceeded into the Promised Land.

      The actions of the Hebrews were sanctioned by the Lord.

      But that Americans could ever be as wise as Hebrews.

      Joshua 6

      2 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men. 3 March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days. 4 Have seven priests carry trumpets of rams’ horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the trumpets. 5 When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have the whole army give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the army will go up, everyone straight in.”

      20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

    1. Hi Prairie,

      Some folks look for answers; others look for fights. That’s the long and short of it.

      1. Hi Jeff! This is the first sensible thing that you have ever written. Did you have a brain transplant???

        1. No, I stole those words from the lyrics of a song I like. Kinda describes where this country is at.

    2. Those poor kids! Who was thinking of them and what their needs or wants might be?

      Parents like you are the hope of America.

      Too many parents have abdicated their God given right and responsibility to raise children to be productive, responsible adults. Since these parents are neither productive nor responsible, it follows they thrust into society broken people. This is not new information. Expect an increasing incidence of violence, anarchy and unraveling nation.

  5. The shooter committed murder. While the gun was grabbed initially Carruth had full control of the weapon once he stepped back. At that moment he was not in any immediate danger of being killed or harmed. Details matter here. Clearly from the video Carruth shot Read while he was facing away from the house. Carruth shot him from outside the immediate area of his porch. The castle doctrine only allows the use jf force if the Read was trying to actively force his way into the home or charging Carruth. None of that happened. Her shot him out of anger not self defense. Read was already well away from Carruth who still in full control of his weapon.

    Stepping back to shoot him is not self defense I’m this case. That’s a deliberate intent to kill when no immediate threat was present.

    1. In my mind it all hinges on him firing into the ground. The fact that he had time to do that clearly demonstrates there was no imminent threat.

  6. I am a strong supporter of Self Defense, Stand Your Ground, and Castle Doctrine Laws….and would love to be on the Jury.

    That was Murder…..First Degree….Premeditated Murder.

    The gunman left the argument…went inside the House and fetched the gun…then returned to continue the argument.

    He then steps around the Ex….who had not tried to enter the House, had not assaulted anyone, and stood between the Ex and the open yard and street…..then shot the Ex Twice at very close range.

    I would send the Killer to Jail for the rest of his natural life had I the vote to do so…..or it being Texas….if it were a Capital Case….it would be a very short Life.

    Neither one of the guys were in the right….the Ex was more right than the Shooter….but should have left the property and called the Police to the scene if for no other reason than to have them document the occurrence of the Mother failing to comply with the Visitation Decree.

    He then could take that information to his Lawyer and the Family Court for a Judge to intervene.

    As a Police Officer I attended many of these kinds of confrontations but never had one result in a shooting….it did lead to some people going to Jail on various charges but our goal was to separate the fighting parties….instruct the Father on how to access the Court for its assistance and restore the Peace.

    1. Ex is a moron. Play stupid games (trespassing, grabbing a person’s firearm, etc), win stupid prizes.

      You blood lust for ‘justice’ is just as sad as shooter’s.

      1. Pulling a gun out in an argument is not a reasonable use of self defense. Read had his arms on his sides and was only butting his chest at Carruth. The moment Carruth left the argument to get his gun he no longer could claim self defense.

        The trespassing issue is moot after Carruth shot Read when no immediate danger to his life was present. Read didn’t charge after him. He just stood on the porch. Carruth stepped back and increased the distance between the two by a good 10 feet. At that moment it was no longer a self defense stance.

    2. Turley failed to mention the Killer fired a shot into the ground AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT….the struggle over the Rifle began.

      Now who do you think feared for their Life or Serious bodily injury……and what might you think triggered a violent response over possession of the Rifle?

      Again….going into the house and leaving the argument…and returning with the gun to re-engage in the argument under cuts any defense for the shooting.

      Then firing a shot into the ground….and not the “Trespasser” who still had not committed and assault….watch the video carefully folks….what did the “Trespasser” do with his hands?

      Did he raise them in an aggressive manner….did he strike the Shooter….did push, shove, kick, or in any way physically assault the Shooter?

      Did he advance upon the Ex-Wife and present a danger to her…..hell fire he maintained Fauci’s safe social distance from the Wife.

      Turley amongst others need to carefully study the video before rattling on about the law as it is plain to see who is clearly in the wrong here.

      This is not about Trespassing, Violating a Court Order, or being stupid….it is about the shooting to death of an un-armed person who has not assaulted anyone.

      The Arbrey fellow down in Georgia fought with his Killer over a shotgun…..and the prosecution ignored that and went for Murder charges against three Men.

      The fight over the rifle in this case is not the issue….it hinges upon who brought the firearm to the fight…..and the circumstances about that will determine the outcome.

      1. Now who do you think feared for their Life or Serious bodily injury

        Not Read, He should have left, When he was ordered to the first time. But when Read came back with a gun, he instead increased his aggression. What about Read’s duty to retreat?

    3. Mr. Chappell, I am a 64 year old, well educated, wife, mother, grandmother, homemaker, never divorced, Catholic, American, Trump supporter who agrees with you 100%. I, too, support all the laws cited. I want to sit next to you on that jury. That was murder.

  7. When the shots were fired the killer was in no danger. He had stepped back and the other was not charging or otherwise approaching. Nonetheless he raised his gun, took aim and shot two rounds. This was not self defense. Nor do the requirements of the castle doctrine apply.

  8. So first the wife shacks up with the dude thereby triggering the custody dispute in the first place, then when he shoots her lawfully wedded husband who had come to get his kids and is justifiably upset for multiple reasons she then decides to sue her former shack-ee? She sounds like a real prize. Unless I missed something. This story is either convoluted or poorly recounted or both. The husband/ father was unarmed and was exercising his legal right to see his kids. I hope they throw the book at Carruth.

    1. The husband/ father was unarmed and was exercising his legal right to see his kids.

      None of that has any legal bearing. The husband/father was trespassing, and then attempted to take, by force, the home owners weapon.

      1. I disagree: stepping onto ones front yard and requesting compliance with a custody order is not “trespassing.” He didn’t force his way into the house, nor did he threaten to do so.

        1. I disagree: stepping onto ones front yard and requesting compliance with a custody order is not “trespassing.” He didn’t force his way into the house, nor did he threaten to do so.

          Carruth did not shoot Read for standing in his front yard.
          1, He demanded Read leave his property. At that moment, Read was trespassing.
          2. Carruth shot a man trespassing on his property, when the man attempted to physically, take Carruth’s weapon. That’s assault.

      2. Of course it has legal bearing.
        A trespasser has no legal standing to be on the property, this man did and had a court order to do so.
        This was murder with premeditation.

        1. this man did and had a court order to do so.
          The man is on private property and was asked to leave. At that moment he was trespassing. Even if a uniformed law enforcement officer knocked on the door, without a warrant or exigent circumstances, the Officer must leave if asked to leave.

    2. check the size difference. while unarmed the husband/father is almost a full head taller than the other man. he is standing is threatening manner

    3. Well, they want. Father or not, the man was trespassing and under Texas law, the property owner has the right to shoot him. There have been other cases here in Texas where a prosecutor managed to bring a case and the jury found for the defense.

  9. I believe in Defending yourself and believe in gun rights but, if the videos are accurate then there was no need for the shooting. Two hot heads and things got out of control.and to add to the issue a ex wife denying a father’s rights. It will be interesting to see what happend.But if I were on the jury he would be guilty. there was no need for the gun and it did not appear there was a need of self defense.

    1. then there was no need for,,, (fill in the blank)

      Rights do not requireda “needs” assesment

      Read had no “need” to be there. Why do you not apply your “need” qualifier to the trespasser?

      1. I think the concept of “trespasser” is misplaced here. This man was not forcing himself inside the house. He was simply insisting that they had no legal right to violate the custody sharing order. Instead of engaging in a reasoned conversation, the third party homeowner got out his gun. And once he fired, (showing his willingness to maim) the father had every right to try to defend himself by disarming him. Unlike the gunman, the father had made no physical threats: his “threats” were all legal and aimed at enforcing compliance with a legal order. This dude is toast.

        1. “And once he fired, (showing his willingness to maim)”
          ever heard of a warning shot? majority of people would have backed off rather than grab for the gun

          1. Even in Texas firing a warning shot during an argument is against the law. The only reason for pulling the trigger in such a situation is when the person wielding the weapon is in imminent danger of being killed or seriously harmed.

            You don’t pull a gun out during an argument. The only reason to pull a gun is when the other person presents a clear threat such as brandishing a weapon or threatening harm. None of that was present. Yelling and butting up chests are not reasons for pulling out a gun.

        2. He was simply insisting that they had no legal right to violate the custody sharing order
          So citizen enforcement of a bench ruling? Read had a lawyer. Any good lawyer told him never approach his Ex.
          Either citizens can enforce laws, or they cannot.
          Be careful what you wish for.

            1. Father had a court order of visitation that he was effectuating.

              After Read asked for the child, he had zero standing to be on private property. He became a trespasser. Law Enforcement, lacking paperwork, would also be powerless to take any action.

              1. You don’t have to be a LEO to have a limited right to enter private property.
                A court order, particularly one that has passed through litigation between the parties and has resulted in a visitation decision, provides the legal right to be on the property.
                Whether that order is a search warrant, an eviction warrant, a process server’s summons and complaint, an inspection of the premises pursuant to discovery rules, or even a mail or delivery servicer, such legal premise is that those people have the presumptive right to enter onto the curtilage, or further, of the private property and thus are not trespassers.

  10. The question then becomes that, once he gains separation, was it justified to fired the two rounds killing Read. That will have to be based on the fear that Read was intent on disarming him and taking his weapon.

    Once Read refused to leave the property, Carruth was in defensive mode. An Trespassing assailant, taller and wider than Carruth, escalating threats, and escalating to physical confrontation. A trespasser that attempts to disarm a home owner has crossed that line into threats of physical harm and/or death.

    1. Carruth was never in “defensive mode.”
      You can’t shoot someone for stamping on a patch of your front yard grass (even in Texas).

  11. [OT] If you would search “age of rage” on this blog, you will find many articles in which Turley denounces individuals and media outlets for engaging in it, e.g., the following:


    Turley notes:

    “President Donald Trump’s penchant for personal and derogatory remarks about his critics and opponents is well known. Many of us have objected to how Trump’s tweets and attacks have tarnished the Office of Presidency. He has already given insulting labels to various candidates in the Democratic primary. However, such attacks are not just confined to Trump.”

    How true.

    Given Turley’s crusade to eradicate rage in our culture, I trust he will condemn one of his Fox brethren, i.e., Lara Logan:

    “Anti-Defamation League and Auschwitz Museum condemn Fox host for comparing Fauci to Nazi doctor who performed medical experiments at death camp.”


    “In an appearance on “Fox News Primetime” Monday, Logan said that people have told her that Fauci doesn’t represent science, but represents Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor who became known as the “Angel of Death” for the atrocities he committed.”

    “I am talking about people all across the world are saying this,” Logan claimed, providing zero evidence to support her wild assertion.”

    “Exploiting the tragedy of people who became victims of criminal pseudo-medical experiments in Auschwitz in a debate about vaccines, pandemic and people who fight for saving human lives is shameful,” the Auschwitz Museum said on Twitter. “It is disrespectful to victims & a sad symptom of moral and intellectual decline.”

    Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement that “there’s absolutely no comparison between mask mandates, vaccine requirements, and other COVID-19 mitigation efforts to what happened to Jews during the Holocaust.”

    The article noted that Fox News did not respond to requests for comment.

    Will Turley remain silent as well? Or will he at long last summon the intestinal fortitude to take a stand against his employer Fox by condemning Lara Logan’s outrageous comparison?

    We shall see…

    1. ADL can EABD. The victimhood industry it fosters and has spread is the true symptom of moral and intellectual decline.

    2. You are such a dim wit. What are the legal questions regarding this incident? There are none. Professor Turley does not blog about every rage case on either side, he only blogs about the ones that raise legal issues – most often free speech.

    3. “[P]eople have told her that Fauci doesn’t represent science, but represents Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor who became known as the “Angel of Death” for the atrocities he committed.”

      Mengele used state-controlled “science” to cause pain and death to innocent people — retail. Fauci did so — wholesale. (Then tried to cover it up.)

      He supported virus research at a lab controlled by a dictatorship, a lab with a well-documented history of leaks. He himself claims that such a pandemic is justifiable, if it serves to advance the cause of “science.”

      If you do not see the connection between those two crimes, both committed in the name of “science,” then no amount of additional facts is going to help you.

      See the book: _What Really Happened in Wuhan_, by Sherri Markson.

  12. Very sad turn of events for all parties involved.

    Initial impression is that this response was not covered by the Castle doctrine or the SYG provisions. But that is why we have trials by jury

  13. I have owned weapons, hunted with weapons and have a carry permit but never had the desire to shoot anyone. In fact since I’ve had the carry permit I don’t carry. We are truly living in a time of rage. We have been subjected to extremely violent film, violent games, politicians who of all things call for less police, are more concerned for the felon then the victims. The politicians have created hatred in Americans against each other for the politicians gain. During the entire event on video I hear one bit of sanity “call 911”. If we start charging the people who represent us in DC with the obvious crimes they commit we might send a message to all Americans that law and order has returned. From the Big Lie Russia Russia, the Ukraine, election manipulation, two bogus attempts to unseat a legitimate President, ANTIFA/BLM running wild, looting destruction of business, a media which is just a propaganda outfit and total breakdown of our border. Bring back our police, bring back law and order to ALL.

    1. You obviously aren’t aware that police are fairly recent in history, and that their role never has been to establish law and order but rather to arrest those who break the law.

      1. Semgojr says: “You obviously aren’t aware that police are fairly recent in history, and that their role never has been to establish law and order but rather to arrest those who break the law.”
        Please explain how arresting law breakers is not establishing law and order? Is ancient China, Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, India and the Persian empire old enough?
        Would police arresting all those bum rushing stores in California, arresting all the shooters in Chicago and putting an end to the riots we’ve experiencing, wouldn’t that be establishing law and order?

  14. Lots of supposition about what Carruth “could have”/”should have” done.
    No second guessing about what Read’s responsibilities, under the law look like.

    The law specifically has no requirement to retreat by the property owner. But this is written with full responsibility on the property owner, and some sort of legal protection for the trespasser.

    Read was told repeatedly to leave the property, (that he has no legal claim to be present) and refused and the video clearly shows was the aggressor.

    1. No. The video shows he was refusing the “order” of a man in unlawful possession of hos son. A man who had no business engaging with him in the first place. Moreover, this third party responded to the man’s lawful requests by brandishing a gun and shooting at the father. He wanted to kill or maim the father. That’s why he was glad it was on video. If he had any legal training he would gave known he was in the wrong: he responded to the mans lawful arguments by threatening and then using (firing) deadly force and the father had every right to defend himself.

      1. Regardless of the custody order/arrangement you cannot trespass or break any other law to enforce it. So under your theory you could gain access to the residence by force because if said order.. lunacy. Even if local LEOs were on scene they would have told Read that it’s a civil matter and to take it up with the judge. It has already been said numerous times. Once the homeowner instructed Read to leave and he didn’t then he was trespassing. After the homeowner returners with the FA Read closed the distance and behaved in a threatening matter while trespassing. After the homeowner fired a shot there was a short struggle where Read attempted to disarm the homeowner.

        We don’t have to like the optics and agree that this didn’t need to happen but by law (in Texas) the homeowner was well within his rights and I think it is unlikely that he will face charges.

      1. In Texas, if a person trespasses on your property, and that means your lawn, you can shoot them. By the way, under the latest Texas law, there is no longer a requirement for a license to carry a weapon, concealed or open, with certain conditions.

Leave a Reply