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".
The article uses as an example someone *with a rifle* walking toward another person, not simply walking toward a person with a rifle.
Moron.
Only an aggressor would walk towards someone holding a gun, which makes READ the guilty party meeting the element of provocation.
Only a Moron wouldn't see that reality.
Thanks for walking into the word trap.
"He is far from Stupid"
”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”
