On Saturday a homeowner shot a burglar when he surprised the scumbag in his home. Here is the local news story on the incident. It is wrong in so many ways that I thought we’d analyze it:

A Kent man who shot and killed a suspected intruder inside his home Saturday was armed with his own handgun when he walked in the door and found the stranger inside his home, police said.

Who else’s gun would he have? Its pretty hard to ‘take a gun away’ from someone else when you don’t have one yourself.

A man and woman came home to their condo on Kent’s East Hill at 6 p.m. Saturday to find another man inside. The 28-year-old homeowner used his own gun to shoot the suspected intruder, said Kent police spokesman Paul Petersen.

Suspected intruder? He caught the guy robbing his home — there is no suspected about it!

It’s unknown why the homeowner had a handgun, Petersen said.

Why? Its pretty damn obvious why! To protect himself against murders and thieves. Its a good thing he did, isn’t it? Otherwise you might have another unsolved murder to solve.

Police aren’t releasing the homeowners’ names. The dead man, believed in his mid-20s, has not been identified.

Neighbors reported four to five gunshots, but there were no witnesses other than the homeowners, Petersen said.

After the man was shot, he ran through a broken sliding-glass door and died in the backyard. He was carrying a bag that contained some stolen property from the couple’s home, Petersen said.

Nowhere in this article do they call the burglar what he is. They call him a ‘suspected intruder’, and only at the end mention that he was carrying a bag with stolen items. Isn’t that the definition of burgling? I have a problem with the PI ‘reporter’ who wrote this, as well as with the Kent Police spokesman who wonders why the guy had a gun?