Indiana is not first on this one.

[TDDude]

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewN ... ers_120611.

Texas has had this on the books for a long time.
PC9.31 (c) covers this but good luck winning.

My first CHL instructor thought it was in there because of all the corrupt sherriffs Texas has had in our history.

Makes sense. Fighting an oppressive government is why the 2nd is there in the first place.

But, my point is that Indiana wasn't first.

[McKnife]

Texas has had this on the books for a long time.

I thought the same thing when I saw that , but I read over the penal code, and I am not confident that I understand it completely.

Hopefully someone Is anyone willing to go line by line of PC9.31 and explain it in redneck terms.

[Billy5881]

In Texas the use of Deadly force is NOT justified under 9.31

(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.

[texasmusic]

(d) refers to all of 9.31 not just the arrest/search portion.

Lethal force is contained in 9.32 with a list of requirements in addition to 9.31.

Ain't no lawyer though.

[TDDude]

Texas has had this on the books for a long time.

I thought the same thing when I saw that , but I read over the penal code, and I am not confident that I understand it completely.
Hopefully someone Is anyone willing to go line by line of PC9.31 and explain it in redneck terms.

I'll give it a go. It's a pretty simple and straightforward section:

(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

We've all seen the stories of troopers dragging grandmothers out of the car and throwing them on the ground. No matter what granny mouths off to the officer, verbal provocation does not constitute the use of force or deadly force. Our mouth might get us tossed into the clink, but simply cussing at an officer does not give that person the right to use force or deadly force against us.
We've also heard about SWAT teams crashing in on a No-Knock Warrant but it's the wrong house. If the homeowner fights back without knowing it’s the police, he should be protected legally.

(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.

after we feel our nose breaking and see stars flashing from the baton whacks, we are allowed to protect ourselves. The force used to protect ourselves has to be IMMEDIATELY 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.

Paragraph (d) points to the definitions of Defense of Person, Defense of Third Person, and Protection of Life or Health. It defines the terms where we reasonably believe that we are in “imminent danger” that requires immediate action.

(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.

Goes back to the "Stand Your Ground" statues. Besides, in this case, running from the police is in itself a crime.

It is a fact of life that LEOs have bad apples. My dad was career law enforcement. He was with DPS intelligence in the 60’s and then ran the enforcement arm of the TABC in the 70’s. The one thing he said to me over and over when I was out and about traveling the state, “The most dangerous thing in the world is an east Texas deputy sheriff.” I’ve since learned what he was talking about which is a topic for a hole ‘nuther thread.

Hope this helps. If anyone disagrees, please pipe in. I don’t mind being corrected; especially since this is what I’m teaching in my classes.

[C-dub]

I agree with you, TDDude, and even though it is legal to resist it's not going to be easy or without pain. Might be more pain than it's worth.

[Razgriz]

A real old-timer ex-LEO friend used to refer to a "wrongful arrest" law in Texas. I have asked about it here, and apparently it was rescinded long ago.

Of course, this friend remembers when they used to drive their cattle up Westheimer to the market.

Can I get a source on that?

[speedsix]

...posted today by NRA...

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state ... -sb-1.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[speedsix]

...here's the actual text of the law as signed by the Governor...without any bias included...

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/201 ... 001.1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;