Chad Read; unarmed black man shot by white supremacist

That's what I heard on CNN. What do you think about this? Remember folks....attacking a person with a rifle is always a terrible idea.

What would Turd say?

Texas man claims self-defence after shooting woman's ex ...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz › world › texas-man-claims-se...









53 minutes ago — Police have not laid any charges against William "Kyle" Carruth, who shot and killed Chad Read, 54, in the north-western city of Lubbock on ..

Reckon I'm kinda at a loss here - looking at the photo.
Where's the pistol? Which fellow is black??

Surely appears to me to be Stephen and Bruce havin' a
hissy's fit outside of "Poofter Pier" ...

### Salty

What would Humpty say?

What would Humpty say? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Fetch me a drink??


bahahahahahaaaaaaa

Or he just took a dump at the Circle C.

Or he just took a dump at the Circle C. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

humpty prefers Burger King






BAAHHAAHHAAAAA

I can't call self defense on this one. Caruth introduced the weapon when it is not clear that Reid was a threat, a dangerous threat, a life threatening threat. I also think that Caruth threw away self defense when he fired into the ground. If someone is an immediate deadly threat then you don't shoot the ground, you shoot them. I have to say that Caruth escalated the situation unnecessarily.

How do make.an unarmed belligerent go away?

a threat, a dangerous threat, a life threatening threat.

Are these standards reflected in the statute that applies?

I have a recommendation at least in Texas and similar states with laws applicable to coming onto people's property with an attitude, and remaining in a belligerent and aggressive attitude after being told to leave. "Get the fuck off their property ASAP!"

I'll reserve comment on the "choice of weapon" decision for the defense of one's property and/or person on their property.

"Ex" husbands and wives need to "move on" and find something more profitable to do than to die.

I'm speaking in generalities but each state and locality has different standards.

In Texas, self-defense is defined by Texas Penal Code 9.31. This section states that “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.”

Proving self-defense can be difficult, however. People can only claim self-defense when they:

only use the minimum amount of force necessary for self-defense,
reasonably believe that force was necessary to stop someone else’s use of unlawful force,
did not provoke the attack, and
were not engaged in a crime.
If successful, self-defense is a complete defense to a criminal allegation. It justifies the use of force to repel the threat of violence against oneself. Under the castle doctrine, these rights are strongest when people are defending themselves at home.

Self-defense can also be invoked in the defense of property. It generally does not require attempt to retreat before using force. This makes Texas a stand your ground state.

In some cases, deadly force may be justified in self-defense. Deadly force can even be used to defend property.

Texas self-defense law includes the defense of others, as well.

Successfully raising the defense can absolve the defendant of liability for a violent crime.

Does Texas follow the castle doctrine?
Yes, Texas follows the castle doctrine.

When the people are at home, work, or in their car, their right to use self-defense is at its greatest. The law will presume that the use of force was reasonably necessary, as long as the person:

did not provoke the victim, and
was not committing a crime, other than a traffic offense.
If neither of these is the case, self-defense is presumed to be justified. However, the person must have also had reason to believe that:

the victim was unlawfully breaking and entering, or
the victim was unlawfully removing the defendant from his or her house, car, or place of employment.
The castle doctrine also presumes that self-defense was reasonably necessary if you reasonably believed the other person was committing:

aggravated kidnapping,
murder,
sexual assault,
aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or
aggravated robbery.1

Are there times when the defense is not allowed?
There are certain situations where self-defense is not a defense strategy. These include when the defendant:

responded with force to a strictly verbal provocation,
resisted an arrest by a police officer, even if it was unlawful, that did not use excessive force,
consented to the victim’s use of force, or
provoked the victim’s use of force and did not abandon the encounter.2

The amount of force used in self-defense has to be reasonable. It cannot be disproportionate to the unlawful force threatened.

When too much force is used, it can be a crime. The person claiming self-defense could be liable for assault or even murder.

What about deadly force?
Texas allows the use of deadly force in self-defense in limited circumstances.

It can only be used when the person reasonably believes it is necessary to protect against:

the victim’s use or attempt to use deadly force, or
the imminent commission of the following crimes:
aggravated kidnapping,
murder,
sexual assault,
aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or
aggravated robbery.3

From the SHouse California Law Group through the US Concealed Carry Association of which I am a member.

So, I will reiterate, I don't think this can be called self defense.

Let me address the elephant in the room. Unlike a liberal/progressive, I don't judge people by race. So, this is argument between two people regardless of race.

TRBC - Thank you good Sir
Pic posted of incident - shows teh OP title Lies!
typical LSM