Sec. 9.31. SELF-Previous HitDEFENSENext Hit. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using Previous HitforceNext Hit against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the Previous HitforceNext Hit is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful Previous HitforceNext Hit. The actor's belief that the Previous HitforceNext Hit 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit was used:
(A) unlawfully and with Previous HitforceNext Hit entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with Previous HitforceNext Hit, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with Previous HitforceNext Hit removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with Previous HitforceNext Hit, 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit was used.
(b) The use of Previous HitforceNext Hit 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful Previous HitforceNext Hit, 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the Previous HitforceNext Hit is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater Previous HitforceNext Hit than necessary.
(d) The use of Previous HitdeadlyNext Hit Previous HitforceNext Hit 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the Previous HitforceNext Hit is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the Previous HitforceNext Hit is used is not required to retreat before using Previous HitforceNext Hit 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit 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.
QUOTE:
Sec. 9.31. SELF-Previous HitDEFENSENext Hit. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using Previous HitforceNext Hit against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the Previous HitforceNext Hit is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful Previous HitforceNext Hit. The actor's belief that the Previous HitforceNext Hit 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 Previous HitforceNext Hit was used:
(B) unlawfully and with Previous HitforceNext Hit removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with Previous HitforceNext Hit, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
END QUOTE
The LAW states Carruth didn't have to wait or give the criminal trespasser assaulting him a third chance, thereby justifying the use of deadly force.
Last edited by ElkSlayer91; 11/30/21.
"He is far from Stupid"
”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”
