Originally Posted by chlinstructor
Evidently Reading Comprehension is not your strong suit.
Let me make it crystal clear for ya. I highlighted the pertinent Statue in Bold Letters for ya. To make it easy for ya.

Texas Penal Code: Justification For Use Of Deadly Force:
Subchapter C. Protection of Persons:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force 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 force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, 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 force 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 force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

Why did you ignore the law that applies to the facts of the case, and bold the law that only supports the lies the closet commies are spreading all over the internet?

I pointed out the correct laws from the above statute 10 PAGES BACK:

Quote
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force 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 force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...00/re-texas-shoot-out-video#Post16673000

61 years old, and you purposely lie, and ignore the facts of the case.

That is what closet commies do, they protect THEIR FELLOW COMMIEs like Chad Reid, who was a FELON with multiple crimes including assaults, and his ex wife was also a FELON.

Democrats like you always protect the felons, and they always twist the law to fit their needs, just like you are doing here.

Reid unlawfully ENTERED Carruths domicile and place of business WITH FORCE and removed Carruth from his domicile and place of business WITH FORCE.

That IS the law that applies, not your lying provocation / argument BS.

Brandishing a weapon is not provocation. Go learn the actual law in Texas.









Last edited by ElkSlayer91; 12/02/21.
"He is far from Stupid"

”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”


– DocRocket (In reference to ElkSlayer91)