TX: Lubbock potential self defense death occurs

[wil]

Wil, these links go to Texas Government Code chapters 311 and 312.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... GV.311.htm
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... GV.312.htm

This article, by Texas lawyers, explains that deadly force is not justified against trespassers.

Texas Penal Code Section 9.41 explains that a person is allowed to use force, but not deadly force, to terminate a mere trespass or interference with property.

https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/

I read the article and it does not answer some questions.

1. what constitutes 'force' under 9.41? It is not defined, only stated.

2. if it's non-lethal, what is that? Physical restraint via hands-on? Physically forcing whatever party off the property via the same? 9.41 does not define what constitutes force.

3. what is the recourse under 9.41 if that is not a viable option. Such as disparity of physical strength, outnumbered, etc.

4. the article doesn't really address a situation such as Lubbock. The individual is told to leave, doesn't and advances in a hostile and threatening manner. Are we forced to go hands-on with the genuine potential risks involved with that?
Trespass means someone has been told to leave, they refuse to do so and display hostile and aggressive intent, what is the force allowed to make them leave under 9.41?

If it is physical force only, We have no way of knowing whether or not that individual has training in unarmed combat such that they are far overmatched to ourselves.
An 60 year old individual is generally not a physical match for someone 20+ years or more younger in terms of strength, physical ability, etc.
These are not extreme examples, they are real possibilities.

9.41 does not address any of these questions and it's why I brought up the fallacy of "are you going to shoot a 9 year old kid for tresspassing?' No, there is no likely physical disparity where that childs physical abilities present a danger to oneself if physical force is what is covered in 9.41. A 19 year old is a different story is a different story in terms of physical ability.

9.42 addresses these questions in terms of physical risk to oneself.

these are reasons why I tend to think 9.41 works in conjunction with 9.42 and the article doesn't specify if they are non-related and if so, why.
Also 9.41 not defining what constitutes force leaves the question as to how it applies to 9.42, which specifically mentions if force is legal under 9.41, then it seems 9.42 applies. The article does not address this or 9.42.

still the same question.

Edit: here is 9.42 in it's entirety.

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 things that stand out in this:

part 1. if force is justified under 9.41. Trespass and they refuse to leave after being told to do so.

item B under part three, "to protect land and if doing so would expose the actor to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."

Perhaps it does beg the question, do we have to have every single element of that entire section of the code in place to use lethal force under 9.41 and 9.42? or are those sections attempting to address individual situations?
Hence if lethal force under 9.41 alone is not legal, and that sounds reasonable. Tell someone to leave and they don't and you have the ability to use force under 9.41, you don't have the right to shoot them. However if force under 9.41 is not a reasonable option then 9.42 applies.

9.41 allows for force, depending on what that actually is, if it's non-lethal, then what happens if that's not a viable option for the individual? Such as the examples I gave? And it exposes someone to grave risk of injury or death?

Then my thinking is 9.42 covers that in part (A) cant be done by any other means, or part (B) places oneself in grave physical risk.

I could be wrong however that seems to be a reasonable line of thinking.

[Mike S]

Wil, these links go to Texas Government Code chapters 311 and 312.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... GV.311.htm
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... GV.312.htm

This article, by Texas lawyers, explains that deadly force is not justified against trespassers.

Texas Penal Code Section 9.41 explains that a person is allowed to use force, but not deadly force, to terminate a mere trespass or interference with property.

https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/

I read the article and it does not answer some questions.

1. what constitutes 'force' under 9.41? It is not defined, only stated.

2. if it's non-lethal, what is that? Physical restraint via hands-on? Physically forcing whatever party off the property via the same? 9.41 does not define what constitutes force.

3. what is the recourse under 9.41 if that is not a viable option. Such as disparity of physical strength, outnumbered, etc.

4. the article doesn't really address a situation such as Lubbock. The individual is told to leave, doesn't and advances in a hostile and threatening manner. Are we forced to go hands-on with the genuine potential risks involved with that?
Trespass means someone has been told to leave, they refuse to do so and display hostile and aggressive intent, what is the force allowed to make them leave under 9.41?

If it is physical force only, We have no way of knowing whether or not that individual has training in unarmed combat such that they are far overmatched to ourselves.
An 60 year old individual is generally not a physical match for someone 20 or more years younger in terms of strength, speed, etc.
9.41 does not address any of these questions and it's why I brought up the fallacy of "are you going to shoot a 9 year old kid for tresspassing?' No, there is no likely physical disparity where that childs physical abilities present a danger to oneself if physical force is what is covered in 9.41. A 19 year old is a different story is a different story in terms of physical ability.

9.42 addresses these questions in terms of physical risk to oneself.

these are reasons why I tend to think 9.41 works in conjunction with 9.42 and the article doesn't specify if they are non-related and if so, why.
Also 9.41 not defining what constitutes force leaves the question as to how it applies to 9.42, which specifically mentions if force is legal under 9.41, then it seems 9.42 applies. The article does not address this or 9.42.

still the same question.

Edit: here is 9.42 in it's entirety.

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 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 things that stand out in this:

part 1. if force is justified under 9.41. Tresspass and they refuse to leave.

item B under part three, to protect land and if doing so would expose the actor to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Perhaps it does beg the question, do we have to have every single element of that entire section of the code in place to use lethal force under 9.41? or are those sections attempting to address individual situations?

9.41 allows for force, depending on what that actually is, if it's non-lethal, then what happens if that's not a viable option for the individual? Such as the examples I gave? And it exposes someone to grave risk of injury or death?

Then my thinking is 9.42 covers that in part (A) cant be done by any other means, or part (B) places oneself in grave physical risk.

I could be wrong however that seems to be a reasonable line of thinking.

You are correct in that the TPC doesn't define "force". Here's what I posted earlier in this thread that you may have not seen. https://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php ... 4#p1316164

Bottom line up front, "Force" is non-lethal force. "Deadly Force" is defined in the Texas Penal Code (TPC)., & means force that can cause 'death', OR 'serious bodily injury'. "Serious Bodily Injury" is also defined by the TPC, & means an injury that will put you out of commission for a bit, not just a butt whooping. I'll edit later & put the actual definition here so it's not just me pulling it out of my hip pocket. ETA: Here's the TPC definition of Serious Bodily Injury:

"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

For clarification, to be justified under 9.42 you'd need:
(1) to already be justified in using "force' under 9.41 (the TPC lists things when 'force' is never justified, such as for verbal provocative alone; when you provoked the incident; when you're committing a crime);

--AND--

(2) you must reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent or stop one of these things:
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;
--OR--
to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;

--BUT ONLY IF you reasonably believe that--

(3) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means (protected from one of the acts listed above);
--OR--
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 (protect the property from one of the acts listed above)

I'm hoping that makes a little more sense out of 9.41 & 9.42. I'll attempt to address the other part of your post in a bit.

[K.Mooneyham]

In reply to "MikeS", please define the term "butt whooping". I am curious where the line is drawn and how beaten someone has to be before it's not just a "butt whooping". How injured does someone have to be before it becomes "serious bodily injury"? Why should anyone have to put up with having someone else attempt to beat them? I'm an aircraft mechanic, and not a weakling per se, but I'm also no longer a young man. Additionally, I don't have any particular hand-to-hand fighting skills, such as tae kwando, krav maga, or kung fu. How am I to know if someone assailing me does have those skills, before it might be too late? To paraphrase that famous John Wayne character, I don't put my hands on anyone else and I shouldn't have to put up with anyone else doing that to me.

[oljames3]

Wil, these links go to Texas Government Code chapters 311 and 312.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... GV.311.htm
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs ... GV.312.htm

This article, by Texas lawyers, explains that deadly force is not justified against trespassers.

Texas Penal Code Section 9.41 explains that a person is allowed to use force, but not deadly force, to terminate a mere trespass or interference with property.

https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/

I read the article and it does not answer some questions.

1. what constitutes 'force' under 9.41? It is not defined, only stated.

2. if it's non-lethal, what is that? Physical restraint via hands-on? Physically forcing whatever party off the property via the same? 9.41 does not define what constitutes force.

3. what is the recourse under 9.41 if that is not a viable option. Such as disparity of physical strength, outnumbered, etc.

4. the article doesn't really address a situation such as Lubbock. The individual is told to leave, doesn't and advances in a hostile and threatening manner. Are we forced to go hands-on with the genuine potential risks involved with that?
Trespass means someone has been told to leave, they refuse to do so and display hostile and aggressive intent, what is the force allowed to make them leave under 9.41?

If it is physical force only, We have no way of knowing whether or not that individual has training in unarmed combat such that they are far overmatched to ourselves.
An 60 year old individual is generally not a physical match for someone 20 or more years younger in terms of strength, speed, etc.
9.41 does not address any of these questions and it's why I brought up the fallacy of "are you going to shoot a 9 year old kid for tresspassing?' No, there is no likely physical disparity where that childs physical abilities present a danger to oneself if physical force is what is covered in 9.41. A 19 year old is a different story is a different story in terms of physical ability.

9.42 addresses these questions in terms of physical risk to oneself.

these are reasons why I tend to think 9.41 works in conjunction with 9.42 and the article doesn't specify if they are non-related and if so, why.
Also 9.41 not defining what constitutes force leaves the question as to how it applies to 9.42, which specifically mentions if force is legal under 9.41, then it seems 9.42 applies. The article does not address this or 9.42.

still the same question.

Edit: here is 9.42 in it's entirety.

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 things that stand out in this:

part 1. if force is justified under 9.41. Tresspass and they refuse to leave.

item B under part three, to protect land and if doing so would expose the actor to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Perhaps it does beg the question, do we have to have every single element of that entire section of the code in place to use lethal force under 9.41? or are those sections attempting to address individual situations?

9.41 allows for force, depending on what that actually is, if it's non-lethal, then what happens if that's not a viable option for the individual? Such as the examples I gave? And it exposes someone to grave risk of injury or death?

Then my thinking is 9.42 covers that in part (A) cant be done by any other means, or part (B) places oneself in grave physical risk.

I could be wrong however that seems to be a reasonable line of thinking.

In order to have a meaningful discussion of a use of a force incident and use of force law, we must have a good understanding of the law of self defense. There are legal terms of art that have different meanings from casual use. Attorney Andrew Branca has a free mini course. The run times of the videos totals 165 minutes. https://lawofselfdefense.com/mini

Texas law does not define force (non-deadly force). It does, however, define deadly force.

Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
...
(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.
,,,

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Branca describes the use of force:

One would think that the difference between deadly and non-deadly force is self-apparent. One results in death, while the other doesn't. But in practice things are a bit more complicated. Legally speaking, deadly force is any force that can cause death or grave bodily harm. Grave bodily harm includes permanent disfigurement, long-term damage to a part of the body (such as a broken bone), rape, and even kidnapping.

Non-deadly force, by contrast, is any force less than that capable of causing death or grave bodily harm.

Branca, The Law of Self Defense, 3rd Editon, 2017, page 74.

The short answer to your questions is:
1. Force is any force that is not deadly force.

2. Non-lethal is not a term in Texas self defense law. Non-deadly force is any force that is not deadly force.

3. Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY covers only the use of force in defense of one's own property. Disparity of force does not apply to TPC 9.41, only in 9.31, 9.32, and 9.42. If all of the requirements of 9.41 are satisfied, then 9.42 can be considered to see if it applies.

4. TPC 9.41 mentions trespass, but is not the trespass statute. That is TPC 30.05. TPC 9.41 only allows the use of force (non-deadly force) to "terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property." 9.41 and 9.42 do not work in conjunction. They are stand-alone statutes. 9.42 references 9.41 only to the extent that all of the requirements of 9.41 must be satisfied before 9.42 can be considered. TPC 9.31 and 9.32 work in the same way.

Branca does a better job of explaining than can I. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JyVw5LU8EA

[srothstein]

In reply to "MikeS", please define the term "butt whooping". I am curious where the line is drawn and how beaten someone has to be before it's not just a "butt whooping". How injured does someone have to be before it becomes "serious bodily injury"? Why should anyone have to put up with having someone else attempt to beat them? I'm an aircraft mechanic, and not a weakling per se, but I'm also no longer a young man. Additionally, I don't have any particular hand-to-hand fighting skills, such as tae kwando, krav maga, or kung fu. How am I to know if someone assailing me does have those skills, before it might be too late? To paraphrase that famous John Wayne character, I don't put my hands on anyone else and I shouldn't have to put up with anyone else doing that to me.

If it helps, here is the definition of serious bodily injury from the Penal Code Section 1.07(a)(46):

(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

The way I was taught, permanent disfigurement means a scar or worse. Protracted loss or impairment of any bodily member or organ means a broken bone, a sprain, or similar injury. A big portion of the problem with this definition is that a lot of it depends what the DA will accept for it. In Bexar county, it was how I said above (at least while I was on the PD there). In Caldwell county, a lot more rural and conservative, the general rule was if it required medical treatment in the ER. Calling EMS was not enough but if they transported it was.

As to your question about the other person's skills, the answer is going to rely on common sense, unfortunately. There is a legal concept the courts have used called a disparity of force. For example, a 120 lb, 5'2" female can expect more injury and use more force against a 200 lb, 6'1" young male. Same for someone like me (a 65 year old in poor shape and with sever arthritis in multiple joints) against the 20 year old man who lifts weights and works out. In both cases, the opposite holds. The young fit male cannot escalate if fighting me or the small female.

I think Mr. Branca is correct when he says that the overriding legal theory is reasonableness. Is your behavior reasonable to the average person IF he was in that situation knowing what you knew then.

[K.Mooneyham]

In reply to "MikeS", please define the term "butt whooping". I am curious where the line is drawn and how beaten someone has to be before it's not just a "butt whooping". How injured does someone have to be before it becomes "serious bodily injury"? Why should anyone have to put up with having someone else attempt to beat them? I'm an aircraft mechanic, and not a weakling per se, but I'm also no longer a young man. Additionally, I don't have any particular hand-to-hand fighting skills, such as tae kwando, krav maga, or kung fu. How am I to know if someone assailing me does have those skills, before it might be too late? To paraphrase that famous John Wayne character, I don't put my hands on anyone else and I shouldn't have to put up with anyone else doing that to me.

If it helps, here is the definition of serious bodily injury from the Penal Code Section 1.07(a)(46):

(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

The way I was taught, permanent disfigurement means a scar or worse. Protracted loss or impairment of any bodily member or organ means a broken bone, a sprain, or similar injury. A big portion of the problem with this definition is that a lot of it depends what the DA will accept for it. In Bexar county, it was how I said above (at least while I was on the PD there). In Caldwell county, a lot more rural and conservative, the general rule was if it required medical treatment in the ER. Calling EMS was not enough but if they transported it was.

As to your question about the other person's skills, the answer is going to rely on common sense, unfortunately. There is a legal concept the courts have used called a disparity of force. For example, a 120 lb, 5'2" female can expect more injury and use more force against a 200 lb, 6'1" young male. Same for someone like me (a 65 year old in poor shape and with sever arthritis in multiple joints) against the 20 year old man who lifts weights and works out. In both cases, the opposite holds. The young fit male cannot escalate if fighting me or the small female.

I think Mr. Branca is correct when he says that the overriding legal theory is reasonableness. Is your behavior reasonable to the average person IF he was in that situation knowing what you knew then.

I do understand the information you posted, and having taken one of Mr. Cotton's seminars many years ago, I already knew some of it. It just seems that a lot of definitions of things are out-of-date, or at least not taking current conditions into account. I'm not talking about two 1970s "good ol' boys" in a classic "barrroom brawl" after a few too many at the ol' beerjoint, nor two Victorian gentlemen settling a disagreement via fisticuffs and Marquess of Queensbury Rules. I'm talking about ruthless modern bad guys, many of whom are drugged up on who knows what all substances, trying to beat someone to death for "disrespecting them", or similar. I am certain that if a person knew where to look, they could find multiple instances of people being severely injured, or killed, by a single punch or kick. Again, I will state that no one should have to put up with someone attempting to beat them, and I simply feel that it is unreasonable to expect that. On the other hand, I do everything I can to avoid situations where that sort of thing becomes more likely to occur...but no one can avoid all trouble forever.

[Mike S]

In reply to "MikeS", please define the term "butt whooping". I am curious where the line is drawn and how beaten someone has to be before it's not just a "butt whooping". How injured does someone have to be before it becomes "serious bodily injury"? Why should anyone have to put up with having someone else attempt to beat them? I'm an aircraft mechanic, and not a weakling per se, but I'm also no longer a young man. Additionally, I don't have any particular hand-to-hand fighting skills, such as tae kwando, krav maga, or kung fu. How am I to know if someone assailing me does have those skills, before it might be too late? To paraphrase that famous John Wayne character, I don't put my hands on anyone else and I shouldn't have to put up with anyone else doing that to me.

If it helps, here is the definition of serious bodily injury from the Penal Code Section 1.07(a)(46):

(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

The way I was taught, permanent disfigurement means a scar or worse. Protracted loss or impairment of any bodily member or organ means a broken bone, a sprain, or similar injury. A big portion of the problem with this definition is that a lot of it depends what the DA will accept for it. In Bexar county, it was how I said above (at least while I was on the PD there). In Caldwell county, a lot more rural and conservative, the general rule was if it required medical treatment in the ER. Calling EMS was not enough but if they transported it was.

As to your question about the other person's skills, the answer is going to rely on common sense, unfortunately. There is a legal concept the courts have used called a disparity of force. For example, a 120 lb, 5'2" female can expect more injury and use more force against a 200 lb, 6'1" young male. Same for someone like me (a 65 year old in poor shape and with sever arthritis in multiple joints) against the 20 year old man who lifts weights and works out. In both cases, the opposite holds. The young fit male cannot escalate if fighting me or the small female.

I think Mr. Branca is correct when he says that the overriding legal theory is reasonableness. Is your behavior reasonable to the average person IF he was in that situation knowing what you knew then.

I do understand the information you posted, and having taken one of Mr. Cotton's seminars many years ago, I already knew some of it. It just seems that a lot of definitions of things are out-of-date, or at least not taking current conditions into account. I'm not talking about two 1970s "good ol' boys" in a classic "barrroom brawl" after a few too many at the ol' beerjoint, nor two Victorian gentlemen settling a disagreement via fisticuffs and Marquess of Queensbury Rules. I'm talking about ruthless modern bad guys, many of whom are drugged up on who knows what all substances, trying to beat someone to death for "disrespecting them", or similar. I am certain that if a person knew where to look, they could find multiple instances of people being severely injured, or killed, by a single punch or kick. Again, I will state that no one should have to put up with someone attempting to beat them, and I simply feel that it is unreasonable to expect that. On the other hand, I do everything I can to avoid situations where that sort of thing becomes more likely to occur...but no one can avoid all trouble forever.

A key point to consider is that you don't have to wait until you've sustained a serious bodily injury or near death before being justified in self defense. You may be justified in self defense before the offender even makes physical contact with you.

What is required is that you were in jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury ((You reasonably believed that 1) the other person was actually capable of inflicting that level of injury; 2). that person was about to inflict that level of injury right now; 3) and the level of force you use to stop it was immediately necessary)).

Your belief must be reasonable. In other words, "Would a reasonable person, under those same circumstances, & knowing what you knew at that point in time, have reasonably believed that they were in immediate jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury, and reasonably believed that the force used was immediately necessary to prevent that level of injury?"

Just because someone could have skills as a fighter, or could cause a serious bodily injury if they struck us, doesn't translate as a reasonable belief that we must immediately use force/deadly force to prevent it. We must reasonably believe that they actually can; that they have the opportunity/intent to do so; & that it's imminent (going to happen right now, not a threat that it may occur in the future).

TPC 9.31/9.32 also includes some situations where that belief is "presumed to be reasonable". Murder, sexual assault, robbery, & aggravated kidnapping, or unlawfully with force attempting to enter/remove you from your occupied dwelling/vehicle/place of employment. However, we can also lose the 'presumption' of reasonableness if we provoked the incident, or were committing a crime at the time. To tie this back to the topic of this thread, I'd opine that under TPC 9.41 you can use force (not deadly force) to terminate a trespass, & that the mere presence of a weapon isn't necessarily considered deadly force based on TPC 9.04 (must already be justified in using force, & your threat is limited to deterring unlawful act of another by 'causing apprehension that you'll use deadly force if necessary) . However, since deadly force isn't justified for a mere trespassing, firing the rifle into the ground at the tresspassor's feet could be viewed as not only unlawful (TPC 22.05 Deadly Conduct)(using deadly force when only force was justified), but also as provoking an escalation. I'd argue either of those actions would likely remove the 'presumption' of reasonableness.

On the other hand, the trespassor had no legal justification for resisting the owner's use of force, but may have had a self defense claim when the owner unlawfully used deadly force. I'd argue that the trespassor wouldn't qualify for the presumption of reasonableness either, though, since he was commiting the crime of trespass, and could be argued that his conduct up to that point as provoking the incident (thus removing the presumption of reasonableness once it shifted from a trespass/defense of property to a self defense encounter).

[Soccerdad1995]

My audio seems to be slightly delayed when I watch the video, such that I can't identify the shot that was fired into the ground. But it appears that this happened after the father pushed into the boyfriend. I'm basing the following on that fact pattern:

Here are my thoughts. The father was clearly trespassing. If the mother ever did give him permission to enter this property that permission was clearly revoked, on video, by the property owner. At that point, the father is trespassing. He is also visibly angry and is aggressively moving toward a much smaller female who appears to be remaining comparatively calm. Father also appears to be much larger than the boyfriend.

Boyfriend then decides to arm himself. I don't think this action is unreasonable since the aggressive trespasser is between boyfriend and the mother, and is larger then either of them.

Father then advances on the boyfriend, pushing into him and threatening to "take this gun and ....." I've seen reports of the "...." including the words "kill you", but I can't quite make out exactly what he said. Either way, it is clearly a direct verbal threat of violence. Father also appears to make contact with the gun, which would obviously reinforce the threat he just made. A shot is fired into the ground, and shortly after that the boyfriend fires several shots while he is moving away from his attacker (the father).

Importantly, the father was not shot "because he was trespassing". The trespassing was the instigation for the fight between him and the boyfriend, but he was only shot after he threatened the boyfriend and then appeared to try and make good on that threat.

[AndyC1911]

I'm calling this one as manslaughter.

[Caliber]

I disagree with manslaughter, I think it's murder because the shooter willfully and knowingly caused death of another (without self defense).

A verbal threat of violence with the ability to carry out the violence is "assault".

[G.A. Heath]

Latest update, the deceased's wife filed a civil suit against the shooter and his business. The judge that the civil case was assigned to has recused themselves, making them the third person to do so in this matter.
https://www.kcbd.com/2021/11/30/judge-r ... YIRSts0j7Y

[threoh8]

Just posting an update. The Grand Jury no-billed him.

No charges for Kyle Carruth in Chad Read Shooting

[Paladin]

Just posting an update. The Grand Jury no-billed him.

No charges for Kyle Carruth in Chad Read Shooting

Thanks for the update!

[AndyC1911]

Just posting an update. The Grand Jury no-billed him.

No charges for Kyle Carruth in Chad Read Shooting

He should buy a lottery ticket.

[03Lightningrocks]

Just posting an update. The Grand Jury no-billed him.

No charges for Kyle Carruth in Chad Read Shooting

He should buy a lottery ticket.

He may also want to buy a rabbits foot. No-Billed does not mean innocent. They could decide to bring it back to grand jury at a later date. I am not saying they will, but it is not the same as being called innocent in a trial. I lived under the fog of a No-Bill for several years. Mine was no billed as self defense but my attorney told me to try and not get involved in a similar use of deadly force for awhile that they could always bring it back to the grand jury. Maybe he was wrong? I never questioned it.