csmkersh
Member
The Finer Poinst of the Law
Items 2 & 3 are separate from 1. They are not joined with an AND. With 2 & 3 there's an "option" involved, one or the other can be applied. the law should be read
While Huggett may have "provoked" Peach earlier, time and distance mitigated that provocation.
There is no case law in Texas that I'm aware of where a person killed another who had illegally enter the actors home. Unfortuneately for Huggett, this occurred in Wisconsin. He may be toast.
§ 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.
Items 2 & 3 are separate from 1. They are not joined with an AND. With 2 & 3 there's an "option" involved, one or the other can be applied. the law should be read
... 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;
...The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(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.
While Huggett may have "provoked" Peach earlier, time and distance mitigated that provocation.
There is no case law in Texas that I'm aware of where a person killed another who had illegally enter the actors home. Unfortuneately for Huggett, this occurred in Wisconsin. He may be toast.