TexasCHLforum.com

The homeowner probably won't be charged, but this is a mighty bad situation all the same.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=8280616" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"he fired a gun threw the door"
got me on this one...

however this is going to be ugly and rightfully so.

denwego wrote:The homeowner probably won't be charged, but this is a mighty bad situation all the same.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=8280616" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why would he not be charged?

The home owner should be charged. I don't know with what, but he is responsible for that man's death for no justifiable reason.

C-dub wrote:The home owner should be charged. I don't know with what, but he is responsible for that man's death for no justifiable reason.

We do not know what happened.

However, shouting where there is no threat of deadly force is 2nd-degree murder (involuntarily manslaughter) Wait and see.

Beiruty wrote:

C-dub wrote:The home owner should be charged. I don't know with what, but he is responsible for that man's death for no justifiable reason.

We do not know what happened.

Right, but unlike the musician that this happened to here in Dallas, I'll bet that this guy was not beating on the door making threats. And that home owner didn't intend to actually shoot that guy. He shot high in hopes of shooting over his head to scare him away. It was just unfortunate that the musician was 6'6".

C-dub wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

C-dub wrote:The home owner should be charged. I don't know with what, but he is responsible for that man's death for no justifiable reason.

We do not know what happened.

Right, but unlike the musician that this happened to here in Dallas, I'll bet that this guy was not beating on the door making threats.

You don't know that. The story doesn't say. The fact that the police didn't arrest the homeowner but chose instead to refer the case to a grand jury is telling. It is much like the case of the musician. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9816&start=45" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The grand jury will have to decide if the shooting was justified.

It is unfair to judge a case based on facts known subsequent to the shooting, especially facts that the homeowner could not have known. One might sympathize with the victims because they were trying to get help, but when a homeowner is awakened to the sound of knocking on his door, he's going to be alert and suspicious. The case will hinge on what happened at the door, and the testimony of the stabbing victim and the homeowner will be crucial to the grand jury's decision.

It's ABC news so knocking on the door could mean anything from a gentle knock to a vigorous pounding that shook the door frame. But if it woke up the homeowner, I bet it wasn't a gentle knock.

For all we know, the homeowner told them to go away and they kept pounding on the door. Fearing they were trying to break in, he fired through the door to prevent a home invasion in the middle of the night. That's one possible story, but I have never gone to a wedding where stabbings were part of the celebration, so maybe I'm missing some cultural context where it all makes sense.

I mentioned above that I didn't think the homeowner'd be charged because of the way the castle doctrine is phrased:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

If someone starts beating on my door in the middle of the night, screaming about blood, injuries, and stabbing, I'm going to go into code red immediately. And I hate to say it, but criminals say things like "my friend is hurt, open the door so I can call 911" to get good people to unlock their doors, just like they wear shirts which say "POLICE" and say they have guns and warrants and you "need to open the door". If someone demands that I open the door to help, I refuse, and he keeps beating on the door trying to get in, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to point a gun at him to make him stop.

Now, we don't know the whole story, and presumptions can be rebutted in court. If there were a negligence clause in the law, this shooter would be a deep poop with the grand jury over him shooting through the door first and asking questions later... but negligence and recklessness aren't part of the castle doctrine, so I doubt he'll be charged. He'll probably feel like crap for the rest of his life, though. That's its own punishment.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/31/re ... ea-mix-up/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How about here, what if this guy had fired through the door? Or had a gun in his hand when he opened it?

Know your target. Kick burglars don't knock.

My vote the grand jury says manslaughter.

philip964 wrote:My vote the grand jury says manslaughter.

We'll know in a few weeks or maybe months.

If you're curious about the neighborhood, you can go to Google street view and look around.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=epsom+at+ ... yAWq9KSnAw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Someone's knocking at the door, somebody's ringing the bell,
someone's knocking at the door, somebody's ringing the bell,
do me a favor, open the door and let 'em in.

Apparently Paul McCartney never lived in North Houston. Sad situation, no doubt, but it was most likely something like: "OPEN THE DOOR MF!!!" as he was beating on the door. I will bet that intoxicating substances were involved too.

The reason that it was referred to the GJ was that a ADA was consulted and they thought there was not enough for an arrest at this point in time.

Okay. Am I missing something? I thought the man that was shot had been stabbed by someone with a knife and went looking for help.

He should not have fired through the door. He should have called 911, yelled at them that he had called the police and taken cover behind a couch, another doorway, or whatever and waited. If they tried to force the door, as soon as it started to come open, unload on them.

No excuse for firing through a door that is closed and locked. He killed a man that was not an immediate threat to him.

Bad situation.

VoiceofReason wrote:He should not have fired through the door. He should have called 911, yelled at them that he had called the police and taken cover behind a couch, another doorway, or whatever and waited. If they tried to force the door, as soon as it started to come open, unload on them.

No excuse for firing through a door that is closed and locked. He killed a man that was not an immediate threat to him.

Bad situation.