Skip to Content

NE Salem resident fatally shoots man suspected of trying to break into home

NE Salem resident shot, killed man trying to break into home Sunday evening, authorities say
KGW
NE Salem resident shot, killed man trying to break into home Sunday evening, authorities say

SALEM, Ore. (KGW) — A northeast Salem resident shot and killed an unknown man suspected of trying to break into their home Sunday evening, the Marion County Sheriff's Office said. 

At just before 7:00 p.m., deputies were called to a disturbance at a home on 45th Avenue Northeast near Iberis Street Northeast, KGW reported.

A 911 caller reported an unknown male had tried to break into the home and that a resident had shot the intruder, deputies said. 

First responders pronounced the suspect dead at the scene. There were no other reported injuries.

Detectives from the Criminal Investigations Unit are investigating the incident. 

The sheriff's office did not release any other initial information due to this being an active investigation.

The agency asked anyone with information about the incident to submit tips online at https://www.co.marion.or.us/SO/Pages/tip411.aspx or by texting TIPMCSO and their tip to 847411.

KTVZ news sources

Comments

31 Comments

  1. You should 🐝 able to defend your home and it shouldn’t be as BLM was chanting in 2020, that if they want your residence then they feel entitled to it and you better 🐝 willing to give it to them. As the saying goes “if you value my property over your life, better prepare for the consequences.”

  2. Yep to all the commenters on here asking why people need guns or languishing in all the “tragedy” caused by them; here is why law abiding citizens “need” guns. As for why cops need em here’s another: https://ktvz.com/news/ap-washington/2021/12/29/cops-shoot-kill-person-suspected-of-holding-people-hostage/ guns are used lawfully every day to protect law abiding citizens and level the playing field between good and bad. Any tool can be abused, but so long as there is bad in the world I’ll not berate those who lawfully, and might I say responsibly, protect themselves.

    1. It feels the toddler shoots sibling or parent stories outnumber the good guy shoots bad guy stories 3 to 1.

      Assuming that is the ratio, is having lots of guns handy
      a winner for America and if so, why don’t other countries follow our lead?

      1. I’d be curious to see the data there Riley. Pretty broad statement, would “good guy” here include cops, military etc… or just civilians. Regardless however, good guy doesn’t necessarily have to shoot bad guy to deter crime. Most bud guys see a gun and they reconsider. This happens many thousands of times in this country. Even the very enactment of carry laws deter crime, think about it, if you’re bent on doing a crime would you select a gun free area or some place you don’t know who may be armed? Why not other countries? Again, broad statement, there are a lot of countries where guns are allowed. I’m not them, or there. But there are a lot of countries where guns are allowed.

        1. “Regardless however, good guy doesn’t necessarily have to shoot bad guy to deter crime. Most bud guys see a gun and they reconsider. This happens many thousands of times in this country.”

          This is very true. I have carried for years and I have only had to draw my handgun twice, and in both cases I didn’t have to fire it. The fact that I drew my gun and had it pointed at the person was enough to de-escalate the situation.

      2. Comment wasn’t complete. I’m not them, and I’m not there. If you like “other country” policies, go there. Then see what kind of protection/defense you have to thier brand of violence.

        1. To the points, a cleaner contrast would have been Homeowner shoots bad guy vs toddler shoots someone and I didn’t claim to know the exact ratio. I just asked if it were 3 to 1, is that a winner for the US?

          FWIW, the US has 3X the gun violence of any other industrialized country.

          As far as my statements being too broad, I’ll note the other commenters speak on behalf of “most bad guys” so I’m curious how they could know the sentiments of that many people

          1. Fair enough, and I respect the reply. Short answer is, details and data are hard to quantify or qualify. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use estimates range from 55,000 to 4.7 million times a year guns deter bad guy. One survey in there suggests 137,000 times a year the perpetrator was killed or wounded. Then this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States accidentall gun deaths have been declining over the last century, but they now account for less than 1% of all unintentional deaths. America leads in gun violence because we have them. Not all violence is bad, i.e. when it is a “good” vs “bad” scenario. Furthermore around 2/3 of our gun violence is suicide. If someone is going to kill themselves, they will find a way. What’s more we don’t lead the world in suicide: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate gun related homicides account for mid 30k deaths a year. Knock off the suicides, which will happen one way or another, you’re down to 10 ish k a year. Then which of those were “good” vs “bad”… number of negligent or unlawful gun violence gets pretty low. Is it a winner for the U.S.? I’d say it deters more than it inflicts. Yes guns can be used for good and bad. Kid gets a gun and kills self or other; that’s not an accident, it’s negligence, and the irresponsible party should be prosecuted. Haven’t checked per se but I’d bet more kids die of accidentall drug overdose by negligence than guns. A lot of the world doesn’t trust thier citizens, nor want them to be able to control thier fate. This is a big reason our founders left England. And in crafting our constitution they ensured that we the people can defend ourselves. I consider gun ownership part of my personal responsibility to self preservation. It may never come to that, but the very existence of our second ammendment keeps over reach of the government, other countries, and “bad” people in check. The news loves to focus on the negatives of guns, that’s why “It feels the toddler shoots sibling or parent stories outnumber the good guy shoots bad guy stories 3 to 1.” Reality is guns are used far more for many legitimate purposes, and many of those self preservation. So what’s your opinion? Is that our right, even duty to take responsibility for our preservation? Is a gun the proper tool? Do you have any constructive ideas on what would help in the “bad” that guns cause? Honest questions not banter.

            1. “The news loves to focus on the negatives of guns”
              That’s rich considering this story portrays the gun and its owner as heroes and is music to the ears of gun worshipers. FOX appreciates that worshipers don’t want to hear negative gun stories such as “Houston storekeeper shoots shoplifter in the back” so they run ” Houston storekeeper kills robber”. That headline lets readers imagine the gun saved the storekeepers from being killed by an armed thug, when in fact it allowed him to spend 14 years in prison for killing an unarmed kid who was fleeing with a box of beer. 
               
              We agree gun suicides should not be lumped in with other shootings in the statistics, but the notion that those people would have found other ways to kill themselves is one of several NRA talking points you’ve touched on that, to put in kindly, are unsubstantiated.

              The way to separate the “good” from the “bad” of guns is requiring an 18″ barrel length & single action. This would not impact hunters or guns designed for home defense. FWIW I’m one of the millions who own a Winchester Defender, a gun that has no record of being accidentally discharged by a toddler or injury by a stray bullet. As you probably know, it’s a shotgun. 

              1. Alright. There is occasional coverage of shootings where “good” shoots “bad”. I would contest the negative coverage far outweighs those, especially on major networks. I would not say this story is one however, at first impression it could appear as such. I don’t “worship” guns, don’t know anyone who does. But, the types I interact with would agree, and know the laws, that shooting someone in the back should be punished unless there were serious extenuating circumstances. Steeling beer is not one, we can agree there. I feel I addressed the suicide notion in the fact the U.S. doesn’t lead the world in suicides despite our high gun ownership. It’s easy to kill yourself, if you wanted to die do you really think you couldn’t do it without a gun? As for the rest of your angle I have a few questions: 1: barrel longer than 18″, so no handguns? That would greatly reduce concealed carry, are you against defending yourself outside of the house? 2: single action? Your shotgun is a pump action. Did I misunderstand? 3: are local, state police and sherrifs held to these same restrictions? 4: do you think if the Winchester Defender were the only gun available it would continue the track record you say it has? 5: if, as I say, guns searve as a deterrent to over reach of government as well as foreign governments, is a your criteria adequate?

                1. Wow BSBYMH, you write as if you’re a Deacon of the Gods, Guns, and County Church and then claim not to know any of the worshipers. Maybe re-read some of your posts to see your reverent sentiments about gun ownership.

                  I don’t claim to be an expert on suicides, but those who are find that it’s different kinds of people who attempt different methods so it’s not a given that if a gun wasn’t available that someone would hang themselves.

                  You’re 100% correct that an 18″ barrel would be an unwieldy concealed weapon. Perhaps it would have been so uncomfortable that Ian Cranston of Bend would not have brought it to the bar and would not now be facing murder charges.

                2. So there is not a “reply” option under your post Riley. I’ll therefore respond here. Suicides are still greater in other countries than the U.S. why is that? You didn’t answer any of my questions, why is that? As for Ian; a jury will decide if what he did was lawful. What if he hadn’t had a gun? Would he possibly been beat to death? As for Deacon of… I like guns. I know guns, very well. I’m responsible with guns. They’re about my only lifelong “hobby.” You may not know suicide; I do. I won’t elaborate but suffice to say; I know for certain if a person wants to end it, they will… This could go on and on. If you can answer my questions maybe we can get somewhere?

  3. Story still lacks too many details for this reader to form an opinion. For instance, was the intruder inside? Did the intruder and homeowner know each other? Was the intruder armed? Was any warning/option given? I’m sure more info will be revealed as the investigation proceeds.

    1. Did you read the article FathersChild? “an unknown man” would imply they did not know eachother. As for inside or not doesn’t matter, attempting to force entry, on your property, comes down to proving, ability, opportunity and whether the homeowner feared for thier life. Armed or not does not necessarily have any relevance to proving any of these. Further there is no legal necessity to give warning or option at the point one can prove the aforementioned three criteria.

  4. If a person is dumb enough to break into someones home, they better be prepared
    to accept the consequences that may happen. I don’t know if this person was or not,
    but those that make stupid decisions because they are addicted to their drug of choice,
    that is not an excuse.

  5. To put a bow on this, some commenters “know” the gun and its shooter are the heroes in every situation and to challenge that is an affront to their religion. Through this lens, they see Ian Cranston as an admirable guy who just happened to spend his days making bullets and had the good judgment and foresight to bring his gun to the bar just in case someone needed to be shot. As luck would have it, Ian determined that a young fellow did indeed need one of his bullets that evening, but the DA disagreed and charged him with murder. The gun worshipers naturally think it will be a close call for the jury to decide on guilt despite the judge holding him without bail………………………….
    FYI, this virtuous defender of the 2nd amendment was arrested for dealing meth.
    https://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/4-osu-students-face-drug-dealing-charges/article_d879a6b2-d56d-11e2-bc9b-0019bb2963f4.html

      1. Just learned the Corvallis DA pressed charges against two who were arrested, but didn’t against Cranston. Apparently that DA grasps that gun-toting hotheads need to be out in
        public to keep everyone safe as opposed to our DA who foolishly puts them behind bars. Thanks to Hummel the Capitol Bar is unsafe now due to the lack of guns.

  6. To be clear, Ian Cranston was arrested for methylone,
    which is a synthetic form of ecstasy.
    I didn’t mean to imply he was involved with methamphetamine because that would tarnish his reputation.

    1. I see you’re still avoiding my questions from above Riley? Any interest in a real discussion or just gonna keep on with one isolated case that hasn’t even been tried?

Leave a Reply

Skip to content