(TX) Man Who Shot Musician May Not Be Charged

[gunsmith]

Don't be a lazy linker! links AND story PLEASE!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/n/a/2007/09/04/national/a143505D24.DTL

Man Who Shot Musician May Not Be Charged
(09-04) 17:05 PDT DALLAS, (AP) --

The shooting death of a member of Edie Brickell & New Bohemians appears to fall under state law permitting deadly force in self-defense, police said Tuesday.

A grand jury will decide whether the man who shot Jeffrey Carter Albrecht will be indicted, but Sgt. Larry Lewis said Dallas police aren't pursuing charges.

Police said Albrecht, 34, was inebriated and had been fighting with his girlfriend Monday before he was shot by a neighbor of the girlfriend.

The neighbor, who was not immediately identified, woke up around 4 a.m. to his wife screaming that someone was breaking into the house, police said. The neighbor yelled through the door for Albrecht to leave and then fired his handgun through the door, hitting Albrecht in the head.

"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. Police and prosecutors, however, said the shooter appeared to be protected under an earlier law that allows a person to protect their property with deadly force to "prevent the other's imminent commission ... of criminal mischief during the nighttime."

"In an incident like that you're well within your rights under the old law, as well as the new one, to use deadly force," Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins said.

Albrecht, who went by his middle name, had been a keyboard player for New Bohemians since 1999, according to the band's Web site. His death stunned friends and those who knew him in the North Texas music community.

"I am heart broken," Edie Brickell wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press on Tuesday.

"We are all completely devastated by the news of Carter's death, and obviously still quite in shock," Brandon Aly, drummer for New Bohemians, wrote in another e-mail.

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

He also played keyboard and guitar and sang for Sorta, named in 2006 as the best local music act by the Dallas Observer.

Edie Brickell & New Bohemians scored a breakout hit in 1989 with "What I Am." They broke up for several years but regrouped and put out an album last year.

 

[gunsmith]

I think

this could be filed as "things not to do in Texas when you're drunk"

 

[joab]

"From what we gather, he fired near the top of the door, hoping he would scare the person away."

The home owner obviously did not think that killing Albrecht was necessary
Now he will spend the rest of his life tying to convince himself that his actions were correct

Firing a gun in a situation like this should be the last resort to get yourself out of a situation that you did not invite

But that is just Monday morning QBing

 

[gunsmith]

I sort of agree with you Joab

When I read that it reminded me of that great quote from the movie "Once Upon A Time In The West" .
The bad guy, played by Henry Fonda kills a whole family and the evil railroad owner who paid him says "I told you to scare them, not kill them"
He replies "people scare better when their dead".

Personally, I would have waited until the door got broken down and if the guy entered further after realizing he was in the wrong house then I would have shot, I do not believe in scaring people or warning shots.

 

[Kindrox]

I disagree with your analysis. Did the home owner know how many people were outside the door? If you know that the door is about to fail and you are about to deal with an unknown number of attackers, I would probably do exactly what the home owner did. Except I would not let on I was armed.

Once the door pops, you could be face to face with six armed men. And now you are dealing with them on their terms, not yours.

As for the warning shot, that sounds like post-shooting spin from the home owner to me. I would try shoot high and aim down so my shot went into the lawn if I missed the attackers. It sounds like this guy could have done the same but we don't know from the story.

 

[Owens]

Was the shooter legally justified (apparently) at least based on what we are told? Yes. Was it the smartest thing to do? Probably not. Handle it another way? Can't say. The only one who could determine that would be the persons involved.

 

[Dave P]

Man Who Shot Musician May Not Be Charged

Poor guy shouldn't even have to go before the grand jury! Looks like a non-issue to me.

 

[30 cal slob]

i don't agree that shooting was the right thing to do in this case (at least until the door was broken down).

legally ok? sure.

morally ok? necessary to preserve innocent human life? i have doubts.

flame away.

p.s. shooting through the door. sounds like violation of rule #4.

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

There are no exceptions. Do not pretend that this is true. Some people and organizations take this rule and weaken it;e.g. "Treat all guns as if they were loaded." Unfortunately, the "as if" compromises the directness of the statement by implying that they are unloaded, but we will treat them as though they are loaded. No good! Safety rules must be worded forcefully so that they are never treated lightly or reduced to partial compliance.

All guns are always loaded - period!

This must be your mind-set. If someone hands you a firearm and says, "Don't worry, it's not loaded," you do not dare believe him. You need not be impolite, but check it yourself. Remember, there are no accidents, only negligent acts. Check it. Do not let yourself fall prey to a situation where you might feel compelled to squeal, "I didn't know it was loaded!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

Conspicuously and continuously violated, especially with pistols, Rule II applies whether you are involved in range practice, daily carry, or examination. If the weapon is assembled and in someone's hands, it is capable of being discharged. A firearm holstered properly, lying on a table, or placed in a scabbard is of no danger to anyone. Only when handled is there a need for concern. This rule applies to fighting as well as to daily handling. If you are not willing to take a human life, do not cover a person with the muzzle. This rule also applies to your own person. Do not allow the muzzle to cover your extremities, e.g. using both hands to reholster the pistol. This practice is unsound, both procedurally and tactically. You may need a free hand for something important. Proper holster design should provide for one-handed holstering, so avoid holsters which collapse after withdrawing the pistol. (Note: It is dangerous to push the muzzle against the inside edge of the holster nearest the body to "open" it since this results in your pointing the pistol at your midsection.) Dry-practice in the home is a worthwhile habit and it will result in more deeply programmed reflexes. Most of the reflexes involved in the Modern Technique do not require that a shot be fired. Particular procedures for dry-firing in the home will be covered later. Let it suffice for now that you do not dry-fire using a "target" that you wish not to see destroyed. (Recall RULE I as well.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

Rule III is violated most anytime the uneducated person handles a firearm. Whether on TV, in the theaters, or at the range, people seem fascinated with having their finger on the trigger. Never stand or walk around with your finger on the trigger. It is unprofessional, dangerous, and, perhaps most damaging to the psyche, it is klutzy looking. Never fire a shot unless the sights are superimposed on the target and you have made a conscious decision to fire. Firing an unaligned pistol in a fight gains nothing. If you believe that the defensive pistol is only an intimidation tool - not something to be used - carry blanks, or better yet, reevaluate having one around. If you are going to launch a projectile, it had best be directed purposely. Danger abounds if you allow your finger to dawdle inside the trigger guard. As soon as the sights leave the target, the trigger-finger leaves the trigger and straightens alongside the frame. Since the hand normally prefers to work as a unit - as in grasping - separating the function of the trigger-finger from the rest of the hand takes effort. The five-finger grasp is a deeply programmed reflex. Under sufficient stress, and with the finger already placed on the trigger, an unexpected movement, misstep or surprise could result in a negligent discharge. Speed cannot be gained from such a premature placement of the trigger-finger. Bringing the sights to bear on the target, whether from the holster or the Guard Position, takes more time than that required for moving the trigger finger an inch or so to the trigger.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

Know what it is, what is in line with it, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything you have not positively identified. Be aware of your surroundings, whether on the range or in a fight. Do not assume anything. Know what you are doing.

SUMMARY:

Make these rules a part of your character. Never compromise them. Improper gunhandling results from ignorance and improper role modeling, such as handling your gun like your favorite actor does. Education can cure this. You can make a difference by following these gunhandling rules and insisting that those around you do the same. Set the example. Who knows what tragedies you, or someone you influence, may prevent?

 

[tulsamal]

I disagree with your analysis. Did the home owner know how many people were outside the door? If you know that the door is about to fail and you are about to deal with an unknown number of attackers, I would probably do exactly what the home owner did. Except I would not let on I was armed.

Once the door pops, you could be face to face with six armed men.

I just can't agree with firing through a door. You can't see who you are about to shoot. You aren't REALLY "in deadly danger" until that door is breached. IMO, this is one of those situations where a 12 gauge is the right HD weapon. Somebody is trying to beat down your door. You give them verbal warnings while seeking your weapon and calling the police. You seek cover behind a doorway or refrigerator, etc. Go to sitting or even prone. Lock on that doorway with your FN SLP loading with buckshot. You will still have tactical dominance when that door comes down.

The usual advice still applies: you don't _want_ to have to shoot somebody. As was already mentioned, the shooter is going to experience a lot of self-doubt for the rest of his life. The guy might have just gotten tired and quit. He might have knocked the door down, taken one look at the armed homeowner and left. Whatever. Few people really "deserve" to die.

Gregg

 

[gunsmith]

I bet you

that it was one of those apt complexes where it all looks the same.
He thought he was banging on his girlfriends door cursing and swearing at her, but he was obviously at the wrong door.

I thought about rule four violation too, thats why I wouldn't shoot , my target and what was beyond was not clear.

who knows what this guy feels?

I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know, if you know what I mean

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Anyone dumb enough to continue to beat on a door at 4 in the morning after being warned that the person on the other side is armed and fearing for their life just might need to be removed from the gene pool. A peephole would only confirm that there is indeed, some nut trying to break down your door.

 

[Thumper]

1.) I don't buy that he was trying to scare the guy. I think the cop was doing his misguided best to protect the shooter.

2.) What in the world makes you think that the shooter didn't ID his target? You think he needed a view of the guy to determine that a hysterical male kicking in his door at 4:00 AM was a threat?

 

[Art Eatman]

Dave P, SFAIK, in Texas, by law, ALL homicides go before a Grand Jury. It doesn't matter who did the shooting/stabbing/whatever or what were the circumstances. Nor does it matter whether or not there was an arrest.

Art

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Poor guy shouldn't even have to go before the grand jury! Looks like a non-issue to me

If you shoot someone in Texas, you'll go before the grand jury no matter how clear cut it looks.

Earlier reports of this same story mentioned that Albrecht had beat his girlfriend and then chased her outside when she ran. She then ran back inside and locked him out which is when he decided to go try and break into the neighbor's door.

 

[joab]

I don't buy that he was trying to scare the guy. I think the cop was doing his misguided best to protect the shooter.

If that is true then my whole premise changes

What in the world makes you think that the shooter didn't ID his target? You think he needed a view of the guy to determine that a hysterical male kicking in his door at 4:00 AM was a threat?

If that is true then my whole premise changes

If what was said in the article is true that to me means one of two things

He did not think that the threat was worthy of a killing at the time or he was not mentally prepared to take a life and thought that a simple warning shot would save the day

Either way he would have some severe soul searching to do in the aftermath

If you shoot you must be prepared to kill not warn


I am not criticizing his actions, just second guessing them

 

[30 cal slob]

some warning shot. ended up being a stray bullt that killed the guy.

 

[Thumper]

If there was any real evidence that the guy fired a "warning shot" that ended up in someone's head, then charges would be filed, don't you think?

 

[Nathanael_Greene]

I bet you...that it was one of those apt complexes where it all looks the same.

You lose. It was a house.

Anyway, trying to kick your way into someone's house late at night is an invitation to getting shot in Texas.

As it should be everywhere.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Innocent sleeping homeowner alive and safe.



Monday morning QB it all you want, but this ending is OK with me.
Unfortunate, sad, maybe preventable, but this one ends on the side of right.

You just shouldn't try to kick in the doors of strangers dwellings.

 

[Erebus]

I thought about rule four violation too, thats why I wouldn't shoot , my target and what was beyond was not clear.

And if I am going to fire a "warning shot"(actually I never would) high is the last direction I would fire it. There is no way to account for where that round is going to go in a residential setting.

Not saying that is what the homeowner did just saying a high shot is a really bad idea.

It's tough to judge if he was right in firing, if he was sure the doors failure was imminent than shooting was justified in my mind.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If there was any real evidence that the guy fired a "warning shot" that ended up in someone's head, then charges would be filed, don't you think?

NO. It does not matter what the intent was of the homeowner, whether he was firing a warning shot, shooting to kill, shooting to injure, or shooting to stop. Regardless of what he wanted to accomplish, that situation met the criteria for the legal use of deadly force as per Texas law and did so on several levels. The crime was taking place at night on the homeowner's property where somebody was damaging his property and failed to stop when so ordered. The husband and wife thought that the guy was trying to break into their home. They were in fear for their lives as a result.

Texas law has no provision for revoking the justification for the use of lawful lethal force because of the intent of the person using it. I don't know of any state that has such a provision. The fact that he did not (supposedly) intend to shoot Bohemian is not relevant as to whether or not the situation met the criteria for the use of lethal force.

One nice benefit for the homeowner is that he will be additionally protected by Texas' new castle doctrine as well. He won't be suffering at the hands of a civil suit.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Referencing the Penal Code showing Double Naughts correct statement.

9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;

28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys
the tangible property of the owner;

It was dark, on the homeowners property, and certainly one of those crimes was being committed. Seeing what was behind the door is simply not required here nor is waiting to see what the criminal will do next.

Again, don't kick in doors that don't belong to you.

 

[armoredman]

I just hope that the aftermath doesn't destroy the man. This is why getting the phone number to the shrink the cops use when they have a shooting is a good idea.

 

[outerlimit]

It's too bad what happened, but I can't feel sorry for him.

Like was mentioned above, the guy will have the rest of his life to think about his actions. I can imagine situations where I might act the same, though they would be freak situations like this one.

 

[Thumper]

NO. It does not matter what the intent was of the homeowner, whether he was firing a warning shot, shooting to kill, shooting to injure, or shooting to stop.

I think you miss my point (that I believe the Sgt. speaking was simply trying to "help" the homeowner).

Either way, I'm well aware of the laws involved and that the shooter is protected legally by three different statutes at least.

I'm thinking that the homeowner is less legally liable if he says he was shooting at the Bohemian outright than saying he was firing a "warning shot."