Homeless Intruder Shot by Homeowner after Stick Fails to Do Job

[Reptile]

Man tries non-lethal method before relying on gun to subdue attacker

A Washington homeowner attempted to ward off a home invader with a stick last week, but needed to resort to more drastic measures to defend his property.

The intruder, identified as a homeless man, found himself on the wrong end of a Thurston County resident’s gun Friday when he attacked the man after attempting to enter his home through the back door.

“Detectives say the homeowner did his best to fend off the burglary suspect in his kitchen, using a piece of wood,” reports Q13fox.com. “When that wasn’t enough, he fired a single shot, hitting the intruder in the chest.”

Homeless Intruder Shot by Homeowner after Stick Fails to Do Job

 

[whacko]

Using the stick as a first resort and escalating to lethal force is commendable......but not necessary in my book. I'd be on his side if he shot him first then hit him with the stick.

 

[Glockster30]

After being shot in the chest, the suspect is expected to survive. The homeowner must have used a 9mm.

“The suspect was transported to St. Peter’s Hospital with a single gunshot wound to the chest and is expected to survive based on the latest known condition.”

 

[Dennis in MA]

I read this 3x at HEADless intruder. I was all like, "Those damned Democrats!"

 

[snax]

That's one way to fight the war on homelessness

 

[AHM]

A picture of the actual stick.

 

[fencer]

After being shot in the chest, the suspect is expected to survive. The homeowner must have used a 9mm.

Yep. You should be able to use this as a legal defense. If I really wanted to kill him, I would have shot him with a caliber that starts with a 4.

 

[AHM]

Yep. You should be able to use this as a legal defense. If I really wanted to kill him, I would have shot him with a caliber that starts with a 4.

Spoiler: You evil bastard, no one deserves that

 

[308rifleman]

Using the stick as a first resort and escalating to lethal force is commendable......but not necessary in my book. I'd be on his side if he shot him first then hit him with the stick.

Whose side would a (liberal-leaning) jury be on? He used, in my opinion, a wise escalation of force. Even an over-zealous prosecutor wishing to crucify him would have a real problem doing so.