Lubbock TX video of shooting

[Moonpie]

Wife of Chad Read releases video of deadly shooting

LUBBOCK, Texas — On Wednesday, the wife of Chad Read, a man shot and killed November 5, released the video of the confrontation leading up to and the shooting itself. Updated Story Link: Kyle…

www.everythinglubbock.com

 

[JCC]

dang

 

[Harry_Gorilla]

Video wasn't clear at the moment of truth. Did I miss something that justified the end?

 

[JCC]

this one too

part of other video from inside the house at 2:00 in

did he shoot the ground at one point?

 

[Moonpie]

Bad shoot IMO

 

[DaBull]

Personally, I would not have introduced a gun. Everyone goes indoors and call the police. They guy either leaves on his own, is escorted away by the cops, or shot entering the household.

 

[majormadmax]

Texas Penal Code §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

 

[Texasjack]

Bad shoot.

 

[General Zod]

Bad shoot IMO

I dunno. I saw a belligerent, unwelcome visitor throwing around threats and trying to intimidate the residents, and refusing to leave. When a weapon was brought out, he got belligerent, doing that immature chest-pressing thing (unwanted physical contact can be considered assault), and then attempting to wrestle the shotgun out of the resident's hand while issuing threats. I think the resident has a pretty strong legal defense based on both videos.

If he had a valid reason to be there, then the local law should've been called instead of his chest-thumping antics. And trying to wrestle a shotgun away from the homeowner? That'll get you shot.

 

[General Zod]

The plot thickens - the ex-wife in this case is a judge, and was apparently the current wife of the person who was shot. Apparently she amended the divorce petition after the fact, then sealed the records (which she doesn't appear to have the authority to do...)

Also, the shooter has not been charged with a crime as of a couple of days ago when this story was aired:

 

[robertc1024]

This will be interesting.

 

[candcallen]

Lots of stupid. Lots of bad choices. Stupid games stupid prizes lives lost and ruined.

Dead guy was on another guys property to pick up his kids? Dick measuring contest ensued and the "I'll take that gun from you and....."threat happens then he try's to make good on his threat and dies.

Are those the facts as we know them?

Legally? That's a close one and will depend on how its presented to a grand jury weather hes charged.

After the negligent discharge both should have realised they had been long past letting this go too far as soon as two grown assed men were arguing and a gun was brought out. It dont matter that you're right if youre dead dumb ass. Or if your right and you kill the father of your step kids.

Walking away is the hardest thing any man has to ever do. The urge to fight or not back down is so overpowering for some it leads to their end. You always feel like a weak coward after to walk away from a confrontation even when it was the right thing to do. BUT YOU CAN STILL FEEL BAD ABOUT IT NOT GET BURIED BECAUSE OF IT.

Legally that's close, But the margin is razor thin based on whose property they are on what the threat was and the fact he tried to take the gun also what precipitated the video will be important to establish who started the events.
I've changed my thoughts on good or bad several times writing this. First reaction is bad shoot while the facts may technically make it legal because of needing to disprove self defense.

I certainly would not have been in that situation. Someone has got to be the adult.



For phuck sake guys, why? No one realizes this is going to a bad end?

One guy is dead. The other is probably going to be ruined financially and most importantly the kids lives are destroyed.

Phucking retards. In the end good shoot or bad shoot really doesnt matter does it.

 

[General Zod]

...also what precipitated the video will be important to establish who started the events.

This right here will likely be the key to whether it was self-defense or murder. There was obviously bad blood there - had there been previous violence?

But yeah, as soon as he grabbed that shotgun and tried to wrestle it away things went too far. That's the factor that makes me lean toward valid self defense.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

If the guy actually was supposed to pick up his kids at 3:15, and they weren't there, didn't this start the events...

 

[Coyote9]

Wife of Chad Read releases video of deadly shooting

LUBBOCK, Texas — On Wednesday, the wife of Chad Read, a man shot and killed November 5, released the video of the confrontation leading up to and the shooting itself. Updated Story Link: Kyle…

www.everythinglubbock.com

Looks like unwarranted escalation by the shooter. However I was not there and refuse to condemn a person on either side with what little evidence is shown here.

 

[Aus_Schwaben]

Investigate, give the results to the DA, and present it to the Grand Jury. I will say that neither party made any effort to reduce the risk. Both males actually exacerbated the situation but the mother not having the kids at the time and place they were supposed to meet their father was the starting point.

 

[Vaquero]

The way they drive up there, this doesn't surprise me.

 

[JCC]

having dealt with custody exchanges with my own kids and a difficult other party, I could see this

I have been armed every time, but have not once had it in my hand in case of something like this

exchanges at my house or her trailer have not worked out well with police often called, so I wrote it into our final orders for exchanges to be at the local police station "safe trade" location

 

[gll]

Stupid bunch of shit, everybody playing stupid games. I hope everybody involved there gets what they deserve...

Looks like a bad shoot to me, but really doesn't bother me that the decedent died, and won't if the shooter does life for it.

Worst thing is how it reflects on gun ownership, but the way things are going, that probably won't matter for long; confiscation probably won't happen before chaos.

 

[DaBull]

Worst thing is how it reflects on gun ownership, but the way things are going, that probably won't matter for long; confiscation probably won't happen before chaos.

This.

The Rittenhouse verdict tells us that the gun grabbers will redefine self defense to make it unacceptable. If you bring a gun to a fight, then you plan to use it offensively then claim self defense. In the video, the shooter could have called the police, but he chose to evict the deceased with the assistance of a firearm. The anti-gunners will say he escalates a verbal altercation by bringing a gun to an argument and then wants to claims self defense after he is attacked? This is a just a short hop from, you pulled a concealed weapon during a verbal altercation and want to claim self defense after shooting someone? I am not saying he is right or wrong, guilty or not guilty...but this is where the gun grabbers are going.

Then again, maybe it goes nowhere since it was an all-white shooting that did not take place during a BLM protest.