Minnesota homeowner gets 90 days in jail after killing man

[Big Dad]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/minnesota-man-gets-90-days-jail-killing-intruder-210000527.html

T. JAMES, Minn. (AP) — A Minnesota man who shot and killed a suspected burglar was sentenced Tuesday to 90 days in jail by a judge who said the homeowner opened fire "out of fear and maybe some stupidity."

David Allen Pettersen, 65, of Madelia was sentenced in Watonwan District Court after pleading guilty earlier to dangerous discharge of a firearm. He originally was charged with manslaughter.

Pettersen also received a one-year prison sentence, which was stayed, two years' probation and 100 hours of community service, the Mankato Free Press (http://bit.ly/2sNfScd ) reported.

Pettersen fatally shot 19-year-old Nicolas Embertson of Madelia on Jan. 28 when he fired at a vehicle that was fleeing from his home. Two others in the car have been sentenced on burglary counts. One of the others said they had intended to burglarize Pettersen's home.

"I take no satisfaction from his death and I will carry that awful responsibility with me for the rest of my life," Pettersen said in court. He buried his face in his hands after reading his statement.

Embertson's mother, Tracy McCabe, said in a statement that Pettersen "consciously took the law into his own hands." She described her life since her son's death as "endless sadness and lifelong hell."

Pettersen said an uninvited person on his deck had frightened him in the early morning. He said he grabbed his gun and went outside into his driveway where he said a car rushed at him.

"It was obvious the driver was trying to run me down," Pettersen said.

But McCabe pointed out that the bullets were found in the side of the car.

"My son was not a threat to him," McCabe said. "My son did not enter his home. He was given a death sentence."

Defense attorney James Fleming told the judge that Pettersen pleaded guilty "because he feels responsible to an extent even I disagree with." Fleming asked the judge to order home confinement instead of jail time.

Judge Gregory Anderson said he was convinced Pettersen is remorseful. He said he weighed Pettersen's remorse and lack of any criminal record in deciding to order a jail term shorter than the 180 days recommended in a presentence investigation.

"I do not perceive him as a threat to public safety," Anderson said. "He acted out of fear and maybe some stupidity."

___

[Gasser64]

Shoulda been in texas. Theft of tangible property must not be a shootable offense there.

[Jewrrick]

Shoulda been in texas. Theft of tangible property must not be a shootable offense there.

There was no theft. You must not read gewd.

Nothing to see here, guy got scared and shot someone that was fleeing the scene. At that point there is no longer a threat to his safety. What confuses me is he said that the car was "rushing at him" and "It was obvious the driver was trying to run me down," but the shots were into the side of the car.

The only reason for him not getting more time was because of the criminals confessing to their intent. Had they kept their mouths shut or worse and lied, he could be facing something WAAAAY worse.

[KBScobravert]

One one hand, fuck the turds who were gonna break in.

On the other hand, "out of stupidity" is about right.

[The King]

Shoulda been in texas. Theft of tangible property must not be a shootable offense there.

There was no theft. You must not read gewd.

Nothing to see here, guy got scared and shot someone that was fleeing the scene. At that point there is no longer a threat to his safety. What confuses me is he said that the car was "rushing at him" and "It was obvious the driver was trying to run me down," but the shots were into the side of the car.

The only reason for him not getting more time was because of the criminals confessing to their intent. Had they kept their mouths shut or worse and lied, he could be facing something WAAAAY worse.

Truth.

In the Texas firearms laws there is a "defense to prosecution" provision if deadly force is used in cases of property crimes, but not any guarantee that the one using it would not be charged and possibly convicted for doing so recklessly or with obvious disregard to human life.

[kingjason]

Shoulda been in texas. Theft of tangible property must not be a shootable offense there.

At night!

[YALE]

If they're trying to run him down, doesn't that make the shooting self defense?

[The King]

If they're trying to run him down, doesn't that make the shooting self defense?

Yes, but "...the bullets were found in the side of the car."

[kingjason]

Yes, but "...the bullets were found in the side of the car."

If you jumped out of the way and shot into the side of the car?

[The King]

If you jumped out of the way and shot into the side of the car?

Very possible, but the court must not have seen it that way.

[Gasser64]

If you jumped out of the way and shot into the side of the car?

Depending on how they were behaving before, maybe they were going to try again after a first failed attempt.

[GE]

At night!

If it were Texas, couldn't he have argued deadly force "to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery... "

[kingjason]

If it were Texas, couldn't he have argued deadly force "to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery... "

Yes, but maybe not this case as he only found that out later. I was just correcting his Theft sentence, which also includes criminal mischief at night.

Unfortionantly the guy in the article only saw him on the porch and then the guy retreated. Most you have there is criminal trespass depending on where the deck was. I would say the AADW with the car would justify the use of deadly force. The story leaves out to much. Like under cross-examination maybe they were just speeding off not trying to really hit him. Who knows without looking at all the evidence. Hell, I would think the car coming at him in any manner in his driveway would be AADW unless it was circle drive and he ran in front of them.