As Santara said its a totality of circumstances.
Look at the example of the guy who shot the person who attacked him over a handicapped parking spot. In the specific few seconds of the incident, he was blindsided attacked by someone who sent him flying, and only shot while he was tumbling and disoriented as the guy who assaulted him moved towards him again. It looked like on camera like a clear-cut case of self-defense. Initial reporting focused inordinate attention on the irrelevant detail of whether the decedent turned away briefly in the fraction of a second after the guy he attacked pulled out a gun, which means nothing to someone who was just sent flying and discombobulated. But then it turns out the shooter had been routinely threatening people with a gun over driving and parking incidents and actively looking to provoke people into attacking him so he could shoot them "in self-defense", including at the same location. Which of course, negated his claim to self-defense. And those incidents were admitted into trial under the exception to the prior bad acts rule, as they demonstrated a pattern of conduct, and he was convicted.

You can't just take the singular moment that a person shoots someone else and say "he was grabbing my gun" to excuse it. The shooter here retreated and returned with escalatory lethal force, then fired a shot at their feet/ground. He had no duty to retreat under the law, but whether he had the option to retreat still influences whether his use of force was reasonable, and the fact he could and did retreat and then returned with a gun basically negates any claim to self-defense on its own.

Going back to grab the gun is a mistake; Chad Read is busy threatening to take them to court, no one appears to be in physical danger. But if Carruth has a right to brandish a firearm in that specific situation, then it may be difficult to convict him. He doesn't shoot (the warning shot) until Chad threatens to take his gun and kill him, and he doesn't shoot Chad until Chad tries to forcibly take the gun from him.

It'll be interesting to see what the larger history was. Kyle Carruth's lawyer is asserting that Chad Read was threatening his client the day before. If Kyle was aware that Chad Read meant him physical ill-will, then it may justify why he felt the need to obtain a firearm.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Nov 26 2021 07:27pm

Not self defense, but unlikely to result in a finding of fault/guilt, imo.

LOL the irony of your statement is pretty high..
if you go back for the 50th time I have claimed Rittenhouse was always self defense..
LMAO!
The question is about engagement with a gun.. when it becomes past defense, or when it is negligent or escalating.. *before the trolls reply** look like I found one.. If you go back a few posts.
You should hang out with Ti bitch about stolen elections..
thanks,

I agree. The personal relationship between the two will tell the full story of intent.

Texas keeping it strong and manly.

Exactly.

Isn’t it a constitutional right to also defend your own property?
I’m lost in the “gun isn’t a tension provocation”
But now it is.

He could of called the cops when he went into the house. Instead he returned with a gun.

I got in a fight awhile back defending a women from a guy that was attacking her in the kitchen. I got her away from him and he decided to follow after her into the living room. (So I followed) I got in between them again and he tried to swing on me. So I defended myself and he ended up on the ground. When the cops arrived I got a ticket because the incident “moved” from the kitchen to the living room.

This post was edited by Landmine on Nov 26 2021 11:07pm

yes I understand.. I feel like that changes on your own property.
Where would he "move" to?
Is he supposed to leave?
Most likely call the cops..
However he didnt' point the gun until the guy got in his face etc.