TexasCHLforum.com

Police Won't Charge Homeowner In Musician's Death
http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_247152451.html

(AP) DALLAS Police said Tuesday they aren't pursuing charges against a homeowner who shot and killed a former member of Edie Brickell & New Bohemians who tried kicking in his door in the middle of the night.

The case will be turned over to a grand jury that will decide whether the homeowner will face charges. Dallas police Sgt. Larry Lewis said the shooting appears to fall under state law permitting deadly force as self-defense.

Jeffrey Carter Albrecht, 34, was inebriated Monday when the wife of his girlfriend's neighbor began screaming around 4 a.m. that someone was breaking in, police said. After telling Albrecht to get away, the husband fired his handgun through the door and shot Albrecht in the head, police said. Albrecht had been fighting with his girlfriend.

"He yelled several verbal warnings, 'I'll shoot! I'll shoot!'," Lewis said. "From what we gather, he fired near the top of the door, hoping he would scare the person away."

The homeowner, whose identity wasn't released, was not arrested.

The shooting came two days after the enactment of a new state law, nicknamed the "Castle Doctrine," that gives Texans a stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces.

The bill, backed by the National Rifle Association, states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force. Lewis said he read over the Castle Doctrine on Tuesday, but said the homeowner appeared to be protected under another deadly force law already on the books.

Under Chapter 9 of the state penal code, a person can protect their property with deadly force to "prevent the other's imminent commission ... of criminal mischief during the nighttime."

"I think (the shooting) falls most under Chapter 9," Lewis said.

Albrecht, who went by his middle name, had been a keyboard player for the New Bohemians since 1999, according to the band's Web site. He also played keyboard and guitar and sang for Sorta, named in 2006 as the best local music act by the Dallas Observer.

Albrecht played several times with Brickell's husband, Paul Simon. He also played with Texas musician Charlie Sexton, a renowned guitarist.

Danny Balis, Albrecht's roommate and fellow member of the Dallas rock band Sorta, said the shooter lived next door to Albrecht's girlfriend. Albrecht had been fighting with his girlfriend, authorities said.

His death stunned friends and those who knew him in the North Texas music community. The idea of him banging on a door in the middle of the night seems out of character for a man known to be friendly and quiet, friends said.

"He is not a violent person," said Carrie Garcia, Sorta's manager. "He is cool as a cucumber, shy, always wanted to make a joke in a situation that may be a little tense."

"He is not a violent person," said Carrie Garcia, Sorta's manager. "He is cool as a cucumber, shy, always wanted to make a joke in a situation that may be a little tense."

How come his girlfriend had bruises all over her face?

Renegade wrote:

"He is not a violent person," said Carrie Garcia, Sorta's manager. "He is cool as a cucumber, shy, always wanted to make a joke in a situation that may be a little tense."

How come his girlfriend had bruises all over her face?

its amazing what alcohol and/or drugs will do to an otherwise "happy" person - apparently the girlfriend's face tells the tale quite well.

Renegade wrote:

"He is not a violent person," said Carrie Garcia, Sorta's manager. "He is cool as a cucumber, shy, always wanted to make a joke in a situation that may be a little tense."

How come his girlfriend had bruises all over her face?

That's what I was wondering.

Renegade wrote:

Will938 wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I take it back. The guy will be no billed. Here's why.

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection
(b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. 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, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;

The guy banging on the door could be easily construed as "attempting to enter unlawfully and with force". This should meet the requirements for the presumption of reasonableness under the law.

I still wouldn't shoot through a door myself.

Isn't there a distinction between force and deadly force?

Yes, that is what I was referring to when I wrote:

I do not think it was "immediately necessary", as required by PC9.32 (3).

above. Deadly force has the additional qualifier of being "immediately necessary".

The new "Castle Doctrine" in Texas presumes you reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary, if you know or have reason to believe that someone is attempting to enter your home, business or car unlawfully and with force. It's clear that the homeowner knew or had reason to believe that someone was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, so he is entitled to the presumption. As noted in one of the articles quoted, there are other justifications for using deadly force under these circumstances.

By no means am I saying I would have shot through a closed door in this situation, nor am I saying I wouldn't. I just don't know enough of the facts to make a determination. There certainly are circumstances where I would not wait for entry to fire in self-defense, but they would be the exception rather than the rule. This is my standard, not Texas law and not something I would try to force on others.

I am very sorry the man is dead and I’m sorry that the homeowner had to take someone’s life. However, we need to be guarded in blanket criticism of someone trying to prevent an unlawful and forceful entry into one’s home. Texas law now recognizes this as legitimate use of deadly force. Also, we could easily replace the healthy man in this scenario with a frail, elderly woman with limited physical abilities. Would we expect her to wait until the BG or multiple BG’s are already inside her home before firing in self-defense?

Again, I’m not taking a position on this particular shooting; I’m am saying we should never say we’d never fire through a door, regardless of the circumstances.

Chas.

I didn't know the guy, but I do know several people who did know the deceased rather well.

For any of you that listen to Sports Radio 1310 in Dallas, he was the roommate (and bandmate) of the producer of the Hardline, Danny Balis.

From the hearsay that I've heard his behavior was way out of character. He also apparently had started taking a smoking cessation drug called Chantix a week earlier. You are not supposed to mix that drug with alcohol and he had definitely been drinking. Personally I took Wellbutrin to quit smoking years ago, and it very clearly tells you not to mix alcohol with it because it could induce seizures, including a potentially fatal Grand Mal seizure.

It could have been a combination of the psychoactive drug and alcohol... or perhaps he just had other issues.

As far as the shooter goes... I personally understand his fear and concern, but firing through a door is dangerous and warning shots are stupid. I don't really know whether I believe he should be prosecuted in some capacity for the responsibility of his bullet... an unfortunate situation for all involved.

NguyenVanDon wrote:

jbirds1210 wrote:

Paladin wrote:In this situation I would suggest putting a table just inside the doorway. So that when the BG breaks in the door, as they walk in the house they will get temporarly hung up on the table. This will slow the BG down enough to get a good shot.

Just a thought....



I plan to start using one of these bars in hotel rooms. These are not created equal...you get what you pay for.

Where can I purchase one of these at?

I got mine at Lowe's. It goes on my bedroom door when I go to sleep at night.

The more I hear about this, the more on the side of the homeowner I am. I was on his side from the beginning, but with more facts coming out...

It was 4am for one thing. So the middle of the night when most people are asleep. The guy was kicking the BACK door. If it was the front door then I could see a bit more restraint, but I've heard of a lot of BG's coming through the back door. He did warn the guy to go away or whatever.

This guy had obviously lost his mind and it's unfortunate. I'm wondering if the smoking cessation drug, mixed with alcohol had anything to do with it. Regardless, it's not the homeowner's fault that someone's trying to kick the back door in at 4am no matter what the circumstances are. I know that neighborhood and while it's very nice, it's surrounded by some pretty shady apartment complexes (full of sex offenders) and scummy areas. Who knows who could be walking down the street and decide to pick your house to break into.

I can tell you this, if someone's trying to kick in my back door at 4am and wouldn't leave after a warning, I might shoot through the door. It wouldn't be a warning shot though, and it would be coming from a high powered rifle. I would call the police if I had time, but if someone is trying to come through the door, I might not wait for them to get it open.

matchstick wrote:I didn't know the guy, but I do know several people who did know the deceased rather well.

For any of you that listen to Sports Radio 1310 in Dallas, he was the roommate (and bandmate) of the producer of the Hardline, Danny Balis.

From the hearsay that I've heard his behavior was way out of character. He also apparently had started taking a smoking cessation drug called Chantix a week earlier. You are not supposed to mix that drug with alcohol and he had definitely been drinking. Personally I took Wellbutrin to quit smoking years ago, and it very clearly tells you not to mix alcohol with it because it could induce seizures, including a potentially fatal Grand Mal seizure.

It could have been a combination of the psychoactive drug and alcohol... or perhaps he just had other issues.

As far as the shooter goes... I personally understand his fear and concern, but firing through a door is dangerous and warning shots are stupid. I don't really know whether I believe he should be prosecuted in some capacity for the responsibility of his bullet... an unfortunate situation for all involved.

P-1 here as well. Heard both segments this afternoon also.

From what I gather, this was just a tragic mistake by all parties.

David

texas297 wrote:
From what I gather, this was just a tragic mistake by all parties.

I'm not so convinced that the homeowner made a mistake. If someone is trying to bust down my door (be it front or back), I'm going to wonder who and what are on the other side. My guess would be that he wasn't there for refreshments (see signature line).

Venus Pax wrote:

texas297 wrote:
From what I gather, this was just a tragic mistake by all parties.

I'm not so convinced that the homeowner made a mistake. If someone is trying to bust down my door (be it front or back), I'm going to wonder who and what are on the other side. My guess would be that he wasn't there for refreshments (see signature line).

Okay how about a tragic event?

Venus Pax wrote:

texas297 wrote:
From what I gather, this was just a tragic mistake by all parties.

I'm not so convinced that the homeowner made a mistake. If someone is trying to bust down my door (be it front or back), I'm going to wonder who and what are on the other side. My guess would be that he wasn't there for refreshments (see signature line).

If someone came over to my house for some of my famous Lynchburg Lemonade or Mint Juleps then they would knock on the FRONT door and not try to kick it down. Well, those mint juleps taste pretty good, so you never know. :)

I'd also be wondering how many people are on the other side of the door. My front door has a peep hole where I could look out and see. I might not look if someone was kicking it though. My back door does not have a peep hole. So you have to wonder...if they get that door open, am I going to have to mow down three people? Is it easier just to fire a shot through the door and hopefully they'll run away? What if they get the door open and my gun jams? At least if I try firing first and it doesn't work, I can always go get another gun... Of course yelling a stern warning to "GO AWAY" is the first thing I would do. If they didn't then it's their fault they got shot.

The problem with shooting at a target you can't see or firing a warning shot is that the bullet doesn't just magically disappear if it doesn't hit someone. That bullet my go into the neighbor's house across the street or alley and kill or injure someone.

Don't shoot a target you haven't identified.

Also, I don't think shooting someone through a door passes the "reasonable person" litmus test for immenent danger. If someone were banging on my door I'd do precisely what the homeowner did, and I'd also call the police. As long as he stayed outside, he's the police's problem. Only when he actually forces entry into my home do I consider him my problem.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Renegade wrote:

Will938 wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I take it back. The guy will be no billed. Here's why.

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection
(b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. 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, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;

The guy banging on the door could be easily construed as "attempting to enter unlawfully and with force". This should meet the requirements for the presumption of reasonableness under the law.

I still wouldn't shoot through a door myself.

Isn't there a distinction between force and deadly force?

Yes, that is what I was referring to when I wrote:

I do not think it was "immediately necessary", as required by PC9.32 (3).

above. Deadly force has the additional qualifier of being "immediately necessary".

The new "Castle Doctrine" in Texas presumes you reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary, if you know or have reason to believe that someone is attempting to enter your home, business or car unlawfully and with force. It's clear that the homeowner knew or had reason to believe that someone was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, so he is entitled to the presumption. As noted in one of the articles quoted, there are other justifications for using deadly force under these circumstances.

By no means am I saying I would have shot through a closed door in this situation, nor am I saying I wouldn't. I just don't know enough of the facts to make a determination. There certainly are circumstances where I would not wait for entry to fire in self-defense, but they would be the exception rather than the rule. This is my standard, not Texas law and not something I would try to force on others.

I am very sorry the man is dead and I’m sorry that the homeowner had to take someone’s life. However, we need to be guarded in blanket criticism of someone trying to prevent an unlawful and forceful entry into one’s home. Texas law now recognizes this as legitimate use of deadly force. Also, we could easily replace the healthy man in this scenario with a frail, elderly woman with limited physical abilities. Would we expect her to wait until the BG or multiple BG’s are already inside her home before firing in self-defense?

Again, I’m not taking a position on this particular shooting; I’m am saying we should never say we’d never fire through a door, regardless of the circumstances.

Chas.

According to the last news article I posted its wasn't even the new law that protected the home owner stated in the quote below.

news story wrote: The bill, backed by the National Rifle Association, states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force. Lewis said he read over the Castle Doctrine on Tuesday, but said the homeowner appeared to be protected under another deadly force law already on the books.

Under Chapter 9 of the state penal code, a person can protect their property with deadly force to "prevent the other's imminent commission ... of criminal mischief during the nighttime."

"I think (the shooting) falls most under Chapter 9," Lewis said.

===============================================================================

Venus Pax wrote:

texas297 wrote:
From what I gather, this was just a tragic mistake by all parties.

I'm not so convinced that the homeowner made a mistake. If someone is trying to bust down my door (be it front or back), I'm going to wonder who and what are on the other side. My guess would be that he wasn't there for refreshments (see signature line).

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

He was "kicking in" the door, that is not banging on the door. I would have fired under the same circumstances.