Apartment owner protects himself from a home invasion robbery.

[Alamo]

TEXAS PENAL CODE
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Sec. 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;

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor 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 actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly 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;

Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

The invaders were clearly trying to enter unlawfully with force, the habitation was occupied, deadly force by the occupier of the habitation is presumed reasonable, door or no door. There have been numerous people in Texas shot through the door of an occupied habitation that they were trying to unlawfully enter, often as a result of chemically altering their perceptions. The Castle Doctrine law is clear on this.

However, if the habitation occupier had also hit one of his neighbors, he could have faced charges of Reckless Injury, and a civil suit.

This might vary by circumstance and jurisdiction, I suppose. We had some deputies from a neighboring county chase a suspect into our county, then shoot and kill her on the porch of a mobile home (not hers, just random pick by her). Some of their shots went into the mobile home and killed a five year old boy. I never heard of any reckless injury charges from that.

I’m with the apartment dweller with this one, but I’d like to believe that I would have been more prudent and conservative about number of shots and placement.

 

[Cameramonkey]

The home invader should get an extra reckless endangerment charge for every single round that had to be fired to stop him. I have no problem with any of this.

and if anyone is killed, get the murder rap just like when 2 guys rob a bank and 1 perp gets smoked and perp 2 gets charged with his murder.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Indiana code allows for deadly force if reasonably required to terminate an attack on your dwelling or occupied motor vehicle. TX is apparently similar. There's no requirement to allow them to make entry, again assuming it's reasonable. If it's Granny Offhernut from down the street hitting the door with her purse, that's probably not reasonable whereas two dudes with firearms mule kicking the door is reasonable AF.

That said, pumping a couple rounds into the neighbor's apartment because you don't know how to work your angles and/or use ammunition that's not an overpenetration hazard to your neighboring apartments is incredibly dumb, even if not criminally charged. You going to sleep real good at night if one of those rounds catches the neighbor kid in the grape? Anybody going to blame the neighbor for shooting back if rounds start coming in his apartment?

 

[cbhausen]

Indiana code allows for deadly force if reasonably required to terminate an attack on your dwelling or occupied motor vehicle. TX is apparently similar. There's no requirement to allow them to make entry, again assuming it's reasonable. If it's Granny Offhernut from down the street hitting the door with her purse, that's probably not reasonable whereas two dudes with firearms mule kicking the door is reasonable AF.

That said, pumping a couple rounds into the neighbor's apartment because you don't know how to work your angles and/or use ammunition that's not an overpenetration hazard to your neighboring apartments is incredibly dumb, even if not criminally charged. You going to sleep real good at night if one of those rounds catches the neighbor kid in the grape? Anybody going to blame the neighbor for shooting back if rounds start coming in his apartment?

Looking again at that video, I see stucco exterior walls in some scenes and what appears to be tilt-up concrete in others (including the doorbell camera recording where rounds appear to be hitting concrete, not drywall across the hall). I’m basing this on the puffs seen when the rounds hit the wall. I could be wrong, of course.

If the exterior walls in that hallway are tilt-up concrete instead of plywood and drywall, does that legally change things in any way if a round had penetrated the neighbors apartment?

If I lived in an apartment like that, and those walls were concrete, I would be far more likely to shoot through the door than otherwise. of course, this means scoping out your situation, and having a plan, which you mentioned in your reply to this thread.

Edit: I looked at that video again, and there’s a lot of drywall mud on that wall. Hard to tell what’s underneath but yes, you can see bullet holes. I imagine if anyone in the apartment across the hall was injured, we would know about it by now. Why? Because it would be a bigger story then the actual home defense itself.

 

[indyartisan]

Sometimes you don’t need to put a bunch of holes in your door and endanger your neighbors.
Language Warning

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Sometimes you don’t need to put a bunch of holes in your door and endanger your neighbors.
Language Warning

That is just awesome! Thank you, I needed a joyful thing this afternoon!!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Edit: I looked at that video again, and there’s a lot of drywall mud on that wall. Hard to tell what’s underneath but yes, you can see bullet holes. I imagine if anyone in the apartment across the hall was injured, we would know about it by now. Why? Because it would be a bigger story then the actual home defense itself.

Yes, but don't confuse good outcomes with good tactics. Luck isn't controllable. I've seen several instances of rounds passing from apartment to apartment. Most of them locally are metal studs with some sort of foamy substance.

Similarly, we're not hearing about any other apartments burglarized. Makes you wonder why this one was picked. Could be random, but they usually aren't.