Break out the violins, folks. An aspiring home invader got the invasion part down when it comes to victimizing innocent people. He neglected to consider that the homeowner gets a vote in the matter too. In this case, Damon Swanigan, Jr., 22, lost control of his gun. The homeowner picked it up and shot him with it.
Damon managed to stumble outside onto the porch where he collapsed. At about the same time, a fusillade of rounds struck the front of the house (and maybe Damon too?) as Damon’s fellow companions opened fire.
The homeowner escaped unshot. At this point, homeowner Brent Smith better be watching his back. Because Damon’s fellow gang buddies will be lookin’ for some payback.
From WXIN:
INDIANAPOLIS (WXIN) — A man is dead following an attempted home invasion in Indianapolis.
Just before 7 p.m. Tuesday, police were called to a neighborhood on the city’s east side after a homeowner reported a masked man forced his way into the home during an attempted robbery.
That homeowner, Brent Smith, spoke with Nexstar’s WXIN shortly after being released from custody without charges.
“He smacked me in the head with a gun and told me I knew what it was and then I yelled out he’s trying to rob me,” Smith explained, recounting the incident.
“It was like a movie, me and him wrestling over the gun,” said Smith.
During that struggle, Smith admits he shot the intruder with the suspect’s own gun.
Pass me a tissue
Would be ironic if medical examiner determines that the fatal shot came from an accomplice(s).
Indy used to be a nice town. Now, just another urban sewer. One bottom-feeder less now, it would seem.
Federal Judge allows NY Assault Weapons challenge to proceed:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-allows-challenge-to-ny-assault-weapons-ban-to-proceed/ar-AA1mt9fO?ocid=windirect&cvid=b51258518aa843b4b466c852372c6f70&ei=26#comments
This one may have implications for our suits against PICA. You can bet Judge McGlynn will be taking note of this. State of NY made an extremely lame argument to attempt to get it dismissed, and the judge threw it back in their faces flatly. They used the “No one has been materially harmed by the ban because the plaintiff didn’t claim to ‘own a license to purchase an assault rifle’. Sound familiar? This is the new hobby horse for gun control efforts post-Bruen. The judge wasn’t buying it.
Thank you for the explanation. This sounds like really good news