[Nayt2]

it could be debated, but i think the homeowner was justified in firing. i doubt he was trying to KILL the intruder.

[Fledermaus]

One word: GOOD! One less jerk on the planet.

[#3Fan]

New Year's Eve.

[Flyer]

Not enough info here to fully support the home owner, but with the recent rash of violent crime here it is understandable.

[DB]

I don't agree.

The homeowner should have waited for the door to fail if it was going to. Also, if he had time to go get his gun he could have also called the police while getting his gun.

There are scenarios where the guy banging on the door wasn't doing anything wrong. For example let's say he just had a car wreck, his wife and/or child in the car is bleeding badly or the car is on fire and you need to call for help immediately. You may not even notice someone telling you to go away.

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

[DonQ]

We haven't yet heard anything about the identity or circumstances of the person who was shot .... and since he was on the outside, knocking on the door like an honest person, I would hardly call him an "intruder". We have only the shooter's version of things. When all the details are known, the result may be startling.

[jimtorr]

....the intruder ignored those warnings and kept banging on the door with enough force to nearly open it.

Great headline. It sounds like the homeowner killed the door, and then an intruder started banging on it. Newspaper folks are becoming illiterate.

Calling him an intruder is questionable anyway, since he never entered the house, but it appears he was not just banging on the door, he was attempting to force it open.

[thesummerwind]

Intruder banging door killed by homeowner

"Knock Three Times .......", and then split, dude.

[csvset]

~ I hear you knocking, but you can't come in. ~

Perhaps Arthur Coronado Jr. didn't understand the words that were being used.

[Jim Noble]

i doubt he was trying to KILL the intruder

The legal standard is, and rightly so IMO, that if you shoot a gun at someone and they die that you were trying to kill them.

Justification is an absolute defense, but gunfighting skills that would allow a defense of nonlethal intent are very, very rare.

[joesnuffy]

Home invasion robberies and subsequent murders of the victims is on the rise...

[CPOSharky]

This is Texas, one of he few states where property rights include your land and other property, not just inside your home. I doubt any criminal charges will be filed against the home owner. Check out the "after dark" provisions for use of deadly force.

[richmwill]

Wow- I wonder if this worries Jehovah's Witness groups in Texas? lol.

Seriously, though- I think the homeowner was justified. If someone comes to my place and tries to barge through the front door, and won't tell me why when I ask him- the gun's coming out. I wouldn't try to kill him, just scare him a little- aim for a non-lethal shot. Which is what I believe this man tried to do.

Rich

[sandydipper]

6 quick bursts - reload - 6 quick bursts - reload - listen for intruder? call Dunkin for nearest police officer.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

I have told this story before, but it is applicable here.

About 10 years ago, on New Year's Eve, my cousin was dropped off at his condo by a friend. All the condos looked the same and my cousin was dropped off at the wrong one. He tried to get in the front door with is key, but it didn't work. He knocked on the door and then probably realized that it was the wrong house.

The homeowner then shot him on the back as my cousin was leaving and he died on the front lawn.

Do I think that this current homeowner is responsible for killing a man outside his door, my answer would be yes.

[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

[Nakota]

One question, "Hollow points or cast solids?"

[Clay Moore]

I used to take a bunch of parts to a machine shop near where this happened. Unless the neighborhood, or shall I say "hood" has changed a bunch in 20 years, this guy probably saved his own life.

[epow]

This incident reminds my of another incident from a few years ago. Where I formerly lived (FL) a young man under the influence of drugs and alcohol awakened an elderly couple late one night by pounding on their front door with his fists while screaming obscenities and threats. After unsuccessfully trying to persuade the man to leave, the elderly homeowner reacted by firing a shotgun through the door at face level. Fortunately for the door-pounder, the birdshot only penetrated deeply enough to shatter his lower jaw as well as part of his upper jaw and cheekbone. The door-pounder survived, but was badly disfigured. Given the placement of the shot, I think he was fortunate not to lose his eyes, or even his life.

The prosecuting attorney's office declined to charge the shooter with a crime, and I believe the injured man was charged with attempted breaking and entering. AFAIK the elderly couple was not sued or otherwise hassled by the door-pounder.

I believe the lesson of both these incidents is obvious. Unless you think you might enjoy experiencing serious gunshot wounds, avoid the practice of breaking down other people's doors late at night. Especially in areas of the country where people are prone to keep guns handy just in case such a situation should arise. Mine is standing in the corner of my bedroom, and it isn't loaded with birdshot.

[Lancey Howard]

Nah. Bad shoot.
Call the cops, keep the gun in your hand, and keep it aimed at the door. The minute the door opens, eyeball the target to make sure he's a stranger, then blam! But shooting through the door? Nah.