Same Song, Second Verse

At this point, it seems like it’s entirely legal and reasonable (if you’re white, of course) to introduce a gun into a tense situation, pick a fight with someone you don’t like, and shoot them if they protest or try to defend themselves. https://t.co/aroQuIL2AG

— Joel D. Anderson (@byjoelanderson) November 26, 2021

Pretty much...

A video recorded by Read's widow, who is now seeking custody of her stepchildren so they do not have to live with their father's killer, opens Carruth ordering the 54-year-old Read off his property as Read argues with his ex-wife about not having one of his sons available at the court-ordered time.

Christina Read, the ex-wife, says the boy is not there but she would go to get him, but her ex-husband is unsatisfied by her explanation and threatens to get subpoenas for multiple individuals, including Carruth's estranged wife, and Carruth comes back outside his home armed with a rifle.

"I'm glad this is on video, I'm very glad," Carruth says.

The two men bump chests as Carruth holds the rifle, which is pointed toward the ground, and Read dares him to use the weapon.

"Do it," Read says. "You better f*cking use it, motherf*cker."

Carruth fires a shot at the ground near Read's feet, and then Read grabs the barrel of the rifle and pushes away Carruth, who is thrown a few steps away and then spins around and fires the gun twice at Read."

"Think I'm f*cking scared?" Read says, just before he's shot and falls to the ground.

Another video was recorded from inside Carruth's home and shows the fatal altercation from another angle, which his attorney argues proves his claim of self defense.

This is pretty much how custody fights go in family law cases; except without the shooting.  The idea that Carruth needed a gun to deal with Read is ludicrous, because Read wasn't armed, and Carruth pointed the gun at him.  Carruth wanted Read to leave, and all Read threatened was to get subpoenas in support of enforcing the court order for his custody of the children.  Read didn't threaten violence in any way; that was Carruth's doing. 

Well, except for the chest bumping.  I guess that's "provocation."

Now, can Carruth cry on command and convince the jury he was just trying to help?  That's the real lesson of the Rittenhouse case, although that's not the one everyone learned.  And yes, Carruth hasn't been charged yet, which indicates prosecutors aren't so sure a "self-defense" claim wouldn't work.  Because it probably would, regardless of Rittenhouse.  There's precedent in Texas case (not strictly precedent, since it's all at the trial level) for men with guns claiming "self-defense" and shooting people running away with other people's property.  That was long before Rittenhouse.  Texans like their guns, and their rights to shoot people with 'em.

The chest bumping is the "tell" that this is self-defense.  Obviously.  Well, and the "double-dog dare ya" language.  No man can shoulder his weapon unfired after that provocation.