TexasCHLforum.com

SlowDave wrote:

aardwolf wrote:Are you really saying that if you yell at a panhandler he can physically assault you and you're not allowed to defend yourself?

Well, I'm not saying it, but as far as I can read, PC 9.31 a.2 and 9.31 b.4. are saying it.
"9.31
(a) Except as povided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when.... [The use of force] is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
<snip>
(a.2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used and
...
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

You conveniently skipped:
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

Thus, verbal provocation does not legitimately provoke the use of force, and would not invoke (a)(2)

srothstein wrote:I do not see it as justification for the use of deadly force, but it is force and justifies a certain amount of force back, in self-defense.

That could be location dependent; without some knowledge of the area, it's hard to say what level of force a shove could be. In the immediate vicinity of some of the soccer fields around here, there are bleachers, dropoffs, and stairs. Pushing someone down even a short flight of stairs could easily be seen as having potential to cause serious bodily injury. There's also the question of what happened between the shove and the draw; if Burke stumbled and/or fell, and the husband continued to advance, then Burke could reasonably fear that he would be kicked or stomped while down, which has been held to justify deadly force in the past.