TexasCHLforum.com

Eric Lamberson wrote:Mr Cotton:

I appreciate the thoughtful response. My research leads me to believe the courts can establish the provocation threshold fairly low. One case indicated that insulting or cursing someone was sufficient; another found that calling someone an inappropriate name crossed the line into provocation. My experience leads me to believe this is often not well understood in the CHL community.

I'm going to research these cases when I have time and I'll write an article. However, all of the cases I've seen so far predate Heller meaning they were decided before a constitutional right to self-defense was acknowledged by the SCOTUS. Codified justifications can be limited to the extent the legislature desires so long as those limitations or restrictions do not violate constitutional protections. Heller changes everything when it comes to self-defense. Almost everyone focuses solely on the Second Amendment part of Heller not realizing the sea change in terms of self-defense law.

Chas.

Interesting; however, it would still seem that there are limits on claiming a constitutional right to self-defense. For example, when a victim offers armed resistance during the course of a robbery and the criminal kills him, Texas law denies the criminal the constitutional protections associated with a claim of self-defense.

Eric Lamberson wrote:Interesting; however, it would still seem that there are limits on claiming a constitutional right to self-defense. For example, when a victim offers armed resistance during the course of a robbery and the criminal kills him, Texas law denies the criminal the constitutional protections associated with a claim of self-defense.

That's because the criminal was in the process of committing a felony. Just because you are in a heated argument with someone, even if you were the provocateur, if the other party goes to guns you would not loose your right to defend yourself once it crossed into the realm of deadly force being unjustifiably used against you.

Eric Lamberson wrote:Interesting; however, it would still seem that there are limits on claiming a constitutional right to self-defense. For example, when a victim offers armed resistance during the course of a robbery and the criminal kills him, Texas law denies the criminal the constitutional protections associated with a claim of self-defense.

Not interesting at all, nor is it complicated. One cannot claim self-defense unless, among other things, they are preventing someone from using unlawful force. An armed robber is using unlawful force, his victim is using lawful force, so the robber cannot claim self-defense. Compare your robber example with your original post claiming that flipping someone off denies one the constitutional right of self-defense.

Chas.