Rolled Out On: 9/4/2007 9:56 AM

The end of the article you link seems to indicate that the shooter was protected by law: "The law already allows a person to use deadly force to prevent someone from committing a break-in at night."

Are you disagreeing with the article?

My understanding of Texas law is that you can shoot to prevent yourself from being placed in mortal danger - ie you don't have to wait for the assailant to break down your door because pounding on it is enough. You don't have to wait for your assailant to shoot first.

Rolled Out On: 9/4/2007 10:07 AM

In Florida, the law (which I'm not sure if it has been well-tested in court) creates a presumption of peril (and thus, justification to use deadly force) when someone has broken into your house, or is attempting to break into your house. I know the wording in other laws is similar to this, although the "presumption" bit is different or non-existent in other states.

I agree with Robb that the shooter made a poor decision, but I'm not sure the shooting was in violation of the letter of the "castle doctrine" law. Even if this guy isn't charged with manslaughter, it was definitely a negligent discharge.

The thing is, these kinds of things happen all the time. The NRA's "armed citizen" page is always loaded with people shooting through doors. I'm not sure that is ever justified unless there is a credible threat of bullets coming through the door in the other direction. Even then, cover should be your number one priority, and good aim your second.

Rolled Out On: 9/4/2007 10:08 AM

Let me chew on that a bit. I don't know if killing someone by accident is protected here. He didn't shoot to kill, he shot randomly and it ended up killing. To me, it's like driving erratically and accidentally running over someone who happened to be pointing a gun at you. Technically you're in the clear, but in reality you committed manslaughter.

I gotta meeting, but thanks for pointing that out. It definitely requires clarification.

Rolled Out On: 9/4/2007 10:36 AM

The Armed Citizen reports of shooting thru doors which come to mind include shooting thru bedroom doors. In those cases, the break-in had already occurred.

Rolled Out On: 9/4/2007 11:33 AM

I wasn't criticizing the "armed citizen" page... or the people who defended themselves. I've seen articles which include both shooting through interior and exterior doors. I'm not saying there can't be a justified "shooting through an exterior door" either. All I'm saying is that I agree with Robb that you have to know your "target and what's behind it". Any violation of any of the 4 rules, whether in self defense or not, whether intentional or not, constitute negligence.

In addition, regardless of the actual law, you should never fire a gun at or near someone you do not intend to kill. In Florida, a "warning shot", regardless of the situation, can be prosecuted (although it isn't usually) as aggravated assault. The law isn't 100% clear, but it is generally accepted that you never shoot at someone without the intention of killing them, and you never kill someone without them being reasonably sure they are an immediate physical threat to you or someone else. The person in this article was not in immediate danger, and he did not intend to kill the intruder.

Rolled Out On: 9/4/2007 5:07 PM

Alternatively, it could be a case of which lie to tell when the cops show up. People, by their nature, tend to lie and dissemble even when they don't mean to. Add in the stress of the situation, shooting a gun, killing someone, and police, and a person might lie.

I'm just speculating, but the shooter may have had a good idea of what he was doing. I imagine Albrecht was actively pounding on the door, and the homeowner was scared enough to shoot. By hearing and seeing the door move, he would have had a reasonable idea of where to aim. After the fact, it might have seemed better to say "I was firing a warning shot" instead of "I was shooting to wound" or "I was shooting to kill." That might be partially true, mixed emotions and mixed logic.

I'm not saying that is what happened, or if it is right or wrong. Other news accounts (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/09/04/0904albrecht.html) certainly don't sound as if the situation were that serious. I can't tell whether this happened at an apartment/condex complex (where the space right outside your door is public space) or the degree to which he might have been tresspassing.

Two pictures of Mr. Albrecht at http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/090407glalbrecht.9abfe1fe.html

Rolled Out On: 9/4/2007 9:31 PM

Texas law:

The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation...

I personally can not see myself shooting through a closed door. Our plan (V and I) in a situation such as this is I cover two doors while she is covering the third and on the phone with 911.

I can see why the shooter did what he did, I may not agree with it, but can understand it. The man who was shot was the initial aggressor, was banging (kicking?) on a homeowners door when the local news has had several articles about home invasions of late.

If the shooter had a well thought out plan ahead of time, maybe this would have ended differently, maybe not. By the time the police arrived, the aggressor may have kicked the door in.

Rolled Out On: 9/5/2007 1:59 PM

Update to the story.

The husband told police that "he yelled several warnings -- 'I'll shoot! I'll shoot!'" Dallas police Sgt. Larry Lewis said Tuesday. "From what we gather, he fired near the top of the door, hoping he would scare the person away."

[...]

The homeowner, whose identity has not been released, was not arrested and police are not pursuing a case against him, Lewis said. The shooting appears to fall under the state's "castle doctrine," a law permitting people to use deadly force in self-defense, he said.

Still doesn't take away from Robb's point about warning shots, though. Seems to me that if somebody is banging on my door and I yell out a warning that I'll shoot, I'm going to aim for wherever I think the person's torso is if I make the decision to shoot.