Re: The Saga Of Joe Horn: Texas Man Cleared In Shotgun Shootings

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:32:33 +0100, the totally inept 
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Please show us the full statute.


Always willing to help the computer-handicapped, I found this in
Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code:


SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

	§ 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, ***ual assault, aggravated ***ual 
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;
		(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 force used or
attempted by the other;
		(4)  if the actor provoked the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force, 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 force 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 trans****ting a weapon in 
violation of Section 46.05.    
	(c)  The use of force 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 force than necessary to make the arrest or search;  
and
		(2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably 
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself 
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use 
of greater force than necessary.
	(d)  The use of deadly force 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 force is used, who has not provoked the person against 
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity 
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before 
using force 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 force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider 
whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 
1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:
	Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, § 2, eff. September 1, 
2007.


	§ 9.32.  DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a)  A person 
is justified in using deadly force against another:
		(1)  if the actor would be justified in using force 
against the other under Section 9.31; and
		(2)   when and to the degree the actor reasonably 
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
			(A)  to protect the actor against the other's
use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
			(B)  to prevent the other's imminent
commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, ***ual assault,
aggravated ***ual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
	(b)  The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the 
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that 
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
		(1)  knew or had reason to believe that the person 
against whom the deadly 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 an
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
		(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.
	(c)  A person who has a right to be present at the location 
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person 
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in 
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not 
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this 
section.
	(d)  For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining 
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed 
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not 
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff. 
Sept. 1, 1983;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 
1, 1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:
	Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, § 3, eff. September 1, 
2007.

When this was still only a Bill, it was full of ***ist language, using
only the pronoun "he". That has been replaced by a non-***ist "the
actor" in the final version of the amendment to the Act. Even in this
matter, then, the Texas legislators showed that they could be
politically correct (which must horrify a conservative misogynist like
you).


For more, see:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm

Hint: you move the "mouse" to place the "cursor" over the "link"
(that's the underlined bit above) and click on the left button. That
will take you to what is called a "website" with the full text of the
Texas Constitution.


HTH
JH