Yes and the dumb crook lunged at the guy with the shotgun and got shot. Then the dumb crook lunged again at the husband and was shot again. That is the husbans story and he is sticking to it. As he should. At least the crook didn't lunge with his back.

I am just happy that both crooks were shot and that no humans were hurt just the predators. The only down side was that only one was killed. The other was just wounded.

I have heard that the husband is going to start shooting skeet and trap. He needs to improve his aim after all. He also needs to get his wife involved. After all he isn't home all the time.

B... but... but wait... I thought that if you have a gun in your house, the criminals will only take it away from you and use it against you. I've never been told by the Brady Campaign or any other groups against "gun violence" that it might be possible for the crime victim to take the gun away from the attacker and use it against him. It doens't work that way, really, does it? It only works the other way, right?

Oh, and another instance of journalist vs. firearm technology: the report is that it was a shotgun, but it then says "the bullet pierced his diaphragm and other organs." Hmmm - slug? Buckshot? Maybe it was a rifle?

Anyhow, the best line - and one I'd like to read more often in these stories, but seems more common in Texas than just about anywhere else (don't try this in New Jersey!):

"Investigators say the couple were just defending their family and probably won't be charged."

Damn straight.

The headline (at least as I now read it) is factually wrong, though:
"Texas Woman Kills Home Intruder With His Own Gun"

Should read Texas Woman's *Husband* Kills Home Intruder With Intruder's Own Gun.

I'm glad this turned out well in the end, but the question is, does the family have their own guns and are they accessible?

PS: I like the NRA stories where adolescents have the presence of mind to retrieve the family firearm(s) and use them against criminals who aren't expecting teens to be able to fight back.
The kids in this story are very lucky mom & dad were quick on their feet.

Shouldn't the surviving perp be charged with felony murder in addition to burglary or whatever the report listed? As I recall, committing a felony in the course of which a person dies (even if it's another perp) is the very definition of felony murder.

seems she did the exact opposite of what the intruder told her to do. and it worked.

"Shouldn't the surviving perp be charged with felony murder in addition to burglary or whatever the report listed?"

In general, yes, maybe. It depends on which version of the felony murder rule the jurisdiction has adopted. Here you have a co-conspirator getting killed by an intended victim. I'm pretty sure in many jurisdictions it is considered to be foreseeable that an intended victim might fight back with deadly force, so this could (and should) be felony murder.

There are different variations of the felony murder rule - i.e., did one perp accidentally kill another perp? Did an innocent bystander get killed by a perp, but no on purpose? Did a cop kill one of the perps? Did a cop accidentally kill an innocent bystander while trying to apprehend a perp? Etc. Each of these might or might not be felony murder, depending on the law of the jurisdiction - the issue is foreseeability and causation (first year law school stuff).