Home : Celebrity Justice, Music : New Bohemians Keyboardist Shot Dead

New Bohemians Keyboardist Shot Dead

Posted Sep 3rd 2007 9:23PM by TMZ Staff

A keyboard player for the band Edie Brickell & New Bohemians was shot to death early Monday in Dallas, while trying to kick in the door at his girlfriend's neighbor's house, police said.

Jeffrey Carter Albrecht was shot by a neighbor who may have believed he was a burglar trying to break into the home. The 34-year-old Albrecht died at the scene. It was not clear why Albrecht went to the house and the case is under investigation. No arrests have been made.

Danny Balis, Albrecht's roommate and fellow member of the Dallas rock band Sorta, told the AP the shooter lived next door to Albrecht's girlfriend. "He was at his girlfriend's house last night," Balis said. "He left the house and went next door and -- for whatever reason, which we don't know -- he knocked on the neighbor's door. And from what I understand, he was persistent. I don't know if there was a verbal exchange, but the person panicked and fired a shot through the door."

Albrecht had been with the New Bohemians since 1999. He had played with frontwoman Brickell's husband, Paul Simon. He also played with Charlie Sexton.

Comments [97]

SHARE |

Email 4ie6

Reader Comments

(Page 2 of 7) Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

16. Sounds to me this guy got his just rewards.

Posted at 10:46PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by Tony

17. #14 hmmm. in every state?

Posted at 10:47PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by bomber

18. I'm sorry for his family, but that's what happens when you act like a maniac.

Posted at 10:56PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by Puh-lease

19. i went to school with carter.. he was a great guy and will be missed... the world has lost an artist!

Posted at 10:56PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by Scott______

20. I certainly hope you people are not taking legal advice from complete strangers who post on TMZ.

Posted at 10:58PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by Wow. Just, wow.

21. If some drunken fool was pounding on my door I would kill him too. It's only right.

Posted at 11:05PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by Get Some Sense

22. #14 ....it's a Texas law.
#16....calm down. I was quoting from the Dallas Morning News.

Posted at 11:11PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by Kerry

23. Oops, I meant #16 and #19.

Posted at 11:13PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by Kerry

24. To all of you who don't understand TX LAW well here you go. As of September 1, 2007 WE can use DEADLY force when our Property is threatened.....

God Bless Texas:

AN ACT relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] 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;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [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 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;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used
[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].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It
is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal
injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time
the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that
is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from
the defendant's [against a person who at the time of the] use of
force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of
unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after
the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as
amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues
on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued
before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in
effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in
effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

Posted at 11:42PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by TXlawGRL1977

25. carter was a good guy. he was well liked and this is a horrible tragedy.
the gun laws in texas are ridiculous. although the details of what happened are still not totally known, i believe this was a misunderstanding gone terribly wrong.

how many times have any one of us had an argument with a loved one? many of us have even fought with people when we've had "one too many". the fact is that in the state of texas, people are allowed to use deadly force to "protect" themselves & their property against harm. Is shoot first, ask questions later seriously the way we should live?

we live 2 miles away from where this happened... i'm not naive to violence, especially gun violence, but the more lax the gun laws, it seems the higher the death toll.
try this scenario on for size: what if a real criminal had broken into his girlfriend's house and harmed her & carter went to the neighbor's door kicking and screaming for help and the neighbor shot him through the door? what then? would the actions still be considered okay?

they've said so far that the neighbor who shot him "was in fear of his safety". don't get me wrong, a thunderous bang on my door at 4 am wouldn't get you a cup of sugar at first either but man, wtf? he probably wanted to use the phone, or was just banging on the wrong damn door! & because here in texas it's okay to shoot someone who drunkenly bangs on your door, a talented musician all of 34 years old is dead.

i know that neighborhood, it's KEEP IT FUNKY signs all over the place- not KEEP OUT signs... this is just unbelievably sad and preventable.
this is a tragedy for dallas music, dallas neighborhoods, and 30-somethings everywhere.

Posted at 11:36PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by em

26. well then too bad for TX...another life lost to over reaction...at least open the
door and see whats up...very sad.

Posted at 11:46PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by bomber

27. #24...Thank God we in Texas still have the righ to bear arms!!!!

Posted at 11:48PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by God Bless Texas

28. Thank god I don't live in USA. I understand wanting to protect yourself against intruders, but...

killing someone is a disproportionate punishment for this event.

Shoot down at the feet. Call 911. You have more bullets in the gun should your life be in danger.

Posted at 11:48PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by Toronto Girl

29. #27....I thank God you don't live here either! Canada has weapon probs too, it's just we don't hear about it here in the good USA because we don't give a rats a$$ what goes on up there.

Posted at 11:51PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by whatever

30. ... and that's why you don't get drunk, beat your girlfriend and kick the neighbor's door!

Posted at 11:53PM on Sep 3rd 2007 by she smiled

Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments