(1) The room they were in is an occupiable structure. The fact that he was also in the occupiable structure matters not. The law doesn't say "unless the shooter is also in an occupiable structure".
(2) He says he fired warning shots, but those 'warning shots' went into the room. I guess if you shoot blindly into a room and hit someone you can consider it a warning shot, huh? He didn't mean to harm anyone? He already had. I think the burden of establishing his intent has shifted a bit.
(3) The dad was going to get his gun and from what I understand, was between them and an exit.
As for the intent behind the law, you may be correct but it doesn't matter. If you break a law you break a law. The fact that dad isn't a gang member is irrelevant.
Bearcub, are you saying that the bedroom had no windows? I seem to recall in the article that the 19 year old snuck in the window one night. If you can enter through a window, you sure as heck can exit a window.
My post was to show that a lawyer could argue against the terrorist act charges. The lawyer would just have to convince the jury that the dad was not shooting at an occupiable structure (possibly using city/county property codes and/or real estate terms) or that he did not intend to harm anyone with the shots.
Do I think he was smart in shooting through a closed door knowing that his daughter was in there, no...it should not even been an option or a thought.