Oh, you mean “crimes committed” AFTER Carruth Spent 30 seconds going inside and getting a gun to bring to a trespassing and verbal altercation??? Ummm.... “provocation”
The third element requires some evidence that you intended your act or words to create a pretext in order to kill the victim as some larger plan that later included a claim of self-defense. Again, Texas courts hold that even though you do or say something that does indeed provoke an attack, if you did not intend for your act to have such an effect as part of a larger plan of doing another harm, then you do not lose your right of self-defense. Proving intent can be very challenging; however, the jury could conclude that some provoking acts may be of such a character as to carry the inference of intent—such as walking toward someone with a rifle after you have had an argument.
Gee, who walked toward Carruth while holding a rifle? The article just "proved" by Read "walking toward someone with a rifle", he in fact met the element of "PROVOCATION".
Your "own" reference proves you wrong.
Actually he started the provocation to escalate it when he committed criminal trespassing by refusing to leave when asked to.
"He is far from Stupid"
”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”
