to an assault claim. Specifically, § 9.51(a) provides: (a) A peace officer ... is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search ... if: (1) the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search is lawful or, if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he reasonably believes the warrant is valid; and (2) before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace officer ..., unless he reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested. Id. § 9.51(a); see also Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Petta, 44 S.W.3d 575, 579-80 (Tex.2001) (<HOLDING>). 2. Was the PEA Agents’ Conduct Privileged?
holding that the defense may present the entire conversation where it goes to the heart of the  defense holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second holding that the elements of a criminal necessity defense under  951 are the same as the civil privilege defense holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct