1) Validity of the shoot: On first pass all seems well. After hearing more details, it appears that the homeowner may have "escalated by approaching the BG initially. While it may be a legal shoot, did the homeowner handle the situation correctly from a tactical standpoint?
You seem to indicate that the homeowner did wrong by approaching the interloper because that may have escalated the situation. This notion of "escalation" of often quite silly. We hear it over and over again to not escalate situations and we hear praise over and over again for those that do. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, anything you do that adds more power to a situation or increases the aggressive attitude of the bad guy could be considering escalating the situation. Anytime you defend yourself against a threat, you have escalated the situation, ideally with the goal of de-escalating the situation, but the situation escalates before it de-escalates.
Few confrontational situations where one party knows they are in the wrong intentionally (such as with this interloper), if any, ever result in immediate de-escalation without first enduring escalation unless it is through some form of submissive capitulation or bribery.
So this notion of the homeowner "escalating" the situation by approaching the interloper initially is awfully judgmental. So what if he did? Don't we have the right to approach people on our own property that we don't want there, or do we have to call the cops? If the cops come, they will escalate the situation by approaching the interloper. Sure, then it is by the cops and that is what they are paid to do, but do you really need the cops every time you have to approach a stranger about a subject that may not be agreeable to the stranger?
The way I see it, the homeowner didn't escalate the situation by approaching the stranger. The stranger escalated the situation by being on somebody else's property. The homeowner simply tried to de-escalate the situation by verbally engaging the the interloper on the matter of leaving the property, thereby helping to safeguard the property and its human occupants.
So if the homeowner did anything wrong, it was the collection of the crack pipe. On that matter, he should have called the cops as possession of said item (apparently used, hence having residue) would be unlawful. So he should have called the cops to collect the contraband.
Mrginal advantages here and there, but ultimately getting shot is likely to kill you.
To suggest that getting shot will result in you likely getting killed, when speaking of .22 lr, isn't on base. "Likely" means that something is probable, not just possible, but probable. With .22 lr, that just isn't the case. With most shootings, that isn't the case.
A .22 lr is still considered lethal force. It can kill a person, but it isn't likely to kill them unless vital structures are hit and medical attention isn't gained.
2) Yet another fatal .22 shooting. This time to the stomach. I was scolded by some .45 fanatic a few days agofor suggesting that .22 is capable of "stopping", given the correct confluence of circumstances.
Was this a "stop" per se? All we know is that the interloper was approaching the homeowner. The homeowner may have rightfully feared for his life and used lethal force legally. I am not arguing against that point at all. However, the interloper may have wanted nothing more than to yell at the homeowner and getting closer is part of posturing and getting a point across. So the fact that he might have been stopped from getting his point across would not be the same thing as being stopped whilst trying to hack to death the homeowner with a hatchet.
