Shawn Richard home invasion suspect
Shawn Richard courtesy Nye County Sheriff

Cops in Nye County, Nevada say a homeowner will face no charges after they shot a 48-year-old home invader who not only forced his way into the home, but then kicked open the bedroom door. Displaying exemplary gun control, the homeowner shot Shawn Richard, 48, center mass, ending the attack.

Fortunately the homeowner had his defensive gun handy because Richard, who was wanted for violating his parole, was carrying a shotgun he’s picked up during an earlier home invasion.

News3LV has the story . . .

Deputies responded to a report of a shooting on Kellogg Road around 9:30 p.m. Thursday, the sheriff’s office said in a recorded video.

Authorities learned that Shawn Richard, 48, unlawfully entered a home, and the homeowner heard him from the bedroom.

Richard kicked the bedroom door open and the homeowner shot him twice in the chest, according to the sheriff’s office. …

Deputies also found in his possession a shotgun reported stolen from a home invasion the night before.

Richard will apparently survive his wounds. In addition to the parol violation, he’s facing home invasion, grand larceny of a firearm, burglary and prohibited person in possession of a firearm charges now, too.

This sounds like the textbook case of armed self-defense on the part of the unidentified homeowner. And if they called 911, that would have created an audio recording of the incident.

If the homeowner says something along the lines of, “Intruder! You’re in my home. I’ve called the police. Leave Now! I am armed. If you come in here, I will shoot you!” and then moments later the bedroom door bursts open, that makes a pretty compelling case that few prosecutors would think of taking to a jury.

Of course, there are always prosecutors who will prosecute clear-cut cases of self-defense just for political expediency, but most of the time most of them try to do the right thing.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

76 COMMENTS

  1. “… Nevada say a homeowner will face no charges after they shot a 48-year-old home invader …”

    Can we get pronoun usage correct, instead of looking like an illiterate? You refer to the home invader with the correct pronoun, but not the homeowner?? It’s not they, it’s “he” or “she.” Quit butchering the language like an illiterate millennial leftist. I’m seeing this sort of usage everywhere, now. It disgusting and disheartening.

    • I was thinking the same thing. Who writes this crap and expects even a semi literate person not to be concerned about the literacy of the author.

      • It’s not correct grammar (such as the now-common “there’s” to denote plural items, when it should be “there are”), but I imagine the use of “they” in this context is employed to protect the identity of the homeowner, as a way of avoiding identification of his/her gender.

        The mangling of proper English makes my eye twitch a bit, but I’ll give this one a pass.

        • It’s only been about a 150 years that “they” was considered unacceptable as a pronoun for an unknown person. Prior to that, many of the celebrated English authors used they regularly as a singular pronoun. Back in the 1800s some prissy-pants decided it was bad English and we’ve had to live with their prissiness ever since.

    • Not arguing with you but just a quick search (because I was curious) showed one example such as this.

      “Writers should use the singular “they” in two main cases: (a) when referring to a generic person whose gender is unknown or irrelevant to the context and (b) when referring to a specific, known person who uses “they” as their pronoun.”
      I couldn’t care less about (b) but the example in (a) seems fair.

      • I agree wholeheartedly! It’s one thing when the subjects sex or pronoun is unknown or in great doubt. It’s quite another when the subjects sex is clear and his pronoun preference is assumable (yet alway rebuttable).

        We ought not concede the power of NewSpeak to Progressives

      • It is not fair. When the sex of the subject is clear and pronoun preference is assumable then it is conventional and informative to use the more informative pronoun.

        Imagine if the subject were female. Wouldn’t we construe the subject’s sex to be pertinent?

        I’ll concede that if the subject were understood to be a member of Pink Pistols then it would be gracious to use “they” absent knowledge of the subject’s pronoun preference.

      • If you went to school in the 60s the correct usage was “ he or she” if the sex of the person was unknown or if referring to people in general.
        ie. “ A child today should be careful of his or her grammar.”

        Actually now that I write it out, back then I think the correct grammar was to just use “his” when speaking in general terms.

    • You have too much time on your hands if you’re doing the “grammar police ” thing. Though, as I’m responding to it, I guess I have too much time on my hands as well.

    • Take it easy. The original article does not provide enough information to ascertain the gender of the homeowner. Under such conditions “they” is acceptable.

    • I agree wholeheartedly! It’s one thing when the subjects sex or pronoun is unknown or in great doubt. It’s quite another when the subjects sex is clear and his pronoun preference is assumable (yet alway rebuttable).

      We ought not concede the power of NewSpeak to Progressives

      • Fox News is now announcing how the USMC may stop using ” sir” or “ma’am” when addressing drill instructors. The USMC is pushing back on this report saying “No changes will be made to time-tested methods without significant scrutiny and feedback from the Marine Corps leadership.”
        The “so called” report recommends that the USMC stop using gender identifiers.
        China “laughs” as the United States crumbles.

        • And has the fun of over a million new Wuhan flu cases a day. Not only are hospitals overloaded but so are morgues and funeral parlors.

          Why? Low vaccination rates especially among the elderly, ineffective vaccines against the newer strains, and the stress of living in China under the CCP’s panopticon surveillance state.

          Odds are this will get held for moderation.

        • Southern Cross, so you fall for the BIASED media reporting on what is happening in China??

          Since they have lost all credibility in the USA, why should be trust them when they tell us what is happening in other countries??

          Like Ukraine, talk about “PROPAGANDA”!!!

          Now that the PENTAGON has been caught giving FAKE NEWS to Twitter about Russian actions in Ukraine, Twitter still posted the stories, even after they told the PENTAGON they knew the stories were not “TRUE”, by order of the PENTAGON!!!

    • “They” is the traditional English term for an individual who is yet to be unidentified by name and whose gender is uncertain. He or she is multiple possibilities. Hence “they”.

      Example: “It’s clear a person came into my house. I don’t know who they were.”

      What the leftists do is use “they” AFTER an individual has been named and identified, after which we expect a “he” or “she” pronoun. But they will throw in a “they” after naming them, which leaves most of us wondering who else is involved. After naming, “they” implies a plurality of people, rather than plurality of possible genders for one unnamed person. This is when traditional English gets abused, and causes confusion.

      In this article, the writer did eventually specify the homeowner was a “he”. Prior to that, and without a name offered, “they” was an appropriate pronounce for the genderless term “homeowner”.

    • Irregardless (sic :)) this news definitely makes for a merry Chrsitmas (not sarcastic); more examples are needed.

  4. Remember folks: Far Left Progressive True Believers (TM) want that homeowner unarmed and relegated to facing his attacker at best with a baseball bat and at worst with his bare hands and feet.

    Given that the home invader had the huge advantages of surprise and alertness (he was not rousing from sleep like the homeowner), the home invader could have easily maimed/murdered the homeowner with nothing more than a baseball bat himself. This would have been an attempted/successful murder scene if Far Left Progressive True Believers had their way.

    And that just goes to show that Far Left Progressive True Believers are quite comfortable with obscene numbers of collateral damage in their quest for money, power, and control.

    • Speaking of Far Left Progressive True Believers being comfortable with obscene numbers of collateral damage in their quest for money, power, and control:

      This arctic air plunge has resulted in air temperatures in the upper teens to 30s and wind chills as low as the single digits along much of the U.S. — Mexico border. How many illegal immigrants, piled up outside and planning to illegally cross the border, will suffer severe injuries or die in this epic cold? Remember, these illegal immigrants are from much warmer climates and it was not possible for them to bring clothing/coats suitable for extreme cold weather. Of course, as far as Far Left Progressive True Believers are concerned, this is an unfortunate necessity on their road to money, power, and control.

      • Those dead bodies in the river can be used as life rings for others coming across. This absolutely evil administration could not care less about these people, they don’t even care about the 80,000 plus of our own citizens dying from the drugs coming across the border.

      • UC,

        A friend of mine from seminary visited, yesterday. He talked about some ‘liberal’ friends he visited last week. He characterized his friends conversation this way: “Thank God Biden is letting in all these refugees. Americans are lazy and do not want to work hard. These refugees have strong work ethics and want to work. They will be our cooks, our gardeners, our mechanics, and our construction workers. We need them. Thank God Biden is undoing all the damage Trump did.”

        So, Jim, my friend, said he made it a short visit.

        • That guy wants to replace lazy Americans with something that works better. I thought replacement theory was some crazy, racist right wing conspiracy theory? According to this liberal friend of a friend, it’s true. The more you know…

    • The far left makes generalizations with a minimal number of examples and they fail to consider age and health issues. The far left are not called “far left” for nothing! Why one might ask…… because they certainly aren’t right.

      • I do not nitpick grammer. Mainly because when I read my own posts next day sometimes I ask who the heck wrote that? For those who complain they should not be wasting time here, they should be writing a literary work of art, patents, oil and gas leases, etc.
        I am much more upset the perp was shot twice center mass and survived.

  5. Really swell that they were able to save this criminal so he can benefit society when he gets out. (sarc)

  7. I had an interesting conversation with my daughter, recently. She graduates in the spring with a degree in music and will continue teaching violin in the music studio we set up in our home. She has noticed a significant number of “died suddenlies” along with sky-rocketing grocery and energy bills, and parents ceasing violon lessons for their children due to the cost-of-living increases. We talked about how there will be an increasing number of frightened, desperate. hungry people. We talked about flashmobs eventually targeting homes, not just stores. I asked her, “If they were breaking in a door or window, could you shoot them?”

    I was proud of her honesty: “I would probably be too frozen with fear to even move.”

    Now, she is thinking about it. Now, she is considering what self-defense is really about. Now, she has realized she needs to do something that will prepare her to survive.

    Pushing her to do something will not work: she has a strong case of oppositional defiance. Triggering her internal motivation, however, should eventually pay off.

    BTW, she is deadly accurate with a laser bullet. Maybe we’ll get her to the range one day. Inches, baby steps. That’s what works.

    • She is honest and observant of her situation, already way ahead of most. Seeing what people are willing to do in desperation let alone out of malice could help with breaking the shock cycle.

    • “We talked about flashmobs eventually targeting homes, not just stores.”

      Massad Ayoob recently posted a video (a couple of weeks ago) in which he acknowledges the rise of multiple-person assaults, or even “flash mob” robberies and attacks. This is beginning to happen with home burglaries as well, and will undoubtedly increase.

      Go to mark 2:00:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJzxpn2vuA

    • Chris, the bad guy lived. tax payers will pay after all for all that plus his medical expenses.
      .

  9. Excellent outcome for all parties! The homeowner is alive, uninjured, not incarcerated and apparently not facing criminal charges. A civil suit may be filed but probably won’t get much traction in court or be excessively costly to fight. The alleged criminal is alive and, hopefully, facing a long prison term.

    There are many woke, progressive activists who will lament the homeowner’s armed response as one more example of why our country should join the rest of the civilized world by removing firearms from all civilians/private citizens. They will claim that if the invader had not had (illegal) access to the shotgun, the victim wouldn’t have needed a firearm for defense. Some will say that the victim should have complied and given the invader whatever he wanted; anything to avoid violence. Some will even insist that the victim had no right to defend himself.

    If you think I’m making this up or “It can’t happen here”, please research news articles from the United Kingdom. You will need to be thorough. Such stories won’t be on the front page or above the fold. In this First World, civilized society, subjects (not citizens) have no right of self defense. Some have been imprisoned; many have been successfully sued by their attacker(s). Take note that our legal codes and system of jurisprudence is grounded in English Common Law. It has happened there; it CAN happen here.

  11. Some pretty big news broke yesterday by the ‘Armed Scholar’ YouTube channel.

    Apparently, an emergency application has been made to the Supreme Court to strike down states openly defying their NYSRPA v. Bruen decision (NY, NJ, etc).

    Hopefully, TTAG can ask LKB to comment on it.

    Please watch the video, especially on how it will play out if Kagan or Sotomayor are assigned the case, and try and screw us. If that happens, we can pick the Justice to decide it, like Thomas.

    Could this be the enforcement action we have been waiting for, to force the Leftist Scum ™ to respect the 2A?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UXJOVn9VP0

    • The current petition is from a case challenging NY’s new CCW law and in particular the expansiveness of its gun free zones. The trial court issued a 184 decision meticulously explaining the unconstitutionality of those provisions, and issued a preliminary injunction staying enforcement pending trial. The State appealed that decision and applied to the Second Circuit for a stay of the decision pending appeal. (TEchnically, the only issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction.) In a four sentence order, the Second said it had reviewed the pertinent factors (unidentified) and for reasons (also unidentified) granted the stay, thus allowing the law to go into effect. A very well written application was made to the Presiding Justice of the Second Circuit (Sotomayor) to overturn the Second Circuit’s order. (https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content…Stay-FINAL.pdf)

  12. Homeowner should probably rethink his caliber of choice. The article didn’t mention the gun used, but likely a 9mm or .380. If so, stepping it up would be wise, or pulling the trigger on the mouse gun more than twice.

  13. always follow-up with brain shots, if you can, even as he’s falling. Once he’s on the ground, you have to stop shooting.

    • @ Bill Reynolds
      Who says you have to stop shooting once he’s on the ground? He was armed with a shotgun! You fire until the threat is eliminated. Just because he went down doesn’t mean he can’t shoot you. If they’re going to play the game, kick doors in, victimize people, I’m NOT playing Mr Nice Ward Cleaver. Being Mr. Nice gets you hurt.

      I would have mag-dumped his stupid ass. Someone kicks in my door, comes in my room with a shotgun, they’re leaving in a Ziplok Bag, not an amberlamps.

      • you fire until the threat is STOPPED.

        of you get if front of a jury and say “I fired until the threat was eliminated” ..you probably going to prison.

        ‘eliminated’ implies a pre-meditation to kill.

      • hmmm yes it is. been through several of these … in my second one the prosecutor from the DA office asked me what happened. I blurted out “I kept shooting until the threat was eliminated”. the room got really quiet and the prosecutor asked the cop to read me my rights. My lawyer interjected telling him I was still not thinking clearly and asked for a couple of minutes alone and explained to me “when you said ‘eliminated’ you implied you premeditated murdering the guy.”

        luckily, I got a second chance when the prosecutor said he understood and gave me some time.

        no, its not semantics. its the difference between murder charges and self-defense.

        but you do you.

        • Even though eliminate can mean stop, it’s not the way most people interpret it and their misinterpretation can lead to bad outcomes. The court only hears the words one speaks void of actual meaning or intent. Therefore it is best to use simple well chosen responses that have a minimal number of interpretations. In short, one can be smart or a smart aleck.

          Even though stop is one definition of eliminate and eliminate is one definition of stop, depending on context they are not interchangeable. In reference to DGU it is always best to say I meant to “stop” the threat and to not use any other qualifiers/adjectives to glorify your actions.

    • no, you don’t have to stop if he’s on the ground if he is still a threat that has not been stopped. you fire until the threat is stopped, doesn’t matter if on the ground or not.

      • interesting how they confuse the threat with the perp…perhaps deliberately?….your goal is to stop someone from threatening your life…not ending theirs….if that happens it’s incidental….they seem to imply otherwise…bit of a reach….

  14. I was having my morning coffee while reading this. Always a plus to start my day with positive news. Homeowner did everything right. Oh my, that coffee is nice!

  16. I live in Nye County and can promise you that the homeowner will definitely NOT be charged. The name of the homeowner has not been released (probably by request), nor has their gender.
    Any further gender confusion in the article came from the NBC affiliate Boch got his news from. If he had bothered to look at our local news, he would have seen this “Charges will not be filed against the homeowner who shot Richard, according to the sheriff’s office, because it was a lawful defense of one’s home.”

    If you break into a home here, you’re most definitely taking your life in your hands, unless it’s one of those lefty Californicators that have increasingly moved here in the last couple of years.

  18. Good to read the homeowner won’t be charged. Too bad the miscreant survived and will be living on the taxpayer’s dime for a while. Suggest getting a heavier caliber weapon.

  19. “ Richard will apparently survive his wounds. ”

    Homeowner needs more range time and/or a bigger gun.

  20. “Of course, there are always prosecutors who will prosecute clear-cut cases of self-defense just for political expediency….”

    Seriously? How would it be politically expedient? It would just be dumb! Of course, there are Soros-style prosecutors ….

Comments are closed.