Intruder banging door killed by homeowner

Houston Chronicle ^ | Jan. 2, 2004, 10:58PM

[Nayt2]

A homeowner fatally shot an intruder who refused to leave his northwest Houston home after repeatedly banging on the door.

The victim, shot in the shoulder and chest, died at Ben Taub Hospital. The Harris County Medical Examiner's Office identified him as Arthur Coronado Jr., 54, of the 20400 block of Finat.

The 52-year-old homeowner heard loud knocking on his front door in the 8900 block of Lomax around 9:30 p.m. Wednesday, saw the unidentified man outside and told him to stop. But the intruder ignored those warnings and kept banging on the door with enough force to nearly open it. The homeowner grabbed a pistol.

When the intruder disregarded another request to leave, the homeowner fired several shots through the door. The intruder then walked a short distance down the street and collapsed.

[Terry Mross]

And the bullet is in her "yet".

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

the homeowner fired several shots through the door.

You don't shoot at what you can't see.

[ArrogantBustard]

Do no doors in your area have windows in them or next to them?

[Calamari]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/txcodes/pe000900.html

See 9.32 (B)(b) in relation to unlawful entry to a habitation.

Any Texas lawyers out there?

§ 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect himself 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 requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

§ 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; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

[thackney]

"home defense" ping

[Dianna]

You don't shoot at what you can't see.

That sounds like a very reasonable rule. In this case, I think the current condition of the door might tell us more information. If the door has no damage at all, probably the guy was only knocking. If the door is damaged, showing that the guy was trying to break his way in, the homeowner was justified.

[ArrogantBustard]

The rule I learnt was "Identify your target, and what is beyond it." This is a slightly different proposition from "Your don't shoot at what you can't see". Apparently the homeowner in this case identified the deceased as "some !#$#^%%^ trying to break my door down". The physical description, name, address (if any) and phone number (if any) of said !#$#^%%^ are really not relevant.

[Eaker]

Thanks for the ping!! Everybody knows the difference between knocking and pounding.

If he was truly trying to break in then the shooting is justified as you do not have to wait for your property to be damaged.

I have a peeping glass in my door, so I indeed would know what was outside the door. I probably would not have shot as I have a steel door and my home protection rounds are made to stop people not pierce steel.

[Cultural Jihad]

Shooting an unarmed person through your front door is not okay.

I agree. Knocking on a door and being hard of hearing should not give others a license to commit murder.

[eastforker]

But, had the guy called the cops and on their arrival the intruder refused to drop something he held in his hand and they blasted him that would have been OK, right CJ.

[PLMerite]

"You don't shoot at what you can't see."

If you sincerely don't think it's gonna get any prettier when the door comes down you do.

[SLB]

Based on what the original post describes the shooter probably better have a good attorney.

[yarddog]

I agree. There might be more to this story but I can't see shooting someone through the door who is only beating on it.

[glock rocks]

I'll protect my rotties with my remington, but given the info in the article, I wouldn't have shot through the door.

JMHO.

to hell with the dawgs, beware of the owner.

[Lion Den Dan]

I think Texas law gives this home owner a pass on this. As I understand, in Texas, one can use deadly physical force on trespassers.

[SLB]

I have heard the same. IMHO that is a good law. Hopefully Squantos will shed some light on this.

[DB]

“Until you've been there, STFU.”

FU.

You saw the perps before firing. You saw that they were armed.

BIG difference from shooting through your door like a coward having no idea what was on the other side.

[DB]

"Your position obviously is that you will bet your family's lives on your rapid shooting skills...I won't. That is your call...but your call only."

Fine, you can bet the persons life on the other side of the door who's intent is unknown against your life defended by your attorney...

Your call...

A few Halloweens ago in Florida I believe a kid was given directions to a house where a party was to be held. When he got there and started banging on the door thinking his friends were messing with him the home owner shot through the door killing him. He was one door off. He died as a result. The homeowner was never in any danger.

[DB]

If in fact the door breaks.

If I were trying to break your door (typical home front door) I doubt it would take more than one try. Banging on the door does not immedialty imply trying to knock it down. And in this case that is a huge difference. One is a threat to your property and life. The other is not.

[Nakota]

One question, "Hollow points or cast solids?"