[fastpat]

That's too bad, really. The homeowner is clearly guilty of self defense (ehich includes property), and nothing else, unless the details are incorrect.

There is one issue I see, and that is he probably assumed that he was only going to "sting" them with the pellet gun, so didn't hesitate to use what he thought was non-lethal force. Still, that does not say that he was wrong to use force to stop a theft of property, which is completely legitimate.

It's actually better to be armed with a genuine firearm, then there will be no tendency to use it as a non-lethal weapon, and if you're attacked, it will be able to stop the attack, whereas a pellet gun is chancy at best.