I received a lot of detailed info on house bills pending in the Texas lesgislature this session - mostly because I deal with sex offenders, and need to stay up to date. But, here is one that a lot of people are hoping to pass...

Thought Texas people would find this interesting.

Not sure what to make of it after reading the summary of it at the bottom.


Bill No.: H. B. 103
Subject: Eliminating the need to retreat before justifiably using deadly force and specifying the circumstances under which force or deadly force against another is presumed to be immediately necessary. This bill would amend Section 9.31 of the Penal Code to provide that the use of force is presumed to have been immediately necessary if the person knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully the person’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully, the person from his or her habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
In addition, this bill would add a provision to this portion of the Penal Code to provide that a person who had a right to be present at the location where the force was used, who had not provoked the person against whom the force was used, and who was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force was used was not required to retreat before using force.

This bill would further amend Section 9.32 of the Penal Code by deleting the provision stating that a person was justified in using deadly force against another “if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated.” (emphasis added). Moreover, the bill would add similar language to this section as would be added to Section 9.31 in order to create a presumption that deadly force was immediately necessary if the person knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(4) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully the person’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(5) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully, the person from his or her habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(6) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
Finally, this bill would provide that a person who had the right to be present at the location where the deadly force was used, who had not provoked the person against whom the deadly force was used, and who was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force was used was not required to retreat before using deadly force.
Sponsor: Rep. Debbie Riddle
Committee:
Note: This bill would also provide that in determining whether a person reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact could not consider whether the person failed to retreat.
Note further: In its application to the use of force, as opposed to deadly force, this bill is somewhat confusing. Under the current statute justifying the use of force, it is not necessary for the actor to show that a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated. Even though this bill reaffirms that the need to retreat is not a consideration in justifying the use of force, the bill dispenses with that need only under certain limited circumstances. Thus the language in the bill leaves open the question regarding whether, if those limited circumstances are not established, the person should have extricated him/herself from the hostile situation could still be a factor in determining the justification of the use of force. Nevertheless this bill further states that in ascertaining whether a person reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, the failure to retreat, regardless under what the circumstances that failure might have arisen, is not an issue for consideration. Thus through a circuitous route, this bill appears brings the law back to what it current is.
See H. B. 284, which is the same as this bill.