Thank you Jumping Frog for bringing that one up. I've mentioned it a number of times in the past, and completely forgot to in my previous explanation.Jumping Frog wrote:In the Texas self defense statutes, it is important to understand the distinction offered by "presumed reasonable".
First, both Sec. 9.31 and Sec. 9.32 use the phrase "when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary" or "when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary"
So for ambiguous circumstances, it becomes the duty of the defense to explain, demonstrate, and prove why the actor "reasonably believed" force or deadly force was "immediately necessary". If you get into an argument on a street corner that ends up leading to force or deadly force, you better be able to explain why.
However, there are also cases where the actor's actions are "presumed reasonable", meaning there is no longer the duty to prove why the actor "reasonably believed" force or deadly force was "immediately necessary". This is a HUGE point and the practical importance is crucial for every CHL to understand. These should be memorized.
The "Reasonableness Argument" is one of the things I love about Texas. Unlike California (regardless of what California law actually says, they treat people who defend themselves as suspicious, and they treat people who defend themselves with a gun as guilty), Texas supports the right of self-defense as a fundamental human right, and thinks that it is entirely reasonable to do so. Of course, the implied corollary is that it views assault as unreasonable. . . . . except in defense of someone else. . . . and further, that it would be unreasonable not to defend one's self.