Violent Intruder Smashes Into Home, Gets Shot — Homeowner Faces Charges Despite Acting in Self-Defen

[rangerrebew]

Violent Intruder Smashes Into Home, Gets Shot — Homeowner Faces Charges Despite Acting in Self-Defense
by Jim Hᴏft Jan. 1, 2026 8:15 am
 
An Indiana homeowner is facing felony charges after shooting an armed intruder who allegedly kicked in his door and impersonated police.

According to a report from Fox 59, a violent confrontation unfolded Saturday night in Muncie, Indiana.

Officers with the Muncie Police Department responded to a shooting call and found 28-year-old Marcus Brown Jr. suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. Brown was transported to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The resident of the home, 33-year-old Daniel Songer, reportedly fired at the intruder after grabbing his girlfriend’s handgun.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/violent-intruder-smashes-home-gets-shot-homeowner-faces/

[Kamaji]

Always helps to read the whole article, towards the end, the following nugget:

Police acknowledged that Songer told them he used his girlfriend’s firearm because he is legally prohibited from possessing a gun due to a prior felony conviction.

[MeganC]

Always helps to read the whole article, towards the end, the following nugget:

This is bullshit. The man has a right to defend his girlfriend and himself. He does not have an obligation to die because of a law that he otherwise obeys.

[Kamaji]

This is bullshit. The man has a right to defend his girlfriend and himself. He does not have an obligation to die because of a law that he otherwise obeys.

He wasn't arrested for murder, he was arrested for the crime he in fact committed.  Now it's up to him to argue his case to a jury.  That's the way it works; self-defense is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof.

[MeganC]

He wasn't arrested for murder, he was arrested for the crime he in fact committed.  Now it's up to him to argue his case to a jury.  That's the way it works; self-defense is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof.

No, the cops on the scene made the decision to arrest the man for a reasonable action.

This is what I mean when I say rights no longer exist when every exercise of a "right" has to be approved by a court.

[Kamaji]

No, the cops on the scene made the decision to arrest the man for a reasonable action.

This is what I mean when I say rights no longer exist when every exercise of a "right" has to be approved by a court.

That's not how reality works.  A lawful exercise of a right is not always immediately apparent.  That is why we have courts.

[MeganC]

That's not how reality works.  A lawful exercise of a right is not always immediately apparent.  That is why we have courts.

Had the man picked up a gun to defend a cop do you think the cops would have arrested him?

Would they prefer a cop to die instead? Hmmmm?

[MeganC]

That's not how reality works.  A lawful exercise of a right is not always immediately apparent.  That is why we have courts.

Then it is not a right. It is a revocable privilege.

[Kamaji]

Had the man picked up a gun to defend a cop do you think the cops would have arrested him?

Would they prefer a cop to die instead? Hmmmm?

Yes, I think they would have.

[MeganC]

Yes, I think they would have.

Then they would be ungrateful and not worth the effort.

[Kamaji]

Then they would be ungrateful and not worth the effort.

That's just your personal opinion, not the state of the law.

[MeganC]

That's just your personal opinion, not the state of the law.

No, it was your opinion. You believe the man would have been punished by cops for saving a cop.

That is likely accurate and I agree with you.

Further, I object to cops who have no common sense. They are deserving of condemnation.

[Kamaji]

No, it was your opinion. You believe the man would have been punished by cops for saving a cop.

That is likely accurate and I agree with you.

Further, I object to cops who have no common sense. They are deserving of condemnation.

(a) No, what constitutes an affirmative defense under Indiana criminal law and who bears the burden of proof is not my opinion,

(b) No, the fact that he confessed to having broken the law regarding possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is not my opinion, it's a matter of fact

(c) No, it's not my opinion that law enforcement officers would choose whether or not to enforce the law - one hopes that they do not make that decision themselves when confronted with a clear case of a violation accompanied by a confession - that is the job of the prosecutor and the courts, not the officers on the scene

(d) The only opinion being expressed here is yours, to wit:  "I object to cops who have no common sense. They are deserving of condemnation."  That is a statement of personal subjective belief and opinion.

[MeganC]

Does the man have a right to protect the life of his girlfriend and his own life against an armed intruder? Yes or no?

[Kamaji]

[Smokin Joe]

Did either of you read down at the bottom of the article to the part that said the video showed him handing a box to his g/f who put in their truck as ordered? The box apparently contained sealed packages of a plant substance (not identified).

Sounds like this was a drug ripoff gone bad (the deceased did not have a box, nor did the person behind him who ran like a bad paint job).

There may be levels to this not included in the article, besides the shooting itself, for which I must note no charges were mentioned in the article.