Law Wife of Chad Read releases video of deadly shooting - I never thought a Ruger PC Carbine could be used unironically for self defense

Article (Archive)

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.

The video was released by attorney Matthew L. Harris, who is representing Read’s widow, Jennifer. It was released in conjunction with a petition that seeks to take custody of Chad’s children from his ex-wife Christina Read.

According to the release, the video depicts William “Kyle” Carruth shooting and killing Read during a confrontation.

As of Wednesday, Carruth had not been arrested or charged with a crime. While his name was associated with the shooting in family court documents, police have not officially released his name because he has not been charged.

Read the press release from her attorneys below:

Jennifer Read, the widow of Chad Read, has filed a Petition today seeking to take custody of Chad Read’s children from their mother, Christina Read. Because the new Lubbock Public Access System makes this information available to the public, and the likelihood of the information contained in her Petition and Affidavit being obtained by the media, she has decided that it is best to simply release the information directly instead of waiting for it to be discovered.

The decision to take this step has not been easy, and she respectfully declines any requests for interviews at this time. There has been a lot of speculation in the media, and on social media, regarding the events of November 5, 2021. Rather than restating what is already stated in her Petition, and Affidavit attached thereto, Jennifer Read is releasing the video of Kyle Carruth’s shooting of her husband and allowing the video and Affidavit to speak for themselves.

Article (Archive)

LUBBOCK, Texas — The attorney for William “Kyle” Carruth made a statement Wednesday in response to the release of video of a November 5 deadly shooting.

Carruth was named in family court records as the man who shot and killed Chad Read, 54, in the 2100 block of 90th Street. Police have not filed charges nor have police said publicly if investigators believe the shooting was self-defense.

The video was released by the attorney for Read’s widow, Matthew L. Harris. It depicts the confrontation between Read and Carruth in the moments before the shooting. In the video, Carruth told Read to leave. Carruth steps out momentarily to get a gun while Read had heated words with a woman identified in family court records as Read’s ex-wife.

Read and the woman were arguing over issues related to child custody.

Making the case for self-defense
Carruth returned with a gun and repeated his demand that Read leave. At that point, the video depicts Read saying Carruth can go ahead and “use it, m***** f***** because G** d***** I’ll take it from you!”

Carruth’s attorney, David M. Guinn with Hurley, Guinn & Singh, said the shooting was self-defense.

“All Texans may lawfully brandish a firearm to protect themselves, their property and their business.” Guinn said.

“When Kyle did that, Chad Read advanced on him,” Guinn said.

Guinn also emphasized Read’s threat to take the gun from Carruth.

“And instantaneously, he tried to take the gun away from Kyle,” Guinn said. “In doing so he was power enough to sling Kyle 180 degrees around on Kyle’s patio.”

“Raising his left leg, he was continuing his advance on Kyle, threatening him and posing an immediate threat. Kyle responded,” Guinn said. “This is a justifiable homicide.”

Guinn says LPD handled it correctly
Lubbock County Criminal District Attorney Sunshine Stanek recused her office from prosecuting the case. The case was handed off to the Texas Attorney General.

News organizations in Lubbock including EverythingLubbock.com questioned the transparency of Lubbock Police after the shooting, not for holding back Carruth’s name, but for holding back details of what led to the shooting in a police report. Holding back a name of a suspect or potential suspect is standard procedure prior to the filing of charges.

Carruth was in the process of divorcing State District Judge Ann-Marie Carruth. Those records were sealed after one news outlet, lubbockonline.com, was able to access an affidavit from Judge Carruth.

But Guinn praised the Lubbock Police Department’s handling of the case.

“It is my opinion, because of their knowledge of all the facts and the Texas Castle Doctrine and having done a thorough job, LPD knew this was a justifiable homicide,” Guinn said.

“They knew they lacked probable cause, and did not arrest him,” Guinn said. Probable cause is a standard of evidence required for the filing of charges.

“I’m sure this and other information will be provided to a Lubbock County grand jury for further review,” Guinn said. “Kyle cooperated with law enforcement. Our hopes are that a Lubbock grand jury will do a thorough investigation of all the facts and will clear Mr. Carruth.”

Everyone regrets the entire situation
“Everyone regrets the entire situation,” Guinn said.

“Though Read came unarmed, he announced his intent to kill Kyle Carruth with Kyle’s own gun and took immediate powerful action to do so,” Guinn said. “[It] was unsuccessful.”

Guinn released a second video to EverythingLubbock.com in his support of his case for Carruth’s self-defense.

“Careful study of the video showed Kyle’s gun was brandished but never pointed at Read,” Guinn said. “It was only after Mr. read said ‘I’ll take your gun,’ and slinging him across the patio like a scarecrow — then stepped toward him — that Mr. Carruth pointed the gun at Mr. Read.”

WARNING: The video below may be disturbing to some. Viewer discretion is advised. EverythingLubbock.com beeped out some bad language and blurred the moment of the last two gunshots.

Guinn says Read was looking for confrontation
Guinn took it a step further and said Read might have been looking for a confrontation.

Guinn said, “Through my own investigation I have become aware that Mr. Read seemed obsessed with Mr. Carruth and even the night before approached two prominent Lubbock citizens at dinner — discussing his desire to see harm come to Mr. Carruth – specifically that someone needed to kick his a**.”

“Every cop knows that someone who is screaming they’re gonna take your gun and kill you with it, with their hands on that cop’s gun, and advancing, that’s a situation that justifies using deadly force,” Guinn said. “The same protection holds for citizens as well.”
 
If Ann-Marie the Judge is the wife of the shooter, and that’s the Ann-Marie they’re mentioning in the vid like...it sounds like they think she’s in the house. Or somehow part of this discussion. Yet, supposedly she didn’t know about the affair at this point and filed for divorce because of this?

Very confused by this.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: lolwut
I found this on reddit this morning and found it very sad. I know every one debates laws and the rights, but lawful or not from my perspective watching the video the shooter wanted to kill that man. Maybe long before he pulled the trigger but he really wanted that guy dead.

Also some small thoughts I'd like to contribute.

1. The video starts mid screaming, no one knows what nonsense happened before hand that got us to the point of screaming.

2. There are two edits of the video, one has a small trail off at the end where the women in the car puts her phone down it goes to black and all we get is some quick audio of her discovering the man is dead and not incapacitated. There are interviews and statements from her that she did not relise it was a leathal gun and thought he was knocked out by some non lethal round or stun gun. Which with that last part of audio and the way the man just drops with no blood from her angle this seems plausable. My first watch of him going down found it shocking and unbelievable.

3. He was killed Nov 5, no chargers have yet been placed, the police didn't even arrest any one when they showed up (they where already on the way).

And lastly I find it sad that most commentary about the shooters right to kill a person based on law and subsequent debate and not the morality of killing a person who just wants to see their child (from the limited information we have.).
 
Doesn't the Protection of Property law (castle doctrine) apply here since the guy was trespassing?
Castle doctrine isn't as extreme people think it is. You can't just say "you're trespassing" and ventilate someone, even in Texas.

The castle doctrine in Texas presumes that using force is reasonable and justified when another person:

  1. unlawfully and with force enters or attempts to enter your habitation, vehicle, or work-place; or
  2. attempts to remove you, by force, from your habitation, vehicle, or work-place;
  3. was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
Basically force/violence has to be involved. Notice trespassing and property aren't listed here, specifically habitation. You can't shoot someone for standing in your front yard, they'd have to be trying to break into your house. Hypothetically even if you stumbled upon a stranger just sitting in your living room you would not be permitted to gun them down, at best it'd be a gray area.

This case is probably going to boil down to who has the better legal team, because both dudes were dipshits and provided plenty of reason to argue for either side.
Dead dude
  1. Refused to leave (not grounds for self defense but can help bolster that argument).
  2. Was acting aggressively, albeit not violently (again just ammunition for self defense).
  3. Advanced on someone lawfully brandishing their weapon and made a grab for the weapon.
  4. Assaulted that person.
Shooter
  1. Fired a warning shot, which opens a big hole in any self defense claim (why did you fire a warning shot if you felt your life was in danger).
  2. Knew who the guy was and that he had a good (and arguably lawful, I don't know much about custody law) reason to be there.
  3. Waited a second to shoot after getting shoved. Dead guy was clearly not advancing and shooter arguably had enough time to realize that.
Tack on the fact that there is no footage of the build up and this whole thing is just a clusterfuck to navigate from a legal standpoint.
I'm fucking retarded, I watched the clip from within the house and assumed that was it. Just watched the build up clip and I'd say things are better for the shooter. Dead dude was behaving non aggressively and had every right to be there, but he fucked up because the shooter brandishing the gun and telling him to leave was lawful. Dead dude was the first to act unlawfully by advancing and making threats, which he then acted on. Shooter isn't 100% in the clear, but I doubt they could nail him with anything too serious.

Shooter is still a faggot who escalated things unnecessarily and probably was itching for an excuse to shoot the guy, but whether a prosecutor would bother and a jury could be convinced he was guilty of anything is another story.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't the Protection of Property law (castle doctrine) apply here since the guy was trespassing?
Is it trespassing when you show up to pick up your kid at the agreed time and place established in family court? I think it's only if they don't have a legal right to be there. People would shoot the meter reader for "trespassin'" if that was the case.

The damning bit is they did the whole "I don't like your tone, mister." schtick and only started with the "trespassing" deal when he started talking about cops and court and stuff. When he talks about "you always do this shit" and "I have a right to my son". I believe him. I'd bet in that truck with his current wife was a stack of paperwork to show the sheriffs to prove exactly that. I'm guessing this is a pattern where she thinks she can chose exactly how this transaction goes down and could just not do it because it is inconvenient to her. She can't.

I mighta seen this movie before.
They are going to get him because of the quarter second he takes to aim at the guys head before he domes him. At that point both players were separated and in fact the dead guy was slightly backing off. He wasn't advancing when he was shot, but the shooter still stopped, took perfect aim, and shot him. You can't murder someone as punishment for having tried and failed to grab your gun a second ago. They have to be in the active process of trying to take it away. Now if the shooter was sympathetic, I still think a jury would acquit, but this guy literally created the whole situation of thin air, so that quarter second fuck up is enough for a jury that is already going to dislike him and his gf to latch onto to send him to prison.
Yeah, it's not good. At the time the shots were fired the guy was just standing there.

Video changes things. Juries can see that important split-second timing. The old days of loudly calling out "it's headed straight for us" then unloading are over.
 
What gets me is the wife reacts to it all like she caught a mcdonalds employee saying something rude about her or something. "lol you just killed my husband? guess what I got you on candid camera you dummy. I got you on video KYLE!"
From what I've read she initially thought it was a stun gun or a paintball gun because it was so quite.
If you listen to the very end of the video then you can hear her say: "Oh my God. You really did it!" as only then she realizes what really happened.
edit: found source:


fyi - it was a Ruger 9mm carbine as in pic related but with a high capacity mag.
1637922022289.png
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t the warning shot invalidate any self defense claims?
Pretty sure in Texas you can shoot someone just for being on your property.
No. You have to have a valid reason such as defending yourself from death or great bodily harm. You can’t just invite someone you don’t like over to your house and say WHOOPS SORRY YOURE TRESPASSING and shoot them in the head.
 
Doesn’t the warning shot invalidate any self defense claims?

No. You have to have a valid reason such as defending yourself from death or great bodily harm. You can’t just invite someone you don’t like over to your house and say WHOOPS SORRY YOURE TRESPASSING and shoot them in the head.
9nb7gpqimpy61.jpg

"Come to my house so I can kill you"
 
I really don't get it with dudes grabbing other dudes guns.
If someone is within arm's reach with a long gun while you are unarmed, it's one of the better plays. You better grip it like a rodeo-rider though. You have a lot of leverage from the muzzle to swing it away from aiming at you. You're locked into a fight to the death at that point though, so removing yourself from the situation is preferable. When that isn't an option you need to prioritize limiting his ability to harm you first while finding a way to deal the most harm possible to the guy with the gun. Taking his advantage away by wrestling over it, or even getting it for yourself, puts the odds in your favor again. Failing to commit and separating is setting yourself up to be perforated though.
 
If someone is within arm's reach with a long gun while you are unarmed, it's one of the better plays. You better grip it like a rodeo-rider though. You have a lot of leverage from the muzzle to swing it away from aiming at you. You're locked into a fight to the death at that point though, so removing yourself from the situation is preferable. When that isn't an option you need to prioritize limiting his ability to harm you first while finding a way to deal the most harm possible to the guy with the gun. Taking his advantage away by wrestling over it, or even getting it for yourself, puts the odds in your favor again. Failing to commit and separating is setting yourself up to be perforated though.
Lucky Luciano, famous gangster from early last century said this.

"Always run from a knife, and rush a gun".
 
I understand it's clear case of self-defense and on private property
It's important that everyone understand that Castle Doctrine only applies inside your house (and in your car or workplace, in some states). Many a rancher has found this out the hard way. Trespassing is not a felony; the fact that it's "private property" is irrelevant. Your yard is not your house. Your barn is not your house. Stand-your-ground laws only derogate the duty to retreat, they don't lower the burden of "reasonable fear of death or GBH" unless you are in your house, and that really isn't something you want a jury to go have a think about.

That being said, I'm not surprised this was ruled a good shoot. The only iffy part is the time between the separation and the time of the shoot, which arguably removed a reasonable fear of death or GBH, being 10 feet away from the guy and the guy apparently not coming at him anymore. Trying to take someone's gun should be enshrined in justifiable homicide statutes so we stop letting juries think about what the attacker's "intent" was. No one taking a cop's gun, regardless of perceived intent, would be justified in doing so, so I'm not sure why we need to think about it when it comes to civilians unless that person is obviously the aggressor.
 
And lastly I find it sad that most commentary about the shooters right to kill a person based on law and subsequent debate and not the morality of killing a person who just wants to see their child (from the limited information we have.).

A person who truly just wants to see their child would have left once the gun got pulled and he was told to leave multiple times.

Right or wrong (he was probably right and the whore ex was in the wrong) you have to be alive to see your kids.
 
A person who truly just wants to see their child would have left once the gun got pulled and he was told to leave multiple times.

Right or wrong (he was probably right and the whore ex was in the wrong) you have to be alive to see your kids.
I am very perplexed by the chads that are totally unfazed by someone pulling a gun. The Abilene mattress shooting and the snow shovelling shooting comes to mind. Some people just can't fathom being killed or injured. So that even when bullets are whizzing by their head, they don't react or retreat.
 
This article is confusing but I found a few other versions that make the version of events more clear.

Chad Read the guy killed was supposed to get his kids @ 3:15 PM but his ex-wife Christina Read didn’t have them ready which is what spawned the argument.

Christina Read is in a relationship with William Carruth the shooter.

Ann-Marie Carruth is a Judge and was the wife of William Carruth the shooter.

William Carruth the shooter and Judge Ann-Marie Carruth were still married at the time of the shooting. After the shooting and the obvious affair exposed Ann-Marie Carruth filed for divorce.

Jennifer Read who is Chad Read’s current wife is seeking full custody of the children.

Just sounds like a big ol' white trash clusterfuck to me.
 
The kicker is new boyfriend grabbing a gun to try to drive him off. Warning shot too. Only then that buddy got handsy.

That's not a very good self-defense claim at all.
Carried by 6 or judged by 12, all things being equal, if I am ever in the situation of someone firing a warning shot at me - I will highly consider my immediate option to flee.
 
Back