Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Was this outcome fair? Should he have been given a heftier punishment?

Homeowner who fatally shot burglary suspect gets 90 days

"A southern Minnesota crop farmer who fatally shot a burglary suspect while he was fleeing the scene was sentenced Tuesday, after accepting a plea deal on a lesser charge.

David Allen Pettersen, 65, pleaded guilty to a charge of intentional discharge of a dangerous weapon in the Jan. 28 incident and was sentenced to 90 days in jail, plus two years of supervised probation. He will get credit for three days served.

According to the criminal complaint, Pettersen interrupted what he perceived as an attempted burglary at his rural Madelia home, grabbed a .45 caliber handgun and fired it at the suspect's vehicle, fatally striking the driver -- 19-year-old Nicolas Thomas Embertson. Embertson was in the vehicle with two other men, Kyle Thomas Nason and Cornelius Ayers, Jr., both 18. The two others in the car have been sentenced on burglary counts."

"fatally shot a burglary suspect while he was fleeing the scene"

so he basically executed him.

They post such a nice picture of the "victim", and a jail photo for the real victim? What is wrong with the world? This man was at home sleeping when these thugs decided to break in and do god knows what. Ridiculous!!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"fatally shot a burglary suspect while he was fleeing the scene"

so he basically executed him. Piece of shit kid got what he deserved. It just sucks the law is working against the homeowner, the poor guys shouldn't be charge, but 90 days for a one take-down is fair. Too bad the their 2 knuckleheads didn't get a bullet as well. I have no respect for people who robs others.

Real question is, would you do the same as this old man or let the punk go?

cool

If they had been shooting at him or driving the car towards him, I'd say he had every right to shoot. but that isn't what happened.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
cool

I like how the well known micropenis boy believes the proper punishment for a non-violent theft attempt is death. I mean, just how impossibly small is Vansonbee's sad little incel penis anyways?

Seems fair, sounds like the guy was pretty reckless with his firearm by shooting at someone once he was outside and trying to flee.

The right thing to do at that point is to memorize/photograph the car/license plate he's driving and report it to the police.

If someone is invading your home and putting your family at risk, you have every right to put them down. But if they're actively fleeing the scene, you can't just mow someone down with impunity. I wasn't there, I don't know the pressure he went through and I think he should be given leniency but laws like this are in place for a reason.

Example: Was the guy shot in the home owner's living room or back yard? Was it in the back or in his face? Was the burglar armed? Shooting someone in the back as he's trying to flee when he's already in your yard is far different than blowing someone away when they're in you're living room staring you down.

He shot at the car as the car was driving away. Pretty reckless. What if there was someone in the car who wasn't involved in the attempted burglary. Like a child.

Or if he just missed and the bullet went through a window across the street.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"fatally shot a burglary suspect while he was fleeing the scene"

so he basically executed him.

Yes.

Thought this was another case from some years back, where a home owner chased down and shot an intruder well outside the confines of his home.

Right to stand your ground ends when the intruder is fleeing the scene (And obviously, once they flee the premesis.)

I was surprised to see the kids dad said the ruling was fair.

Indeed.

It's only 90 days, it's barely a slap on the wrist.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's only 90 days, it's barely a slap on the wrist. 1 death = 90 days, its a bargain deal and will this be on the homeowner record?

yes it will. whenever he applies for a job, for the rest of his life, they'll find out what he did.

Of course it's going to be on his record.

Which qualifies him for, what.

Who would even hire a guy with that on his record? Unless there's some government program forcing him on them.

Third rate porn shop desk clerk? (Friend of mine went to a place who hired a con for the desk.. Guy actually punched a piece of plastic floating in mid air.)

he could be a private contractor.

Originally posted by vansonbee
They post such a nice picture of the "victim", and a jail photo for the real victim? What is wrong with the world? This man was at home sleeping when these thugs decided to break in and do god knows what. Ridiculous!!

Piece of shit kid got what he deserved. It just sucks the law is working against the homeowner, the poor guys shouldn't be charge, but 90 days for a one take-down is fair. Too bad the their 2 knuckleheads didn't get a bullet as well. I have no respect for people who robs others.

Real question is, would you do the same as this old man or let the punk go?

You seem to be the kind of guy that would be a big fan of Sharia law being put into place. Should the punishment for petty theft be the loss of a hand?

Wasteful imo. The Yakuza realize cutting off an entire hand is overkill when each hand has five fingers, and each finger has some joints.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
You seem to be the kind of guy that would be a big fan of Sharia law being put into place. Should the punishment for petty theft be the loss of a hand? But they can still think about doing it!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yes it will. whenever he applies for a job, for the rest of his life, they'll find out what he did. He's sixty five years old. I can't imagine he'll be working for too much longer.

Should've shot out the tires instead.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If they had been shooting at him or driving the car towards him, I'd say he had every right to shoot. but that isn't what happened.

Yup.

Originally posted by Surtur
I was surprised to see the kids dad said the ruling was fair.

Some people, in fact many of them, are logical, and level headed. His deceased son was caught in the act of trying to burgle a home. His son was shot while fleeing. He understand that his son was doing something that could get him killed. However, his son was trying to flee and it was wrong of that the homeowner to shoot at a fleeing car.


Only in Castle Doctrine states can you shoot someone on your property...but I don't even think that would apply in this situation since they were on the road.


Yes, I believe a burglar automatically forfeits his or her life the moment that step onto private property with the intention to burgle. That's a known risk that even stupid teenagers understand.




However, I do not think the homeowner should serve ANY jail time. None. None whatsoever. He should be ordered to pay out a painful sum to the victims family and be required to do some sort of community service to gunshot victims (such as medical care like having the change the diapers to a convalesced victim).

But he is a working, productive member of society. He would not have killed the young man had the young man not sought to harm him or taken his property. Removing a productive member of society, who is not a danger to society, is such a waste. His life may be ruined, now. He may lose his job. I want his taxes.

If you think the kid forfeited his life via his actions why should the guy be paying the kids parents any money then?

He is old, I assume probably close to retirement. Having to pay a large sum of money might hurt him more in the long run than 90 days in jail.

Anyhow, here's hoping he doesn't get buttraped while serving his 87 days

Why is it the Liberal Side always supports the criminals?

No one supported the criminals here, confused one. You can say one's actions were wrong while also not supporting the other.

edit: AdamPoE proved me wrong, someone did in fact support a criminal here. It was you.

The shooter is also a criminal, so . . .

A lot of you say he was fleeing the scene and the homeowner had no right to shoot. Had he done nothing those three thugs would have just kept robbing places. Not only should the guy not have got 90 days he should be given a medal.

Laws the law.

Any responsible gun owner would say he got off too lightly.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The shooter is also a criminal, so . . .

http://i.imgur.com/RG0BS1U.gif

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yup.



Some people, in fact many of them, are logical, and level headed. His deceased son was caught in the act of trying to burgle a home. His son was shot while fleeing. He understand that his son was doing something that could get him killed. However, his son was trying to flee and it was wrong of that the homeowner to shoot at a fleeing car.


Only in Castle Doctrine states can you shoot someone on your property...but I don't even think that would apply in this situation since they were on the road.


Yes, I believe a burglar automatically forfeits his or her life the moment that step onto private property with the intention to burgle. That's a known risk that even stupid teenagers understand.




However, I do not think the homeowner should serve ANY jail time. None. None whatsoever. He should be ordered to pay out a painful sum to the victims family and be required to do some sort of community service to gunshot victims (such as medical care like having the change the diapers to a convalesced victim).

But he is a working, productive member of society. He would not have killed the young man had the young man not sought to harm him or taken his property. Removing a productive member of society, who is not a danger to society, is such a waste. His life may be ruined, now. He may lose his job. I want his taxes.

I actually agree with this.

You could put other restrictions on him, if it's about punishing the man. Unfortunately, our legal system is pretty straightforward in how it works: You either pay money or go to jail. And the big crimes (Like manslaughter) almost always entail jail time.

Originally posted by Killjoy12
A lot of you say he was fleeing the scene and the homeowner had no right to shoot. Had he done nothing those three thugs would have just kept robbing places. Not only should the guy not have got 90 days he should be given a medal.

That is why we have laws and police. Resorting to vigilante justice deprives the target and society at large due process.

I agree about jailtime. Kid brought it onto himself by trying to burgle, but homeowner shouldn't have killed im for it. Dumb move really.

90 days is nothing. Now he has to live with the fact he killed someone. That's a life sentence.

Originally posted by cdtm
I actually agree with this.

You could put other restrictions on him, if it's about punishing the man. Unfortunately, our legal system is pretty straightforward in how it works: You either pay money or go to jail. And the big crimes (Like manslaughter) almost always entail jail time.

I still can't see why, if the kid forfeited his life with his actions, the parents are owed any money.

Originally posted by Robtard
He shot at the car as the car was driving away. Pretty reckless. What if there was someone in the car who wasn't involved in the attempted burglary. Like a child.

Why would you bring a child to a robbery?

yeah criminals are usually governed by sound reason. good call

I've never heard of them bringing their children to a burglary, but that's just me.

I stand corrected. That's pretty terrible. You're life should be ended just to stop you from pro creating any further at this point.

Here's another caught on vid:

6apc94UxuU4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6apc94UxuU4

What are these white people thinking? One thing to be a shitty thief, but to endanger your child for profit. Come on.

We can't all be winners.

Originally posted by Robtard
I like how the well known micropenis boy believes the proper punishment for a non-violent theft attempt is death. I mean, just how impossibly small is Vansonbee's sad little incel penis anyways? I'm not necessarily saying he should have shot the person in this particular case, but I think your wording here is disingenuous.

maybe technically true, but still vague enough to be disingenuous IMO.

"non-violent theft" sounds petty enough. shoplifting is also non violent theft. but there is a world of difference between a B&E and shoplifting.

and the gruesome reality is that B&E's are treated as a much more potentially deadly situation because that is the reality of the situation. Many times if someone is willing to break into a place they do so armed and with the potential outcome of shooting anyone that they find inside should things go wrong. So if you get shot breaking into a place - you basically had it coming. Once again, am I saying the shooter was necessarily right to do so in this case? No, haven't really looked into it. But if you are breaking into houses and you aren't contemplating the fact that you might get shot doing so then tough luck for you. Here's a Darwin award for your profound recklessness.